Integrating Technology into Mathematics Education: Theoretical Perspectives

New ICMI Study Series

Volumn 13, Issue , 2010, Pages 89-132

  Drijvers, Paul ^a   Kieran, Carolyn ^b   Mariotti, Maria Alessandra ^c   Ainley, Janet ^a   Andresen, Mette ^a   Chan, Yip Cheung ^a   Dana Picard, Thierry ^a   Gueudet, Ghislaine ^a   Kidron, Ivy ^a   Leung, Allen ^a   Meagher, Michael ^a  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITÉ DU QUÉBEC À MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SIENA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Instrumentation; Mathematics education; Semiotic mediation; Technology; Theoretical perspectives in technology related research in mathematics education

Indexed keywords

EID: 85068144753     PISSN: 13876872     EISSN: 22151745     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4419-0146-0_7     Document Type: Chapter

References (144)

1. Ainley, J., & Pratt, D. (2006). Design and understanding. In C. Hoyles, J.-b. Lagrange, L.H. Son, & N. Sinclair (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth Study Conference of the International Commission on Mathematical Instruction (pp 10–17) Hanoi Institute of Technology and Didirem Université Paris 7.
2. Andresen, M. (2006). Instrumented techniques in tool – and object perspectives. In C. Hoyles, J.-b. Lagrange, L.H. Son, & N. Sinclair (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth Study Conference of the International Commission on Mathematical Instruction (pp. 19–26). Hanoi Institute of Technology and Didirem Université Paris 7.
3. Artigue, M. (1997). Le Logiciel ‘Derive’ comme révélateur de phénomènes didactiques liés à l’utilisation d’environnements informatiques pour l’apprentissage, Educational Studies in Mathematics, 33, 133–169.
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.
5. Artigue, M. (2006). Methodological tools for comparison of learning theories in technology enhanced learning in mathematics. http://telearn.noe-kaleidoscope.org/warehouse/Artigue-Kaleidoscope-2006.pdf. Accessed 19 September 2007.
6. Artigue, M. (2008). Digital technologies: a window on theoretical issues in mathematics education. In D. Pitta-Pantazi, & G. Philippou (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education. Larnaca, Cyprus.
7. Artigue, M., Defouad, B., Duperier, M., Juge, G., & Lagrange, J.-B. (1998). Intégration de calculatrices complexes dans l’enseignement des mathématiques au lycée (cahier de DIDIREM, numéro spécial, no. 4), Paris: Université Denis Diderot, Équipe DIDIREM.
8. Artigue, M., Bottino, R.M., Cerulli, M., Kynigos, C., Lagrange, J.B., Maracci, M., Maffei, L., Mariotti, M.-A., & Morgan, C. (2006). Representing mathematics with digital media: integrative theoretical framework. http://telearn.noe-kaleidoscope.org/warehouse/ReMath_ DEL1_ WP1vF-1.pdf. Accessed 19 September 2007.
9. Arzarello, F. (2006). Semiosis as a multimodal process, Relime, 9, 267–299.
10. Arzarello, F., & Robutti, O. (2001). From body motion to algebra through graphing. In H. Chick, K. Stacey, J. Vincent & J. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th ICMI StudyConference: The Future of the Teaching and Learning of Algebra (pp. 33–40). Melbourne: The University of Melbourne.
11. Balacheff, N., & Kaput, J.J. (1996). Computer-based learning environments in mathematics. In A.J. Bishop, K. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & C. Laborde, (Eds.), International Handbook of Mathematics Education (pp. 429–501). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
12. Bartolini Bussi, M.G., & Mariotti, M.A. (1999). Semiotic mediation: from history to the mathematics classroom, For the Learning of Mathematics, 19(2), 27–35.
13. Bartolini Bussi, M.G., & Mariotti, M.-A. (2002). Semiotic mediation in the mathematics classroom: artifacts and signs after a Vygotskian perspective. In L. English, M. Bartolini Bussi, G. Jones, R. Lesh, & D. Tirosh (Eds.), Handbook of International Research in Mathematics Education, second revised edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14. Bauersfeld, H. (1980). Hidden dimensions in the so-called reality of a mathematics classroom, Educational Studies in Mathematics, 11, 23–41.
