The moore method: A pathway to Learner-Centered instruction

The Moore Method: A Pathway To Learner-Centered Instruction

Volumn 9780883851852, Issue , 2009, Pages 1-245

  Coppin, Charles A ^a   Mahavier, W Ted ^a   May, E Lee ^b   Parker, G Edgar ^c  

^a LAMAR UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b SALISBURY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c JAMES MADISON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

GRADING; TEACHING;

GRADING METHODS; INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING; LEARNER-CENTERED; MOORE'S METHOD; TYPICAL DAY;

LEARNING SYSTEMS;

EID: 84924448040     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780883859735     Document Type: Book

References (137)

1. J.S. Armstrong, “Barriers to scientific contributions: The author’s formula,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 5, June 1982, pp. 197–199.
2. Martin Anderson, Imposters in the Temple, Simon and Shuster, New York, 1992, p. 48.
3. R. Askey, “What do we do about calculus: First, do no harm,” American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 104, No. 8, October 1997, pp. 738–743.
4. D.L. Ball, “With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary school mathematics,” Elementary School Journal, Vol. 93, No. 4, March 1993, pp. 373–397.
5. Thomas F. Bertonneau, Declining Standards at Michigan Public Universities, Midland, MI, Mackinac Center for Public Policy, 1996.
6. B. Birgen, “How to design a mathematics building,” FOCUS of the Mathematical Association of America, Vol. 25, No. 5, May/June 2005, pp. 20–21.
7. R.T. Blackburn, A. Bober, C. O’Donnell, & G. Pellino, “Project for faculty development program education: Final report,” Ann Arbor, MI, University of Michigan, Center for the Study of Higher Education, 1980.
8. Donald A. Bligh, What’s the Use of Lectures?, Harmondsworth, England, Penguin, 1972.
9. Jo Boaler (ed.), Multiple Perspectives on Mathematics Teaching and Learning, International Perspectives on Mathematics Education, Vol. 1, Westport, CT, Ablex Publishing, 2000.
10. Jo Boaler (ed.), “Open and closed mathematics approaches: Student experiences and understandings,” Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Vol. 29, No. 1, January 1998, pp. 41–62.
11. Jo Boaler & Cathy Humphreys, Connecting Mathematical Ideas: Middle School Video Cases to Support Teaching and Learning, Portsmouth, NH, Heinemann, 2005.
12. Derek Bok, Our Underachieving Colleges, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2006, p. 48, 312.
13. J. Bowers, P. Cobb & K. McClain, “The evolution of mathematical practices: A case study,” Cognition and Instruction, Vol. 17, No. 1, March 1999, pp. 25–64.
14. J.D. Bransford, A.L. Brown, & R.R. Cocking (eds.), How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School, Washington, DC, National Academy Press, 2000.
15. C.A. Brown, & H. Borko, “Becoming a mathematics teacher,” in D. A. Grouws (editor), Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning, pp. 209–239. New York, NY, Macmillan, 1992.
16. J.S. Bruner, “The act of discovery,” Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 31, No. 1, Winter 1961, pp. 21–32.
17. Edward B. Burger & Michael Starbird, The Heart of Mathematics: An Invitation to Effective Thinking, Emeryville, CA, Key College Publishing, 2000.
18. Thomas P. Carpenter, Elizabeth Fennema, Megan Loef Franke, Linda Levi & Susan B. Empson, Children’s Mathematics: Cognitively Guided Instruction, Portsmouth, NH, Heinemann, 1999.
19. D.R. Chalice, “How to teach by the modified Moore method,” The American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 102, No. 4, April 1995, pp. 317–321.
20. A. Chickering & Z.F. Gamson, “Applying the seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education,” New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 47, 1991, p. 1, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Inc.
21. D.M. Clark, Geometry: A Guided Inquiry Development, in preparation, 2008.
22. D.M. Clark, “R.L. Moore and the learning curve,” presented at the 4th annual Legacy of R. L. Moore Conference, Educational Advancement Foundation, May 2001. Available on Legacy of R. L. Moore Handouts CD-ROM, Educational Advancement Foundation, 2004.
23. P. Cobb & E. Yackel, “Constructivist, emergent, and sociocultural perspectives in the context of developmental research,” Educational Psychologist, Vol. 31, No. 3&4, September/December 1996, pp. 175–190.
24. D.W. Cohen, “A modified Moore method for teaching undergraduate mathematics,” American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 89, No. 7, August/September 1982, pp. 473–490.
