Handbook of International Research

in Mathematics Education

This third edition of the Handbook of International Research in Mathematics Education pro-
vides a comprehensive overview of the most recent theoretical and practical developments in
the field of mathematics education. Authored by an array of internationally recognized scholars
and edited by Lyn D. English and David Kirshner, this collection brings together overviews
and advances in mathematics education research spanning established and emerging topics,
diverse workplace and school environments, and globally representative research priorities.
New perspectives are presented on a range of critical topics including embodied learning,
the theory–practice divide, new developments in the early years, educating future mathematics
education professors, problem solving in a 21st-century curriculum, culture and mathematics
learning, complex systems, critical analysis of design-based research, multimodal technologies,
and e-textbooks. Comprised of 12 revised and 17 new chapters, this edition extends the Hand-
book’s original themes for international research in mathematics education and remains in the
process a definitive resource for the field.

Lyn D. English is a professor of STEM in education within the Faculty of Education at

Queensland University of Technology, Australia. She is a fellow of the Academy of the Social
Sciences in Australia and the founding editor of the international journal Mathematical Think-
ing and Learning.

David Kirshner is a professor in the School of Education at Louisiana State University, USA,
and co-director of the Gordon A. Cain Center for Scientific, Mathematical, Engineering, and
Technological Literacy at that institution.
This page intentionally left blank
Handbook of International
Research in Mathematics
Education
Third Edition

Edited by
Lyn D. English and David Kirshner
First published 2016
by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2016 Taylor & Francis
The right of the editors to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their
individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any elec-
tronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording,
or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only
for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Handbook of international research in mathematics education /
[edited] by Lyn D. English and David Kirshner.— [3rd edition].
  pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Mathematics—Study and teaching—Research. I. English, Lyn D. II. Kirshner, David, 1950–
QA11.2.H36 2015
510.71—dc23
2015007357
ISBN: 978-0-415-83203-8 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-0-415-83204-5 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-0-203-44894-6 (ebk)
Typeset in Galliard
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
Contents

Acknowledgments ix
List of Reviewers xi

SECTION I
Priorities in International Mathematics Education Research 1

1 Changing Agendas in International Research in Mathematics Education 3

LYN D. ENGLISH AND DAVID KIRSHNER

2 Perspectives on Priority Mathematics Education: Unpacking and

Understanding a Complex Relationship Linking Teacher Knowledge,
Teaching, and Learning 19
CHARALAMBOS Y. CHARALAMBOUS AND DEMETRA PITTA-PANTAZI

3 Approaches to Embodied Learning in Mathematics 60

SUSAN GEROFSKY

4 Configuring Learning Theory to Support Teaching 98

DAVID KIRSHNER

SECTION II
Democratic Access to Mathematics Learning 151

5 Young Children’s Access to Powerful Mathematics Ideas: A Review

of Current Challenges and New Developments in the Early Years 153
JOAN MOSS, CATHERINE D. BRUCE, AND JANETTE BOBIS

6 Powerful Ideas in Elementary School Mathematics 191

DAVID W. CARRAHER AND ANALÚCIA D. SCHLIEMANN

v
vi Contents
7 Students’ Access to Mathematics Learning in the Middle
and Junior Secondary Schools 219
TERESA ROJANO

8 Mathematical Structure, Proof, and Definition in Advanced

Mathematical Thinking 239
JOANNA MAMONA-DOWNS AND MARTIN L. N. DOWNS

9 Reform as an Issue for Mathematics Education Research: Thinking

About Change, Communication, and Cooperation 257
MICHAEL N. FRIED AND MIRIAM AMIT

10 Prospective Mathematics Teachers’ Learning and Knowledge

for Teaching 275
JOÃO PEDRO DA PONTE AND OLIVE CHAPMAN

11 Educating Future Mathematics Education Professors 297

JEREMY KILPATRICK AND DENISE A. SPANGLER

SECTION III
Transformations in Learning Contexts 311

12 Problem Solving in a 21st-Century Mathematics Curriculum 313

LYN D. ENGLISH AND JULIE GAINSBURG

13 Critical Issues in Culture and Mathematics Learning 336

PETER APPELBAUM AND CHAROULA STATHOPOULOU

14 Mathematics Education and Democracy: An Open Landscape of Tensions,

Uncertainties, and Challenges 359
OLE SKOVSMOSE AND MIRIAM GODOY PENTEADO

15 Toward a Sociology of Mathematics Education: Examining Democratic

Access in U.S. Schools 374
CELIA ROUSSEAU ANDERSON AND WILLIAM F. TATE

16 Mathematics Learning In and Out of School: Towards Continuity

or Discontinuity? 395
GUIDA DE ABREU AND SARAH CRAFTER

17 Perspectives on Complex Systems in Mathematics Learning 416

BRENT DAVIS AND ELAINE SIMMT
 Contents vii
SECTION IV
Advances in Research Methodologies 433

18 Researching Mathematical Meanings for Teaching 435

PATRICK W. THOMPSON

19 Measurement Challenges in Mathematics Education Research 462

ROSEMARY CALLINGHAM

20 Design Research: An Analysis and Critique 481

PAUL COBB, KARA JACKSON, AND CHARLOTTE DUNLAP

21 The Intertwining of Theory and Practice: Influences on Ways

of Teaching and Teachers’ Education 504
ANNALISA CUSI AND NICOLINA A. MALARA

22 Knowledge Creation Through Dialogic Interaction Between the Practices

of Teaching and Researching 523
KENNETH RUTHVEN AND SIMON GOODCHILD

SECTION V
Influences of Advanced Technologies 541

23 Foundations for the Future: The Potential of Multimodal Technologies

for Learning Mathematics 543
STEPHEN J. HEGEDUS AND DAVID O. TALL

24 Statistical Software and Mathematics Education: Affordances

for Learning 563
JANE WATSON AND NOLEINE FITZALLEN

25 The Use of Digital Technology in Mathematical Practices: Reconciling

Traditional and Emerging Approaches 595
LUIS MORENO-ARMELLA AND MANUEL SANTOS-TRIGO

26 Computerized Environments in Mathematics Classrooms:

A Research-Design View617
RINA HERSHKOWITZ, MICHAL TABACH, AND TOMMY DREYFUS

27 E-Textbooks in/for Teaching and Learning Mathematics: A Potentially

Transformative Educational Technology 636
BIRGIT PEPIN, GHISLAINE GUEUDET, MICHAL YERUSHALMY, LUC TROUCHE,
AND DANIEL I. CHAZAN
viii Contents
28 Digital Technologies in the Early Primary School Classroom 662
NATHALIE SINCLAIR AND ANNA BACCAGLINI-FRANK

Final Comment 687

29 Mathematics Education Research: A Strategic View 689

HUGH BURKHARDT

Index 713
Acknowledgments

The publication of this third edition of the Handbook of International Research in Mathemat-
ics Education would not have been possible without the commitment of the authors, many
of whom are new contributors to this edition. David and I extend our sincere thanks to our
authors, who willingly made improvements to their chapters on receiving reviewers’ feedback.
To the reviewers, we extend our heartfelt thanks. Your thoughtful, constructive reviews were
invaluable to all of us as we worked towards producing a third edition Handbook of scholarly
distinction. Throughout the book’s development David and I established a strong partnership
that never wavered even through sometimes rocky waters. I was very fortunate in securing
David as my co-editor and remain forever grateful for his reasoned and insightful advice on
all aspects of the book. I also gratefully acknowledge the Australian Research Council, who
funded some of the research I address in Chapters 1 and 12. We further acknowledge the pro-
fessional input from Jessica Leader, who skillfully assisted us with the formatting of the book.
Finally, we thank the production team at Taylor & Francis, including Catherine Bernard and
Trevor Gori, for their support during the production process.

In Memoriam

David and I wish to express our deepest sympathy for the recent passing of one of our chap-
ter authors, Dr. Martin Downs, who co-authored chapter 8 with Joanna Mamona-Downs. I
have known both Joanna and Martin for many years, and have fond memories of the times
we shared at various international conferences. Martin’s passing is indeed a great loss to our
international community. As a Group theorist, Martin had deep insights into the essence of
mathematical structures as evident in his and Joanna’s chapter. Martin’s rich work in this field
continues to generate increasing interest from scholars globally. His memory will be kept alive
not only through the editions of this Handbook but also through the lectures, papers, and
mathematical conversations his research will continue to inspire.

Lyn D. English
David Kirshner

ix
This page intentionally left blank
Reviewers

Dor Abrahamson Nicholas Mousoulides

Anna Baccaglini-Frank Nitsa Movshovitz-Hadar
Claire Berg Patricia Moyer-Packenham
Alan Bishop Na’ilah Nasir
Hugh Burkhardt Helena Osana
Beatriz D’Ambrosio Efi Paparistodemou
Thomas Dick Despina Potari
Ed Dubinsky Arthur Powell
Julie Gainsburg Bob Reys
Peter Gates Ornella Robutti
Simon Goodchild Annie Selden
Keono Gravemeijer Elaine Simmt
Jim Greeno Adrian Simpson
Barbro Grevholm Nathalie Sinclair
Anthony Harradine Denise Spangler
Kate Highfield Bharath Sriraman
Karen Hollerbrands Paola Sztajn
Gert Kadunz Michal Tabach
Mandy Jansen Brendan Tangney
Jane-Jane Lo Patrick Thompson
Luis Moreno-Armella Margaret Walshaw

xi
This page intentionally left blank
Section I

Priorities in International
Mathematics Education Research
This page intentionally left blank
1 Changing Agendas in International
Research in Mathematics Education
Lyn D. English
Queensland University of Technology

David Kirshner
Louisiana State University

Handbooks serve an important function for our research community in providing state-of-
the-art summations, critiques, and extensions of existing trends in research. In the intervening
years between the second and third editions of the Handbook of International Research in
Mathematics Education, there have been stimulating developments in research, as well as new
challenges in translating outcomes into practice. This third edition incorporates a number of
new chapters representing areas of growth and challenge, in addition to substantially updated
chapters from the second edition. As such, the Handbook addresses five core themes, namely,
Priorities in International Mathematics Education Research, Democratic Access to Mathemat-
ics Learning, Transformations in Learning Contexts, Advances in Research Methodologies, and
Influences of Advanced Technologies.
In opening the first chapter of the Handbook’s second edition, English (2008) argued that
many of the important questions that need to be addressed in mathematics education are not
being answered. In highlighting some of these concerns, a number of “catalysts for change”
were identified as fuelling the need for further research. These catalysts included national and
international mathematics testing, the impact of social and cultural factors (including eco-
nomic and political influences), an increased focus on the professional learning of teachers, a
revival of theory development, the enhanced sophistication and availability of technology, and
the increased globalization of our field. To what extent these factors continue to have a sig-
nificant impact on our field is open to debate, as are the global research questions demanding
attention. Although responses to these issues would vary from nation to nation and indeed,
from one research group to another, it is worth reflecting on some of the challenges, both the
longstanding and the emerging, that appear to be shaping (or reshaping) mathematics educa-
tion research.
In an introductory chapter of this nature we cannot, of course, do justice to the myriad
factors impacting our field. As Heid (2012) emphasized in her final editorial for the Journal
for Research in Mathematics Education, although it is desirable to identify the major prob-
lems in mathematics teaching and learning and to target appropriate research agendas, we
cannot expect universal agreement on what these problems and agendas might be. What
we can strive for, however, is the means to determine “great challenges, especially ones on
which progress can be made in the near future” (Heid, 2012, p. 503). We touch upon just
a few of these in this first chapter and leave the reader to explore each of the sections for a
more in-depth and diverse coverage of global challenges facing researchers, teachers, and
policy developers alike. To provide a partial guide to the issues examined by the authors,
we devote the last portion of this chapter to a summary of the chapters within each of the
sections.

3
4 English & Kirshner
EMERGING AND CONTINUING CHALLENGES

One of the ongoing challenges facing all of us today is operating effectively in a world that
is increasingly shaped by complex, dynamic, and powerful information systems fuelled by
unprecedented developments in technology. Students’ future careers, many of which might
not exist today or only in emergent forms, will require skills in interpreting, explaining, and
developing structurally complex systems. Spanning a range of fields including social, economic,
political, and scientific domains, such systems will demand mathematically powerful knowl-
edge and reasoning processes, skills in dealing effectively with sophisticated technology, and
the ability to think flexibly, creatively, and innovatively—all essential to life-long learning. The
chapters in this Handbook explore various ways in which we might increase all students’ access
to opportunities that nurture these core foundations. From school curriculum renewal, to
advancing theory and research methodologies, through to capitalizing on technological devel-
opments, the authors offer international perspectives on broadening opportunities for math-
ematics learning and teaching.
Selecting particular issues to highlight in this opening chapter is a challenge in itself. These
are many and varied, with some presenting more urgency than others depending on the unique
features of a nation’s educational system. Complementing the challenges explored in each of
the main sections, we address briefly two issues that we see as having a significant influence
on shaping the agenda of future mathematics education: the increased international focus on
STEM education and the ever-present endeavors to link research with practice.

International Developments in Science, Technology, Engineering,

and Mathematics (STEM) Education
Promoting STEM education (science, engineering, mathematics, technology) has become a
central concern of policy makers across the globe, with many nations formally recognizing the
significant role of STEM skills across multiple economic sectors (e.g., Honey, Pearson, & Sch-
weingruber, 2014; Marginson, Tytler, Freeman, & Roberts, 2013; National Research Council,
2014; National Science and Technology Council, 2013; Office of the Chief Scientist, 2013).
In the United States, for example, the 2013 report from the Committee on STEM Education
maintained that “The jobs of the future are STEM jobs,” with STEM competencies increas-
ingly required not only within, but also outside of, specific STEM occupations (National Sci-
ence and Technology Council, 2013, p. vi). Developing students’ competencies in the STEM
disciplines is thus regarded as an urgent goal of many education systems, fuelled in part by cur-
rent or predicted shortages in the STEM workforce and also by outcomes from international
comparative assessments (e.g., OECD, 2013).
A major domain of the 2012 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) was
mathematical literacy, with a focus on challenging problems set in real-world contexts and the
mathematical thinking and processes applied to solutions (OECD, 2013). It is not surprising
then, that one of the key findings of the report, STEM: Country Comparisons (Marginson et al.,
2013), was that many nations with strong STEM agendas and international testing outcomes
have a well-developed curriculum that focuses on inquiry, problem solving, critical thinking, cre-
ativity, and innovation. Combined with an emphasis on disciplinary thinking and literacies, these
curricula display a heavy commitment to broadening STEM engagement and achievement.
While educational bodies are lobbying for greater attention to STEM education, the nature
of such learning and how the component disciplines might be integrated effectively within
the curriculum do not appear to have received the required research attention. Calls for more
in-depth connections among the STEM disciplines appear in the Common Core State Standards
for Mathematics (www.corestandards.org/Math/) and the Next Generation Science Standards
(www.nextgenscience.org/) in the United States. Interestingly, the California Department of
Education (STEM Task Force Report, 2014) considers STEM education to be more than “an
 Research in Mathematics Education 5
interdisciplinary applied approach”; rather, STEM education is viewed as comprising attrib-
utes that are common to the four disciplines, namely, engaging students in “critical thinking,
inquiry, problem solving, collaboration, and what is often referred to in engineering as design
thinking” (p. 7). This perspective aligns with the recognition by many nations of the impor-
tance of these generic skills in advancing students’ learning across the STEM disciplines.
An aspect of concern for mathematics education within an integrative STEM approach,
however, is the need to maintain a strong presence and role alongside the other disciplines.
A balanced distribution of the four discipline areas is essential, otherwise mathematics could
very well be in danger of being overshadowed. At present, science seems to dominate many
current STEM reports. Indeed, the STEM acronym itself is frequently referred to as simply
“science” (e.g., Office of the Chief Scientist, 2014). Many countries also refer to the role of
STEM education as one that fosters “broad-based scientific literacy” with a key objective in
their school programs being “science for all,” reflected in an increased focus on science edu-
cation in elementary, junior, and middle secondary school curricula (Marginson et al., 2013,
p. 70). As Marginson et al. commented, discussions on STEM education rarely adopt the
form of “mathematics for all” even though mathematics underpins the other disciplines; they
thus argue that “the stage of mathematics for all should be shifted further up the educational
scale” (p. 70). Even the rise in engineering education, commencing in the early school years
(e.g., Lachapelle & Cunningham, 2014), would appear to be oriented primarily towards the
science strand at the expense of mathematics. This concern has been raised by several research-
ers in engineering education (e.g., English & King, 2015; Honey et al., 2014; Walkington,
Nathan, Wolfgram, Alibali, & Srisurichan, 2014).
An interesting way of viewing mathematics within a unified STEM approach is evident
in the California State Department (2014), where the integrative nature of each of the four
disciplines is defined. Mathematics is viewed in terms of fostering “mathematically literate”
students, who not only know how “to analyze, reason, and communicate ideas effectively,” but
can also “mathematically pose, model, formulate, solve, and interpret questions and solutions
in science, technology, and engineering” (p. 11). Although advancing mathematics learning
from such a perspective is potentially rich, the discipline nevertheless remains underrepresented
in terms of ways to achieve this, with science still appearing to receive considerably greater
attention, as Honey et al. (2014) indicated.
One of the underutilized roles of mathematics within STEM lies in providing critical
grounding for success beyond school, where skills are needed for making informed decisions
on issues that are central to national and international debates on political, economic, environ-
mental, health, and defense issues, to name a few. Together with the exponential rise in digital
information within STEM, the ability to handle contradictory and potentially unreliable online
data is critical (Lumley & Mendelovits, 2012). Mathematics provides the grist for making
evidence-based decisions in dealing with data across disciplines. More recognition needs to be
given to this powerful role of mathematics in STEM integration.
In essence, we argue that mathematics as a discipline within the current STEM climate
needs to have a stronger voice. Mathematics must maintain equitable discipline representa-
tion, especially with the burgeoning of publications devoted to STEM education (e.g., Honey
et al., 2014; National Research Council, 2014; Purzer, Stroble, & Cardella, 2014; Interna-
tional Journal of STEM Education; www.stemeducationjournal.com/). At the same time, the
research conducted across all STEM disciplines needs to reach the classroom and other rel-
evant learning environments. As we indicate in the next section, one of the most enduring
challenges for mathematics education, and indeed any field, is linking research with practice.

Linking Research with Practice

The perennial nature of the research into practice challenge is evident in the numerous
reports, editorials, and articles devoted to ways in which we might translate and disseminate
6 English & Kirshner
our significant research outcomes so that they directly enhance learning and teaching
(e.g., Arbaugh et al., 2010; Burkhardt & Schoenfeld, 2003; Heid, 2012). Indeed, though
only Chapter 9 by Michael Fried and Miriam Amit on mathematics education reform was
solicited to address this theme, it has been substantively addressed throughout the book,
especially in Chapters 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 29. Thus a general overview
of the research/practice rift in this introductory chapter also serves to orient the reader to a
major theme of the Handbook.
Policy concerns about the alienation of research from educational practice, and more gener-
ally about the efficacy of educational research, are deep-seated and international in scope. As
reported in Vanderlinde and van Braak (2010), since the turn of the century there have been
major governmental and government-funded reports filed in the UK, France, The Nether-
lands, and the United States, as well as multinational reports from the OECD’s Center for
Educational Research and Innovation, and the Commission of the European Communities.
Because funding of educational research is tied to public and political perception of
its impact on practice, researchers are necessarily attentive to criticisms that educational
research results are little utilized (Onderwijsraad, 2003), of poor quality (Coalition for
Evidence-Based Policy (2002), and of limited influence (Burkhardt & Schoenfeld, 2003).
Still, there is little consensus as to what role educational research should play, for instance
whether production of knowledge or improvement of educational practice should predomi-
nate (Mortimore, 2000; Bauer & Fisher, 2007); and whether, in principle, knowledge pro-
duced by educational research can directly delineate educational practice, or if its appropriate
service is to enrich the conversation about educational possibilities (Bridges, Smeyers, &
Smith, 2008; Nuthall, 2004).
To gain some perspective on the range of issues involved in the research/practice split, we
turn to the work of Broekkamp and Van Hout-Wolters (2007), which identifies four quite dif-
ferent interpretations of the underlying concern, as summarized in Vanderlinde and van Braak
(2010, p. 302):

1. Educational research yields few conclusive results; or educational research does not pro-
vide valid and reliable results that are confirmed through unambiguous and powerful
evidence.
2. Educational research yields few practical results; or educational research is limited in
practical use.
3. Practitioners believe that educational research is not conclusive or practical; or educa-
tional research is not meaningful for teachers.
4. Practitioners make little (appropriate) use of educational research; or practitioners do not
have the skills to use educational research results.

