Analyses of activity design in geometry in the light of student actions

Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education

Volumn 2, Issue 4, 2002, Pages 529-552

  Hadas, Nurit ^a   Hershkowitz, Rina ^a   Schwarz, Baruch B ^b  

^a WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE   (Israel)

^b HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85011438588     PISSN: 14926156     EISSN: 19424051     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14926150209556539     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Arcavi, A., & Hadas, N. (2000). Computer mediated learning: An example of an approach. International Journal of Computer for Mathematical Learning,5(1), 25-45.
2. Balacheff, N. (1988). A study of students’ proving processes at the junior high school level. Paper presented at the 66th Annual Meeting of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, USA.
3. Balacheff, N. (1991). The benefits and limits of social interaction: The case of mathematical proof. In A. J. Bishop, S, Mellin-Olsen, & J. van Dormolen (Eds.), Mathematical knowledge: Its growth through teaching (pp. 175-192). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
4. Chazan, D. (1993). Instructional implications of students’ understandings of the differences between empirical verification and mathematical proof. In J. Schwartz, M. Yerushalmy, & B. Wilson (Eds.), The geometric supposer: What is it a case of? (pp. 107-116). Hellsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5. Davis, P.J., & Hersh, R. (1981). The mathematical experience.Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
6. De Villiers, M. (1990). The role and function of proof in mathematics. Pythagoras, 24,17-24.
7. De Villiers, M. (1997). The role of proof in investigative, computer-based geometry: Some personal reflections. In J. King & D. Schattschneider (Eds.), Geometry turned on! Dynamic software in learning, teaching, and research (pp. 15-24). Washington, DC: The Mathematical Association of America.
8. De Villiers, M. (1998). An alternative approach to proof in dynamic geometry. In R. Lehrer & D. Chazan (Eds.), Designing learning environments for developing understanding of geometry and space (pp. 369-393). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9. De Villiers, M. (1999). The role and function of proof. In M. De Villiers (Ed.), Rethinking proof with geometer's sketchpad (pp. 3-10). Emeryville, CA: Key Curriculum Press.
10. Dreyfus, T., & Hadas, N. (1996). Proof as answer to the question why. Zentralblatt fur Didaktik der Matematik, ZDM, 28(1), 1-5.
11. Fischbein, E., & Kedem, I. (1982). Proof and certitude in development of mathematical thinking. In A. Vermandel (Ed.), Proceedings of the 6th PME Conference (pp. 128-131). Antwerp: Universitaire Instelling Antwerpen.
12. Freudenthal, H. (1971). Geometry between the devil and the deep sea. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 3,413-435.
13. Geometry Inventor. (1994). Cambridge, MA: Logal Educational Software Ltd.
14. Goldenberg, E.P., Cuoco, A.A., & Mark, J. (1998). A role for geometry in general education. In R. Lehrer & D. Chazan (Eds.), Designing learning environments for developing understanding of geometry and space (pp. 3-44). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
15. Hadas, N., & Hershkowitz, R. (1998). Proof in geometry as an explanatory and convincing tool. In A. Olivier & K. Newstead (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd PME Conference, Vol. 3 (pp. 2532). Stellenbosch, South Africa: University of Stellenbosch.
16. Hadas, N., & Hershkowitz, R. (1999). The role of uncertainty in constructing and proving in computerized environments. In O. Zaslavsky (Ed.), Proceedings of the 23rd PME Conference, Vol. 3 (pp. 57-64). Haifa, Israel:Technion Israel Institute of Technology.
17. Hadas, N., Hershkowitz, R., & Schwarz, B.B. (2000). The role of surprise and uncertainty in promoting the need to prove in computerized environments. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44,1-2.
18. Hanna, G. (1990). Some pedagogical aspects of proof. Interchange, 21,6-13.
19. Hanna, G. (1995). Challenges to the importance of proof. For the Learning of Mathematics, 15(4), 42-49.
20. Hanna, G. (1996). The ongoing value of proof. In L. Puig & A. Gutirrez (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 1 (pp. 21-34). Valencia, Spain: University of Valencia.
21. Harel, G., & Sowder, L. L. (1998). Students’ proof schemes: Results from exploratory studies. In E. Dubinsky, A. H. Schoenfeld, & J.J. Kaput (Eds.), Research on collegiate mathematics education. Vol. 3 (pp. 234-283). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.
22. Hersh, R. (1993). Proving is convincing and explaining. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24, 389-399.
23. Hershkowitz, R., Dreyfus, T., Ben-Zvi, D., Friedlander, A., Hadas, N., Resnick, T., Tabach, M., & Schwarz, B. (2002). Mathematics curriculum development for computerized environments: A designer-researcher-teacher-leamer-activity. In L.D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 657-694). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
24. Hoyles, C. (1997). The curricular shaping of students’ approaches to proofFor the Learning of Mathematics77, 7-16.
25. Laborde, C. (1995). Designing tasks for learning geometry in computer-based environment, the case of Cabri-geometre. In L. Burton & B. Jaworski (Eds.), Technology in mathematics teaching: A bridge between teaching and learning (pp.35-68). London: Chartwell-Bratt.
26. Laborde, C., & Laborde, J.M. (1992). Problem solving in geometry: From microworlds to intelligent computer environments. In J.P. Ponte, J.F. Matos, J.M. Matos, & D. Fernandes (Eds.), Mathematical problem solving and new information technologies (pp. 177-192). Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, Nato ASI Series.
27. Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and refutations: The logic of mathematical discovery, Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
28. Movshovits-Hadar, N. (1988). School mathematics theorems-An endless source of surprise. For the Learning of Mathematics, 8(3),34-40.
29. Senk, S.L. (1985). How well do students write geometry proofs? Mathematics Teacher, 78,448
30. Schoenfeld, A. (1986). On having and using geometric knowledge. In J. Hiebert (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics (pp. 225-263). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
31. Schwarz, B.B., & Hershkowitz, R. (1999). Prototypes: Brakes or levers in learning the function concept? The role of computer tools. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30, 362-389.
32. Thurston, W.P. (1994). On proof and progress in mathematics. Bulletin (New Senses) of the American Mathematical Society, 30(2),161-177.
33. Vinner, S. (1983). The notion of proof: Some aspects of students’ views at the senior high level. In R. Hershkowitz (Ed.); Proceedings of the 7th PME Conference (pp. 289-294). Rehovot, Israel: Weizmann Institute of Science.
34. Yerushalmy, M., Chazan, D., & Gordon, M. (1993). Posing problems: One aspect of bringing inquiry into classrooms. In J. Schwartz, M. Yerushalmy, & B. Wilson (Eds.), The geometric supposer: What is it a case of? (pp. 117-142). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
35. Yerushalmy, M., & Houde R.A. (1986). The geometric supposer: Promoting thinking and learning. Mathematics Teacher, 79,418-422.