25. J.N. Dancis & N. Davidson, “The Texas method and the small group discovery method,” Handout, Educational Advancement Foundation, 1996. On Legacy of R. L. Moore Handouts CD-ROM, Educational Advancement Foundation, 2004.
26. N. Davidson, “The small group discovery method as applied in calculus instruction,” American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 78, No. 7, August/September 1971, pp. 789–791.
27. Robert B. Davis, Carolyn A. Maher & Nel Noddings, eds., Constructivist Views on the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Monograph 4, Reston, VA, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1990.
28. D. Daniel, J.W. Eyles, W.T. Mahavier & J.C. Pember, “On using the discovery method in the distance-education setting,” Handout, Educational Advancement Foundation, 2001.
29. K. Devlin, “The greatest math teacher ever,” FOCUS Online of the Mathematics Association of America, June 1999.
30. George P. Csicsery (director), Master of the Game, Educational Advancement Foundation, DVD, 1999.
31. Hyman J. Ettlinger & Milton B. Porter, The Calculus, New York, NY, Dryden Press, 1942.
32. J.W. Eyles, “R. L. Moore’s Calculus Course,” Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, May 1998, p. 305.
33. Donald L. Finkel, Teaching with Your Mouth Shut, Portsmouth, NH, Heinemann Boynton/Cook, 2000.
34. E.A. Forman, “A sociocultural 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, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2003.
35. Lion F. Gardiner, Redesigning Higher Education: Producing Dramatic Gains in Student Learning, ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Vol. 23, No. 7, Washington, DC, The George Washington University, 1994. p. 39.
36. M. Goos, “Learning mathematics in a classroom community of inquiry,” Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Vol. 35, No. 4, July 2004, pp. 258–291.
37. H.L. Grace, “Learning the student role: Kindergarten as academic boot camp,” H. R. Stub (ed.), The Sociology of Education: A Sourcebook, 3rd Edition, Homewood, IL, Dorsey Press, 1975.
38. Matt Groening, School is Hell, New York, NY, Pantheon, 1987.
39. J.W. Grossman, “Patterns of research in mathematics,” Notices of the American Mathematical Society, Vol. 52, No. 1, January 2005, pp. 35–41.
40. Douglas A. Grouws (ed.), Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning: A Project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, New York, NY, Macmillan, 1992.
41. Margie Hale, Essentials of Mathematics: Introduction to Theory, Proof, and the Professional Culture, Mathematical Association of America, 2003.
42. Gene E. Hall & Shirley M. Hord, Change in Schools: Facilitating the Process, SUNY Series in Educational Leadership, Albany, NY, State University of New York Press, 1987.
43. Paul R. Halmos, I Want to be a Mathematician: An Automathography, New York, NY, Springer- Verlag, 1985, p. 258.
44. P.R. Halmos, E.E. Moise, E.E. & G. Piranian, “The Problem of Learning to Teach,” American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 82, No. 5, May 1975, pp. 466–476.
45. P.R. Halmos, “What is Teaching?,” American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 101, No. 9, Nov. 1994, pp. 848–854.
46. G. Hanna, “Mathematical Proof,” Chapter 4 in D.O. Tall (ed.), Advanced Mathematical Thinking, pp. 54–61. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1991.
47. G. Harel & L. Sowder, “Students’ proof schemes: Results from exploratory studies,” in A.H. Schoenfeld, J. Kaput, and E. Dubinsky, eds., Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education III, CBMS Issues in Mathematics Education Series, Vol. 7, pp. 234–283. Washington, DC, Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences, 1998.
48. Michael Henle, Modern Geometries: The Analytic Approach, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1997, p. 14.
49. R. Hersh, “Proving is convincing and explaining,” Educational Studies in Mathematics, Vol. 24, No. 4, December 1993, pp. 389–399.
50. James Hiebert, Thomas P. Carpenter, Elizabeth Fennema, Karen C. Fuson, Diana Wearne, Hanlie Murray, Alwyn Olivier & Piet Human, Making Sense: Teaching and Learning Mathematics with Understanding, Portsmouth, NH, Heinemann, 1997.
51. Jonathan K. Hodge & Richard E. Klima, The Mathematics of Voting and Elections: A Hands- On Approach, Mathematical World, Vol. 22, Providence, RI, American Mathematical Society, 2005.
52. Paul Hoffman, The Man Who Loved Only Numbers: The Story of Paul Erdös and the Search for Mathematical Truth, Hyperion, New York, 1998, p. 26.
