Playing mathematical instruments: Emerging perceptuomotor integration with an interactive mathematics exhibit

Journal for Research in Mathematics Education

Volumn 44, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 372-415

  Nemirovsky, Ricardo ^a   Kelton, Molly L ^b   Rhodehamel, Bohdan ^a  

^a Center for Research in Mathematics and Science Education   (United States)

^b SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Functions; Knowledge; Learning; Learning theories; Philosophical issues; Reasoning; Technology (general)

Indexed keywords

EID: 84875472517     PISSN: 00218251     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5951/jresematheduc.44.2.0372     Document Type: Article

References (117)

1. Abrahamson, D., Tminic, D., Gutiérrez, J., Huth, J. F., & Lee, R. G. (2011). Hooks and shifts: A dialectical study of mediated discovery. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 16, 55-85.
2. Aglioti, S. M., Cesari, P., Romani, M., & Urgesi, C. (2008). Action anticipation and motor resonance in elite basketball players. Nature Neuroscience, 11, 1109-1116. doi: 10.103 8/nn.2182
3. Alibali, M. W., & DiRusso, A. A. (1999). The function of gesture in learning to count: More than keeping track. Cognitive Development, 14,37-56. doi: 10.1016/S0885-2014(99)80017-3
4. Artigue, M. (2002). Learning mathematics in a CAS environment: The genesis of a reflection about instrumentation and the dialectics between technical and conceptual work. International journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 7,245-274. doi:10.1023/A:1022103903080
5. Arzarello, F. (2006). Semiosis as a multimodal process. Revista Latinoamericana de investigacion en Matematica Educativa, 9(número especial), 267-299. http://www.clame.org.mx/relime.htm
6. Arzarello, F., Olivero, F., Paola, D., & Robutti, O. (2002). A cognitive analysis of dragging practices in Cabri environments. Zentralblatt fir Didaktik der Mathematik, 34, 66-72. doi:10.1007/BF02655708
7. Arzarello, F., Pezzi, G., & Robutti, O. (2007). Modelling body motion: An approach to functions using measuring instruments. In W. Blum, P. L. Galbraith, H.-W. Henn, & M. Niss (Eds.), New ICMI Study Series: Vol. 10. Modelling and applications in mathematics education: The 14th ICMI Study (pp. 129-136). New York, NY: Springer.
8. Bartolini Bussi, M. G., & Boni, M. (2003). Instruments for semiotic mediation in primary school classrooms. For the Learning of Mathematics, 23(2), 15-22. doi: 10.2307/40248416
9. Beets, I. A. M., Rosier, F., & Fiehler, K. (2010). Nonvisual motor learning improves visual motion perception: Evidence from violating the two-thirds power law. Journal of Neurophysiology, 104, 1612-1624. doi: 10.1152/jn.00974.2009
10. Blume, G. W., & Heid, M. K. (Eds.). (2008). Research on technology and the teaching and learning of mathematics: Syntheses, cases, and perspectives. Vol. 2: Cases and perspectives. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
11. Breidenbach, D., Dubinsky, E., Hawks, J., & Nichols, D. (1992). Development of the process conception of function. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23,247-285. doi:10.1007/bf02309532
12. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42 doi: 10.3102/0013189X018001032
13. Calvo-Merino, B., Glaser, D. E., Grèzes, J., Passingham, R. E., & Haggard, P. (2005). Action observation and acquired motor skills: An fMRI study with expert dancers. Cerebral Cortex, 15, 1243-1249. doi:10.1093/cercor/ bhi007 (Pubitemid 41373616)
14. Calvo-Merino, B., Grèzes, J., Glaser, D. E., Passingham, R. E., & Haggard, P. (2006). Seeing or doing? Influence of visual and motor familiarity in action observation. Current Biology, 16, 1905-1910. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2006.07.065
15. Candidi, M., Leone-Fernandez, B., Barber, H. A., Carreiras, M., & Aglioti, S. M. (2010). Hands on the future: Facilitation of cortico-spinal hand-representation when reading the future tense of hand-related action verbs. European Journal of Neuroscience, 32, 677-683. doi:10.1111/j.l4609568.2010. 07305.x
16. Carlson, M. (1998). A cross-sectional investigation of the development of the function concept. In A. H. Schoenfeld, J. Kaput, & E. Dubinsky (Vol. Eds.) & T. Dick (Managing Ed.), CBMS Issues in Mathematics Education: Vol. 7. Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education. III (pp. 114-162). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society and Mathematical Association of America.