15. Becker, H.J. (1987). The importance of a methodology that maximizes falsifiability: Its applicability to research about Logo, Educational Researcher, 16(5), 11–16.
16. Berry, J.S., Graham, E., & Watkins, A.J.P. (1994). Integrating the DERIVE program into the teaching of mathematics, The International DERIVE Journal, 1(1), 83–96.
17. Bishop, A.J. (1988). A review of research on visualization in mathematics education. In A. Borbás, (Ed.), Proceedings of the 12th PMEInternational Conference (pp. 170–176). Veszprem: PME.
18. Boon, P., & Drijvers, P. (2006). Chaining operations to get insight in expressions and functions. In M. Bosch (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education, Sant Feliu de Guíxols, Spain, 17–21 February 2005 (pp. 969–978). http://ermeweb.free.fr/CERME4/.
19. Borba, M.C. (1993). Students’ Understanding of Transformations of Functions Using Multi Representational Software. Doctoral Dissertation, Cornell University, USA. Published in 1994. Lisbon, Portugal: Associasao de Professores de Matematica.
20. Borba, M.C. (1994). A model for students’ understanding in a multi-representational environment. In J.P. da Ponte, J.F. Matos (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th PMEInternational Conference, Vol. 2 (pp. 104–111). Lisbon: PME.
21. Borba, M.C., & Villarreal, M.E. (2005). Humans-with-Media and the Reorganization of Mathematical Thinking: Information and Communication Technologies, Modeling, Visualizationand Experimentation. New York: Springer.
22. Bosch, M., & Chevallard, Y. (1999). La sensibilité de l’activité mathématique aux ostensifs: Objet d’étude et problématique, Recherche en Didactiques des Mathématiques, 19, 77–124.
23. Brousseau, G. (1998). Theory of didactical situationsin mathematics: didactique des mathématiques, 1970–1990 (edited and translated by N. Balacheff, M. Cooper, R. Sutherland, and V. Warfield). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
24. Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning, Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.
25. Buchberger, B. (1990). Should students learn integration rules? SIGSAM Bulletin, 24(1), 10–17.
26. Bueno-Ravel, L., & Gueudet, G. (2007). Online resources in mathematics: teachers’ genesis of use. In D. Pitta-Pantazi and G. Philippou (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education, CERME 5, (pp. 1369–1378). Cyprus: Larnaca.
27. Burkhardt, H. (1986). Computer aware curricula: Ideas and realization. In A.G. Howson & J.-P. Kahane (Eds.), The Influence of Computer and Informatics on Mathematics and its Teaching (ICMI Study Series #1) (pp. 147–155). New York: Cambridge University Press.
28. Cedillo, T., & Kieran, C. (2003). Initiating students into algebra with symbol-manipulating calculators. In J.T. Fey, A. Cuoco, C. Kieran, L. McMullin, & R.M. Zbiek (Eds.), Computer algebra systems in secondary school mathematics education (pp. 219–239). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
29. Cerulli, M., & Mariotti, M.-A. (2002). L’Algebrista: un micromonde pour l’enseignement et l’apprentissage de l’algèbre, Science et techniques éducatives, Logiciels pour l’apprentissage de l’algèbre, 9, 149–170.
30. Chevallard, Y. (1999). L’analyse des pratiques enseignantes en théorie anthropologique du didactique, Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques, 19, 221–266.
31. Cobb, P., Wood, T., & Yackel, E. (1993). Discourse, mathematical thinking and classroom practice. In E.A. Forman, N. Minick, & C.A. Stone (Eds.), Contexts for Learning: Sociocultural Dynamics in Children’s Development. New York: Oxford University Press.
32. Confrey, J. (1991). Function Probe© [Computer software]. Ithaca: Cornell University.
33. Confrey, J. (1992). Using computers to promote students’ inventions of the function concept. In S. Malcom, L. Roberts, & K. Sheingold (Eds.), This Year in School Science 1991 (pp. 141–174). Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
34. Dana-Picard, T., & Kidron, I. (2006). A pedagogy-embedded Computer Algebra System as an instigator to learn more mathematics. In C. Hoyles, J.-b. Lagrange, L.H. Son, & N. Sinclair (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth Study Conference of the International Commission on Mathematical Instruction (pp. 128–135). Hanoi Institute of Technology and Didirem Université Paris 7.