Depending on which interpretation one subscribes to, the actions needed to affect positive
change will vary widely:

1. Rethink the kinds of research questions that are pursued and/or the methodologies
employed to address those questions (Levin & O’Donnell, 1999); or invest more in
high-quality, validated research (Kennedy, 1997).
2. Design research studies that more effectively address the needs of practitioners (Ham-
mersley, 2002); include practitioners as partners in research (De Vries & Pieters, 2007;
Ruthven & Goodchild, 2008).
3. Do a better job of articulating the linkages of research studies to practice (Gore & Gitlin,
2004); or train teachers in the science of educational research (NRC, 2002).
4. Disseminate research results more widely (Chafouleas & Riley-Tillman, 2005); or train
practitioners in the interpretation and utilization of educational research results (Edwards,
Sebba, & Rickinson, 2007).
 Research in Mathematics Education 7
The critical point offered by Broekkamp and Van Hout-Wolters (2007) is that our current
discourse about the research/practice gap is dominated by “monocausal analyses”: “When a
certain cause has been determined, there is often a plea for the extensive and radical applica-
tion of a single solution that is supposed to close the gap. Other solutions are then regarded as
incompatible” (p. 204). We do well to keep this point in mind as we consider the multifaceted
and conflicting interpretations of the research/practice gap, and the need for judicious and
inclusive solutions to it.

OVERVIEW OF HANDBOOK CHAPTERS

Section I: Priorities in International Mathematics Education Research

We now turn to highlighting some of the core points raised in the chapters of each section.
Those of the first section, following this introductory chapter, provide an exoskeleton for
the concerns of mathematics education research with respect to teaching and learning. The
starting point is recognition, well established by “almost four decades of significant scholarly
work . . . that teachers make a difference in student learning” (Charalambous & Pitta-Pantazi,
Chapter 2, p. 44). The challenge undertaken by the authors in this section is to provide per-
spectives on how to ground the research effort so as to mine this rich connection of learning
and teaching for the benefit of teachers and students.
To begin, Charalambos Charalambous and Demetra Pitta-Pantazi (Chapter 2) provide a
state-of-the-art review of the literature, focusing on theoretical and methodological advances
in research over the past decade on mathematics teacher knowledge, teaching practice, and stu-
dent learning. Although these topics are first treated independently, the goal of the chapter is
to understand them in mutual relation. Their review documents the extant multifaceted effort
to derive insight into the learning/teaching connection for mathematics.
The next two chapters move away from this basic overview in opposite directions, from
inward toward the substance of learning and teaching, to outward toward the structure of the
supporting disciplines. Susan Gerofsky (Chapter 3) seeks grounding for mathematics learn-
ing and teaching in the body, highlighting approaches to embodiment through metaphor and
language, cognitive science, semiotics, cultural studies, feminist materialism, and gesture and
performance studies. Gerofsky begins by tracing the roots of the current emphasis on embodi-
ment to the encompassing philosophical transition from modernist to postmodernist sensibili-
ties, the mind/body dualism of modernism gradually giving way to “a fully embodied world
where mental and physical ways of being are inseparable” (p. 64). Her inclusive overview of
the various approaches to embodiment provides a birds-eye view of a sea change in mathemat-
ics education thinking that easily can be missed by scholars focusing more locally on personal
agendas of research. Gerofsky concludes the chapter by documenting the many touch points
in her own Graphs & Gestures Project to the various literatures on embodied learning, thereby
illustrating the interdisciplinary potential of this scholarship.
To conclude the opening section, David Kirshner (Chapter 4) addresses the conundrum for
educators posed by the presence of multiple branches of psychology (e.g., behavioral, develop-
mental, sociocultural) each providing its own independent vision of learning. Kirshner cautions
against adopting any single one of these major theoretical schools to guide educational prac-
tice. Likewise he eschews the integrative schools (e.g., situated cognition, social constructiv-
ism) that have sprung up in the interstices of the major branches. From a Sociology of Scientific
Knowledge perspective, Kirshner argues that adopting any single theorization—either unitary,
or integrative—serves psychology’s interest in achieving paradigmatic unity, the hallmark of a
mature science (Kuhn, 1970). But it denies the current multiparadigmatic reality of psychol-
ogy, and it subverts education’s own interest in achieving coherent theoretical grounding for
what, indeed, are separate and discrete notions of learning that motivate educational practice
across its broad span.
8 English & Kirshner
As an alternative, Kirshner articulates independently coherent genres of teaching, each
addressing itself to a unique learning goal (knowledge, skills, dispositions; see National Coun-
cil for Accreditation of Teacher Education [NCATE], 2002), each informed by a theorization
of learning specific to that goal. Such a move, he argues, resolves the conflict that arises when
groups of scholars line up behind different basic notions of learning, and the confusion inherent
in attempts to stretch a single theorization across incommensurable conceptions of learning.

Section II: Democratic Access to Mathematics Learning

The chapters in the second section address the theme of democratic access to a sound math-
ematics education throughout schooling. This theme was also addressed in the previous edi-
tions of the Handbook, where issues related to learners, teachers, and learning contexts were
examined. In the current edition, a shifting landscape of learning contexts has emerged as a
more sustained focus of research, so we have collected related chapters where the theme of
transformations in learning contexts is examined. The current section maintains the interest
on learners, which we trace through grade-bands from early childhood education through
university-level mathematics education, and we have added in a chapter on mathematics educa-
tion reform as it impacts students’ educational experiences in schools. The penultimate chap-
ter turns to a focus on the education of mathematics teachers, and a final chapter has been
added on the much-neglected topic of mathematics education doctoral programs to round out
the focus on issues related to school learning.
In Chapter 5, Moss, Bruce, and Bobis present a picture of dynamic possibility for mathemat-
ics in the early grades to counter the low expectations and limited challenge inherent in many
current curricula. Current practice reflects a mélange of influences, including an outmoded
perspective of unstructured play as the optimal pathway to concept attainment in the early years,
a narrow curricular tradition focused on counting and on sorting and naming of shapes, and
a behaviorist focus on repetition and reinforcement as guiding instructional modes. The chap-
ter presents alternatives to all of these influences, centered around a guided discovery alternative
to unstructured play illustrated through vignettes that demonstrate the depth and sophistication
of learning possible for young children. These innovative teaching practices are framed with a
special focus on geometry/visualization instruction, which Moss, Bruce, and Bobis highlight as
a burgeoning area of current research. An equity thesis enwraps the whole chapter. Early child-
hood mathematics achievement is the single most significant factor in later academic success
(e.g., Watts, Duncan, Siegler, & Davis-Kean, 2014); and guided discovery succeeds equally well
with students of all backgrounds. Early mathematics education has a special cultural role to play
in narrowing gender, class, and race achievement gaps, and in increasing social mobility.
Progressing to the elementary school years, Carrarher and Schliemann (Chapter 6) target
the powerful ideas of functions and relations as an avenue for increasing learning access for
elementary school students. The authors view these ideas as facilitating more in-depth learn-
ing and understanding of key mathematical content areas, laying the foundation for major
long-term developments. Carrarher and Schliemann draw upon four core notions in examin-
ing these foundational domains of functions and relations. First, the operations of arithmetic
are themselves, functions—the first instances that students encounter. Second, functions and
relations are central to the development of students’ concept of number beyond natural num-
bers, and they also underlie variables. Third, these ideas play a uniting role in linking arith-
metic, algebra, and geometry, with the abstract nature of functions calling for representation
in diverse forms such as tables of data, graphs, diagrams, arithmetic and algebraic expressions,
and even as spoken and written language. The final notion builds on the fact that the left- and
right-hand sides of equations and inequalities can be viewed as “the comparison of two func-
tions across their domains” (p. 193).
In arguing for greater attention on these core ideas, Carraher and Schliemann provide
rich examples of how we might advance students’ access to these underrepresented topics in
 Research in Mathematics Education 9
existing curricula. They argue that bringing out early understanding of functions and relations
through informal methods can lead to more in-depth and integrated mathematical knowledge,
as well as an enhanced ability to draw generalizations. Furthermore, early access to these con-
structs can lay powerful foundations for the later introduction of formal study of these topics.
In examining access to mathematics in the middle and junior secondary schools, Rojano
(Chapter 7) analyzes the role of sense development and meaning assignment as processes
that provide access to life-long mathematics learning. Adopting a semiotic perspective, Rojano
provides an in-depth analysis of the relationship between these processes and students’ math-
ematics and linguistic experiences, and argues how it is possible to design teaching models that
are appropriate for these school levels. In addition, Rojano addresses modes of technology use
that have the potential to offer students increased experimental approaches to mathematics,
link their learning across domains, and provide an early introduction to advanced mathematics
topics. For example, developments in three-dimensional Dynamic Geometry enable students
in the junior secondary school to access themes of spatial geometry usually reserved for college
or university study.
Rojano also touches upon the rapid growth in interactive materials on the Cloud and
through mobile devices, which she views as wielding significant influences over social aspects
in fostering long-term mathematics learning (further discussion on these promising techno-
logical developments is presented in the last section of this Handbook). While welcoming these
breakthroughs in technology, Rojano reminds us of the need to work towards closing the gap
between research and practice, one of the ever-present challenges we face. We would add that
increasing students’ access to these new technologies is paramount. It cannot be assumed, of
course, that the latest technology is available to all students across all nations, or even in the
more affluent ones. Increasing this access is an equally challenging issue that warrants urgent
attention.
Moving to tertiary-level mathematics in Chapter 8, Mamona-Downs and Downs discuss
ways of increasing students’ access to advanced mathematical thinking with respect to math-
ematical structure, proof, and definition. They adopt the notion of mathematical structure as
an avenue to blend intuition and semantics with the abstract and the formal, which enables the
authors to investigate ways to enhance the transition period from school study to university.
Given that this transition period can be difficult for many students, the authors illustrate how
structure has a supportive role in developing understanding of proof and definition. For exam-
ple in considering their perspective on proof, they maintain that the rules of predicate logic
must be respected explicitly, given that proof construction can be a difficult process for many
students. For example, students can accept faulty argumentation because they fail to under-
stand the language used and the structure involved.
Fried and Amit (Chapter 9) address challenges facing all nations engaged in the complex
endeavor of mathematics education reform—indeed, reform in general. As the authors indi-
cate, such reform targets nearly every component in the field including teaching and learning
and the associated environments, curriculum design, assessment, technological developments,
national and economic needs, cultural values, and social justice. As such, research that addresses
reform in mathematics education needs to be considered holistically, not reduced to any one
of these sectors.
In advancing a general framework for addressing reform research in our field, Fried and
Amit consider three core interrelated factors: change, communication, and cooperation. At the
heart of reform lies change, which is entwined with communication, itself a complex process
embracing different populations with varied interests, expertise, and needs. Promoting change
through reform research is a significant challenge. Researchers of course must consider how
their work on reform effects change and what the anticipated (and unanticipated) responses
to change might be. The latter aspect is especially important given that reform movements are
not always successful, especially when rapid changes are expected across many sectors. As a final
point, Fried and Amit emphasize the importance of reform researchers being cognizant of the
10 English & Kirshner
role of values in the reform process. The perspectives and values of many other stakeholders
need to be taken into consideration including those of other mathematics education research-
ers, mathematicians, scientists, philosophers, and historians. The importance of cooperation in
undertaking reform research is thus emphasized.
In Chapter 10, Pedro da Ponte and Chapman update their review of research on the educa-
tion of prospective mathematics teachers from the second edition of the Handbook to include
the period 2006–2013. Their graphic model of the domain includes an inner core of math-
ematical knowledge intersecting with mathematics teaching knowledge and embedded within
the prospective teacher’s professional identity, which itself is embedded in the professional
community of teachers. Impinging on this from the outside is a wide range of cultural, institu-
tional, and professional factors. The review is centered around the three elements of the inner
core, providing continuity with the previous Handbook and enabling a coherent analysis of
trends in the literature, which occupy the concluding section of the chapter.
These trends include continuing “deficiencies in prospective teachers’ knowledge of mathe-
matics and mathematics teaching that require special attention in teacher education,” (p. 293),
as well as “a variety of instructional approaches [that] can make a difference to the quality of
this knowledge such as building on prospective teachers’ sense making of mathematics and
mathematics learning by involving them in activities that bear on fundamental mathematical
ideas at school level and focusing on the learner’s thinking” (p. 293). In terms of the infra-
structure of research, daPonte and Chapman have noted a paucity of large-scale, objectively
oriented research studies (see also Chapter 29 for a discussion of this point).
Section III concludes with Chapter 11 by Kilpatrick and Spangler addressing an under-
represented domain, namely, educating future professors of mathematics education. Given
that this education is foundational to the professional growth of future teachers and leaders
in schools, universities, education departments, and other institutions, it is surprising that
limited research has been devoted to the topic. Kilpatrick and Spangler present an informative
and insightful examination of the comparatively recent establishment of doctoral programs
for mathematics educators, and their growth in the United States and in other countries. The
nature of doctoral programs varies widely, with different emphases placed on course work, dis-
sertations, and field experiences. The authors argue that irrespective of where new professors
are eventually employed, they must be prepared in both mathematics and mathematics educa-
tion. Doctoral programs should provide the foundations for the current and future develop-
ment of the required mathematical and pedagogical knowledge, skills, and competencies. At
the same time, these programs should provide future professors with valuable experience in
teaching mathematics and mathematics education.
Kilpatrick and Spangler emphasize that irrespective of how such programs might change
over the years, they must engender in these young professors a wide-ranging perspective on
the field and proficiencies in critically analyzing reported research. We would reiterate these
points, including the importance of a solid knowledge and appreciation of research and devel-
opments across a range of mathematics topics, and experience in conducting and critiquing
research studies.

Section III: Transformations in Learning Contexts

This third section of the Handbook brings together chapters related to the changing contexts
of mathematics education, including the different demands of the workplace and the economy
wrought by technological innovations, the changing cultural, political, and demographic envi-
ronment of the schools and the broader societies, and the changing intellectual landscape
occasioned by complexity theory.
English and Gainsburg (Chapter 12) open the section with examining problem solving
and advancing it beyond the current literature. They set the scene by reviewing briefly how
problem-solving research over many years has yielded numerous pendulum-like swings in
 Research in Mathematics Education 11
recommendations for mathematics education. Among the debates are the effectiveness of
teaching general heuristics and strategies, the role of mathematical content (as the means ver-
sus the learning goal of problem solving), the role and relevance of context, and whether social
and affective dimensions should be central concerns of problem-solving education.
English and Gainsburg look beyond these unresolved debates to examine the literature
on the demands of modern work and life. They consider some of the drivers of change in the
workplace and everyday life, resultant changes in the nature of quantitative problems arising in
these changing contexts, and the competencies needed for successful solving of such problems.
The authors then return to the long-standing debates that introduced the chapter and suggest
possible resolutions responsive to the changing context of 21st century problem solving. They
argue that, although we cannot just transport mathematical problems beyond school into the
classroom, there are many ways in which “school problems” can be realistically contextualized.
The result, English and Gainsburg maintain, should encompass a transition to more cogni-
tively challenging problems where students’ curiosity is stimulated, critical thinking and crea-
tive solutions are fostered, and multiple entry and exit points are included to facilitate increased
access by a range of students.
In Chapter 13, Appelbaum and Stathopoulou address the burgeoning interest in culture
that has emerged in mathematics education in recent decades. Because individual psychology
has dominated our field historically, there is a tendency to regard the new focus on culture as
a unitary alternative. Early in their chapter, Appelbaum and Stathopoulou disabuse us of this
premise in the form of a two-dimensional table that crosses five notions of culture with six
notions of mathematics/mathematics education, the cells of which reflect distinct interests
and orientations “that have become significant in the field, including: mathematics as a cul-
ture; funds of knowledge pedagogies; ethnomathematical critiques and approaches to teaching
and learning; popular culture studies; public pedagogies; and critical mathematics education”
(p. 340). Even though “these are not separate, analytic categories, but mutually informing
strands of interwoven discourse” (p. 340), we risk incoherence in our theories and in our
educational initiatives if we address mathematics and culture without identifying our particular
location within this broad set of discourses. The chapter by Appelbaum and Stathopoulou
provides insightful outlines of the major formations in that landscape, as a valuable resource
for orienting ourselves—as individual researchers and as a community.
Skovsmose and Penteado (Chapter 14) examine through a philosophical lens the complexi-
ties attending to the relation of democratic ideals and mathematics education. This complexity
stems in part from the different forms that democracy has taken—for instance, a Rousseau-
ean participatory democracy versus notions of representative democracy conceived in terms of
“ ‘competitive struggle’ [wherein] people’s democratic activity consists solely in casting their
votes” (p. 359). However, as these ideals have played out, democratic principles have called
into play a variety of associated concepts such as social justice, equality, and freedom, each just
as complex and contested as democracy, itself. The result is an “aporetic condition” (p. 361)
characterized by tensions, uncertainties, and challenges.
Skovsmose and Penteado explore multiple facets of how notions of democracy have played
out in the larger society and in the microcosms of mathematics education practice. These
rich portraits do not and cannot cohere; however, “contested concepts might have other
functions than providing analytical clarity and proper justifications for particular educational
approaches”—particularly, they can fuel “pedagogical imaginations . . . [that] help to reveal
that alternative educational practices are possible” (p. 365).
In Chapter 15, Rousseau Anderson and Tate home in on the intricacies of race, class, and
equity policies and scholarship to organize a review of the sociology of mathematics education
oriented to the U.S. context. The review is structured around a set of four questions: How
does mathematics education socialize? What role does mathematics education serve in creden-
tialing? How do various entities in society influence mathematics education? What role does
mathematics education play in creating and maintaining inequality? The chapter is introduced
12 English & Kirshner
through a vignette of teaching in a low socio-economic status–classroom, which is revisited in
the course of addressing each of these organizing questions, lending a sense of coherence and
intertextuality to the topic.
In common with many of the authors in this Handbook, Rousseau Anderson and Tate
provide guidance as to how to negotiate the diverse and often contradictory theorizations and
approaches encountered in the literature. In particular, race, class, and equity in mathematics
education are informed by a broad array of scholarly fields and theoretical endeavors. Rousseau
Anderson and Tate suggest the virtues and advantages of organizing mathematics education
inquiry as a subdiscipline of the sociology of education, which itself is a subdiscipline of sociol-
ogy. In addition to providing a broader arena of influence for our scholarship, this move would
facilitate access to constructs and perspectives of sociology that we currently are neglecting.
For instance a “geospatial perspective would take into account multiple factors at the local
level that might be related to educational achievement and attainment. These factors would
include . . . employment and other economic indicators [that] . . . are well beyond the scope
of traditional mathematics education scholarship. Yet, attention to these factors is necessary to
understand the nature of democratic access at a local level and to design interventions that are
likely to be successful” (p. 391).
In Chapter 16, de Abreu and Crafter focus on the continuities and discontinuities of math-
ematics learning in and out of school: “Our major interest resides in examining the implica-
tions of these [cultural] processes to the understanding of school mathematical learning. What
makes mathematical practices to be experienced as continuous or discontinuous between in
school and out of school settings?” (p. 395)
The structure of their chapter reflects historical shifts in the cultural psychology of math-
ematics education. “Research of the late 1970s and early 1980s tested the plausibility of [a
sociocultural] theoretical framework. It . . . focused on a discussion around the relationship
between cognition and cognitive tools . . . such as counting systems, and how these were appro-
priated and used as cognitive tools” (p. 411) within indigenous cultures. In the next period,
“the framework was broadened to pay attention to processes of social mediation” (p. 411).
This featured a shift in attention of research in “school mathematics . . . from cross-cultural
comparisons to social practices within the Western societies” (p. 411). The third turn in this
field has focused research in a poststructural direction “on the person as a participant in mul-
tiple mathematical practices. In this perspective discontinuity is a starting point, and research
explores trajectories of participation, attempting to make sense of the processes that result in a
person experiencing discontinuity in practices over time and across practices, and processes that
enable change and facilitate continuity” (p. 411). Overall, de Abreu and Crafter regard these
shifting foci of research as offering complementary analyses of what contributes to experienc-
ing continuities and discontinuities across different mathematical practices. The new phase
does not erase or discredit what came before.
Complementing English and Gainsburg’s perspectives on 21st century problem solving,
Davis and Simmt (Chapter 17) explore the increasing prevalence and impact of complex sys-
tems in our world, and ultimately on mathematics teaching and learning. There is no readily
acceptable and unified definition of complexity; rather Davis and Simmt explore it from a vari-
ety of viewpoints: historically; mathematically as a digitally enabled, modeling-based branch
of mathematics; theoretically as the study of learning systems; and pragmatically as a means
to nurture emergent possibility. Mathematics education is richly implicated at the nexus of
complex interactions among social conditions, cultural tools, and mathematical content that
can enrich the development of curriculum and teaching approaches. Unfortunately, the math-
ematical affordances of our complex and interlinked world, including availability and rapid
communication of large data sources, are often not adequately reflected in today’s mathematics
curricula.
Davis and Simmt (and others, e.g., Lesh, 2010) provide a vital service in recommending and
explicating complexity as a core foundation for curriculum. Complexity arises for mathematics
 Research in Mathematics Education 13
educators not only as an important subject matter of disciplinary mathematics, widely applied
in STEM disciplines (science, technology, engineering and mathematics), but increasingly as
a source of insight into the functioning of social systems, including the social system of math-
ematics education research and social systems of classroom mathematics.
As the research of English (e.g., 2008, 2013) has shown, even young learners are capable
of dealing with complexity in solving modeling problems. Incorporating complexity and com-
plex systems within the mathematics curriculum remains an issue in need of urgent attention,
especially given the increasing demands of complex, data-driven problems in the work place
and society in general.