17. Carlson, M., Jacobs, S., Coe, E., Larsen, S., & Hsu, E. (2002). Applying covariational reasoning while modeling dynamic events: A framework and a study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33,352-378. doi:10.2307/4149958
18. Chassapis, D. (1999). The mediation of tools in the development of formal mathematics concepts: The compass and the circle as an example. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 37, 275-293. doi:10.1023/A:1003696507155
19. Confrey, J., & Smith, E. (1994). Exponential functions, rates of change, and the multiplicative unit. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26, 135-164. doi:10.1007/BF01273661
20. Confrey, J., & Smith, E. (1995). Splitting, covariation, and their role in the development of exponential functions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25,66-86. doi:10.2307/749228
21. Cooper, S. (2011). An exploration of the potential for mathematical experiences in informal learning environments. Visitor Studies, 14(1), 48-65. doi:10.1080/10645578.2011.557628
22. DeWitt, J., & Hohenstein, J. (2010a). School trips and classroom lessons: An investigation into teacher-student talk in two settings. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47,454-473. doi: 10.1002/ tea.20346
23. DeWitt, J., & Hohenstein, J. (2010b). Supporting student learning: A comparison of student discussion in museums and classrooms. Visitor Studies, 73(1), 41-66. doi:10.1080/10645571003618758
24. Drijvers, P., & Gravemeijer, K. (2005). Computer algebra as an instrument: Examples of algebraic schemes. In D. Guin, K. Ruthven, & L. Trouche (Eds.), The didactical challenge of symbolic calculators (pp. 163-196). New York, NY: Springer.
25. Drijvers, P., Kieran, C, & Mariotti, M. A. (with Ainley, J., Andresen, M., Cheung Chan, Y, Meagher, M. (2010). Integrating technology into mathematics education: Theoretical perspectives. In C. Hoyles & J.-B. Lagrange (Eds.), New ICMI Study Series: Vol. 13. Mathematics education and technology: Rethinking the terrain (pp. 89-132). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978l-4419-0146-0-7
26. Erickson, F. (1996). Ethnographic microanalysis. In S. McKay & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Soaolinguistics and language teaching (pp 283-306). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
27. Erickson, F. (2004). Talk and social theory: Ecologies of speaking and listening in everyday life. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Polity Press.
28. Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (1992). The museum experience. Washington, DC: Howells House!
29. Farnell, B. (1996). Metaphors we move by. Visual Anthropology, 8, 311-335. doi: 10.1080/08949468 .1996.9966681
30. Forman, E. A. (2003). A socioculturel approach to mathematics reform: Speaking, inscribing,' and doing mathematics within communities of practice. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (pp. 333-352). Reston, VA: NCTM.
31. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays by Clifford Geertz. New York, NY: Basic Books.
32. Goldenberg, P. (1988). Mathematics, metaphors, and human factors: Mathematical, technical, and pedagogical challenges in the educational use of graphical representations. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 7, 135-173.