35. Dienes, Z.P. (1960). Building Up Mathematics. New York: Hutchinson Educational Ltd.
36. Dreyfus, T. (1991). On the status of visual reasoning in mathematics and mathematics education. In F. Furinghetti (Ed.), Proceedings of the 15th PMEInternational Conference Vol. 1 (pp. 33–48). Assisi: PME.
37. Drijvers, P., & Gravemeijer, K.P.E. (2004). Computer algebra as an instrument: Examples of algebraic schemes. In D. Guin, K. Ruthven, & L. Trouche (Eds.), The Didactical Challenge of Symbolic Calculators: Turning a Computational Device into a Mathematical Instrument (pp. 163–196). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
38. Dugdale, S. (2007). From network to microcomputers and fractions to functions: Continuity in software research and design. In G.W. Blume & M.K. Heid (Eds.), Research on Technology and the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics: Syntheses, Cases, and Perspectives. Vol. 2: Cases and Perspectives (pp. 89–112). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
39. Dugdale, S., & Kibbey, D. (1980). The Fractions Curriculum of the PLATO Elementary School Mathematics Project (2nd ed.). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Computer-Based Education.
40. Edwards, L.D. (1998). Embodying mathematics and science: Microworlds as representations, Journal of Mathematical behavior, 17, 53–78.
41. Eisenberg, T., & Dreyfus, T. (1986). On visual versus analytical thinking in mathematics. In Proceedings of the 10th PME International Conference (pp. 153–158). London: PME.
42. Eisenberg, T., & Dreyfus, T. (1989). On visualizing function transformations, Technical report, Beer Sheva: Ben Gurion University.
43. Engeström, Y. (1991). Activity theoy and individual and social transformation, Activity Theory, (7/8), 6–17.
44. Falcade, R., Laborde, C., & Mariotti, M.-A. (2007). Approaching functions: The Trace tool as an instrument of semiotic mediation, Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66(3), 317–333.
45. Feurzeig, W., & Papert, S. (1968). Programming languages as a conceptual framework for teaching mathematics. In F. Bresson, & M. de Montmollin (Eds.), La recherche en enseignement programmé, tendances actuelles (Actes colloque OTAN, Nice) (pp. 233–248). Paris: Dunod.
46. Fey, J.T. (Ed.) (1984). Computing and Mathematics: The Impact on Secondary School Curricula. College Park: The University of Maryland.
47. Fey, J.T., & Good, R.A. (1985). Rethinking the sequence and priorities of high school mathematics curricula. In C.R. Hirsch & M.J. Zweng (Eds.), The secondary school mathematics curriculum (Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) (pp. 43–52). NCTM: Reston.
48. Floris, R. (1999). Comment penser didactiquement la présence d’une calculatrice symbolique et graphique dans le milieu? In M. Bailleul (Ed.), Actes de la Xe École d’Été de Didactique des Mathématiques Vol. 1, (pp. 262–265). Houlgate: Association pour la Recherche en Didactique des Mathématiques.
49. Gattegno, C. (1963). For the Teaching of Elementary Mathematics. Mt. Vernon: Cuisenaire Company of America.
50. Gray, E.M., & Tall, D.O. (1991). Duality, ambiguity and flexibility in successful mathematical thinking. Proceedings of PME XIII Vol. II (pp. 72–79). Assisi: PME.
51. Gueudet, G. (2006). Learning mathematics in class with online resources. In C. Hoyles, J.-b. Lagrange, L.H. Son, & N. Sinclair (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth Study Conference of the International Commission on Mathematical Instruction (pp. 205–212). Hanoi Institute of Technology and Didirem Université Paris 7.
52. Guin D., & Trouche, L. (1999). The complex process of converting tools into mathematical instruments: The case of calculators, International Journal of Computer for mathematical learning, 3, 195–227.
53. Guin, D., & Trouche, L. (2007). Une approche multidimensionnelle pour la conception collaborative de ressources pédagogiques. In M. Baron, D. Guin & L. Trouche (Dir.), Environnements informatisés et ressources numériques pour l’apprentissage: conception et usages, regards croisés (pp. 197–228). Paris: Hermès.
