Charting a course for secondary geometry

Designing Learning Environments for Developing Understanding of Geometry and Space

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 67-90

  Chazan, Daniel ^a   Yerushalmy, Michal ^b  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HAIFA   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85070635309     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203053461-8     Document Type: Chapter

References (56)

1. Abelson, H., & diSessa, A. (1981). Turtle geometry: The computer as a medium for exploring mathematics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2. Aleksandrov, A. D. (1963). A general view of mathematics. In A. Aleksandrov, A. Kol-mogorov, & M. Lavrent’ev (Eds.), Mathematics: Its content, methods, and meaning (Vol. 1, pp. 1-64). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1956)
3. Arnheim, R. (1969). Visual thinking. Berkeley: University of California Press.
4. Balacheff, N. (1993). Artificial intelligence and real teaching. In C. Keitel & K. Ruthven (Eds.), Learning through computers: Mathematics and educational technology (NATO, Vol. 121, pp. 131-158, ASI Series F: Computer and Systems Sciences). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
5. Ball, D. L. (1991). Teaching mathematics for understanding: What do teachers need to know about the subject matter? In M. Kennedy (Ed.), Teaching academic subjects to diverse learners (pp. 63-83). New York: Teachers College Press.
6. Ball, D. L. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary school mathematics. Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 373-397.
7. Capponi B., & Strasser, R. (1991). Drawing-computer model-figure: Case studies in students’ use of geometry software. In P. Boero (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fifteenth PME Conference (pp. 302-309). Genova: Universiti de Ghenes.
8. Chazan, D. (1990a). Implementing the standards: Microcomputer-aided student exploration in geometry. Mathematics Teacher, 83, 628-635.
9. Chazan, D. (1990b). Quasi-empirical views of mathematics and mathematics teaching. Interchange, 21(1), 14-23.
10. Chazan, D. (1993). High school geometry students’ justifications for their views of empirical evidence and mathematical proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24(4), 359-387.
11. Chazan, D., & Houde, R. (1989). How to use conjecturing and microcomputers to teach high school geometry. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
12. Comsed Company and Educational Computer System Laboratory. (1992). Geomland Plane Geometry System. Sofia, Bulgaria: Sophia University.
13. Coxford, A., & Usiskin, Z. (1971). Geometry: A transformation approach. River Forrest, IL: Laid-law Brothers.
14. Cuoco, A., Goldenberg, E. P., & Mark, J. (1995). Connecting geometry with the rest of mathematics. In P. House & A. F. Coxford (Ed.), Connecting mathematics across the curriculum (pp. 183-197). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
15. Dewey, J. (1990). The school and society; The child and the curriculum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1902)
16. Education Development Center. (1995). Connected geometry. Dedham, MA: Jansen.
17. Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos. New York: Penguin.
18. Healy, C. C. (1993). Discovery courses are great in theory, but… In J. L. Schwartz, M. Yerushalmy, & B. Wilson (Eds.), The Geometric Supposer: What is it a case of? (pp. 85-106). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
19. Houde, R. (1993). How the Supposer changed my life: An autobiography. In J. L. Schwartz, M. Yerushalmy, & B. Wilson (Eds.), The Geometric Supposer: What is it a case of? (pp. 179-192). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
20. Jackiw, N. (1995). The Geometer’s Sketchpad 3.0 [Computer software]. San Francisco: Key Curriculum Press.
21. Laborde, C. (1992). Solving problems in computer-based geometry environments: The influence of the features of the software. Zentralblatt fur Didaktik der Mathematik, 4, 128-134.
22. Laborde, C. (1993). The computer as part of the learning environment: The case of geometry. In C. Keitel & K. Ruthven (Eds.), Learning through computers: Mathematics and educational technology (NATO ASI Series F: Computer and Systems Sciences, Vol. 121, pp. 48-67). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
23. Laborde, C, & Capponi, B. (1994). Cabri-geomètre constituant d’un milieu pour l’apprentissage de la notion de figure géométrique. DidaTech V Seminar 150, 175-218.
24. Laborde, J.-M., & Bellemain, F. (1994). Cabri II. [Computer software]. Temple, TX: Texas Instruments.
25. Laborde, J.-M., & Strasser, R. (1990). Cabri-Geomètre: A micro world of geometry for guided discovery learning. Zentralblatt fur Didaktik der Mathematik-International Reviews on Mathematical Education, 90(5), 171-190.
26. Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and refutations: The logic of mathematical discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27. Lampert, M. (1993). Teachers’ thinking about students’ thinking about geometry: The effects of new teaching tools. In J. L. Schwartz, M. Yerushalmy, & B. Wilson (Eds.), The Geometric Supposer: What is it a case of? (pp. 143-178). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