33. Goodwin, C. (2003). The body in action. In J. Coupland & R. Gwyn (Eds.), Discourse, the body, and identity (pp. 19-43). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
34. Goodwin, C. (2007). Environmentally coupled gestures. In A. Kendon, C. Müller (Series Eds.), S. D. Duncan, J. Cassell, & E. T. Levy (Vol. Eds.), Gesture Studies: Vol. 1. Gesture and the dynamic dimension of language: Essays in honor of David Mc Neill (pp. 195-212). Amsterdam, the Netherlands/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
35. Greeno, J. G., & the Middle School Mathematics Through Applications Project Group. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning and research. American Psychologist, 53,5-26. doi: 10.1037//0003066X.53.1.5
36. Guberman, S. R., Flexer, R. J., Flexer, A. S., & Topping, C. L. (1999). Project Math-Muse: Interactive mathematics exhibits for young children. The Museum Journal, 42, 285-298. doi:10.1111/j.2151-6952.1999.tb01150.x
37. Guin, D., & Trouche, L. (1999). The complex process of converting tools into mathematical instruments: The case of calculators. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 3, 195-227. doi:10.1023/A: 1009892720043
38. Gyllenhaal, E. D. (2006). Memories of math: Visitors' experiences in an exhibition about calculus. The Museum Journal, 49,345-364. doi:10.11U/j.2151- 6952.2006.tb00228.x
39. Hall, R., & Stevens, R. (1995). Making space: A comparison of mathematical work in school and professional design practices. In S. L. Star (Ed.), The cultures of computing (pp. 118-145). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
40. Haueisen, J., & Knösche, T. R. (2001). Involuntary motor activity in pianists evoked by music perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 13, 786-792. doi:10.1162/08989290152541449 (Pubitemid 32802869)
41. Heath, C, & vom Lehn, D. (2004). Configuring reception: (Dis-)regarding the "spectator" in museums and galleries. Theory, Culture, & Society, 21(6), 43-65. doi:10.1177/0263276404047415
42. Heid, M. K., & Blume, G. W. (Eds.). (2008a). Research on technology and the teaching and learning of mathematics: Syntheses, cases, and perspectives. Vol. 1: Research syntheses. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
43. Heid, M. K., & Blume, G. W. (2008b). Technology and the development of algebraic understanding. In M. K. Heid & G. W. Blume (Eds.), Research on technology and the teaching and learning of mathematics: Syntheses, cases, and perspectives. Vol. 1: Research syntheses (pp. 55-108). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
44. Hein, G. E. (1998). Learning in the museum. New York, NY: Routledge.
45. Herscovics, N. (1989). Cognitive obstacles encountered in the teaching and learning of algebra. In S. Wagner & C. Kieran (Eds.), Research agenda for mathematics education: Vol. 4. Research issues in the learning and teaching of algebra (pp. 60-86). Reston, VA: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates and National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
46. Hines, E. (2001). Developing the concept of linear function: One student's experiences with dynamic physical models. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 20, 337-361. doi:10.1016/S07323123(02)00074-3
47. Hostetter, A. B., & Alibali, M. W. (2008). Visible embodiment: Gestures as simulated action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15,495-514. doi:10.3758/PBR.15.3.495
48. Hoyles, C, & Lagrange, J. B. (Eds.). (2010). Mathematics education and technology: Rethinking the terrain, The 17th ICMI Study. New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-l-4419-0146-0
49. Husserl, E. (1991). Collected works: Vol. IV. On the phenomenology of the consciousness of internal time (R. Bernet, Ed., & J. B. Brough, Trans.). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
50. Izsák, A. (2000). Inscribing the winch: Mechanisms by which students develop knowledge structures for representing the physical world with algebra. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, P, 31-74. doi:10.1207/ sl5327809jls0901-4
51. Jeannerod, M. (2001). Neural simulation of action: A unifying mechanism for motor cognition. Neurolmage, 14, S103-S109. doi:10.1006/nimg.2001.0832
52. Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 202-251). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