Section IV: Advances in Research Methodologies

We turn in the fourth section to advances in the methods of research, with a particular focus
on the relation of theory to method. Thompson (Chapter 18) opens the section with a critical
analysis of the construct of “knowledge” as a driver for much of our research into the learn-
ing and teaching of mathematics. Knowledge—in the declarative sense of knowing about—he
argues, is separate from the mental schemes that underlie our actions in the world. As an alter-
native, he proposes a focus on meaning that reflects the inherently subjective constructive pro-
cess. Consider a boy who has appended a fourth meter stick to three that are lying end-to-end,
and then declares that the total length has been increased by a meter: “The child knows that he
added a meter. But what did it mean to him? Did he mean that he added one more stick called
‘a meter’? Or did he mean that he added a meter in length that is constituted by centimeters,
which in turn are constituted by millimeters, which in turn are constituted by (and so on)”
(p. 457). In the chapter, Thompson outlines a method for developing items and instruments
that focus on teachers’ mathematical meanings for teaching mathematics, and examines how
to link research and assessment more intimately than simply using the results of each in the
activities of the other.
In Chapter 19, Callingham addresses the challenges of achieving reliable and trustworthy
research designs within a heterogeneous theoretical environment. To explore this terrain, she
introduces the constructs of environmental and instrumental context. Environmental context
presents the kinds of challenges to generalizability that stem from the diversity of contexts
in which mathematics education is practiced, including divisions across national boundaries,
cultural settings, social classes, race and gender divisions, etc. Though formidably complex,
the nature of these challenges are well understood through the methodological traditions
that education inherits from the various supporting sciences. Instrumental context concerns
the context of the researcher, including “the influence of prior experiences, previous research
understandings, and personal preferences” (p. 467). These challenges are the more daunting
in that what we think of as shared terminologies actually are adapted to one’s personal con-
straints. For instance, as Callingham discusses, the notion of Pedagogical Content Knowledge
has been operationalized in very different ways in studies in the United States, Australia, and
Europe owing to the cultures of research shaping each research team’s interpretive frameworks.
In Chapter 20, Cobb, Jackson, and Dunlap make a notable effort toward institutionaliza-
tion of design research methodology by providing an authoritative guide that gives an account
of its essential features, explores two major forms in detail (classroom instructional design
and professional development), delineates the research process, and considers limitations. The
most serious of such limitations is what Kelly (2004) described as absence of an “argumenta-
tive grammar” that explains the logic “link[ing] research questions to data, data to analysis,
and analysis to final claims and assertions” (p. 489), the result being that “design studies lack
a basis for warrant for their claims” (Kelly, 2004, p. 119). Cobb, Jackson, and Dunlap offer in
this chapter some initial steps toward such a grammar.
Cusi and Malara (Chapter 21) take up the challenge of the theory/practice gap indi-
cated by “a widespread prejudice about theory among teachers and practitioners, who
14 English & Kirshner
often conceive it as irrelevant for practice” (p. 504). After surveying many dimensions of
the problem, they settle on the quality of teachers’ awareness of their practice as a criti-
cal focus point for engaging them in theoretical exploration. Their chapter recounts Cusi
and Malara’s use of a new tool, Multi-commented Transcripts, for engaging teachers-as-
experimenters in serious theoretical co-reflection on their teaching: “The transcripts . . .
are sent by experimenters-teachers, together with their own comments and reflections, to
mentors-researchers, who make their own comments and send them back to the authors. . . .
Often, the authors make further interventions in this cycle, commenting on comments or
inserting new ones” (p. 508). This co-reflective process as a kind of apprenticeship in the art
of understanding practice through theory is a promising and provocative vehicle for healing
the theory/practice split.
Concluding this section, Ruthven and Goodchild (Chapter 22) link the domains of scholarly
knowledge and craft knowledge of teaching through a “dialogic cycle of knowledge creation”
introduced in Ruthven (2002): “In one phase . . . scholarly knowledge is (re)contextualized
and activated within teaching, stimulating (re)construction of craft knowledge. In the com-
plementary phase . . . craft knowledge is elicited and codified through researching, stimulating
(re)construction of scholarly knowledge” (p. 528). Their chapter explores various mecha-
nisms—“boundary-spanning didactical apparatus”—to facilitate this mutual engagement, but
with the caution that these “approaches tend to privilege particular aspects of knowledge crea-
tion and conversion within the dialogic cycle” (p. 537).

Section V: Influences of Advanced Technologies

The final section of the Handbook is devoted to the influences of advanced technologies, a
theme that was addressed in previous editions. With the evolution of the digital era, numerous
technologies are emerging and becoming more ubiquitous in our lives. As Hegedus and Tall
(Chapter 23) illustrate, these technologies are affording exciting opportunities for students to
be fully immersed in the learning experiences, enabling them to connect with each other, share
their ideas and creations, and have ready access to numerous and diverse resources. Yet the
common question featured in this section is how such ubiquitous and highly usable technolo-
gies can be used in classrooms in mathematically meaningful ways. As Hegedus and Tall stress,
the potential of technology as a change agent appears unfulfilled.
In addressing the challenge that mathematics educators face in capitalizing on these tech-
nological advances, Hegedus and Tall investigate the potential of multimodal technologies as
core foundations for learning mathematics now and in the future. With a focus on the younger
grades, the authors describe how recent developments in multimodal learning environments
using haptic and multitouch technologies can facilitate greater access to core mathematical
ideas and offer rich insights into long-term mathematical learning. In doing so, Hegedus and
Tall build on strong theoretical foundations for learning to think mathematically. Specifically,
they draw upon the well-established work of Tall (2013) and consider the important role of
the fundamental processes of perception, operation, and reason.
Watson and Fitzallen (Chapter 24) consider technological affordances of a different kind,
namely, those of computer software that target the learning of statistics. These affordances,
which scaffold and support student learning, are determined by the inherent features, capa-
bilities, and flexibility of the software. Using the software program TinkerPlots, the authors
illustrate how these affordances can facilitate student learning and assessment across levels, as
well as promote teacher learning. The associated constraints are also explored, given that some
of the software’s features may hinder student learning and therefore need to be taken into
account when designing learning experiences. In essence, Watson and Fitzallen move beyond
what software applications promise to do by highlighting what students can learn from using
software, in contrast to what they might not learn, or not learn as easily, without it. At the same
 Research in Mathematics Education 15
time, the authors consider the associated affordances for teachers as they plan for and subse-
quently assess student learning.
Adopting a different perspective, Moreno-Armella and Santos-Trigo (Chapter 25) offer
suggestions for reconciling traditional and emerging approaches to technology use in math-
ematics learning. In particular, the mediating influence of the school culture is taken into
consideration in efforts to capitalize on the affordances of new digital technologies to enhance
students’ access to more powerful mathematical ideas. The authors point out the tensions
between traditional approaches to learning such as pencil and paper, and the innovative learn-
ing opportunities offered by technology. Focusing on ideas from geometry and calculus,
Moreno-Armella and Santos-Trigo discuss the design of dynamic teaching models and activi-
ties where new forms of reasoning can emerge.
Extending their work from that reported in the second edition of this Handbook (English,
2008), Hershkowitz, Tabach, and Dreyfus (Chapter 26) target the research processes that
were central to the development and implementation of a large-scale project for a computer-
ized learning environment at the junior high school level. Specifically, the authors targeted
open technological tools (graphical tools, spreadsheets, dynamic geometry software, computer
algebra systems) with their rich features having the potential to enhance students’ learning.
Hershkowitz et al. point out how their research commenced as design studies but ulti-
mately yielded basic questions concerning teaching and learning in a technological environ-
ment. They illustrate how computerized environments produce new dilemmas in developing
learning experiences in regular mathematical topics, such as linear equations and geometrical
proof and proving. One of the issues they address in this regard is the role of students as agents
in shifts of knowledge between small groups and the whole class community. Addressing these
questions generated a number of broad theoretical and methodological outcomes, such as cre-
ating an operational definition of abstraction. This need for such a definition arose from asking
in the later stages of the project, “What did students learn and consolidate, and how?” (p. 627)
A different, potentially transformative perspective on how technology can advance math-
ematical learning is offered by Pepin, Gueudet, Yerushalmy, Trouche, and Chazan in Chap-
ter 27. Exploring how e-textbooks can enhance the teaching and learning of mathematics, the
authors initially identify three models: the integrative e-textbook, which is basically a digital
version of a paper textbook; the evolving or “living e-textbook,” which is continuously devel-
oping due to input from several stakeholders; and the interactive e-textbook, which adopts
the form of a “toolkit model” based on a set of connecting learning objects (tasks, diagrams,
tools) (p. 640). The nature of student-teacher interactions in using these different models is
explored, with a particular focus on quality and coherence considered as central to the design
of e-textbooks and hence subsequent research.
The authors make the important point that is applicable to most developments in technol-
ogy for classroom use: their presence alone is not sufficient. The usual expansive expectations
of technology for educational advantages have not materialized to produce sustained changes
in education. Nevertheless, there are several examples of where modifications to the nature of
the technological object have lead to the development of new teaching paradigms. A case in
point that the authors provide is the picture album that was transformed into a digital folder,
enabling pictures to perform a totally new visual, social, and semiotic role.
The final chapter in the section on advanced technologies explores the increasing opportu-
nities afforded by digital technologies in the early primary school years (K-2). With a particular
focus on the two broad content domains of number and geometry, in Chapter 28 Sinclair and
Baccaglini-Frank provide an overview of some of the major theoretical developments from
research on technology use in these domains. In doing so, they identify affordances of the
tools and the tasks that appear to most effectively support young children’s mathematical
engagement. To better facilitate the identification of these affordances, the authors untangle
the range of tools that are broadly categorized as digital technologies including “multipurpose
computer-based software programs, web-based applets, virtual manipulatives, programming
16 English & Kirshner
languages, CD-ROMs, games, calculators, touch-screen applications and interactive white-
boards” (p. 662). As Sincalir and Baccaglini-Frank note, the distinction between these vari-
ous types is not always apparent. By presenting useful distinguishing features of these various
technologies, the authors offer a means for teachers to better evaluate and select among them
in their mathematics planning.
Despite the vast range of digital tools from which educators and researchers can choose,
there is limited information on how particular design choices might impact children’s learning,
including how they use manipulative materials in the classroom. In considering this issue, Sin-
clair and Baccaglini-Frank highlight specific themes that they consider likely to emerge as sig-
nificant areas of research, including the affective dimension of learning, the impact of different
types of feedback given by the tools and teachers, and dealing with the constraints these tools
present in addition to the affordances. The last issue is a particularly salient one that has been
emphasized in several chapters in this section. As Sinclair and Baccaglini-Frank stress, in order
to fully appreciate the potential of digital technologies and their impact on students’ learning,
the nature and consequences of such constraints need to be taken into consideration. This calls
for improved communication among technology designers, researchers, and teachers, and, we
would add, feedback from the students themselves.
The Handbook concludes with a wry reflection by Hugh Burkhardt—winner of the 2013
Excellence in Educational Design prize of the International Society for Design and Develop-
ment in Education—on why “our [research] work on what happens in classrooms at large
usually travels a long path where any causal effect is far from clear” (p. 689). His particular
viewpoint highlights the atomization of the research effort, the tendency for there to be an
imbalance of too many independent research strands, and not enough sustained, large-scale,
multi-researcher programs of research: “Individual researchers, mostly university staff and their
graduate students, make autonomous decisions as to what to work on next” (p. 691). The
problem, he argues, is not the absence of excellent candidate programs that are strong and deep
enough to warrant the focus he is calling for. Rather, he traces the paucity of large-scale research
initiatives to the infrastructure of research support, the reward system for university-based
research, and what he calls, “the academic value system” (p. 692). This is a summative critique
of mathematics education research we would do well to reflect on as a community.

REFERENCES

Arbaugh, F., Herbel-Eisenmann, B., Ramirez, N., Knuth, E., Kranendonk, H., & Reed Quander, J.
(2010). Linking research and practice: The NCTM Research Agenda Conference Report. Reston, VA:
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Bauer, K., & Fisher, F. (2007). The education research—practice interface revisited: A scripting perspec-
tive. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13, 221–236.
Bridges, D., Smeyers, P., & Smith, R. (2008). Educational research and the practical judgment of policy
makers. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 42, 5–14.
Broekkamp, H., & Van Hout-Wolters, B. (2007). The gap between educational research and prac-
tice: A literature review, symposium and questionnaire. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13,
203–220. Retrieved from http://dare.uva.nl/document/2/52865.
Burkhardt, H., & Schoenfeld, A.H. (2003) Improving educational research: Toward a more useful, more
influential, and better-funded enterprise. Educational Researcher 32(9), 3—14.
California State Department (2014). Science, technology, engineering, & mathematics (STEM) informa-
tion. Retrieved from www.cde.ca.gov/PD/ca/sc/stemintrod.asp (December 16, 2014).
Chafouleas, S. M., & Riley-Tillman, T. C. (2005). Accepting the gap: An introduction to the special issue
on bridging research and practice. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 455–458.
Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy (2002). Bringing evidence-driven progress to education. Report for the
US Department of Education. Washington, DC, Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy.
De Vries, B., & Pieters, J. (2007). Knowledge sharing at conferences. Educational Research Evaluation,
13, 237–247.
 Research in Mathematics Education 17
Edwards, A., Sebba, J., & Rickinson, M. (2007). Working with users: Some implications for educational
research. British Educational Research Journal, 33, 647–661.
English, L. D. (Ed.) (2008). Handbook of international research in mathematics education (2nd Edition).
New York: Routledge.
English, L. D. (2013). Complex modelling in the primary and middle school years: An interdisciplinary
approach. In G. Stillman, G. Kaiser, W. Blum, and J. Brown (Eds.), Mathematical modelling: Con-
necting to practice—Teaching practice and the practice of applied mathematicians (pp. 491–505). New
York: Springer.
English, L. D., & King, D. (2015). Integrating STEM Learning through Engineering Design: Fourth-Grade
Students’ Investigations in Aerospace. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Gore, J. M., & Gitlin, A.D. (2004). [Re]Visioning the academic–teacher divide: Power and knowledge in
the educational community. Teachers and Teaching, 10, 35–58.
Hammersley, M. (2002). Educational research, policy making and practice. London: Paul Chapman.
Heid, M. K. (2012). Editorial: Some thoughts on the importance of the community and on the challenge
of identifying great research challenges in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathemat-
ics Education, 43(5), 502–508.
Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (Eds.). (2014). STEM integration in K-12 Education:
Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Kelly, A. E. (2004). Design research in education: Yes, but is it methodological? Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 13, 115–128.
Kennedy, M. M. (1997). The connection between research and practice. Educational Researcher, 26(7),
4–12.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (enlarged edition). Chicago: University of Chi-
cago Press.
Lachapelle, C. P., & Cunningham, C. M. (2014). Engineering in elementary schools. In S. Purzer, J.
Stroble, & M. Cardella (Eds.). Engineering in pre-college settings: Research in synthesizing research,
policy, and practices (pp. 61–88). Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
Lesh, R. (2010). The importance of complex systems in K–12 mathematics education. In B. Sriraman &
L. D. English (Eds.), Theories of mathematics education: seeking new frontiers (pp. 563–566). Berlin:
Springer.
Levin, J. R., & O’Donnell, A.M. (1999). What to do about educational research’s credibility gaps? Issues
in Education, 5(2), 177–229.
Lumley, T., & Mendelovits, J. (2012). How well do young people deal with contradictory and unreliable
information on line? What the PISA digital reading assessment tells us. Paper presented at the Annual
Conference of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, WA.
Marginson, S., Tytler, R., Freeman, B., & Roberts, K. (2013). STEM: Country comparisons: International
comparisons of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. Melbourne: Aus-
tralian Academy of Learned Academies.
Mortimore, P. (2000). Does educational research matter? British Educational Research Journal, 26, 5–24.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2002). Professional standards for the accredita-
tion of schools, colleges, and departments of education. Washington DC: Author.
National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
National Research Council. (2014). STEM learning is everywhere: Summary of a convocation on building
learning systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Science and Technology Council (May, 2013). Federal science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) education: 5-year strategic plan. A report from the Committee on STEM Edu-
cation. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President of the United States.
Nuthall, G., (2004). Relating classroom teaching to student learning: A critical analysis of why research
has failed to bridge the theory-practice gap. Harvard Educational Review,74(3), 273–306. Retrieved
from http://her.hepg.org/content/e08k1276713824u5/fulltext.pdf.
OECD (2013). PISA 2012 Results: What students know and can do: Student performance in mathematics,
reading and science. Retrieved from www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results.htm.
Office of the Chief Scientist (2013). Science, technology, engineering and mathematics in the national inter-
est: A strategic approach. Canberra: Australian Government.
Office of the Chief Scientist (2014). Benchmarking Australian science, technology, engineering and math-
ematics. Canberra: Australian Government.
Onderwijsraad. (2003). Kennis van onderwijs: Ontwikkeling en benutting [Knowledge about education:
development and utilization]. The Hague: Author.
Purzer, S., Stroble, J., & Cardella, M. E. (Eds.). (2014). Engineering in pre-college settings: Synthesizing
research, policy, and practices. Purdue, IN: Purdue University.
18 English & Kirshner
Ruthven, K. (2002). Linking researching with teaching: Towards synergy of scholarly and craft knowledge.
In L. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 581–598).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ruthven, K., & Goodchild, S. (2008). Linking researching with teaching: Towards synergy of scholarly
and craft knowledge. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics edu-
cation (2nd Ed.) (pp. 565–592). New York: Routledge.
STEM Task Force Report (2014). Innovate: A blueprint for science, technology, engineering, and math-
ematics in California public education. Dublin, CA: Californians Dedicated to Education Foundation.
Tall, D. O. (2013). How humans learn to think mathematically: Exploring the three worlds of mathematics.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vanderlinde, R., & van Braak, J. (2010). The gap between educational research and practice: Views of
teachers, school leaders, intermediaries and researchers. British Educational Research Journal, 36(2),
299–316. doi:10.1080/01411920902919257. Retrieved from www.academia.edu/526808/The_
gap_between_educational_research_and_practice_views_of_teachers_school_leaders_intermediar
ies_and_researchers.
Walkington, C., Nathan, M., Wolfgram, M., Alibali, M., & Srisurichan, R. (2014). Bridges and barri-
ers to constructing conceptual cohesion across modalities and temporalities: Challenges of STEM
integration in the pre-college engineering classroom. In S. Purzer, J. Strobel, & M. Cardella (Eds.).
Engineering in pre-college settings: Research into practice (pp. 183—210). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue
University Press.
Watts, T., Duncan, G., Siegler, R., & Davis-Kean, P. (2014). What’s past is prologue: Relations between
early mathematics knowledge and high school achievement. Educational Researcher, 43 (7), 352–360.
References

1 Changing Agendas in International

Research in Mathematics Education

Arbaugh, F., Herbel-Eisenmann, B., Ramirez, N., Knuth, E.,

Kranendonk, H., & Reed Quander, J. (2010). Linking
research and practice: The NCTM Research Agenda Conference
Report. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics.