28. Lampert, M. (1995). Managing the tensions in connecting students’ inquiry with learning mathematics in school. In D. Perkins, J. Schwartz, M. West, & M. Wiske (Eds.), Software goes to school, (pp. 213-232). New York: Oxford University Press.
29. Leinhardt, G., & Smith, D. (1985). Expertise in mathematics instruction: Subject matter knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(3), 247.
30. Lenart, I. (1993). Alternative models on the drawing ball. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24, 277-312.
31. Logal Software. (1994). Tangible Math: Geometry Inventor [Computer software]. Pleasantville, NY: Sunburst Communications.
32. Malkevitch, J. (n.d.). Geometry in Utopia. In Geometry’s future: Conference proceedings (pp. 93-105). Lexington, MA: Consortium for Mathematics and Its Applications.
33. Mandelbrot, B. (1994). Fractals, the computer, and mathematics education. In C. Gaulin, B. Hodgson, D. Wheeler, & J. Egsgard (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Congress on Mathematical Education (pp. 77-100). Sainte-Foy, Quebec, Canada: University of Laval.
34. Moise, E. (1975). The meaning of Euclidean geometry in school mathematics. Mathematics Teacher, 68, 472-477.
35. National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. (1993). Findings on learning to teach. East Lansing, MI: Author.
36. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
37. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
38. Parzysz, B. (1988). “Knowing�? vs. “seeing�?: Problems for the plane representation of space geometry figures. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 19(1), 79-92.
39. Peitgen, H.-O., & Richter, P. H. (1986). The beauty of fractals: Images of complex dynamical systems. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
40. Pimm, D. (1995). Symbols and meanings in school mathematics. London: Routlege.
41. Scheffler, I. (1965). Conditions of knowledge: An introduction to epistemology and education. Chicago: Scott Foresman.
42. Schoenfeld, A. (1983). Problem solving in the mathematics curriculum: A report, recommendations, and an annotated bibliography. Washington, DC: Mathematics Association of America.
43. Schoenfeld, A. (1988). When good teaching leads to bad results: The disasters of “well taught�? mathematics courses. In T. P. Carpenter, & P. L. Peterson (Eds.), Learning from instruction: The study of students’ thinking during instruction in mathematics [Special issue]. Educational Psychologist, 23(2), 145-166.
44. Schwab, J. J. (1978). Education and the structure of the disciplines. In I. Westbury & N. Wilkof (Eds.), Science, curriculum, and liberal education: Selected essays (pp. 229-272). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1961)
45. Schwartz, J. L. (1991). Can we solve the problem solving problem without posing the problem posing problem? In J. P. Ponte, J. F. Matos, J. M. Matos, & D. Fernandes (Eds.), Mathematical problem solving and new information technologies: Research in contexts of practice (NATO ASI Series F: Computer and Systems Sciences, Vol. 89, pp. 167-176). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
46. Schwartz, J. L. (1993). A personal view of the Supposer: Reflections on particularities and generalities in educational reform. In J. L. Schwartz, M. Yerushalmy, & B. Wilson (Eds.), The Geometric Supposer: What is it a case of? (pp. 3-16). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
47. Schwartz, J. L., & Yerushalmy, M. (1993). Geometric SuperSupposer [Computer software]. Pleasantville, NY: Sunburst Communications.
48. Senk, S. (1985). How well do students write proofs? Mathematics Teacher, 78, 448-456.
49. Thorn, R. (1986). “Modern�? mathematics: An educational and philosophic error? In T. Tymoczko (Ed.), New directions in the philosophy of mathematics (pp. 67-78). Boston: Birkhauser.
50. Tymoczko, T. (1986). The four-color problem and its philosophical significance. In T. Tymoczko (Ed.), New directions in the philosophy of mathematics (pp. 243-266). Boston: Birkhauser.
51. Usiskin, Z. (1987). Resolving the continuing dilemmas in school geometry. Learning and teaching geometry, K-12 (NCTM 1987 Yearbook, pp. 17-31). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
52. van den Brink, J. (1995). Geometry education in the midst of theories. For the Learning of Mathematics, 25(1), 21-28.
53. Wiske, M. S., & Houde, R. (1993). From recitation to construction: Teachers change with new technology. In J. L. Schwartz, M. Yerushalmy, & B. Wilson (Eds.), The Geometric Supposer: What is it a case of? (pp. 193-217). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
54. Yerushalmy, M. (1993). Generalization in geometry. In J. L. Schwartz, M. Yerushalmy, & B. Wilson (Eds.), The Geometric Supposer: What is it a case of? (pp. 57-84). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
55. Yerushalmy, M., & Chazan, D. (1993). Overcoming visual obstacles with the aid of the Supposer. In J. L. Schwartz, M. Yerushalmy, & B. Wilson (Eds.), The Geometric Supposer: What is it a case of? (pp. 25-56). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
56. Yerushalmy, M., Chazan, D., & Gordon, M. (1987). Guided inquiry and technology: A year-long study of children and teachers using the Geometric Supposer (Tech. Rep. No. 88-6). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education, Educational Technology Center.