53. Lakoff, G., & Nunez, R. (2000). Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. New York, NY: Basic Books.
54. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
55. Lehrer, R., Strom, D., & Confrey, J. (2002). Grounding metaphors and inscriptional resonance: Children's emerging understanding of mathematical similarity. Cognition and Instruction, 20,359-398. doi: 10.1207/S1532690XCI2003- 3 (Pubitemid 36593953)
56. Leinhardt, G., Crowley, K., & Knutson, K. (Eds.). (2002). Learning conversations in museums. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
57. Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., & Stein, M. K. (1990). Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning, and teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60, 1-64. doi: 10.2307/1170224
58. Leung, A. (2008). Dragging in a dynamic geometry environment through the lens of variation. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 13, 135-157. doi:10.1007/sl0758008-9130-x
59. Llinás, R. R. (2002).I of the vortex: From neurons to self. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
60. Lobato, J., & Ellis, A. B. (2010). Developing essential understanding of ratios, proportions, and proportional reasoning for teaching mathematics in grades 6-8 (R. M. Zbiek, Series Ed., & R. I. Charles, Vol. Ed.). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
61. Lobato, J., Ellis, A. B., & Muñoz, R. (2003). How "focusing phenomena" in the instructional environment support individual students' generalizations. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 5, 1-36. doi: 10.1207/S 15327833MTL0501-01
62. Lobato, J., Rhodehamel, B., & Hohensee, C. (in press). Mathematical noticing: What do students attend to mathematically during classroom instruction and why? Journal for Research in Mathematics Education.
63. Lobato, J., & Thanheiser, E. (2002). Developing understanding of ratio and measure as a foundation for slope. In B. Lirwiller & G. Bright (Eds.), Making sense of fractions, ratios, and proportions: 2002 yearbook (pp. 162-175). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
64. Lopez-Real, R, & Leung, A. (2006). Dragging as a conceptual tool in dynamic geometry. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 37, 665-679. doi: 10.1080/00207390600712539
65. Magidson, S. (2005). Building bridges within mathematics education: Teaching, research, and instructional design. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 24, 135-169. doi:10.1016/j.jmathb.2005.03.004
66. Maschietto, M., & Bartolini Bussi, M. G. (2009). Working with artefacts: Gestures, drawings and speech in the construction of the mathematical meaning of the visual pyramid. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70, 143-157. doi: 10.1007/s 10649-008-9162-0
67. Meira, L. (1998). Making sense of instructional devices: The emergence of transparency in mathematical activity. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29, 121-142. doi: 10.2307/749895
68. Mokros, J. (Ed.). (2006). Math momentum in science centers. Cambridge, MA: TERC.
69. Mol, A. (2002). The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
70. Monk, S. (1992). Students' understanding of a function given by a physical model. In G. Harel & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), MAA Notes and Reports Series: Vol. 25. The concept of function. Aspects of epistemology and pedagogy (pp. 175-193). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
71. Moschkovich, J. N. (1996). Moving up and getting steeper: Negotiating shared descriptions of linear graphs. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5,239-277. doi:10.1207/sl5327809jls0503-4
72. Moschkovich, J. N. (1998). Resources for refining mathematical conceptions: Case studies in learning about linear functions. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 209-237. doi: 10.1207/ s15327809jls0702-3
73. Moschkovich, J. N., Schoenfeld, A. H., & Arcavi, A. (1993). Aspects of understanding: On multiple perspectives and representations of linear relations and connections among them. In T. A. Romberg, E. Fennema, & T. P. Carpenter (Eds.), Integrating research on the graphical representation of functions (pp. 69-100). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
74. National council of teachers of mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
75. National Research Council. (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits (P. Bell, B. Lewenstein, A. W. Shouse, & M. A. Feder, Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
76. Nemirovsky, R. (1996). Mathematical narratives, modeling, and algebra. In N. Bednarz, C. Kieran, & L. Lee (Vol. Eds.), & A. J. Bishop (Managing Ed.), Mathematics Education Library: Vol. 18. Approaches to algebra: Perspectives for research and teaching (pp. 197-223). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
77. Nemirovsky, R. (2005). Mathematical places. In R. Nemirovsky, B. Warren, A. S. Rosebery, & J. Solomon (Eds.), Everyday matters in science and mathematics: Studies of complex classroom events (pp. 45-94). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
78. Nemirovsky, R., & Ferrara, F. (2009). Mathematical imagination and embodied cognition. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70,159-174. doi:10.1007/sl0649-008-9150-4
79. Nemirovsky, R., Kelton, M. L., & Rhodehamel, B. (in press). Gesture and imagination: On the constitution and uses of phantasms. Gesture.