Bauer, K., & Fisher, F. (2007). The education

research—practice interface revisited: A scripting
perspective. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13,
221–236.

Bridges, D., Smeyers, P., & Smith, R. (2008). Educational

research and the practical judgment of policy makers.
Journal of Philosophy of Education, 42, 5–14.

Broekkamp, H., & Van Hout-Wolters, B. (2007). The gap

between educational research and practice: A literature
review, symposium and questionnaire. Educational Research
and Evaluation, 13, 203–220. Retrieved from
http://dare.uva.nl/document/2/52865.

Burkhardt, H., & Schoenfeld, A.H. (2003) Improving

educational research: Toward a more useful, more
influential, and better-funded enterprise. Educational
Researcher 32(9), 3—14.

California State Department (2014). Science, technology,

engineering, & mathematics (STEM) information. Retrieved
from www.cde.ca.gov/PD/ca/sc/stemintrod.asp (December 16,
2014).

Chafouleas, S. M., & Riley-Tillman, T. C. (2005). Accepting

the gap: An introduction to the special issue on bridging
research and practice. Psychology in the Schools, 42,
455–458.

Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy (2002). Bringing

evidence-driven progress to education. Report for the US
Department of Education. Washington, DC, Coalition for
Evidence-Based Policy.

De Vries, B., & Pieters, J. (2007). Knowledge sharing at

conferences. Educational Research Evaluation, 13, 237–247.

Edwards, A., Sebba, J., & Rickinson, M. (2007). Working

with users: Some implications for educational research.
British Educational Research Journal, 33, 647–661.

English, L. D. (Ed.) (2008). Handbook of international

research in mathematics education (2nd Edition). New York:
Routledge.

English, L. D. (2013). Complex modelling in the primary

and middle school years: An interdisciplinary approach. In
G. Stillman, G. Kaiser, W. Blum, and J. Brown (Eds.),
Mathematical modelling: Connecting to practice—Teaching
practice and the practice of applied mathematicians (pp.
491–505). New York: Springer.

English, L. D., & King, D. (2015). Integrating STEM

Learning through Engineering Design: Fourth-Grade
Students’ Investigations in Aer ospace. Manuscript
submitted for publication.

Gore, J. M., & Gitlin, A.D. (2004). [Re]Visioning the

academic–teacher divide: Power and knowledge in the
educational community. Teachers and T eaching, 10, 35–58.

Hammersley, M. (2002). Educational research, policy making

and practice. London: Paul Chapman.

Heid, M. K. (2012). Editorial: Some thoughts on the

importance of the community and on the challenge of
identifying great research challenges in mathematics
education. Jour nal for Research in Mathematics Education,
43(5), 502–508.

Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (Eds.).

(2014). STEM integration in K-12 Education: Status,
prospects, and an agenda for r esearch. Washington, DC:
National Academies Press.

Kelly, A. E. (2004). Design research in education: Yes, but

is it methodological? Journal of the Learning Sciences,
13, 115–128.

Kennedy, M. M. (1997). The connection between research and

practice. Educational Researcher, 26(7), 4–12.

Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions

(enlarged edition). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lachapelle, C. P., & Cunningham, C. M. (2014). Engineering

in elementary schools. In S. Purzer, J. Stroble, & M.
Cardella (Eds.). Engineering in pre-college settings:
Research in synthesizing research, policy, and practices
(pp. 61–88). Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.

Lesh, R. (2010). The impor tance of complex systems in K–12

mathematics education. In B. Sriraman & L. D. English
(Eds.), Theories of mathematics education: seeking new
frontiers (pp. 563–566). Berlin: Springer.

Levin, J. R., & O’Donnell, A.M. (1999). What to do about

educational research’s credibility gaps? Issues in
Education, 5 (2), 177–229.

Lumley, T., & Mendelovits, J. (2012). How well do young

people deal with contradictory and unreliable information
on line? What the PISA digital reading assessment tells us.
Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American
Educational Research Association, Vancouver, WA.

Marginson, S., Tytler, R., Freeman, B., & Roberts, K.

(2013). STEM: Country comparisons: International
comparisons of science, technology, engineering and
mathematics (STEM) education. Melbourne: Australian Academy
of Learned Academies.

Mortimore, P. (2000). Does educational research matter?

British Educational Research Journal, 26, 5–24.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education.

(2002). Professional standards for the accreditation of
schools, colleges, and departments of education. Washington
DC: Author.

National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in

education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2014). STEM learning is

everywhere: Summary of a convocation on building learning
systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Science and Technology Council (May, 2013).

Federal science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(STEM) education: 5-year strategic plan. A report from the
Committee on STEM Education. Washington, DC: Executive
Office of the President of the United States.

Nuthall, G., (2004). Relating classroom teaching to student

learning: A critical analysis of why research has failed
to bridge the theory-practice gap. Harvard Educational
Review,74(3), 273–306. Retrieved from
http://her.hepg.org/content/e08k1276713824u5/fulltext.pdf.
OECD (2013). PISA 2012 Results: What students know and can
do: Student performance in mathematics, reading and
science. Retrieved from
www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results.htm.

Office of the Chief Scientist (2013). Science, technology,

engineering and mathematics in the national interest: A
strategic approach. Canberra: Australian Government.

Office of the Chief Scientist (2014). Benchmarking

Australian science, technology, engineering and
mathematics. Canberra: Australian Government.

Onderwijsraad. (2003). Kennis van onderwijs: Ontwikkeling

en benutting [Knowledge about education: development and
utilization]. The Hague: Author.

Purzer , S., Stroble, J., & Cardella, M. E. (Eds.).

(2014). Engineering in pre-college settings: Synthesizing
research, policy, and practices . Purdue, IN: Purdue
University.

Ruthven, K. (2002). Linking researching with teaching:

Towards synergy of scholarly and craft knowledge. In L.
English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in
mathematics education (pp. 581–598). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.

Ruthven, K., & Goodchild, S. (2008). Linking researching

with teaching: Towards synergy of scholarly and craft
knowledge. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of
international research in mathematics education (2nd Ed.)
(pp. 565–592). New York: Routledge.

STEM Task Force Report (2014). Innovate: A blueprint for

science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in
California public education. Dublin, CA: Califor nians
Dedicated to Education Foundation.

Tall, D. O. (2013). How humans learn to think

mathematically: Exploring the three worlds of mathematics.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Vanderlinde, R., & van Braak, J. (2010). The gap between

educational research and practice: Views of teachers,
school leaders, intermediaries and r esearchers. British
Educational Research Journal, 36(2), 299–316.
doi:10.1080/01411920902919257. Retrieved from
www.academia.edu/526808/The_
Walkington, C., Nathan, M., Wolfgram, M., Alibali, M., &
Srisurichan, R. (2014). Bridges and barriers to
constructing conceptual cohesion across modalities and
temporalities: Challenges of STEM integration in the
pre-college engineering classroom. In S. Purzer, J.
Strobel, & M. Cardella (Eds.). Engineering in pre-college
settings: Research into practice (pp. 183—210). West
Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.

Watts, T., Duncan, G., Siegler, R., & Davis-Kean, P.

(2014). What’s past is prologue: Relations between early
mathematics knowledge and high school achievement.
Educational Researcher, 43 (7), 352–360.
2 Perspectives on Priority Mathematics
Education: Unpacking and Understanding a
Complex Relationship Linking Teacher
Knowledge, Teaching, and Learning

Adler, J., & Davis, Z. (2006). Opening another black box:

Researching mathematics for teaching in mathematics
teacher education. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 37(4), 270–296. doi:10.2307/30034851

Adler, J., & Huillet, D. (2008). The social production of

mathematics for teaching. In P. Sullivan & T. Wood (Eds.),
Knowledge and beliefs in mathematics teaching and teaching
development (Vol. 1, pp. 195–221). Rotterdam, The
Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Alsawaie, O. N. (2012). Number sense-based strategies used

by high-achieving sixth grade students who experienced
reform textbooks. International Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education, 10(5), 1071–1097.
doi:10.1007/s10763-011-9315-y

Ambrose, R., & Molina, M. (2014). Spanish/English bilingual

students’ comprehension of arithmetic story problem texts.
Inter national Journal of Science and Mathematics
Education, 12(6), 1469–1496. doi:10.1007/s10763-013-9472-2

Amrein-Beardsley, A. (2008). Methodological concerns about

the education value-added assessment system. Educational
Researcher, 37(2), 65–75. doi:10.3102/0013189X08316420

Andrews, P. (2011). The cultural location of teachers’

mathematical knowledge: Another hidden variable in
mathematics education research? In T. Rowland & K. Ruthven
(Eds.), Mathematical knowledge in teaching (pp. 99–118).
New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-9766-8_7

Arbaugh, F., Herbel-Eisenmann, B., Ramirez, N., Knuth, E.,

Kranendonk, H., & Quander, J. R. (2010). Linking research
and practice: The NCTM research agenda conference report.
Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Artigue, M., Bartolini-Bussi, M., Dreyfus, T., Gray, E., &

Prediger, S. (2005). Different theoretical perspectives and
approaches in research in mathematics education. In M.
Bosch (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth Congress of the
European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp.
1239–1244). Barcelona: Fundemi IQS.

Askew, M. (2008). Mathematical discipline knowledge

requirements for prospective primary teachers, and the
structure and teaching approaches of programs designed to
develop that knowledge. In P. Sullivan & T. Wood (Eds.),
Knowledge and beliefs in mathematics teaching and teaching
development (Vol. 1, pp. 13–35). Rotterdam, The
Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Bair, S. L., & Rich, B. S. (2011). Characterizing the

development of specialized mathematical content knowledge
for teaching in algebraic reasoning and number theory.
Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 13(4), 292–321.
doi:10.1080/10986065.2011.608345

Baker, E. L., Barton, P. E., Darling-Hammond, L., Haertel,

E., Ladd, H. F., Linn, R. L., . . . Shepard, L. A. (2010,
August). Problems with the use of student test scores to
evaluate teachers (Briefing Paper No. 278). Washington,
DC: Economic Policy Institute.

Baker, D., Street, B., & Tomlin, A. (2006). Navigating

schooled numeracies: Explanations for low achievement, in
mathematics of UK children from low SES background.
Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 8(3), 287–307.
doi:10.1207/s15327833mtl0803_5

Balfanz, R., Mac Iver, D. J., & Byrnes, V. (2006). The

implementation and impact of evidence-based mathematics
reforms in high-poverty middle schools: A multi-site,
multi-year study. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 37(1), 33–64. doi:10.2307/30035051

Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2003). Toward a practice-based

theory of mathematical knowledge for teaching. In E. Simmt
and B. Davis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2002 Annual Meeting
of the Canadian Mathematics Education Study Group (pp.
3–14). Edmonton, AB: CMESC/GCEDM.

Ball, D. L., Charalambous, C. Y., Thames, M. H., & Lewis,

J. (2009). Teacher knowledge and teaching: Viewing a
complex relationship from three perspectives. In M.
Tzekaki, M. Kaldrimidou, & C. Sakonidis (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 33rd Conference of the International
Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1,
pp. 121–125). Thessaloniki, Greece: PME.

Ball, D. L., & Hill, H. C. (2009). Measuring teacher

quality in practice. In D. H. Gitomer (Ed.), Measurement
issues and assessment for teaching quality (pp. 80–98).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ball, D. L., Lubienski, S. T., & Mewborn, D. S. (2001).
Research on teaching mathematics: The unsolved problem of
teachers’ mathematical knowledge. In V. Richardson (Ed.),
Handbook of r esearch on teaching (4th ed., pp. 433–456).
Washington, DC: American Research Association.

Ball, D. L., & Rowan, B. (2004). Introduction: Measuring

instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 105(1), 3–10.

Ball, D. L., Sleep, L., Boerst, T. A., & Bass, H. (2009).

Combining the development of practice and the p ractice of
development in teacher education. The Elementary School
Journal, 109(5), 458–474. doi:10.1086/596996

Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content

knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of
Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.
doi:10.1177/0022487108324554

Barrett, J. E., Clements, D. H., Klanderman, D., Pennisi,

S. J., & Polaki, M. V. (2006). Students’ coordination of
geometric reasoning and measuring strategies on a fixed
perimeter task: Developing mathematical understanding of
linear measurement. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 37(3), 187–221.

Battista, M. T. (2007). The development of geometric and

spatial thinking. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of
research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp.
843–908). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics.

Battista, M. T., & Clements, D. H. (1996). Students’

understanding of three-dimensional rectangular arrays of
cubes. Journal for Resear ch in Mathematics Education,
27(3), 258–292. doi:10.2307/749365

Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T.,
Jordan, A., . . . Tsai, Y. M. (2010). Teachers’
mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the
classroom, and student progress. American Edu cational
Research Journal, 47(1), 133–180.
doi:10.3102/0002831209345157

Bednarz, N., & Proulx, J. (2009). Knowing and using

mathematics in teaching: Conceptual and epistemological
clarifications. For the Learning of Mathematics, 29(3),
11–17.

Begle, E. G. (1979). Critical variables in mathematics

education: Findings from a survey of the empirical
literature. W ashington, DC: Mathematical Association of
America.

Behr, M., Lesh, R., Post, T., & Silver E. (1983). Rational
number concepts. In R. Lesh & M. Landau (Eds.),
Acquisition of mathematics concepts and processes (pp.
91–125). New York: Academic Press.

Bell, C. A., Wilson, S., Higgins, T., & McCoach, D. B.

(2010). Measuring the effects of professional development
on teacher knowledge: The case of developing mathematical
ideas. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
41(5), 479–512.

Beswick, K., Callingham, R., & Watson, J. (2012). The

nature and development of middle school mathematics
teachers’ knowledge. Journal of Mathematics Teacher
Education, 15(2), 131–157. doi:10.1007/s10857-011-9177-9

Biddlecomb, B., & Carr, M. (2011). A longitudinal study of

the development of mathematics strategies and underlying
counting schemes. International Jour nal of Science and
Mathematics Education, 9(1), 1–24.
doi:10.1007/s10763-010-9202-y

Bieda, K. N. (2010). Enacting proof-related tasks in middle

school mathematics: Challenges and opportunities. Journal
for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(4), 351–382.

Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1991). Multimodal learning

and the quality of intelligent behavior. In H.A.H. Rowe
(Ed.), Intelligence: Reconceptualisation and measurement
(pp. 57–75). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bikner-Ahsbahs, A., & Prediger, S. (2010). Networking of

theories —An approach for exploiting the diversity of
theoretical appr oaches. In B. Sriraman & L. English
(Eds.), Theories of mathematics education: Seeking new
frontiers (pp. 483–506). London, UK: Springer.

Bjuland, R., Cestari, M. L., & Borgersen, H. E. (2008). The

interplay between gesture and discourse as mediating
devices in collaborative mathematical reasoning: A
multimodal approach. Mathematical Thinking and Learning,
10(3), 271–292. doi:10.1080/10986060802216169

Blömeke, S., Suhl, U., & Döhrmann, M. (2013). Assessing

strengths and weaknesses of teacher knowledge in Asia,
Eastern Europe, and Western countries: Differential item
functioning in TEDS-M. International Journal of Science
and Mathematics Education, 11(4), 795–817.
doi:10.1007/s10763-013-9413-0

Borich, G. D. (1992). Effective teaching methods (2nd ed.).

New York: Macmillan.

Boston, M. D. (2012). Assessing instructional quality in

mathematics. The Elementary School Journal, 113(1),
76–104. doi:10.1086/666387

Boston, M. D. (2013). Connecting changes in secondary

mathematics teachers’ knowledge to their experiences in a
professional development workshop. Journal of Mathematics
Teacher Education, 16(1), 7–31.
doi:10.1007/s10857-012-9211-6

Boston, M. D., & Smith, M. S. (2009). Transforming

secondary mathematics teaching: Increasing the cognitive
demands of instructional tasks used in teachers’
classrooms. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
40(2), 119–156.

Bray, W. S. (2011). A collective case study of the

influence of teachers’ beliefs and knowledge on
error-handling practices during class discussion of
mathematics. Jour nal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 42(1), 2–38.

Brizuela, B. M. (2006). Young children’s notations for

fractions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 62 (3),
281–305. doi:10.1007/s10649-005-9003-3

Brophy, J. (1986). Teaching and learning mathematics: Where

research should be going. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 17(5), 323–346. doi:10.2307/749326

Brophy, J., & Good, T. (1986). Teacher behavior and

student achievement. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of
research on teaching (3r d ed., pp. 328–375). New York:
Macmillan.

Buchholtz, N., & Kaiser, G. (2013). Improving mathematics

teacher education in Germany: Empirical results fr om a
longitudinal evaluation of innovative programs.
International Journal of Science and Mathematics
Education, 11(4), 949–977. doi:10.1007/s10763-013-9427-7

Burton, L. (1984). Mathematical thinking: The struggle for

meaning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
15(1), 35–49. doi:10.2307/748986

Caddle, M. C., & Brizuela, B. M. (2011). Fifth graders’

additive and multiplicative reasoning: Establishing
connections across conceptual fields using a graph. The
Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 30(3), 224–234.
doi:10.1016/j.jmathb.2011.04.002

Cai, J., Moyer, J. C., Wang, N., Hwang, S., Nie, B., &
Garber, T. (2013). Mathematical problem posing as a
measure of curricular effect on students’ learning.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83(1), 57–69.
doi:10.1007/s10649-012-9429-3

Cantrell, S., & Kane, T. J. (2013). Ensuring fair and

reliable measures of effective teaching: Culminating
findings from the MET project’s three-year study. Seattle,
WA: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Retrieved from
www.metproject.org/r eports.php.