53. John R. Holt, How Children Fail, New York, NY, Dell, 1965, pp. 54, 58, 61, 121, 161–162, 188–190.
54. W.T. Ingram & L.M. Hall, “Report on the faculty mentoring project: Foundations of Mathematics course (Math 209),” University of Missouri-Rolla, 2002, On Legacy of R. L. Moore Handouts CD-ROM, Educational Advancement Foundation, 2004.
55. J.A. Jensen, “Surprising effects of inquiry-based learning,” Texas College Mathematics Journal, Vol. 3, January/February 2006, pp. 1–9.
56. Robert F. Jolly, Synthetic Geometry, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1969.
57. F.B. Jones, “The Moore method,” American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 84, No. 4, April 1977, pp. 273–278.
58. Jerry P. King, The Art of Mathematics, New York, NY, Plenum Press, 1992.
59. J. Knisley, “Calculus: A modern perspective,” American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 104, No. 8, October 1997, pp. 724–727.
60. E.J. Knuth, “Secondary school mathematics teachers’ conceptions of proof,” Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Vol. 33, No. 5, November 2002, pp. 379–405.
61. S.G. Krantz, “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows,” American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 106, No. 10, December 1999, pp. 915–918.
62. J. Lemke, “Discovery learning,” Handout, Educational Advancement Foundation, 1996, On Legacy of R. L. Moore Handouts CD-ROM (as Moore method), Educational Advancement Foundation, 2004.
63. A.C. Lewis, “Robert Lee Moore,” C. C. Gillispie (ed.), Dictionary of Scientific Biography, Vol. 18, pp. 651–653. New York, NY, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1990.
64. J. Luft, “Challenging myths: Questioning common myths about science education,” The Science Teacher of the National Science Teachers Association, April 1999, pp. 40–43.
65. S. Mac Lane, “Mathematics at Göttingen under the Nazis,” Notices of the AMS, Vol. 42, No. 10, October 1995, pp. 1134–1138.
66. L. Mahavier, “On three crucial elements of Texas-style teaching as shown to be successful in the secondary mathematics classroom,” Presented at the 3rd annual Legacy of R. L. Moore Conference, Educational Advancement Foundation, April 2000.
67. W.S. Mahavier, “Mentoring the Moore method,” Handout, Educational Advancement Foundation, 2001, on Legacy of R. L. Moore Handouts CD-ROM, Educational Advancement Foundation, 2004.
68. W.S. Mahavier, “What is the Moore method?,” PRIMUS: Problems, Resources, and Issues in Mathematics Undergraduate Studies, Vol. 9, No. 4, December 1999, pp. 339-354.
69. W.T. Mahavier, “Trigonometry,” Journal of Inquiry-Based Learning in Mathematics, Volume 2007, Issue 1, pp. 1–19.
70. W.T. Mahavier, “A gentler discovery method,” College Teaching, Vol. 45, No. 4, Fall 1997, pp. 132–135.
71. W.T. Mahavier W.S. Mahavier, “Analysis,” Journal of Inquiry-Based Learning in Mathematics, No. 12, March 2009.
72. A.M. Martino & C.A. Maher, “Teacher questioning to promote justification and generalization in mathematics: What research practice has taught us,” Journal of Mathematical Behavior, Vol. 18, No. 1, March 1999, pp. 53–78.
73. John McLeish, The Lecture Method, Cambridge Monographs on Teaching Methods, No. 1, Cambridge, England, Cambridge Institute of Education, 1968. pp. 7, 14, 16.
74. T.H. McNicholl, “The Extreme Moore Method,” handout, Educational Advancement Foundation, 2006.
75. E.E. Moise, “Activity and motivation in mathematics,” American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 72, No. 4, April 1965, pp. 407–412.
76. Edwin E. Moise, Elementary Geometry from an Advanced Standpoint, Reading, MA, Addison- Wesley, 1963.
77. Edwin E. Moise, Elements of Calculus, 2nd Edition, Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley, 1972.
78. Robert L. Moore, Foundations of Point Set Theory, AMS Colloquium Publications, Vol. 13, Revised Edition. Providence, RI, American Mathematical Society, 1962.
79. R.L. Moore, Letter to Miss Hamstrom, a prospective student (written May 17, 1948), in B. A. Case (ed.), A Century of Mathematical Meetings, pp. 295–300. Providence, RI, American Mathematical Society, 1996.
80. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Standards for Grades 9–12, Chapter 7 in Principles and Standards for School Mathematics, pp. 286–365. Reston, VA, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2000.
81. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Professional Standards for Teaching Mathematics, Reston, VA, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1991.
82. John W. Neuberger, Una Sucesion de Problemas de Semigrupos (A Succession of Problems of Semigroups), Merida, Venezuela, Universidad de los Andes, 2000.