80. Nemirovsky, R., Rasmussen, C, Sweeney, G., & Wawro, M. (2012). When the classroom floor becomes the complex plane: Addition and multiplication as ways of bodily navigation. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21,287-323. doi:10.1080/10508406.2011.611445
81. Nemirovsky, R., Tierney, C, & Wright, T. (1998). Body motion and graphing. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 119-172. doi:10.1207/sl532690xcil602-l (Pubitemid 128345460)
82. Noble, T., DiMattia, C, Nemirovsky, R., & Barros, A. (2006). Making a circle: Tool use and the spaces where we live. Cognition and Instruction, 24, 387-437. doi:10.1207/sl532690xci2404-l (Pubitemid 44878243)
83. Piaget, J. (1961). Play, dreams and imitation in childhood (C. Gattegno & F. M. Hodgson, Trans.). New York, NY: Norton.
84. Piaget, J., Grize, J.-B., Szeminska, A., & Bang, V. (1977). Synthese Library: Vol. 83. Studies in genetic epistemology: Vol. XXIII. Epistemology and psychology of functions (J. Hintikka, Synthese Series Ed., J. Piaget, Studies Series Ed., F. Xavier Castellanos & V. D. Anderson, Trans.). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Reidel. (Original work published 1968)
85. Plummer, J. D. (2009). Early elementary students' development of astronomy concepts in the planetarium. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 192-209. doi: 10.1002/tea.20280
86. Radford, L. (2003). Gestures, speech, and the sprouting of signs: A semiotic-cultural approach to students' types of generalization. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 5, 37-70. doi: 10.1207/ S15327833MTL0501-02
87. Radford, L. (2009). Why do gestures matter? Sensuous cognition and the palpability of mathematical meanings. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70, 111-126. doi: 10.1007/s 10649-006-9127-3
88. Rahm, J. (2004). Multiple modes of meaning-making in a science center. Science Education, 88, 223-247. doi: 10.1002/sce. 10117
89. Redding, G. M., Rossetti, Y., & Wallace, B. (2005). Applications of prism adaptation: A tutorial in theory and method. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 29, 431-444. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2004.12.004 (Pubitemid 40488208)
90. Rennie, L. J., & Johnston, D. J. (2004). The nature of learning and its implications for research on learning from museums. Science Education, 88(S1), S4-S16. doi:10.1002/sce.20017 (Pubitemid 39056828)
91. Robutti, O. (2006). Motion, technology, gestures in interpreting graphs. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 13,117-126.
92. Roth, W.-M. (2011). Geometry as objective science in elementary school classrooms: Mathematics in the flesh. New York, NY: Routledge.