54. Guin, D., Ruthven, K., & Trouche, L. (Eds.) (2004). The Didactical Challenge of Symbolic Calculators: Turning a Computational Device into a Mathematical Instrument. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
55. Haspekian, M. (2005). An “Instrumental Approach” to study the integration of a computer tool into mathematics teaching: The case of spreadsheets, International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 10, 109–141.
56. Hatfield, L.L., & Kieren, T.E. (1972). Computer-assisted problem solving in school mathematics, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 3, 99–112.
57. Heid, M.K. (1988). Resequencing skills and concepts in applied calculus using the computer as tool, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19, 3–25.
58. Hershkowitz, R., Schwarz, B.B., & Dreyfus, T. (2001). Abstraction in context: epistemic actions, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32, 195–222.
59. Hillel, J., & Kieran, C. (1987). Schemas used by 12-year-olds in solving selected turtle geometry tasks, Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques, 8(1.2), 61–102.
60. Hitt, F. (Ed.) (2002) Representations and Mathematics Visualization (Papers Presented in the Working Group of the Same Name at PME-NA, 1998–2002). Mexico City: CINVESTAV-IPN.
61. Howson, A.G., & Kahane, J.-P. (Eds.) (1986). The Influence of Computer and Informatics on Mathematics and its Teaching (ICMI Study Series #1). New York: Cambridge University Press.
62. Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (2003). What can digital technologies take from and bring to research in mathematics education? In A.J. Bishop, M.A. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & F.K.S. Leung, (Eds.), Second International Handbook of Mathematics Education Vol. 1 (pp. 323–349). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
63. Jones, K. (2000). The Mediation of Mathematical Learning Through the Use of Pedagogical Tools: a Sociocultural Analysis. Invited Paper Presented at the Conference on Social Constructivism, Socioculturalism, and Social Practice Theory: Relevance and Rationalisations in Mathematics Education, Norway, March 2000.
64. Kaput, J.J. (1987). Representation systems and mathematics. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representationin the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 19–26). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
65. Kaput, J.J. (1992). Technology and mathematics education. In D.A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 515–556). New York: Macmillan.
66. Kaput, J.J. (1998). Commentary: Representations, inscriptions, descriptions and learning – A kaleidoscope of windows, Journal of Mathematical behavior, 17, 265–281.
67. Kelly, B. (2003). The emergence of technology in mathematics education. In G.M.A. Stanic & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), A History of School Mathematics (pp. 1037–1081). Reston: NCTM.
68. Kent, P., Noss, R., Guile, D., Hoyles, C., & Bakker, A. (2007). Characterizing the use of mathematical knowledge in boundary-crossing situations at work, Mind, Culture, and Activity, 14(1&2), 64–82.
69. Kidron, I., & Dana-Picard, T. (2006). The discrete continuous interplay. Will the last straw break the camel’s back? In C. Hoyles, J.-b. Lagrange, L.H. Son, & N. Sinclair (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth Study Conference of the International Commission on Mathematical Instruction (pp. 270–277). Hanoi Institute of Technology and Didirem Université Paris 7.
70. Kieran, C., & Drijvers, P. (2006a). The co-emergence of machine techniques, paper-and-pencil techniques, and theoretical reflection: A study of CAS use in secondary school algebra, International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 11, 205–263.
71. Kieran, C., & Drijvers, P. (2006b). Learning about equivalence, equality, and equation in a CAS environment: the interaction of machine techniques, paper-and-pencil techniques, and theorizing. In C. Hoyles, J.-b. Lagrange, L.H. Son, & N. Sinclair (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth Study Conference of the International Commission on Mathematical Instruction (pp. 278–287). Hanoi Institute of Technology and Didirem Université Paris 7.
72. Kieran, C., & Saldanha, L. (2007). Designing tasks for the co-development of conceptual and technical knowledge in CAS activity: An example from factoring. In M.K. Heid & G. Blume (Eds.), Research on Technology and the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics: Syntheses, Cases, and Perspectives (pp. 393–414). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.
73. Kieran, C & Yerushalmy, M. (2004). Research on the role of technological environments in algebra learning and teaching. In K. Stacey, H. Chick, & M. Kendal (Eds.), The Future of the Teaching and Learning of Algebra: The 12th ICMI Study (pp. 99–152). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
74. Kieran, C., Forman, E., & Sfard, A. (Eds.) (2001). Bridging the individual and the social: discursive approaches to research in mathematics education (a PME special issue), Educational Studies in Mathematics, 46, 1–3.