83. P. Newton, R. Driver & J.F. Osborne, “The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science,” International Journal of Science Education, Vol. 21, No. 5, May 1999, pp. 553–576.
84. R.C. Oh, “The Socratic Method in Medicine – The Labor of Delivering Medical Truths,” The Office-based Teacher of Family Medicine, Vol. 37, No. 8, 2005, pp. 537–539.
85. D. Birnbache, “The Socratic method in teaching medical ethics: Potentials and Limitations,” Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, Vol. 2, No. 3, October, 1999.
86. R. Olson, “Scottish Philosophy and Mathematics 1750-1830,” Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 32, No. 1, (Jan.–Mar., 1971), University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 29–44.
87. Parker J. Palmer, The Courage to Teach: Exploring the Inner Landscape of a Teacher’s Life, San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass, 1998. pp. 99–106.
88. Seymour Papert, Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas, 2nd Edition. Cambridge, MA, Perseus, 1993.
89. G.E. Parker, “Aligning mathematics curriculum to create potential for active learning in pre-k through eighth-grade teacher education,” Journal of Mathematics and Science: Collaborative Explorations, Vol. 7, Fall 2004, pp. 109–121.
90. G.E. Parker, “Getting more from Moore,” PRIMUS: Problems, Resources, and Issues in Mathematics Undergraduate Studies, Vol. 2, No. 3, September 1992, pp. 235–246.
91. G.E. Parker, “Teaching calculus with a numerical emphasis,” PRIMUS: Problems, Resources, and Issues in Mathematics Undergraduate Studies, Vol. 2, No. 1, March 1992, pp. 65–78.
92. G.E. Parker, “Place-Value Model for the Numbers,” Journal of Inquiry-Based Learning in Mathematics, Volume 2008, Issue 6, pp. 1–19.
93. G.E. Parker, “Fraction Model for the Numbers,” Journal of Inquiry-Based Learning in Mathematics, Volume 2008, Issue 7, pp. 1–24.
94. John Parker, R. L. Moore: Mathematician and Teacher, Washington, DC, Mathematical Association of America, 2005. pp. 147, 189, 217.
95. Karen H. Parshall & David E. Rowe, The Emergence of the American Mathematical Research Community 1876–1900: J.J. Sylvester, Felix Klein, and E.H. Moore. American Mathematical Society, London Mathematical Society, 1994.
96. David E. Penney, Perspectives in Mathematics, Menlo Park, CA, W. A. Benjamin, 1972.
97. George Pólya, How To Solve It, Princeton New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1973.
98. Constance Reid, Hilbert-Courant, New York, NY, Springer-Verlag, 1986.
99. P. Renz, “The Moore method: What discovery learning is and how it works,” FOCUS of the Mathematical Association of America, Vol. 19, No. 6, August/September 1999, pp. 6–8.
100. Adam Robinson, What Smart Students Know: Maximum Grades, Optimum Learning, Minimum Time, New York, NY, Three Rivers Press, 1993.
101. H.L. Royden, Real Analysis, 3rd Edition, New York, NY, Macmillan Publishing Company, 1988.
102. A.H. Schoenfeld, “When good teaching leads to bad results: the disasters of ‘well-taught’ mathematics courses,” Educational Psychologist, Vol. 23, No. 2, Spring 1988, pp. 145–166.
103. Carol Schumacher, Chapter Zero: Fundamental Notions of Abstract Mathematics, 2nd Edition, Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley, 2001.
104. A. Selden & J. Selden, “Collegiate mathematics education research: What would that be like?,” College Mathematics Journal, Vol. 24, No. 5, November 1993, pp. 431–445.
105. J.C. Smith, “A sense-making approach to proof: strategies of students in traditional and problem- based number theory courses,” Journal of Mathematical Behavior, Vol. 25, No. 1, March 2006, pp. 73–90.
106. J.C. Smith, S. Nichols & S. Yoo, “Problem-based mathematics instruction across the school experience: Building communities of inquiry in elementary and undergraduate classrooms,” under review.
107. J.C. Smith, S. Nichols, S. Yoo, & K. Oehler, “The instructor’s role in the development of a classroom community in an undergraduate number theory course,” under review.
108. J.C. Smith, S. Yoo & S. Marshall, “From ‘What am I doing?’ to ‘How do I know if they’re learning?’: One mathematician’s struggle to change her teaching,” Teaching and Learning Proof Across the Grades: A K-16 Perspective, Despina A. Stylianou, Maria L. Blanton, and Eric J. Knuth (eds.), New York, N.Y., Routledge, 2009.
109. C. Stallman, “What I learned from my semester with William S. Mahavier,” Handout, Educational Advancement Foundation, 2001, On Legacy of R. L. Moore Handouts CD-ROM, Educational Advancement Foundation, 2004.