93. Ryve, A. (2011). Discourse research in mathematics education: A critical evaluation of 108 journal articles. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 42, 167-198. http://wwwlnctm.org /publications/jrme.aspx
94. Sacks, O. (2008). Musicophilia: Tales of music and the brain. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
95. Saldanha, L. A., & Thompson, P. W. (1998). Re-thinking covariation from a quantitative perspective: Simultaneous continuous variation. In S. Berenson, K. Dawkins, M. Blanton, W. Coulombe, J. KoIb, K. Norwood, & L. Stiff (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 298-304). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
96. Schliemann, A. D. (2002). Representational tools and mathematical understanding. The Journal of the Learning Sciences. 11,301-317. doi:10.1080/10508406.2002.9672141
97. Schoenfeld, A. H., Smith, J. P.,III, & Arcavi, A. (1993). Learning: The microgenetic analysis of one student's evolving understanding of a complex subject matter domain. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology: Vol. 4 (pp. 55-175). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.;
98. Sekiyama, K., Miyauchi, S., Imaruoka, T, Egusa, H., & Tashiro, T. (2000). Body image as a visuomotor transformation device revealed in adaptation to reversed vision. Nature, 407, 374-377. doi:10.1038/35030096
99. Sfard, A. (1991). On the dual nature of mathematical conceptions: Reflections on processes and objects as different sides of the same coin. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22, 1-36. doi:10.1007/ BF00302715
100. Simon, M. A., & Blume, G. W. (1994). Mathematical modeling as a component of understanding ratio-as-measure: A study of prospective elementary teachers. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 13, 183-197. doi:10.1016/0732- 3123(94)90022-l
101. Stivers, T, & Sidnell, J. (2005). Multimodal interaction. Semiotica, 156, 1-20. doi;10.1515/ semi.2005.2005.156.1
102. Streeck, J., & Mehus, S. (2005). Microethnography: The study of practices. In K. L. Fitch & R. E. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction (pp. 381-404). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
103. Stump, S. L. (2001). Developing preservice teachers' pedagogical content knowledge of slope. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 20,207-227. doi: 10.1016/S0732-3123(01)00071-2
104. Tall, D., & Vinner, S. (1981). Concept image and concept definition in mathematics with particular reference to limits and continuity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12, 151-169. doi:10.1007/ BF00305619
105. Thompson, P. (1994a). Images of rate and operational understanding of the fundamental theorem of calculus. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26,229-274. doi:10.1007/BF01273664
106. Thompson, P. (1994b). The development of the concept of speed and its relationship to concepts of rate. In G. Harel & J. Confrey (Eds.), The development of multiplicative reasoning in the learning of mathematics (pp. 181-236). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
107. Thompson, P. (1995). Notation, convention, and quantity in elementary mathematics. In J. T. Sowder & B. P. Schappelle (Eds.), Providing a foundation for teaching mathematics in the middle grades (pp. 199-222). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
108. Trouche, L. (2005). An instrumental approach to mathematics learning in symbolic calculator environments. In D. Guin, K. Ruthven, & L. Trouche (Vol. Eds.), & A. J. Bishop (Managing Ed.), Mathematics Education Library: Vol. 36. The didactical challenge of symbolic calculators (pp. 137-162). New York, NY: Springer.
109. Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
110. Verillon, P., & Rabardel, P. (1995). Cognition and artifacts: A contribution to the study of though [sic] in relation to instrumented activity. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10, 77-101. doi:10.1007/BF03172796
111. vom Lehn, D., Heath, C, & Hindmarsh, J. (2001). Exhibiting interaction: Conduct and collaboration in museums and galleries. Symbolic Interaction, 24, 189-216. doi: 10.1525/si.2001.24.2.189
112. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
113. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thought and language (A. Kozulin, Ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
114. Weisstein, E. W. (n.d.). Parametric equations. Retrieved from Math World: A Wolfram web resource. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ParametricEquations.html
115. Yerushalmy, M. (1997). Designing representations: Reasoning about functions of two variables. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28,431-466. doi: 10.2307/749682
116. Yerushalmy, M., & Schwartz, J. L. (1993). Seizing the opportunity to make algebra mathematically and pedagogically interesting. In T. Romberg, E. Fennema, & T. Carpenter (Eds.), Integrating research on the graphical representation of functions (pp. 41-68). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
117. Yerushalmy, M., & Shternberg, B. (2001). Epistemological and cognitive aspects of time: A tool perspective. In N. Pateman (Series Ed.), D. Carraher & R. Nemirovsky (Guest Eds.), Journal for Research in Mathematics Education Monograph, 13. Medium and meaning: Video papers in mathematics education research (Chapter 3). Reston, VA: NCTM.