75. Kilpatrick, J. (1981). Research on mathematical learning and thinking in the United States. In C. Comiti & G. Vergnaud (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th PME International Conference Vol. 2 (pp. 18–29). Grenoble: PME.
76. Laborde, J.-M. (1990). CABRI Geometry [Computer software]. Grenoble: Université de Grenoble 1.
77. Laborde, C., & Capponi, B. (1994). Cabri-géomètre constituant d’un milieu pour l’apprentissage de la notion de figure géométrique, Recherches en didactique des mathématiques, 14(1), 165–210.
78. Laborde, C., & Laborde, J.-M. (1995). What about a learning environment where Euclidean concepts are manipulated with a mouse? In A.A. diSessa, C. Hoyles, R. Noss (Eds.), Computers and Exploratory Learning, NATO ASI Series, Series F, Computer and Systems Sciences Vol. 146 (pp. 241–262). Berlin: Springer.
79. Lagrange, J.-B. (2000). L’intégration d’instruments informatiques dans l’enseignement: une approche par les techniques, Educational Studies in Mathematics, 43, 1–30.
80. Lagrange, J.-B. (2005). Curriculum, classroom practices, and tool design in the learning of functions through technology-aided experimental approaches, International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 10, 143–189.
81. Lagrange, J.-B., Artigue, M., Laborde, C., & Trouche, L. (2003). Technology and mathematics education: A multidimensional study of the evolution of research and innovation. In A.J. Bishop, M.A. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & F.K.S. Leung (Eds.), Second International Handbook of Mathematics Education Vol. 1 (pp. 237–269). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
82. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
83. Lakoff, G., & Núñez, R. (2000). Where Mathematics Comes from: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being. New York: Basic Books.
84. Lee, A., Wong, K.-L., & Leung, A. (2006). Developing learning and assessment tasks in a dynamic geometry environment. In C. Hoyles, J.-b. Lagrange, L.H. Son, & N. Sinclair (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth Study Conference of the International Commission on Mathematical Instruction (pp. 334–341). Hanoi Institute of Technology and Didirem Université Paris 7.
85. Leont’ev, A.N. (1976, orig. ed. 1964). Problemi dello sviluppo psichico. Roma: Editori Riuniti and Mir.
86. Lerman, S. (1998). A moment in the zoom of a lens: Toward a discursive psychology of mathematics teaching and learning. In A. Olivier & K. Newstead (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME), Vol. 1 (pp. 66–81). Stellenbosch: Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME).
87. Lerman, S., Xu, G., & Tsatsaroni, A. (2002). Developing theories of mathematics education research: The ESM story, Educational Studies in Mathematics, 51, 23–40.
88. Leung, A. (2008). Dragging in dynamic geometry environment through the lens of variation, International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 13, 135–157.
89. Leung, A., Chan, Y., & Lopez-Real, F. (2006). Instrumental genesis in dynamic geometry environments. In C. Hoyles, J.-b. Lagrange, L.H. Son, & N. Sinclair (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth Study Conference of the International Commission on Mathematical Instruction (pp. 346–353). Hanoi Institute of Technology and Didirem Université Paris 7.
90. Lévy, P. (1990). Les technologies de l’intelligence: l’avenir de la pensée à l’ère informatique. Paris: Edition La Découverte.
91. Mariotti, M.-A. (2000). Introduction to proof: the mediation of a dynamic software environment, Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44(1/2), 25–53.
92. Mariotti, M.-A. (2001). Justifying and proving in the Cabri environment, International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6(3), 257–281.
93. Mariotti, M.-A. (2002). Influence of technologies advances on students’ math learning. In L. English et al. (Eds.), Handbook of International Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 695–724). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
94. Mariotti, M.-A. (2006). New artefacts and the mediation of mathematical meanings. In C. Hoyles, J.-b. Lagrange, L.H. Son, & N. Sinclair (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth Study Conference of the International Commission on Mathematical Instruction (pp. 378–385). Hanoi Institute of Technology and Didirem Université Paris 7.
95. Meagher, M. (2006). Theoretical approaches to learning with digital technologies. In C. Hoyles, J.-b. Lagrange, L.H. Son, & N. Sinclair (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth Study Conference of the International Commission on Mathematical Instruction (pp. 386–393). Hanoi Institute of Technology and Didirem Université Paris 7.