Carraher, D. W., Schliemann, A.D., Brizuela, B. M., &

Earnest, D. (2006). Arithmetic and algebra in early
mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 37 (2), 87–115.

Casabianca, J. M., McCaffrey, D. F., Gitomer, D. H., Bell,

C. A., Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2013). Effect of
observation mode on measures of secondary mathematics
teaching. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(5),
757–783. doi:10.1177/0013164413486987

Cengiz, N., Kline, K., & Grant, T. J. (2011). Extending

students’ mathematical thinking during whole- group
discussions. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education,
14(5), 355–374. doi:10.1007/s10857- 011-9179-7

Chapin, S. H., O’Connor, C., & Anderson. N. C. (2003).

Classroom discussions: Using math talk to help students
learn. Sausalito, CA: Math Solutions Publications.

Charalambous, C. Y. (2008). Preservice teachers’

Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching and their performance
in selected teaching practices: Exploring a complex
relationship. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Charalambous, C. Y. (2010). Mathematical knowledge for

teaching and task unfolding: An exploratory study. The
Elementary School Journal, 110(3), 247–278.
doi:10.1086/648978
Charalambous, C. Y., Hill, H. C., & Ball, D. L. (2011).
Prospective teachers’ lear ning to provide instructional
explanations: How does it look and what might it take?
Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14(6), 441–463.
doi:10.1007/s10857-011-9182-z

Charalambous, C. Y., Hill, H. C., & Mitchell, R. N.

(2012). Two negatives don’t always make a positive:
Exploring how limitations in teacher knowledge and the
curriculum contribute to instructional quality. Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 44(4), 489–513.
doi:10.1080/00220272.2012. 716974

Charalambous, C. Y., Komitis, A., Papacharalambous, M., &

Stefanou, A. (2014). Using generic and content-specific
teaching practices in teacher evaluation: An exploratory
study of teachers’ perceptions. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 41, 22–33. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2014.03.001

Charalambous, C. Y., & Pitta-Pantazi, D. (2007). Drawing on

a theoretical model to study students’ understandings of
fractions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 64(3),
293–316. doi:10.1007/ s10649-006-9036-2

Chester, M., & Zelman, S. (2009). Approximations of

teacher quality and effectiveness: View from the state
education agency. In D. H. Gitomer (Ed.), Measurement
issues and assessment for teaching quality. (pp. 131–149).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Chevallard, Y. (1999). L’analyse des pratiques enseignantes

en théorie anthropologique du didactique. Recherches en
Didactique des Mathématiques, 19(2), 221–265.

Christou, C., Pitta-Pantazi, D., Souyoul, A., &

Zachariades, T. (2005). The embodied, proceptual and
formal worlds in the context of functions. Canadian Journal
of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 5(2),
241–252. doi:10.1080/14926150509556656

Chr ysostomou, M., Pitta-Pantazi, D., Tsingi, C.,

Cleanthous, E., & Christou, C. (2013). Examining number
sense and algebraic reasoning through cognitive styles.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83(2), 205–223.
doi:10.1007/s10649-012-9448-0

Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2007). Effects of a

preschool mathematics curriculum: Summative resear ch on
the building blocks project. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 38(2), 136–163. doi:
10.2307/30034954

Clements, D. C., Sarama, J., Spitler, M. A., Lange, A. A.,

& Wolfe, C. B. (2011). Mathematics learned by young
children in an intervention based on learning trajectories:
A large-scale cluster randomized trial. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education , 42(2), 127–166.

Clivaz, S. (2013). Teaching multidigit multiplication:

Combining multiple frameworks to analyse a class episode.
In B. Ubuz, Ç. Haser, & M. A. Mariotti (Eds.), Proceedings
of the 8th Congress of European Resear ch in Mathematics
Education (pp. 2995–3004). Ankara, Turkey: Middle East
Technical University.

Cobb, P., & Yackel, E. (1996). Constructivist, emergent,

and sociocultural perspectives in the context of
developmental resear ch. Educational Psychologist,
31(3–4), 175–190. doi:10.1080/00461520.1996 .9653265

Cochran-Smith, M. (2003). Teaching quality matters.

Journal of Teacher Education, 54(2), 95–98.
doi:10.1177/0022487102250283

Cohen, D. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The

case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 12(3), 311–329. doi:10.3102/01623737012003311

Cohen, D. K., Raudenbush, S. W., & Ball, D. L. (2003).

Resources, instruction, and research. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 119–142.
doi:10.3102/01623737025002119

Cole, Y. (2012). Assessing elemental validity: The transfer

and use of mathematical knowledge for teaching measures in
Ghana. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics
Education, 44(3), 415–426. doi:10.1007/s11858-012-0380-7

Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland,

J., Mood, A.M., Weinfeld, F. D., & York, R. L. (1966).
Equality of educational opportunity . Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.

Copur-Gencturk, Y., & Lubienski, S. T. (2013). Measuring

mathematical knowledge for teaching: A longitudinal study
using two measures. Journal of Mathematics Teacher
Education, 16(3), 211–236. doi:10.1007/s10857-012-9233-0

Core Practice Consortium (2014, April). Enriching research

and innovation through the specification of professional
practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Philadelphia,
PA.

Correnti, R., & Martínez, J. F. (2012). Conceptual,

methodological, and policy issues in the study of
teaching: Implications for improving instructional practice
at scale. Educational Assessment , 17(2–3), 51–61.
doi:10.1080/10627197.2012.717834

Cottrill, J., Dubinsky, E., Nichols, D., Schwingendorf, K.,

Thomas, K., & Vidakovic, D. (1996). Understanding the
limit concept: Beginning with a coordinated process scheme.
The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 15(2), 167–192.
doi:10.1016/S0732-3123(96)90015-2

Creemers, B.P.M. (1994). The effective classroom. London:

Cassell.

Creemers, B.P.M., & Kyriakides, L. (2008). The dynamics of

educational effectiveness: A contribution to policy,
practice and theory in contemporary schools. London & New
York: Routledge.

Creemers, B.P.M., Kyriakides, L., & Sammons, P. (2010).

Methodological advances in educational effectiveness
research. London & New York: Routledge.

Croninger, R. G., Buese, D., & Larson, J. (2012). A

mixed-methods look at teaching quality: Challenges and
possibilities from one study. Teachers College Recor d,
114(4), 1–36.

Croninger, R. G., Valli, L., & Chambliss, M. J. (2012).

Researching quality in teaching: Enduring and emerging
challenges. Teachers College Record, 114(4), 1–15.

Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A

framework for teaching (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Davis, R. B., & Maher, C. A. (1990). What do we do when we

“do mathematics”? (Monograph). Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 4, 65–78. doi:10.2307/749913

Davis, B., & Renert, M. (2013). Profound understanding of

emergent mathematics: Broadening the construct of
teachers’ disciplinary knowledge. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 82(2), 245–265. doi:10.1007/s10649-012-9424-8
Davis, B., & Simmt, E. (2006). Mathematics-for-teaching: An
ongoing investigation of the mathematics that teachers
(need to) know. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61(3),
293–319. doi:10.1007/ s10649-006-2372-4

Dekker, R., Elshout-Mohr, M., & Wood, T. (2006). How

children regulate their own collaborative learning.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 62(1), 57–79.
doi:10.1007/s10649-006-1688-4

Delaney, S., Ball, D. L., Hill, H. C., Schilling, S. G., &

Zopf, D. (2008). “Mathematical knowledge for teaching”:
Adapting US measures for use in Ireland. Journal of
Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(3), 171–197.
doi:10.1007/s10857-008-9072-1

Depaepe, F., Verschaffel, L., & Kelchtermans, G. (2013).

Pedagogical content knowledge: A systematic review of the
way in which the concept has pervaded mathematics
educational research. Teaching and Teacher Education, 34,
12–25. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2013.03.001

Ding, M. (2008). Teacher knowledge necessary to address

student errors and difficulties about equivalent fractions.
In G. Kulm (Ed.), Teacher knowledge and practice in middle
grades mathematics (pp. 147–171). Rotterdam, The
Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Dominguez, H., LópezLeiva, C. A., & Khisty, L. L. (2014).

Relational engagement: Proportional reasoning with
bilingual Latino/a students. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 85(1), 143–160. doi:10.1007/s10649-013-9501-7

Drijvers, P., & Godino, J. D., Font, V., & Trouche, L.

(2013). One episode, two lenses: A reflective analysis
of student learning with computer algebra from instrumental
and onto-semiotic perspectives. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 82(1), 23–49. doi:10.1007/s10649-012-9416-8

Dubinsky , E. (1992). A learning theory approach to

calculus. In Z. Karian (Ed.), Symbolic computation in
under graduate mathematics education (MAA Notes No. 24,
pp. 48–55). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of
America.

Ellis, A. B. (2011). Generalizing-promoting actions: How

classroom collaborations can support students’
mathematical generalizations. Journal for Resear ch in
Mathematics Education, 42(4), 308–345.
English, L. D. (2006). Mathematical modeling in the
primary school: Children’s construction of a consumer
guide. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63(3), 303–323.
doi:10.1007/s10649-005-9013-1

English, L. D. (2013). Complex modelling in the primary and

middle school years: An interdisciplinary approach. In G.
A. Stillman, G. Kaiser, W. Blum, & J. P. Brown (Eds.),
Teaching mathematical modelling: Connecting to research
and practice (Vol. 16, pp. 491–505). Dordrecht: Springer.

English, L. D., & Mulligan, J. (Eds.). (2013).

Reconceptualizing early mathematics learning. Dordrecht:
Springer.

Even, R. (2009). Teacher knowledge and teaching:

Considering the connections between perspectives and
findings. In M. Tzekaki, M. Kaldrimidou, & H. Sakonidis
(Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Conference of the
International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics
Education (Vol. 1, pp. 147–148). Thessaloniki, Greece:
PME.

Fauth, B., Decristan, J., Rieser, S., Klieme, E., &

Büttner, G. (2014). Student ratings of teaching quality in
primary school: Dimensions and prediction of student
outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 29, 1–9.
doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.07.001

Fennema, E., & Franke, M. L. (1992). Teachers’ knowledge

and its impact. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of
research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of
the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp.
147–164). Reston, VA: NCTM.

Fenstermacher, G. D., & Richardson, V. (2005). On making

determinations of quality in teaching. T eachers College
Record, 107(1), 186–213.

Fishbein, E. (1993). The theory of figural concepts.

Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24(2), 139–162.
doi:10.1007/BF01273689

Francisco, J. M., & Hähkiöniemi, M. (2012). Students’ ways

of reasoning about nonlinear functions in guess-my-rule
games. International Journal of Science and Mathematics
Education, 10(5), 1001–1021. doi:10.1007/s10763-011-9310-3

Franke, M. L., Kazemi, E., & Battey, D. (2007). Mathematics

teaching and classroom practice. In F. K. Lester (Ed.),
Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and
learning (pp. 225–256). Charlotte, NC: Information Age
Publishers.

Freudenthal, H. (1968). Why to teach mathematics so as to

be useful. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 1 (1–2),
3–8. doi:10.1007/BF00426224

Gage, N. L. (2009). A conception of teaching. New York:

Springer.

Gainsburg, J. (2008). Real-world connections in secondary

mathematics teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher
Education, 11(3), 199–219. doi:10.1007/s10857-007-9070-8

Gallagher, H. A. (2004). Vaughn elementary’s innovative

teacher evaluation system: Are teacher evaluation scores
related to growth in student achievement? Peabody Journal
of Education, 79(4), 79–107.
doi:10.1207/s15327930pje7904_5

Gil, E., & Ben-Zvi, D. (2011). Explanations and context in

the emergence of students’ informal inferential rea soning.
Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 13(1–2), 87–108.
doi:10.1080/10986065.2011.538295

Gilleece, L., Cosgrove, J., & Sofroniou, N. (2010). Equity

in mathematics and science outcomes: Characteristics
associated with high and low achievement on PISA 2006 in
Ireland. International Journal of Science and Mathematics
Education, 8(3), 475–496. doi:10.1007/s10763-010-9199-2

Gilmore, C. K., & Papadatou-Pastou, M. (2009). Patterns of

individual differences in conceptual understanding and
arithmetical skill: A meta-analysis. Mathematical Thinking
and Learning, 11(1–2), 25–40.
doi:10.1080/10986060802583923

Gitomer, D. H. (2009). Crisp measurement and messy context:

A clash of assumptions and metaphors— Synthesis of section
III. In D. H. Gitomer (Ed.), Measurement issues and
assessment for teaching quality (pp. 223–233). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Glazerman, S., Loeb, S., Goldhaber, D., Staiger, D.,

Raudenbush, S., & Whitehurst, G. (2010). Evaluating
teachers: The important role of value-added (Repor t No.
6829). Washington, DC: Brown Center on Education Policy,
Brookings.
Graeber , A., & Tirosh, D. (2008). Pedagogical content
knowledge: Useful concept or elusive notion? In P.
Sullivan & T. Wood (Eds.), Knowledge and beliefs in
mathematics teaching and teaching development (Vol. 1,
pp. 117–132). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Griffiths, M. (2013). Intuiting the fundamental theorem of

arithmetic. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 82(1),
75–96. doi:10.1007/s10649-012-9410-1

Grossman, P. (2008). Responding to our critics: From

crisis to opportunity in research on teacher education.
Journal of Teacher Education, 59(1), 10–23.
doi:10.1177/0022487107310748

Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009).

Redefining teaching, re-imagining teacher education.
Teachers and Teaching: Theor y and Practice, 15(2),
273–289. doi:10.1080/13540600902875340

Grossman, P., & McDonald, M. (2008). Back to the future:

Directions for research in teaching and teacher education.
American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 184–205.
doi:10.3102/0002 831207312906

Groth, R. E., & Bergner, J. A. (2006). Preservice

elementary teachers’ conceptual and procedural knowledge of
mean, median, and mode. Mathematical Thinking and
Learning, 8(1), 37–63. doi:10.1207/ s15327833mtl0801_3

Groth, R. E., & Bergner, J. A. (2013). Mapping the

structure of knowledge for teaching nominal categorical
data analysis. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83(2),
247–265. doi:10.1007/ s10649-012-9452-4

Hamre, B. K., Pianta, R. C., Downer, J. T., DeCoster, J.,

Mashburn, A. J., Jones, . . . Hamagami, A. (2013).
Teaching through interactions: Testing a developmental
framework of teacher effectiveness in over 4,000
classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 113(4), 461–487.
doi:10.1086/669616

Harel, G., & Sowder, L. (1998). Students’ proof schemes:

Results from an exploratory study . In A. H. Schoenfeld,
J. Kaput, & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), Research in collegiate
mathematics education (Vol. 3, pp. 234–283). Providence,
RI: American Mathematical Society.

Harris, D. N. (2009). The policy uses and policy validity

of value-added and other teacher quality measures. In D. H.
Gitomer (Ed.), Measurement issues and assessment for
teaching quality (pp. 99–130). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Harris, D. N. (2011).Value-added measures in education:

What every educator needs to know. Cambridge, MA: Har vard
Education Press.

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. A synthesis of over

800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London:
Routledge.

Hemmings, B., Grootenboer , P., & Kay, R. (2011).

Predicting mathematics achievement: The influence of prior
achievement and attitudes. International Journal of Science
and Mathematics Education, 9(3), 691–705.
doi:10.1007/s10763-010-9224-5

Herbst, P., & Kosko, K. W. (2012). Mathematical knowledge

for teaching high school geometry. In L. R. Van Zoest, J.
J. Lo, & J. L. Kratky (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th
Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the
International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics
Education (pp. 438–444). Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan
University.

Hiebert, J., Gallimor e, R., Garnier, H., Givvin, K. B.,

Hollingsworth, H., Jacobs, J., . . . Stigler, J. (2003).
Teaching mathematics in seven countries: Results from the
TIMSS 1999 video study. Washington, DC: National Center
for Education Statistics.

Hiebert, J., & Grouws, D. A. (2007). The effects of

classroom mathematics teaching on students‘ learning. In F
. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on
mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 371–404). Charlotte,
NC: Information Age Publishers.

Hiebert, J., Stigler, J. W., Jacobs, J. K., Givvin, K. B.,

Garnier, H., Smith, M., . . . Gallimore, R. (2005).
Mathematics teaching in the United States today (and
tomorrow): Results fr om the TIMSS 1999 video study.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(2), 111–132.
doi:10.3102/01623737027002111

Hill, H. C. (2007). Mathematical knowledge of middle

school teachers: Implications for the No Child Left Behind
policy initiative. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 29(2), 95–114. doi:10.3102/0162373707301711
Hill, H. C. (2010). The nature and predictors of elementary
teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 41(5), 513–545.

Hill, H. C., Ball, D. L., Blunk, M., Goffney, I. M., &

Rowan, B. (2007). Validating the ecological assumption: The
relationship of measure scor es to classroom teaching and
student learning. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research
and Perspectives, 5(2–3), 107–118.
doi:10.1080/15366360701487138

Hill, H. C., Ball, D. L., & Schilling, S. G. (2008).

Unpacking pedagogical content knowledge: Conceptualizing
and measuring teachers’ topic-specific knowledge of
students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
39(4), 372–400.

Hill, H. C., Blunk, M. L., Charalambous, C. Y., Lewis, J.

M., Phelps, G. C., Sleep, L., & Ball, D. L. (2008).
Mathematical knowledge for teaching and the mathematical
quality of instruction: An exploratory study. Cognition
and Instruction , 26(4), 430–511.
doi:10.1080/07370000802177235

Hill, H. C., & Charalambous, C. Y. (2012). Teaching

(un)Connected Mathematics: Two teachers’ enactment of the
Pizza problem. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(4),
467–487. doi:10.1080/0022027 2.2012.716972

Hill, H. C., Charalambous, C. Y., & Kraft, M. A. (2012).

When rater reliability is not enough teacher observation
systems and a case for the generalizability study.
Educational Researcher, 41(2), 56–64.
doi:10.3102/0013189X12437203

Hill, H. C., & Grossman, P. (2013). Learning from teacher

observations: Challenges and opportunities posed by new
teacher evaluation systems. Harvard Educational Review,
83(2), 371–384.

Hill, H. C., Kapitula, L., & Umland, K. (2011). A validity

argument approach to evaluating teacher value-added scores.
American Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 794–831.
doi:10.3102/0002831210387916

Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of

teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student
achievement. American Educational Research Journal 42(2),
371–406. doi:10.3102/ 00028312042002371
Hill, H. C., Schilling, S. G., & Ball, D. L. (2004).
Developing measures of teachers’ mathematics knowledge for
teaching. The Elementary School Journal, 105(1), 11–30.
doi:10.1086/428763

Hill, H. C., Sleep, L., Lewis, J. M., & Ball, D. L. (2007).

Assessing teachers’ mathematical knowledge: What knowledge
matters and what evidence counts? In F. K. Lester (Ed.),
Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and
learning (pp. 111–155). Charlotte, NC: Information Age
Publishers.

Hill, H. C., Umland, K., Litke, E., & Kapitula, L. R.

(2012). Teacher quality and quality teaching: Examining the
relationship of a teacher assessment to practice. American
Journal of Education, 118(4), 489–519.

Hodgen, J. (2011). Knowing and identity: A situated theory

of mathematics knowledge in teaching. In T. Rowland & K.
Ruthven (Eds.), Mathematical knowledge in teaching (pp.
27–42). London, UK: Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-90-481-9766-8_3

Hollebrands, K. F. (2007). The role of a dynamic software

program for geometry in the strategies high school
mathematics students employ . Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 38(2), 164–192.

Hollebrands., K., Conner, A., & Smith, R. C. (2010). The

nature of arguments provided by college geometry students
with access to technology while solving problems. Journal
for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(4), 324–350.