110. L.A. Steen (Ed.), “Calculus for a new century: a pump, not a filter,” MAA Notes, No. 8, Mathematical Association of America, Washington, DC (1988).
111. M. Stephan & C. Rasmussen, “Classroom mathematical practices in differential equations,” Journal of Mathematical Behavior, Vol. 21, No. 4, December 2002, pp. 459–490.
112. James W. Stigler & James Hiebert, The Teaching Gap: Best Ideas from the World’s Teachers for Improving Education in the Classroom, New York, NY, Free Press, 1999.
113. Jeffrey Stopple, A Primer of Analytic Number Theory: From Pythagoras to Riemann, Cambridge, England, Cambridge University Press, 2003.
114. D. Tall, “The transition to advanced mathematical thinking: Functions, limits, infinity, and proof,” in D. A. Grouws (ed.), Handbook for Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning: A Project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, pp. 495–511. New York, NY, Macmillan, 1992.
115. R.H. Thouless, Introductory Note, In J. McLeish, The Lecture Method, Cambridge Monographs on Teaching Methods, No. 1, Cambridge, England, Cambridge Institute of Education, 1968. p. 7.
116. D. Reginald Traylor, Creative Teaching: The Heritage of R. L. Moore, Houston, TX, University of Houston Press, 1972.
117. E. von Glasersfeld, “An exposition of constructivism: Why some like it radical,” Chapter 2 in R. B. Davis, C.A. Maher, & N. Noddings, eds., Constructivist Views on the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education Monographs, Vol. 4, pp. 19–29. Reston, VA, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1990.
118. L.S. Vygotsky, Mind and Society: The Development of Higher Mental Processes, Edited and translated by M. Cole, et al. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 2006.
119. H.S. Wall, Analytic Theory of Continued Fractions, New York, NY, D. Van Nostrand, 1948.
120. H.S. Wall, Creative Mathematics, Austin, TX, University of Texas Press, 1963, p.56.
121. K. Weber & L. Alcock, “Semantic and syntactic proof productions,” Educational Studies in Mathematics, Vol. 56, No. 2&3, July 2004, pp. 209–234.
122. M. Weimer, Learner-Centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice, San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass, 2002.
123. L.S. Whyburn, “Student-oriented teaching - the Moore method,” American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 77, No. 4, April 1970, pp. 351–359.
124. Gordon T. Whyburn, Analytic Topology, AMS Colloquium Publications, Vol. 28, Providence, RI, American Mathematical Society, 1942.
125. R.L. Wilder, “Axiomatics and the development of creative talent,” In L. Henken, P. Suppes, & A. Tarski, eds., The Axiomatic Method with Special Reference to Geometry and Physics, Proceedings of an International Symposium held at the University of California, Berkeley, 1957–1958, pp. 474-488. Amsterdam, Netherlands, North-Holland, 1959.
126. R.L. Wilder, Evolution of Mathematical Concepts: An Elementary Study, New York, NY, Wiley, 1968.
127. Stephen Willard, General Topology, Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley, 1970.
128. K.M. Williams, “Writing about the problem-solving process to improve problem-solving performance,” Mathematics Teacher, Vol. 96, No. 3, March 2003, pp. 185–187.
129. S.W. Williams, “Moore karma ran over my dogma,” Topological Commentary, Vol. 1, No. 3, October 1996.
130. J.W. Wilson & E.G. Begle, eds., Correlates of Mathematics Achievement: Teacher Background and Opinion Variables, National Longitudinal Study of Mathematical Abilities, NLSMA Reports, No. 23, Part A, Pasadena, CA, A. C. Vroman, 1972.
131. T. Wood, “Creating a context for argument in mathematics class,” Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Vol. 30, No. 2, March 1999, pp. 171–191.
132. E. Yackel, “What we can learn from analyzing the teacher’s role in collective argumentation,” Journal of Mathematical Behavior, Vol. 21, No. 4, December 2002, pp. 423-440.
133. E. Yackel & P. Cobb, “Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics,” Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Vol. 27, No. 4, July 1996, pp. 458–477.
134. S. Young, “Christmas in Big Lake,” Handout, Educational Advancement Foundation, 1998, On Legacy of R. L. Moore Handouts CD-ROM, Educational Advancement Foundation, 2004.
135. Bevan K. Youse, The Number System, Belmont, CA, Dickenson, 1965.
136. Anton Zettl, Sturm-Liouville Theory, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, Vol. 121, Providence, RI, American Mathematical Society, 2005.
137. D.E. Zitarelli, “The origin and early impact of the Moore method,” American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 111, No. 6, June/July 2004, pp. 465–486.