96. Meira, L. (1998). Making sense of instructional devices: the emergence of transparency in mathematical activity. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(2), 121–142.
97. Meira, L., & Carraher, D. (Eds.) (1995). Proceedings of the 19th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Recife: PME.
98. Monaghan, J. (2005). Computer Algebra, instrumentationand the Anthropological Approach, Paper Presented at the 4th CAME Conference, October 2005; http://www.lonklab.ac.uk/came/events/CAME4/index.html. Accessed December 20, 2005.
99. Moreno-Armella, L., & Santos-Trigo, M. (2002). Democratic access to powerful mathematics in a developing country. In L. English, M. Bartolini Bussi, G. Jones, R. Lesh, & D. Tirosh (Eds.), Handbook of International Research in Mathematics Education, second revised edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
100. Mounier, G., & Aldon, G. (1996). A problem story: factorisations of 1, International DERIVE Journal, 3, 51–61.
101. Moschkovich, J., 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: Lawrence Erlbaum.
102. Nemirovsky, R. (2003). Three conjectures concerning the relationship between body activity and understanding mathematics. In N.A. Pateman, B.J. Dougherty, & J.T. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education Vol. 1 (pp. 105–109). Honolulu: PME.
103. Nemirovsky, R., Kaput, J., & Roschelle, J. (1998). Enlarging mathematical activity from modelling phenomena to generating phenomena. In A. Olivier & K. Newstead (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd PME International Conference, Vol. 3 (pp. 287–294).
104. Nemirovsky, R., Borba, M. (Eds.), & Di Mattia C., tech. ed. (2004). Bodily activity and imagination in mathematics learning, Educational Studies in Mathematics, 57(3), 313–316.
105. Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (1996). Windows on Mathematical Meanings: Learning Cultures and Computers. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
106. Papert, S. (1970). Teaching Children Thinking (AI Memo No. 247 and LogoMemo No. 2). Cambridge: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.
107. Papert, S. (1972). Teaching children to be mathematicians versus teaching about mathematics, International Journal for Mathematical Education, Science, and Technology, 3, 249–262.
108. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. New York: Basic Books.
109. Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. (from the first chapter of Constructionism by S. Papert & I. Harel, published by Ablex) (April 18, 2007). http://www.papert.org/articles/SituatingConstructionism.html.
110. Pea, R. (1987). Cognitive technologies for mathematics education. In A.H. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Cognitive Science and Mathematics Education (pp. 89–122). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
111. Pea, R. (1989). Socializing the Knowledge Transfer Problem (IRL report, IRL 89–0009). Palo Alta, CA: Institute for Research on Learning.
112. Pierce, C.S. (1932). Collected Papers C. Hartshorn & P. Weiss, (Eds.), Vol. 2. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
113. Presmeg, N. (2006). Research on visualization in learning and teaching mathematics. In A. Gutiérrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of Research on the Psychology of Mathematics Education: Past, Present, and Future (pp. 205–235). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
114. Rabardel, P. (2002). People and Technology – A Cognitive Approach to Contemporary Instruments. http://ergoserv.psy.univ-paris8.fr. Accessed: 20 December 2005
115. Radford, L. (2003). Gestures, speech, and the sprouting of signs: A semiotic-cultural approach to students’ types of generalization, Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 5(1), 37–70.
116. Radford, L., Cerulli, M., Demers, S., & Guzmán, J. (2004). The sensual and the conceptual: Artifact mediated kinesthetic actions and semiotic activity. In M.J. Høines & A.B. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th PME International Conference Vol. 4 (pp. 73–80). Bergen, Norway.
117. Rasmussen, C., & Nemirovsky, R. (2003). Becoming friends with acceleration: The role of tools and bodily activity in mathematical learning. In N.A. Pateman, B.J. Dougherty, & J.T. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education Vol. 1 (pp. 127–135). Honolulu: PME.
118. Repo, S. (1994). Understanding and reflective abstraction: learning the concept of the derivative in the computer environment. The International DERIVE Journal, 1(1), 97–113.
119. Robutti, O., & Arzarello, F. (2003). Approaching algebra through motion experiences. In N.A. Pateman, B.J. Dougherty, & J.T. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education Vol. 1 (pp. 111–115). Honolulu: PME.