Huang, R., & Cai, J. (2011). Pedagogical representations

to teach linear relations in Chinese and US classrooms:
Parallel or hierar chical? The Journal of Mathematical
Behavior, 30(2), 149–165. doi:10.1016/j.jmathb.2011.01.003

Hugener, I., Pauli, C., Reusser, K., Lipowsky, F., Rakoczy,

K., & Klieme, E. (2009). Teaching patterns and learning
quality in Swiss and German mathematics lessons. Learning
and Instruction, 19(1), 66–78.
doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.02.001

Huillet, D. (2009). Mathematics for teaching: An

anthropological approach and its use in teacher training.
For the Learning of Mathematics, 29(3), 4–10.

I˙mr e, S. Y., & Akkoç, H. (2012). Investigating the

development of prospective mathematics teachers’
pedagogical content knowledge of generalising number
patterns through school practicum. Journal of Mathematics
Teacher Education, 15(3), 207–226.
doi:10.1007/s10857-012-9203-6

Ing, M., & Webb, N. M. (2012). Characterizing mathematics

classroom practice: Impact of observation and coding
choices. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice,
31(1), 14–26. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.2011.00224.x

Inglis, M., & Alcock, L. (2012). Expert and novice

approaches to reading mathematical proofs. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 43(4), 358–390.

Izsák, A. (2008). Mathematical knowledge for teaching

fraction multiplication. Cognition and Instruction, 26(1),
95–143. doi:10.1080/07370000701798529

Izsák, A., Tillema, E., & Tunç-Pekkan, Z. (2008). Teaching

and learning fraction addition on number lines. Jour nal
for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(1), 33–62.
doi:10.2307/30034887

Jackson, K., Garrison, A., Wilson, J., Gibbons, L., &

Shahan, E. (2013). Exploring relationships between setting
up complex tasks and opportunities to learn in concluding
whole-class discussions in middle-grades mathematics
instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
44(4), 646–682.

Jencks, C., Smith, M., Acland, H., Bane, M. J., Cohen, D.,
Gintis, H., . . . Michelson, S. (1972). Inequality: A
reassessment of the effects of family and schooling in
America. New York: Basic Books.

Jurdak, M. E. (2006). Contrasting perspectives and

performance of high school students on problem solving in
real world situated and school contexts. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 63(3), 283–301.
doi:10.1007/s10649-005-9008-y

Jurdak, M. E., & El Mouhayar, R. R. (2014). Trends in the

development of student level of reasoning in pattern
generalization tasks across grade level. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 85(1), 75–92.
doi:10.1007/s10649-013-9494-2

Kamii, C., & Kysh, J. (2006). The difficulty of

“length×width”: Is a square the unit of measurement? The
Journal of Mathematical Behavior , 25(2), 105–115.
doi:10.1016/j.jmathb.2006.02.001

Kane, T. J., McCaffrey, D. F., Miller, T., & Staiger, D. O.

(2013). Have we identified effective teachers? Validating
measures of effective teaching using random assignment .
Seattle, WA: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Retrieved
from www.metproject.org/r eports.php.

Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. O. (2012). Gathering feedback

for teaching: Combining high-quality observations with
student surveys and achievement gains. Seattle, WA: Bill &
Melinda Gates Foundation. Retrieved from
www.metproject.org/r eports.php.

Kane, T. J., Taylor, E. S., Tyler, J. H., & Wooten, A. L.

(2011). Identifying effective classroom practices using
student achievement data. Journal of Human Resources,
46(3), 587–613. doi:10.3386/w15803

Kaput, J. J. (1998). Transforming algebra from an engine

of inequity to an engine of mathematical power by
“algebrafying” the K–12 curriculum. In S. Fennel (Ed.), The
natur e and role of algebra in the K–14 curriculum:
Proceedings of a National Symposium (pp. 25–26).
Washington, DC: National Research Council, National
Academy Press.

Kennedy, M. M. (2010). Attribution error and the quest for

teacher quality. Educational Researcher, 39(8), 591–598.
doi:10.3102/0013189X10390804

Kersting, N. (2008). Using video clips of mathematics

classroom instruction as item prompts to measure teachers’
knowledge of teaching mathematics. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 68(5), 845–861.
doi:10.1177/0013164407313369

Kersting, N. B., Givvin, K. B., Sotelo, F. L., & Stigler,

J. W. (2010). Teachers’ analyses of classroom video
predict student learning of mathematics: Further
explorations of a novel measure of teacher knowledge.
Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 172–181.
doi:10.1177/0022487109347875

Kersting, N. B., Givvin, K. B., Thompson, B. J.,

Santagata, R., & Stigler, J. W. (2012). Measuring usable
knowledge: Teachers’ analyses of mathematics classroom
videos predict teaching quality and student learning.
American Educational Resear ch Journal, 49(3), 568–589.
doi:10.3102/0002831212437853
Kieran, C. (1996). The changing face of school algebra. In
C. Alsina, J. Alvarez, B. Hodgson, C. Laborde, & A. Pérez
(Eds.), 8th International Congress on Mathematical
Education: Selected lectur es (pp. 271–290). Seville,
Spain: S.A.E.M. Thales.

Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.). (2001).

Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Kim, M., Roth, W. M., & Thom, J. (2011). Children’s

gestures and the embodied knowledge of geometry .
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,
9(1), 207–238. doi:10.1007/ s10763-010-9240-5

Kim, Y. R., Park, M. S., Moore, T. J., & Varma, S. (2013).

Multiple levels of metacognition and their elicitation
through complex problem-solving tasks. The Journal of
Mathematical Behavior, 32(3), 377–396.
doi:10.1016/j.jmathb.2013.04.002

Klieme, E., Pauli, C., & Reusser, K. (2009). The

Pythagoras study. In J. Tomás & T. Seidel (Eds.), The
power of video studies in investigating teaching and
learning in the classroom (pp. 137–160). Münster, Germany:
Waxmann.

Koellner, K., Jacobs, J., Borko, H., Schneider, C.,

Pittman, M. E., Eiteljorg, E., . . . Frykholm, J. (2007).
The problem-solving cycle: A model to support the
development of teachers’ professional knowledge.
Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 9(3), 273–303.
doi:10.1080/10986060701360944

Kolovou, A., Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., & Köller, O.

(2013). An intervention including an online game to
improve grade 6 students’ performance in early algebra.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44(3),
510–549.

Konstantopoulos, S., & Chung, V. (2011). The persistence

of teacher effects in elementary grades. American
Educational Research Journal, 48(2), 361–386.
doi:10.3102/0002831210382888

Koretz, D. (2008). Measuring up: What educational testing

really tells us. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Krauss, S., Baumert, J., & Blum, W. (2008). Secondary

mathematics teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and
content knowledge: Validation of the COACTIV constructs.
ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education,
40(5), 873–892. doi:10.1007/s11858-008-0141-9

Krauss, S., Brunner, M., Kunter, M., Baumert, J., Blum, W.,
Neubrand, M., & Jordan, A. (2008). Pedagogical content
knowledge and content knowledge of secondary mathematics
teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3),
716–725. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.716

Kruteski, V. A. (1976). The psychology of mathematical

abilities in school children. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press

Kunter, M., & Baumert, J. (2006). Who is the expert?

Construct and criteria validity of student and teacher
ratings of instruction. Learning Environments Research,
9(3), 231–251. doi:10.1007/ s10984-006-9015-7

Kunter, M., Klusmann, U., Baumert, J., Richter, D., Voss,

T., & Hachfeld, A. (2013). Professional competence of
teachers: Effects on instructional quality and student
development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3),
805–820. doi:10.1037/a0032583

Kwon, M., Thames, M. H., & Pang, J. (2012). To change or

not to change: Adapting mathematical knowledge for
teaching (MKT) measures for use in Korea. ZDM—The
International Journal on Mathematics Education, 44(3),
371–385. doi:10.1007/s11858-012-0397-y

Kyriakides, L., Christoforou, C., & Charalambous, C. Y.

(2013). What matters for student learning outcomes: A
meta-analysis of studies exploring factors of effective
teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36, 143–152.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2013.07.010

Kyriakides, L., & Creemers, B.P.M. (2008). Using a

multidimensional approach to measure the impact of classr
oom level factors upon student achievement: A study
testing the validity of the dynamic model. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 19(2), 183–205.
doi:10.1080/09243450802047873

Kyriakides, L., Creemers, B., Antoniou, P ., & Demetriou,

D. (2010). A synthesis of studies searching for school
factors: Implications for theory and research. British
Educational Research Journal, 36(5), 807–830.
doi:10.1080/01411920903165603
Lakoff, G., & Nuñez, R. (2000). Where mathematics comes
from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being.
New York: Basic Books.

Lamon, S. J. (1999). Teaching fractions and rations for

understanding. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lampert, M. (2010). Learning teaching in, from, and for

practice: What do we mean? Journal of Teacher Education,
61(1–2), 21–34. doi:10.1177/0022487109347321

Langrall, C. W. (2014). Linking research and practice:

Another call to action? Journal for Resear ch in
Mathematics Education, 45(2), 154–156.

Lannin, J. K., Webb, M., Chval, K., Arbaugh, F., Hicks,

S., Taylor, C., & Bruton, R. (2013). The development of
beginning mathematics teacher pedagogical content
knowledge. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 16
(6), 403–426. doi:10.1007/s10857-013-9244-5

Lavigne, N. C., Salkind, S. J., & Yan, J. (2008).

Exploring college students’ mental representations of infer
ential statistics. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior,
27(1), 11–32. doi:10.1016/j. jmathb.2007.10.003

Learning Mathematics for Teaching Project. (2011).

Measuring the mathematical quality of instruction. Journal
of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14(1), 25–47.
doi:10.1007/s10857-010-9140-1

Leikin, R. (2013). Evaluating mathematical creativity: The

interplay between multiplicity and insight. Psychological
Test and Assessment Modeling, 55(4), 385–400.

Leikin, R., & Lev, M. (2013). Mathematical creativity in

generally gifted and mathematically excelling adolescents:
What makes the difference? ZDM—The International Journal on
Mathematics Education, 45(2), 183–197.
doi:10.1007/s11858-012-0460-8

Leikin, R., & Pitta-Pantazi, D. (2013). Creativity and

mathematics education: Overview on the state-ofart. ZDM—The
International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(2),
159–166. doi:10.1007/ s11858-012-0459-1

Lesh, R. (2010). Tools, researchable issues & conjectures

for investigating what it means to understand statistics
(or other topics) meaningfully. Journal of Mathematical
Modelling and Application, 1(2), 16–48.

Lesh, R. A., Sriraman, B., & English, L. D. (2014).

Theories of learning mathematics. In S. Lerman (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of Mathematics Education (pp. 615–623). New
York: Springer. doi: 978-94-007-4978-8.

Lesh, R., & Zawojewski, J. (2007). Problem-solving and

modeling. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research
on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 763–804). Reston,
VA: NCTM.

Levenson, E. (2013). Exploring one student’s explanations

at different ages: The case of Sharon. Educational Studies
in Mathematics, 83(2), 181–203.
doi:10.1007/s10649-012-9447-1

Levenson, E., Tirosh, D., & Tsamir, P. (2011). Preschool

geometry: Theory, research, and practical perspectives.
Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Lewis, J. M., & Blunk, M. L. (2012). Reading between the

lines: Teaching linear algebra. Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 44(4), 515–536. doi:10.1080/00220272.2012.716975

Lo, J. J., & Luo, F. (2012). Prospective elementary

teachers’ knowledge of fraction division. Journal of
Mathematics Teacher Education, 15(6), 481–500.
doi:10.1007/s10857-012-9221-4

Luyten, H. (2003). The size of school effects compared to

teacher effects: An overview of the research literature.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 14(1), 31–51.
doi:10.1076/sesi.14.1.31.13865

Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics:

Teachers’ understanding of fundamental mathematics in
China and the United States. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Makar, K., Bakker, A., & Ben-Zvi, D. (2011). The reasoning

behind informal statistical inference. Mathematical
Thinking and Learning, 13(1–2), 152–173.
doi:10.1080/10986065.2011.538301

Martínez, J. F., Borko, H., Stecher, B., Luskin, R., &

Kloser, M. (2012). Measuring classroom assessment practice
using instructional artifacts: A validation study of the
QAS notebook. Educational Assessment, 17(2–3), 107–131.
doi:10.1080/10627197.2012.715513
Mashburn, A. J., Meyer, J. P., Allen, J. P., & Pianta, R.
C. (2014). The effect of observation length and
presentation order on the r eliability and validity of an
observational measure of teaching quality. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 74(3), 400–422.
doi:10.1177/0013164413515882

Mason, J. (2008). PCK and beyond. In P. Sullivan & T.

Wood (Eds.), Knowledge and beliefs in mathematics teaching
and teaching development (Vol. 1, pp. 301–322). Rotterdam,
The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Mayer, D. P. (1999). Measuring instructional practice: Can

policymakers trust survey data? Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 21(1), 29–45.
doi:10.3102/01623737021001029

McCaffrey, D. F., Sass, T. R., Lockwood, J. R., & Mihaly,

K. (2009). The intertemporal variability of teacher effect
estimates. Education Finance and Policy , 4(4), 572–606.
doi:10.1162/edfp.2009.4.4.572

McClellan, C., Donoghue, J., & Park, Y. S. (2013, April).

Commonality and uniqueness in teaching practice
observation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
National Council of Measurement in Education, San
Francisco, CA.

McCrory, R., Floden, R., Ferrini-Mundy, J., Reckase, M. D.,

& Senk, S. L. (2012). Knowledge of Algebra for Teaching: A
framework of knowledge and practices. Journal for Research
in Mathematics Education, 43(5), 584–615.
doi:10.5951/jresematheduc.43.5.0584

McDonald, M., Kazemi, E., & Kavanagh, S. S. (2013). Core

practices and pedagogies of teacher education a call for a
common language and collective activity. Journal of Teacher
Education, 64(5), 378–386. doi:10.1177/0022487113493807

Mesa, V. (2012). Achievement goal orientation of community

college mathematics students and the misalignment of
instructors’ perceptions. Community College Review, 40(1),
46–74. doi:10.1177/ 0091552111435663

Mewborn, D. S. (2003). Teaching, teachers’ knowledge and

their professional development. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G.
Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to
principles and standards for school mathematics (pp.
45–52). Reston, VA: NCTM.
Mills, M. (2014). A framework for example usage in proof
presentations. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 33,
106–118. doi:10.1016/j.jmathb.2013.11.001

Ministry of Education of Singapore. (2013). Primary

mathematics teaching and learning syllabus. Singapore:
Curriculum Planning and Development Division. Retrieved
from www.moe.gov.sg/education/ syllabuses/sciences/.

Mitchell, R., Charalambous, C. Y., & Hill, H. C. (2014).

Examining the task and knowledge demands needed to teach
with representations. Journal of Mathematics Teacher
Education, 17(1), 37–60. doi:10.1007/s10857-013-9253-4

Miyakawa, T., & Winsløw, C. (2013). Developing mathematics

teacher knowledge: The paradidactic infrastructure of
“open lesson” in Japan. Journal of Mathematics Teacher
Education, 16(3), 185–209. doi:10.1007/s10857-013-9236-5

Modestou, M., & Gagatsis, A. (2010). Cognitive and

metacognitive aspects of proportional reasoning.
Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 12 (1), 36–53.
doi:10.1080/10986060903465822

Monk, D. H. (1994). Subject area preparation of secondary

mathematics and science teachers and student achievement.
Economics of Education Review, 13(2), 125–145.
doi:10.1016/0272-7757(94)90003-5

Muijs, D., Kyriakides, L., van der Werf, G., Creemers, B.,
Timperley, H., & Earl, L. (2014). State of the
art—Teacher effectiveness and professional lear ning.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(2),
231–256. doi:10.1080/09243453.2014.885451

Muijs, D., & Reynolds, D. (2000). School effectiveness and

teacher effectiveness in mathematics: Some preliminary
findings from the evaluation of the mathematics enhancement
programme (primary). School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 11(3), 273–303. doi:10.1076/0924-3453

Muir, T., Beswick, K., & Williamson, J. (2008). “I’m not

very good at solving problems”: An exploration of
students’ problem solving behaviours. The Journal of
Mathematical Behavior, 27(3), 228–241.
doi:10.1016/j.jmathb.2008.04.003

Murata, A., Bofferding, L., Pothen, B. E., Taylor, M. W., &

Wischnia, S. (2012). Making connections among student
learning, content, and teaching: Teacher talk paths in
elementary mathematics lesson study. Journal for Research
in Mathematics Education, 43(5), 616–650.

Murata, A., & Kattubadi, S. (2012). Grade 3 students’

mathematization through modeling: Situation models and
solution models with multi-digit subtraction problem
solving. The Journal of Mathemati cal Behavior, 31(1),
15–28. doi:10.1016/j.jmathb.2011.07.004

Murphy, C. (2012). The role of subject knowledge in primary

prospective teachers’ approaches to teaching the topic of
area. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 15(3),
187–206. doi:10.1007/ s10857-011-9194-8

Nason, R., Chalmers, C., & Yeh, A. (2012). Facilitating

growth in prospective teachers’ knowledge: Teaching
geometr y in primary schools. Journal of Mathematics
Teacher Education, 15(3), 227–249.
doi:10.1007/s10857-012-9209-0

Nathan, M. J., & Kim, S. (2009). Regulation of teacher

elicitations in the mathematics classroom. Cognition and
Instruction, 27(2), 91–120. doi:10.1080/07370000902797304

Neubrand, M. (2009). Two lessons—three views—some comments.

In M. Tzekaki, M. Kaldrimidou, & H. Sakonidis (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 33rd Conference of the Inter national
Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1,
pp. 149–150). Thessaloniki, Greece: PME.

Newton, K. J., Star, J. R., & Lynch, K. (2010).

Understanding the development of flexibility in struggling
algebra students. Mathematical Thinking and Learning,
12(4), 282–305. doi:10.1080/10986065. 2010.482150

Newton, X. A., Darling-Hammond, L., Haertel, E., & Thomas,

E. (2010). Value-added modeling of teacher effectiveness:
An exploration of stability across models and contexts.
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18(23), 1–27.
doi:10.14507/epaa.v18n23.2010

Ng, D. (2012). Using the MKT measures to reveal Indonesian

teachers’ mathematical knowledge: Challenges and
potentials. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics
Education, 44(3), 401–413. doi:10.1007/s11858-011-0375-9

Ng, D., Mosvold, R., & Fauskanger, J. (2012). Translating

and adapting the Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching (MKT)
measures: The cases of Indonesia and Norway. Montana
Mathematics Enthusiast, 9(1&2), 149–178.

Nilssona, P., & Juter, K. (2011). Flexibility and

coordination among acts of visualization and analysis in a
pattern generalization activity. The Journal of
Mathematical Behavior, 30(3), 194–205. doi:10.1016/j.
jmathb.2011.07.002

Norton, A., McCloskey, A., & Hudson, R. A. (2011).

Prediction assessments: Using video-based predictions to
assess prospective teachers’ knowledge of students’
mathematical thinking. Journal of Mathematics Teacher
Education, 14(4), 305–325. doi:10.1007/s10857-011-9181-0

Norton, A., & Wilkins, J. L. M. (2009). A quantitative

analysis of children’s splitting operations and fraction
schemes. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior , 28(2–3),
150–161. doi:10.1016/j. jmathb.2009.06.002

Nuthall, N. (2004). Relating classroom teaching to student

lear ning: A critical analysis of why resear ch has
failed to bridge the theory-practice gap. Harvard
Educational Review, 74(3), 273–306.

Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S., & Hedges, L. V. (2004). How

large are teacher effects? Educational Evalu ation and
Policy Analysis, 26(3), 237–257.
doi:10.3102/01623737026003237

Olive, J. (1999). From fractions to rational numbers of

arithmetic: A reorganization hypothesis. Mathematical
thinking and learning, 1(4), 279–314.
doi:10.1207/s15327833mtl0104_2

Palardy, G. J., & Rumberger, R. W. (2008). Teacher

effectiveness in first grade: The importance of background
qualifications, attitudes, and instructional practices for
student learning. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 30(2), 111–140. doi:10.3102/0162373708317680

Pantziara, M., & Philippou, G. (2012). Levels of students’

“conception” of fractions. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 79(1), 61–83.doi:10.1007/s10649-011-9338-x

Papay, J. P. (2011). Different tests, different answers:

The stability of teacher value-added estimates across
outcome measures. American Educational Research Journal,
48(1), 163–193. doi:10.3102/0002831210362589

Papay, J. P. (2012). Refocusing the debate: Assessing the

purposes and tools of teacher evaluation. Harvard
Educational Review, 82(1), 123–141.

Papic, M., Mulligan, J. T., & Mitchelmore, M. C. (2011).

Assessing the development of preschoolers’ mathematical
patterning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
42(3), 237–268.

Peltenburg, M., Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., & Robitzsch,

A. (2012). Special education students’ use of indirect
addition in solving subtraction problems up to 100: A proof
of the didactical potential of an ignored procedure.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79(3), 351–369.
doi:10.1007/ s10649-011-9351-0

Pepin, B. (2011). How educational systems and cultures

mediate teacher knowledge: ‘Listening’ in English, French,
and German classrooms. In T. Rowland & K. Ruthven (Eds.),
Mathematical knowledge in teaching (pp. 119–137). London &
New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-9766-8_8

Petrou, M., & Goulding, M. (2011). Conceptualising

teachers’ mathematical knowledge in teaching. In T.
Rowland & K. Ruthven (Eds.), Mathematical knowledge in
teaching (pp. 9–25) London & New York: Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-90-481-9766-8_2

Philipp, R. A., Ambrose, R., Lamb, L. L., Sowder, J. T.,

Schappelle, B. P., Sowder, L., . . . Chauvot, J. (2007).
Effects of early field experiences on the mathematical
content knowledge and beliefs of prospective elementary
school teachers: An experimental study. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 38(5), 438–476.
doi:10.2307/30034961

Pianta, R. C., Belsky, J., Vandergrift, N., Houts, R., &

Morrison, F. J. (2008). Classroom effects on children’s
achievement trajectories in elementary school. American
Educational Research Journal, 45(2), 365–397.
doi:10.3102/0002831207308230

Pirie, S., & Kieren, T. (1989). A recursive theory of

mathematical understanding. For the Learning of
Mathematics, 9(3), 7–11.

Pitta-Pantazi, D., & Christou, C. (2009). Cognitive

styles, dynamic geometry and measurement performance.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70 (1), 5–26.
doi:10.1007/s10649-008-9139-z
Pitta-Pantazi, D., Christou, C., Kontoyianni, K., & Kattou,
M. (2011). A model of mathematical giftedness: Integrating
natural, creative and mathematical abilities. Canadian
Journal of Science, Mathemat ics and Technology Education,
11(1), 39–54. doi:10.1080/14926156.2011.548900

Polya, D. (1954). Induction and analogy in mathematics.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Post, T. R., Cramer, K. A., Behr, M., Lesh, R., & Harel,
G. (1993). Curriculum implications of research on the
learning, teaching, and assessing of rational number
concepts. In T. Carpenter, E. Fennema, & T. Romberg
(Eds.), Rational numbers: An integration of resear ch (pp.
327–362). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Praetorius, A. K., Lenske, G., & Helmke, A. (2012).

Observer ratings of instructional quality: Do they fulfill
what they promise? Learning and Instruction, 22(6),
387–400. doi:10.1016/j. learninstruc.2012.03.002

Praetorius, A. K., Pauli, C., Reusser, K., Rakoczy, K., &

Klieme, E. (2014). One lesson is all you need? Stability
of instructional quality across lessons. Learning and
Instruction, 31, 2–12. doi:10.1016/j.
learninstruc.2013.12.002

Presmeg, N. C. (1985). The role of visually mediated

processes in high school mathematics: A classroom
investigation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cambridge
University, England.

Rivers, J. C., & Sanders, W. L. (2002). Teacher quality and

equity in educational opportunity: Findings and policy
implications. In L. T. Izumi & W. M. Evers (Eds.), Teacher
quality (pp. 13–23). Stanford, CA: Hoover Press.

Rockoff, J. E., Jacob, B. A., Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. O.

(2011). Can you recognize an effective teacher when you
recruit one? Education Finance and Policy , 6(1), 43–74.
doi:10.1162/EDFP_a_00022

Rowan, B., & Correnti, R. (2009). Studying reading

instruction with teacher logs: Lessons from the Study of
Instructional Improvement. Educational Researcher, 38(2),
120–131. doi:10.3102/0013 189X09332375

Rowan, B., Correnti, R., & Miller, R. (2002). What

large-scale survey research tells us about teacher effects
on student achievement: Insights from the Prospects Study
of Elementary Schools. Teachers College Record, 104(8),
1525–1567.

Rowan, B., Harrison, D. M., & Hayes, A. (2004). Using

instructional logs to study mathematics curriculum and
teaching in the early grades. The Elementary School
Journal, 105(1), 103–127. doi:10.1086/428812

Rowland, T. (2008a). Researching teachers’ mathematics

disciplinary knowledge. In P. Sullivan & T. Wood (Eds.),
Knowledge and beliefs in mathematics teaching and teaching
development (Vol. 1, pp. 273–298). Rotterdam, The
Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Rowland, T. (2008b). The purpose, design and use of

examples in the teaching of elementary mathematics.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 69(2), 149–163.
doi:10.1007/s10649-008-9148-y

Rowland, T. (2012). Contrasting knowledge for elementary

and secondary mathematics teaching. For the Learning of
Mathematics, 32(1), 16–21.

Rowland, T., Huckstep, P., & Thwaites, A. (2005).

Elementary teachers’ mathematics subject knowledge: The
knowledge quartet and the case of Naomi. Journal of
Mathematics Teacher Education, 8(3), 255–281.
doi:10.1007/s10857-005-0853-5

Rubel, L. H. (2007). Middle school and high school

students’ probabilistic reasoning on coin tasks. Journal
for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(5), 531–556.

Ruthven, K. (2011). Conceptualising mathematical knowledge

in teaching. In T. Rowland & K. Ruthven (Eds.),
Mathematical knowledge in teaching (pp. 83–96). London &
New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-9766-8_6

Sanders, W. L., & Horn, S. P. (1994). The Tennessee

value-added assessment system (TVAAS): Mixed-model
methodology in educational assessment. Journal of Personnel
Evaluation in Education, 8(3),
299–311.doi:10.1007/BF00973726

Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2009). Early childhood

mathematics education research: Learning trajectories for
young children. New York: Routledge.

Sass, T. R. (2008). The stability of value-added measures

of teacher quality and implications for teacher
compensation policy (Brief No. 4). Washington, DC: National
Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education
Research.

Sawada, D., Piburn, M. D., Judson, E., Turley, J.,

Falconer, K., Benford, R., & Bloom, I. (2002). Measuring
reform practices in science and mathematics classrooms: The
reformed teaching observation protocol. School Science and
Mathematics, 102(6), 245–253.
doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2002.tb17883.x

Scheerens, J., & Bosker, R. J. (1997). The foundations of

educational effectiveness. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.

Schilling, S. G., Blunk, M., & Hill, H. C. (2007). Test

validation and the MKT measures: Generalizations and
conclusions. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and
Perspectives, 5(2–3), 118–128.
doi:10.1080/15366360701487146

Schneider, W., & Artelt, C. (2010). Metacognition and

mathematics education. ZDM—The International Journal on
Mathematics Education, 42 (2), 149–161.
doi:10.1007/s11858-010-0240-2.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically:

Problem solving, metacognition, and sense-making in
mathematics. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook for r esearch on
mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334–370). New York:
MacMillan.

Schorr, R. Y., & Goldin, G. A. (2008). Students’ expression

of affect in an inner-city SimCalc classr oom. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 68(2), 131–148.
doi:10.1007/s10649-008-9117-5

Seidel, T., & Shavelson, R. J. (2007). Teaching

effectiveness research in the past decade: The role of
theor y and research design in disentangling meta-analysis
results. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 454–499.
doi: 10.3102/0034654307310317

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), 1–36. doi:10.1007/ BF00302715

Sharma, S. V. (2006). High school students interpreting

tables and graphs: Implications for research.
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,
4(2), 241–268. doi:10.1007/ s10763-005-9005-8

Shavelson, R. J., Webb, N. M., & Burstein, L. (1986).

Measurement of teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook
of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 50–91). New York:
MacMillan.

Shechtman, N., Haertel, G., Roschelle, J., Knudsen, J., &

Singleton, C. (2013). Development of student and teacher
assessments in the scaling up SimCalc Project. In S. J.
Hegedus & J. Roschelle (Eds.), The SimCalc vision and
contributions (pp. 167–181). London & New York: Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5696-0_10

Shechtman, N., Roschelle, J., Haertel, G., & Knudsen, J.

(2010). Investigating links from teacher knowledge, to
classroom practice, to student learning in the instr
uctional system of the middle-school mathematics
classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 28(3), 317–359.
doi:10.1080/07370008.2010. 487961

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge

growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15 (2), 4–14.

Siegler, R. S. (2000). The rebirth of children’s learning.

Child development, 71(1), 26–35. doi:10.1111/
1467-8624.00115

Silver, E. A. (1997). Fostering creativity through

instruction rich in mathematical problem solving and
problem posing. ZDM—The International Journal on
Mathematics Education, 29(3), 75–80.
doi:10.1007/s11858-997-0003-x

Silverman, J., & Thompson, P. W. (2008). Toward a

framework for the development of mathematical knowledge
for teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education,
11(6), 499–511. doi:10.1007/ s10857-008-9089-5

Sleep, L. (2012). The work of steering instruction toward

the mathematical point: A decomposition of teaching
practice. American Educational Research Journal, 49(5),
935–970. doi:10.3102/ 0002831212448095

Sleep, L., & Eskelson, S. L. (2012). MKT and curriculum

materials are only part of the story: Insights from a
lesson on fractions. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(4),
537–558. doi:10.1080/0022027 2.2012.716977

Sowder, J. T., Philipp, R. A., Armstrong, B. E., &

Schappelle, B. P. (1998). Middle-grade teachers’
mathematical knowledge and its relationship to instruction:
A research monograph. New York: State University of New Y
ork Press.

Sriraman, B., & English, L. (2010). Theories of

mathematics education: Seeking new frontiers. London & New
York: Springer.

Stecher, B., Le, V. N., Hamilton, L., Ryan, G., Robyn, A.,
& Lockwood, J. R. (2006). Using structured classroom
vignettes to measure instructional practices in
mathematics. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
28(2), 101–130. doi:10.3102/01623737028002101

Steele, M. D., Hillen, A. F., & Smith, M. S. (2013).

Developing mathematical knowledge for teaching in a
methods course: The case of function. Journal of
Mathematics Teacher Education, 16(6), 451–482.
doi:10.1007/s10857-013-9243-6

Steffe, L. P. (2001). A new hypothesis concerning

children’s fractional knowledge. The Journal of
Mathematical Behavior, 20(3), 267–307.
doi:10.1016/S0732-3123(02)00075-5

Steffe, L. P., Cobb, P., & von Glaserfeld, E. (1988).

Construction of arithmetical meanings and strategies. New
York: Springer-Verlag.

Steffe, L. P., von Glasersfeld, E., Richards, J., & Cobb,

P. (1983). Children’s counting types: Philosophy, theory,
and application. New York: Praeger.

Stein, M., & Burchartz, B. (2006). The invisible wall

project: Reasoning and problem solving processes of primary
and lower secondary students. Mathematical Thinking and
Learning, 8(1), 65–90. doi:10.1207/s15327833mtl0801_4

Stein, M. K., Engle, R. A., Smith, M. S., & Hughes, E. K.

(2008). Orchestrating productive mathematical discussions:
Five practices for helping teachers move beyond show and
tell. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(4), 313–340.
doi:10.1080/10986060802229675

Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M. A., & Silver,

E. A. (2000). Implementing standards-based mathematics
instruction: A casebook for professional development (2nd
ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap:
Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving
education in the classroom. New York: Free Press.

Stoyanova, E., & Ellerton, N. F. (1996). A framework for

research into students’ problem posing. In P. Clarkson
(Ed.), Technology in Mathematics Education (pp. 518–525).
Melbourne: Mathematics Education Research Group of
Australasia.

Strong, M., Gargani, J., & Hacifazliog˘lu, Ö. (2011). Do we

know a successful teacher when we see one? Experiments in
the identification of effective teachers. Journal of
Teacher Education, 62(4), 367–382.
doi:10.1177/0022487110390221

Stronge, J. H., Ward, T. J., & Grant, L. W. (2011). What

makes good teachers good? A cross-case analysis of the
connection between teacher effectiveness and student
achievement. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(4), 339–355.
doi:10.1177/0022487111404241

Stylianides, A. J. (2007). Proof and proving in school

mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 38(3), 289–321. doi:10.2307/30034869

Stylianides, A. J., & Delaney, S. (2011). The cultural

dimension of teachers’ mathematical knowledge. In T.
Rowland & K. Ruthven (Eds.), Mathematical knowledge in
teaching (pp. 179–191). London, UK: Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-90-481-9766-8_11

Stylianides, G. J., & Stylianides, A. J. (2009).

Facilitating the transition from empirical arguments to
proof. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40
(3), 314–352.

Sumpter, L. (2013). Themes and interplay of beliefs in

mathematical reasoning. International Journal of Science
and Mathematics Education, 11(5), 1115–1135.
doi:10.1007/s10763-012-9392-6

Szilágyi, J., Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2013). Young

children’s understandings of length measurement: Evaluating
a lear ning trajectory. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 44(3), 581–620.

Tabach, M., Hershkowitz, R., & Dreyfus, T. (2013).

Learning beginning algebra in a computer-intensive
environment. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics
Education, 45(3), 377–391. doi:10.1007/s11858-012-0458-2.

Tall, D. (2013). How humans learn to think mathematically:

Exploring the three worlds of mathematics. New York:
Cambridge University Press.

Tall, D., & Vinner, S. (1981). Concept image and concept

definition in mathematics with particular ref erence to
limits and continuity. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
12(2), 151–169. doi:10.1007/ BF00305619

Tanase, M., & Wang, J. (2013). Knowing students as

mathematics learners and teaching numbers 10–100: A case
study of four 1st grade teachers from Romania. The Journal
of Mathematical Behavior, 32 (3), 564–576.
doi:10.1016/j.jmathb.2013.06.006

Tatto, M. T., Schwille, J., Senk, S. L., Bankov, K.,

Rodriguez, M., Reckase, M., Ingvarson, L., Rowley, G.,
Peck, R., . . . Reckase, M. (2012). Teacher Education and
Development Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M): Policy,
practice, and readiness to teach primary and secondary
mathematics in 17 countries. Findings from the IEA Study
of the mathematics preparation of future teachers.
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IEA.

Tchoshanov, M. A. (2011). Relationship between teacher

knowledge of concepts and connections, teaching practice,
and student achievement in middle grades mathematics.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 76(2), 141–164.
doi:10.1007/s10649-010-9269-y

Tirosh, D., & Stavy, R. (1999). Intuitive rules: A way to

explain and predict students’ reasoning. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 38(1–3), 51–66.
doi:10.1023/A:1003436313032

Tirosh, D., Tsamir, P., Levenson, E., & Tabach, M. (2011).

From preschool teachers’ professional development to
children’s knowledge: Comparing sets. Journal of
Mathematics Teacher Education, 14(2),113–131.
doi:10.1007/s10857-011-9172-1

Tirosh, D., Tsamir, P., Levenson, E., Tabach, M., & Barkai,
R. (2013). Exploring young children’s self-efficacy
beliefs related to mathematical and nonmathematical tasks
performed in kinder garten: Abused and neglected children
and their peers. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83(2),
309–322. doi:10.1007/s10649-012-9458-y
Tomás, J., & Seidel, T. (2009). The power of video studies
in investigating teaching and learning in the classroom.
Münster, Germany: Waxmann.

T oulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Tsamir, P., Tirosh, D., Levenson, E., Tabach, M., & Barkai,
R. (2014). Developing preschool teachers’ knowledge of
students’ number conceptions. Journal of Mathematics
Teacher Education, 17(1) 61–83.
doi:10.1007/s10857-013-9260-5

Turner, F . (2012). Using the Knowledge Quartet to develop

mathematics content knowledge: The role of reflection on
professional development. Research in Mathematics
Education, 14(3), 253–271. doi:
10.1080/14794802.2012.734972

Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., Kolovou, A., & Robitzsch, A.

(2013). Primary school students’ strategies in early
algebra problem solving supported by an online game.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 84(3), 281–307.
doi:10.1007/s10649-013-9483-5

Van Harpen, X. Y., & Presmeg, N. C. (2013). An

investigation of relationships between students’
mathematical problem-posing abilities and their
mathematical content knowledge. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 83(1), 117–132. doi:10.1007/s10649-012-9456-0

V an Hiele, P.M. (1985). The child’s thought and geometry.

In D. Fuys, D. Geddes, & R. Tischer (Eds.), English
translation of selected writings of Dina van Hiele-Geldof
and Pierre M. van Hiele (pp. 243–252). Brooklyn, NY:
Brooklyn College.

Vergnaud, G. (1990). La théorie des champs conceptuels.

Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques, 10(2–3),
133–170.

Vergnaud, G. (2009). The theory of conceptual fields. Human

development, 52(2), 83–94. doi:10.1159/ 000202727

Verzosa, D. B., & Mulligan, J. (2013). Learning to solve

addition and subtraction word problems in English as an
imported language. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
82(2), 223–244. doi:10.1007/ s10649-012-9420-z

Wagner, J. F., Speer, N. M., & Rossa, B. (2007). Beyond

mathematical content knowledge: A mathematician’s knowledge
needed for teaching an inquiry-oriented differential
equations course. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior,
26(3), 247–266. doi:10.1016/j.jmathb.2007.09.002

Walkowiak, T. A., Berry, R. Q., Meyer, J. P.,

Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Ottmar, E. R. (2014). Introducing an
observational measur e of standards-based mathematics
teaching practices: Evidence of validity and score
reliability. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 85(1),
109–128. doi:10.1007/ s10649-013-9499-x

Watson, J. M. (2007). The role of cognitive conflict in

developing students’ understanding of average. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 65(1), 21–47.
doi:10.1007/s10649-006-9043-3

Wilkins, J.L.M., & Norton, A. (2011). The splitting loope.

Journal for Research in Mathematics Educa tion, 42(4),
386–416.

Wilson, S. M. (1990). A conflict of interests: The case of

Mark Black. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
12(3), 293–310.

Wood, T., Williams, G., & McNeal, B. (2006). Children’s

mathematical thinking in different classroom cultures.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37(3),
222–255.