120. Romberg, T.A., Fennema, E., & Carpenter, T.P. (Eds.) (1993). Integrating Research on the Graphical Representationof Functions. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
121. Rotman, B. (1995). Thinking diagrams: Mathematics, writing, and virtual reality. In B. Herrnstein Smith & A. Plotnitsky (Eds.), Mathematics, Science and Postclassical Theory (pp. 380–416). Durham: Duke University Press.
122. Sàenz-Ludlow, A., & Presmeg, N. (2006). Semiotic perspectives in mathematics education (a PME special issue). Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61(1/2) pp. 1–10.
123. Schwarz, B., & Bruckheimer, M. (1988). Representations of functions and analogies. In A. Borbás (Ed.), Proceedings of the 12th PME International Conference Vol. 2 (pp. 552– 559). Veszprem: PME.
124. Schwartz, J., Yerushalmy, M., & Harvey, W. (1991). The Algebra Toolkit [Computer software]. Pleasantville: Sunburst Communications.
125. Schwingendorf, K., & Dubinsky, E. (1990). Calculus, concepts and computers – Innovations for learning calculus. In T. Tucker (Ed.), Priming the Pump: Innovations and Resources (MAA Notes Series, No. 17) (pp. 175–198). Washington D.C.: Mathematical Association of America.
126. Sfard, A. (1989). Transition from operational to structural conception: The notion of function revisited. In G. Vergnaud, J. Rogalski, & M. Artigue (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th PME International Conference Vol. 3 (pp. 151–158). Paris: PME.
127. 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.
128. Shaffer, D.W., & Gee, J.P. (2006). How Computer Games Help Children learn. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
129. Shumway, R.J. (1984). Young children, programming, and mathematical thinking. In V.P. Hansen & M.J. Zweng (Eds.), Computers in Mathematics Education (pp. 127–134). Reston: NCTM.
130. Skemp, R. (1976). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Mathematics Teaching, 77, 20–26.
131. Steiner, H.-G. (1987). Philosophical and epistemological aspects of mathematics and their interaction with theory and practice in mathematics education. For the Learning of Mathematics, 7(1), 7–13.
132. Streefland, L. (Ed.) (1985). Proceedings of the 9th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Noordwijkerhout: PME.
133. Taylor, R. (Ed.) (1980). The Computer in the School: Tutor, Tool, Tutee. New York: Teachers College Press.
134. Trouche, L. (2000). La parabole du gaucher et de la casserole à bec verseur: Étude des processus d’apprentissage dans un environnement de calculatrices symboliques, Educational Studies in Mathematics, 41, 239–264.
135. Trouche, L. (2004). Managing the complexity of human/machine interactions in computerized learning environments: Guiding students’ command process through instrumental orchestrations, International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9, 281–307.
136. Trouche L. (2005). Construction et conduite des instruments dans les apprentissages mathématiques: nécessité des orchestrations, Recherches en didactique des mathématiques, 25, 91–138.
137. Trouche, L. (2007). Environnements informatisés d’apprentissage: quelle assistance didactique pour la construction des instruments mathématiques? In R. Floris & F. Conne (Eds.), Environnements informatiques, enjeux pour l’enseignement des mathématiques (pp. 19–38). Brussels: DeBoeck & Larcier.
138. Vergnaud, G. (1990). La théorie des champs conceptuels, Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques, 10, 133–170.
139. Vergnaud, G. (1996). Au fond de l’apprentissage, la conceptualisation, In R. Noirfalise, & M.J. Perrin (Eds.), Actes de l’école d’été de didactique des mathématiques (pp. 174–185). Clermont-Ferrand: IREM, Université de Clermont-Ferrand II.
140. Vérillon, P., & Rabardel, P. (1995). Cognition and artifacts: A contribution to the study of thought in relation to instrumented activity, European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10, 77–103.
141. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society, the Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
142. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
143. Wood, D., Bruner, J.S., & Ross, G. (1979). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.
144. Zbiek, R.M., Heid, M.K., Blume, G., & Dick, T.P. (2007). Research on technology in mathematics education: A perspective of constructs. In F.K. LesterJr., (Ed.), Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 1169–1207). Charlotte, NC: NCTM and Information Age Publishing.