Yakes, C., & Star, J. R. (2011). Using comparison to

develop flexibility for teaching algebra. Journal of
Mathematics Teacher Education, 14(3), 175–191.
doi:10.1007/s10857-009-9131-2

Yang, K. L. (2012). Structures of cognitive and

metacognitive reading strategy use for reading
comprehension of geometry proof. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 80(3), 307–326. doi:10.1007/ s10649-011-9350-1

Yanik, H. B. (2011). Prospective middle school mathematics

teachers’ preconceptions of geometric translations.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 78(2), 231–260.
doi:10.1007/s10649-011-9324-3

Yerushalmy, M. (2006). Slower algebra students meet faster

tools: Solving algebra word problems with graphing
software. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
37(5), 356–387.
Zachariades, T., Christou, C., & Pitta-Pantazi, D. (2013).
Reflective, systemic and analytic thinking in real
numbers. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 82(1), 5–22.
doi:10.1007/s10649–012–9413-y

Zazkis, R., & Chernoff, E. J. (2008). What makes a

counterexample exemplary? Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 68(3), 195–208. doi:10.1007/s10649-007-9110-4

Zazkis, R., & Zazkis, D. (2011). The significance of

mathematical knowledge in teaching elementary methods
courses: Perspectives of mathematics teacher educators.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 76(3), 247–263.
doi:10.1007/s10649-010-9268-z

Zodik, I., & Zaslavsky, O. (2008). Characteristics of

teachers’ choice of examples in and for the mathematics
classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 69(2),
165–182. doi:10.1007/s10649-008-9140-6

Zurina, H., & Williams, J. (2011). Gesturing for oneself.

Educational Studies in Mathematics, 77(2–3), 175–188.
doi:10.1007/s10649-010-9294-x
3 Approaches to Embodied Learning in
Mathematics

Abelson, H. & diSessa, A. (1986). Turtle Geometry: The

computer as a medium for exploring mathematics. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.

Abrahamson, D. (2004). Embodied spatial articulation: A

gesture perspective on student negotiation between
kinesthetic schemas and epistemic forms in learning
mathematics. In Proceedings of the Twenty Sixth Annual
Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International
Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2,
pp. 791–797). Windsor, Ontario: Preney.

Abrahamson, D. (2007, June). From gesture to design:

Building cognitively ergonomic learning tools. In
Proceedings of the annual meeting of the International
Society for Gesture Studies (pp. 18–21). Evanston, IL:
Northwestern University.

Abrahamson, D. (2009). Embodied design: Constructing means

for constructing meaning. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 70(1), 27–47.

Abrahamson, D. (2010). A tempest in a teapot is but a drop

in the ocean: Action-objects in analogical mathematical
reasoning. In K. Gomez, L. Lyons, & J. Radinsky (Eds.),
Learning in the disciplines: Proceedings of the 9th
International Confer ence of the Learning Sciences (Vol. 1,
pp. 492–499). Chicago: University of Illinois, ISLS.

Alibali, M. W., & Nathan, M. J. (2012). Embodiment in

mathematics teaching and learning: Evidence from learners’
and teachers’ gestures. Journal of the Learning Sciences,
21(2), 247–286.

Alibali, M. W., Nathan, M. J., Wolfgram, M. S., Church, R.

B., Jacobs, S. A., Johnson Martinez, C., & Knuth, E. J.
(2014). How teachers link ideas in mathematics instruction
using speech and gesture: A corpus analysis. Cognition and
Instruction, 32 (1), 65–100.

Alibali, M. W., Young, A. G., Crooks, N. M., Yeo, A.,

Wolfgram, M. S., Ledesma, I. M., Nathan, M. J., Church, R.
B. & Knuth, E. J. (2013). Students learn more when their
teacher has learned to gesture effectively . Gesture,
13(2), 210–233.

Antle, A. N., & Wang, S. (2013, February). Comparing

motor-cognitive strategies for spatial pr oblem solving
with tangible and multi-touch interfaces. In Proceedings of
Tangible, Embodied and Embedded Interaction (pp. 65–72),
Barcelona, Spain: ACM Press.

Appelbaum, P. (2010). Sense and representation in

elementary mathematics. Suppor ting Independent Thinking
Through Mathematical Education, (pp. 10–17).

Arzarello, F., & Edwards, L. (2005). Gesture and the

construction of mathematical meaning. In H. L. Chick & J.
L. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Conference of
the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics
Education (Vol. 1, pp. 123–154). Melbourne: PME.

Arzarello, F., Paola, D., Robutti, O., & Sabena, C. (2009).

Gestures as semiotic resources in the mathematics
classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(2),
97–109.

Arzarello, F., Robutti, O., & Bazzini, L. (2005). Acting is

learning: focus on the construction of mathematical
concepts. Cambridge Jour nal of Education, 35(1), 55–67.

Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an

understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs, 28(3),
801–831.

Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review

of Psychology, 59 , 617–645.

Barsalou, L. W. (2009). Simulation, situated

conceptualization, and prediction. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B, 364(1521),
1281–1289.

Baudrillard, J. (1994). Simulacra and simulation. Ann

Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Bavelas, J. B. (1987). Permitting creativity in science.

In D. N. Jackson & J. P. Rushton (Eds.), Scientific
excellence: Origins and assessment (pp. 307–327). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publications.

belcastro, s.-m. & Yackel, C. (Eds.) (2008). Making

mathematics with needlework. Wellesley , MA: A. K. Peters.

belcastro, s.-m. & Yackel, C. (Eds.) (2011). Crafting by

concepts. Wellesley , MA: A. K. Peters.
Bergson, H. (2004). Matter and memory. Mineola, NY: Courier
Dover Publications.

Boorstin, J. (1990). The Hollywood eye: What makes movies

work. New York: Harper Collins.

Borba, M., & Villarreal, M. E. (2005). Humans-with-media

and the reorganization of mathematical thinking. New York:
Springer.

Bordo, S. (2003). Unbearable weight: Feminism, Western

culture, and the body. Berkeley: University of California
Press.

Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive

limits of “sex.” New York: Routledge.

Butler, J. (2010). Performative agency. Journal of Cultural

Economy, 3(2), 147–161.

Castelnuovo, E., & Gori-Giorgio, C. (1976). La géometrie

projective à l’école. Educational Studies in Mathematics
7, 443–463.

Chomsky, N. (1993). A minimalist program for linguistic

theory. In K. L. Hale & S. J. Keyser, (Eds.) The view from
Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain
Bromberger (pp. 1–52). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Cienki, A. & Müller, C. (Eds.). (2008). Metaphor and

gesture. Amster dam: John Benjamins.

Conquergood, D. (2002). Performance studies: Interventions

and radical research. TDR/The Drama Review, 46(2),
145–146.

Csordas, T. J. (Ed.). (1994). Embodiment and experience:

The existential ground of cultur e and self. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.

Decety, J., & Grèzes, J. (2006). The power of simulation:

Imagining one’s own and other’s behavior. Brain Research,
1079, 4–14.

De Freitas, E. (2008). Mathematics and its other:

(Dis)locating the feminine. Gender and Education 20(3),
281–290.

De Freitas, E. (2010). Making mathematics public:

Aesthetics as the distribution of the sensible. Educational
Insights, 13(1).

De Freitas, E., & Sinclair, N. (2012). Diagram, gesture,

agency: Theorizing embodiment in the mathematics classroom.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 80(1–2), 133–152.

De Freitas, E., & Sinclair, N. (2013). New materialist

ontologies in mathematics education: The body in/ of
mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83(3),
453–470.

De Freitas, E. & Sinclair, N. (2014). Mathematics and the

body: Material entanglements in the classroom. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.

Dehaene, S. (1999). The number sense: How the mind creates

mathematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Deleuze, G. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and

schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Denzin, N. K. (2003). Performance ethnography: Critical

pedagogy and the politics of culture. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.

Denzin, N. K. (2006a). The politics and ethics of

performance pedagogy: Toward a pedagogy of hope. In D. S.
Madison & J. Hamera, (Eds.) The Sage Handbook of
Performance Studies (pp. 325–338). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Denzin, N. K. (2006b). Pedagogy, performance, and

autoethnography. T ext and Performance Quarterly, 26(4),
333–338.

Descartes, R. (1641). Meditations on first philosophy. (J.

Cottingham, Trans./Ed.) Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1996.

Devlin, K. (2006). The math instinct. New York: Basic Books.

Dienes, Z. P. (1963). On the learning of mathematics. The

Arithmetic Teacher 10(3), 115–126.

Dissanayake, E. (1995). Homo aestheticus: Where art comes

from and why. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Edwards, L. D. (2003, April). A natural history of

mathematical gesture. In Proceedings of the American
Educational Research Association Annual Conference,
Chicago.

Edwards, L. D. (2009). Gestures and conceptual integration

in mathematical talk. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
70(2), 127–141.

Edwards, L., & Moore-Russo, D. (2012, July). Embodiment,

gesture and multimodality in mathematics. In Proceedings of
the 36th Conference of the International Group for the
Psychology of Mathematics Education (p. 161).

Euclid. (1956). The thirteen books of the Elements (Vol. 1,

T. L. Heath, Trans.). Mineola, NY: Dover.

Fernandes, S.H.A.A, & Healy, L. (2010). Embodied

mathematics: Relationships between doing and imagining in
the activities of a blind learner. In M.M.F Pinto & T. F.
Kawasaki (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th Conference of the
International Gr oup for the Psychology of Mathematics
Education (Vol. 2, pp. 345–352). Belo Horizonte, Brazil:
PME.

Ferrara, F. (2006, July). Remembering and imagining: Moving

back and forth between motion and its representation. In
Proceedings of the 30th Conference of the International
Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3,
pp. 65–72).

Ferrara, F. (2013). How multimodality works in mathematical

activity: Young children graphing motion. International
Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12, 917–939.

Ferrara, F., & Nemirovsky, R.(2005). Connecting talk,

gesture, and eye motion for the microanalysis of
mathematics learning. 29th Conference of the International
Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1,
pp. 137–142). Melbourne, Australia.

Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish. Toronto: Random

House.

Francaviglia, M., & Servidio, R. (2011). Gesture as a

cognitive support to solve mathematical problems.
Psychology, 2, 91.

Frant, J. B., Acevedo, J. I., & Font, V. (2005). Metaphors

in mathematics classrooms: Analysing the dynamic process
of teaching and learning graph functions. In Proceedings of
the Fourth Congress of the European Society for Research
in Mathematics Education (pp. 82–91).
Frege, G. (1980). The foundations of arithmetic. (J. L.
Austin, Trans.). Chicago: Northwestern University Press.

Frye, N. (1980). Creation and recreation. Toronto:

University of Toronto Press.

Gadanidis, G., & Borba, M. (2008). Our lives as

performance mathematicians. For the Learning of Mathematics
28(1), 44–51.

Gadanidis, G., Hughes, J., & Borba, M. C. (2008). Students

as performance mathematicians. Mathematics Teaching in the
Middle School, 14(3), 168–175.

Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G. (2005). The brain’s concepts:

The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual
knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22, 455–479.

Gattegno, C. (1987). The science of education. New York:

Educational Solutions.

Gerofsky, S. (1996). Selling mathematics: The language of

persuasion in an introductory calculus course. In
Proceedings of the 1996 Meeting: Psychology of Mathematics
Education (pp. 409–417). Valencia, Spain.

Gerofsky, S. (2007). Performance space & time. In

Gadanidis, G. & Hoogland, C. (Eds.), Digital Mathematical
Performance . Proceedings of a Fields Institute Symposium,
Faculty of Education, University of Western Ontario.

Gerofsky, S. (2008). Gesture as diagnosis & intervention in

the pedagogy of graphing: Pilot studies & next steps. In
International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics
Education: Proceedings of the Joint Meeting of PME 32 and
PME-NA XXX (pp. 17–21).

Gerofsky, S. (2009). Performance mathematics and democracy.

Educational Insights, 13(1). Special issue, “Performing
the Sign.” Retrieved from
www.ccfi.educ.ubc.ca/publication/insights/v13n01/toc. html
(January 2015).

Gerofsky, S. (2010). Mathematical learning and gesture:

Character viewpoint and observer viewpoint in students’
gestured graphs of functions. Gesture, 10 (2–3), 322–344.

Gerofsky, S. (2011a). Seeing the graph vs. being the graph.

Integrating Gestures: The Interdisciplinary Nature of
Gesture, 4, 245–256.

Gerofsky, S. (2011b). “Without emotion, there is nothing

left but burden”: Teaching mathematics through Heathcote’s
improvisational drama. In R. Sar hangi & C. Sequin (Eds.),
Proceedings of Bridges 2011 Coimbra: Mathematics, Music,
Art, Architectur e, Culture (pp. 329–337). University of
Coimbra, Portugal.

Gerofsky, S. (2011c). Ancestral genres of mathematical

graphs. For the Learning of Mathematics, 31(1), 14–19.

Gerofsky, S. (2013). Learning mathematics through dance. In

G.W . Hart & R. Sarhangi (Eds.), Proceedings of Bridges
2013 Eschede, NL: Mathematics, Music, Art, Ar chitecture,
Culture (pp. 337–344). Enschede, NL: Saxon University.

Gerofsky, S., Savage, M. & Maclean, K. (2009). ‘Being the

graph’: Using haptic and kinesthetic interfaces to engage
students learning about functions. In Bardini, C. & Fortin,
P. (Eds.) Proceedings of ICTMT 9: The Ninth International
Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching,
Université de Metz, Metz, France.

Gerofsky, S., Sinclair, N. & Davis, B. (2003). Mathematics

and the arts. In B. Davis and E. Simmt (Eds.) Proceedings
of the 2002 Meeting of the Canadian Mathematics Education
Study Group.

Givr y, D., & Roth, W. M. (2006). Toward a new conception

of conceptions: Interplay of talk, gestures, and
structures in the setting. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 43(10), 1086–1109.

Gödel, K. (1992). On formally undecidable propositions of

Principia Mathematica and related systems. Mineola, NY:
Dover.

Goldin-Meadow, S. (2003). Resilience of language: How

gesture creation in deaf students can tell us how all
children learn language. New York: Taylor & Francis.

Goldin-Meadow, S. (2005). Hearing gesture: How our hands

help us think. Cambridge, MA: Har vard University Press.

Goldin-Meadow, S. (2014). How gesture works to change our

minds. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 3(1), 4–6.

Goldin-Meadow, S., Nusbaum, H., Kelly, S. D., & Wagner, S.

(2001). Explaining math: Gesturing lightens the load.
Psychological Science , 12(6), 516–522.

Grossberg, L., Nelson, C. & Treichler, P.A. (Eds.) (1992).

Cultural studies. New York: Routledge.

Grosz, E. (1994). Volatile bodies: Toward a corporeal

feminism. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

Hall, S. (1993). What is this “black” in black popular

culture? Social Justice, 20 (1–2), 104–114.

Haraway, D. (1987). A manifesto for cyborgs: Science,

technology, and socialist feminism in the 1980s.
Australian Feminist Studies, 2(4), 1–42.

Haraway, D. (1999). The biopolitics of postmodern bodies:

Determinations of self in immune system discourse.
Feminist theory and the body: A reader, 1(1), 203.

Havelock, E. (1982). Preface to Plato. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Healy, L. & Fernandes, S. H. A. A. (2011). The role of

gestures in the mathematical practices of those who do not
see with their eyes. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
77, 157–174.

Healy, L., Fernandes, S. H. A. A., & do Rosário, C.N.S.

(2008). The role of gestures in the mathematical practices
of blind learners. In Proceedings of the 32nd conference of
the international group for the psychology of mathematics
education (Vol. 3, pp. 137–144). Morelia, Mexico.

Healy, L. & Kynigos, C. (2010). Charting the microworld

territor y over time: Design and construction in
mathematics education. ZDM—The International Journal on
Mathematics Education, 42, 63–76.

Hegedus, S. J. & Moreno-Armella, L. (2011). The emergence

of mathematical structures. Educational Studies in
Mathematics 77(2–3), 369–388.

Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time. (J. Macquarrie and E.

Robinson, Trans.). Oxford: Blackwell.

Holbert, N. R., & Wilensky, U. (2012). Designing video

games that encourage players to integrate formal
representations with informal play. In Proceedings of
the10th International Conference of the Learning Sciences:
The Future of Learning, ICLS 2012. Vol. 1, pp. 119–126.
Sydney, Australia.

Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (2009.) The technological mediation

of mathematics and its learning. Human Development, 52(2),
129–147.

Innis, H. A. (2008). The bias of communication. Toronto:

University of Toronto Press.

Jackiw, N., & Sinclair, N. (2009). Sounds and pictures:

Dynamism and dualism in dynamic geometry. ZDM—The Inter
national Journal on Mathematics Education, 41, 413–426.

Johnson, M. (1990). The body in the mind. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Johnson, M. (2008). The meaning of the body: Aesthetics of

human understanding. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kaput, J. J. (1994). The representational roles of

technology in connecting mathematics with authentic
experience. In R. Biehler (Ed.), Didactics of mathematics
as a scientific discipline (pp. 379–397). Berlin:
Springer.

Keller, E. F. (1983). A feeling for the organism. New

York: W. H. Freeman & Company.

Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: Visible action as utterance .

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kita, S. (2000). How representational gestures help

speaking. In D. McNeill (Ed.), Language and gesture (pp.
162–185). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kristeva, J. (2002). The portable Kristeva. New Y ork:

Columbia University Press.

Kroker, A., & Kroker, M. L. (1987). Body invaders.

Victoria, BC: New World Perspectives.

Lacan, J. (1966). Écrits . Paris: Le Seuil.

Lakoff, G. (1990). Women, fire and dangerous things.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh:

The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought.
New Y ork: Basic Books.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, G. & Núñez, R. (2000). Where mathematics comes

from. New Y ork: Basic Books.

Latour, B. (2007). Can we get our materialism back, please?

Isis, 98(1), 138–142.

Latour, B. (2009). A collective of humans and non-humans

following Daedalus’s labyrinth. In Pandora’s hope: Essays
on the reality of science studies (pp. 174–215). Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.

Levi-Strauss, C. (1969). The raw and the cooked. (J.

Weightman & D. Weightman, Trans.) London: Jonathan Cape.

Lewis, T. E., & Kahn, R. (2010). Education out of bounds:

Reimagining cultural studies for a posthuman age. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lindgren, R., & Johnson-Glenberg, M. (2013). Emboldened by

embodiment: Six precepts for research on embodied learning
and mixed reality. Educational Researcher 42(8), 445–452.

Lyotard, J. F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report

on knowledge. (G. Bennington & B. Massumi, Trans.)
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

MacLure, M. (2013). Researching without r epresentation?

Language and materiality in post-qualitative methodology.
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education,
26(6), 658–667.

Massumi, B. (2002). Parables for the virtual: Movement,

affect, sensation. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Mauss, M. (1954). The gift. (I. G. Cunnison, Trans.).

London: Cohen & West.

McCafferty, S. G., & Stam, G. A. (Eds.). (2008). Gesture:

Second language acquisition and classroom research .
Abingdon, UK: Taylor & Francis.

McLuhan, E., & Zingrone, F. (Eds.). (1995). Essential

McLuhan. Toronto: House of Anansi.

McLuhan, M. (1962). The Gutenberg galaxy: The making of

typographic man. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of
man. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1994.

McLuhan, M. (1967). 1967 McLuhan television interview.

Retrieved from www.youtube.com/ watch?v=OMEC_HqWlBY
(December 2013).

McLuhan, M. (1974). At the moment of Sputnik the planet

became a global theater in which there are no spectators
but only actors. Journal of Communication, 24(1), 48–58.

McLuhan, M. (2010). Understanding me: Lectures and

interviews. (S. McLuhan & D. Staines, Eds.) New York:
Random House.

McLuhan, M., & McLuhan, E. (1988). Laws of media: The new

science. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal

about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

McNeill, D. (Ed.) (2000). Language and gesture. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

McNeill, D. (2008). Gesture and thought. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Mendick, H. (2004). A mathematician goes to the movies.

Research Into Learning Mathematics, pp. 43–48.

Merleau-Ponty, M. (1945). Phenomenology of perception.

London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1962.

Morgan, C., & Alshwaikh, J. (2008). Imag(in)ing

three-dimensional movement with gesture: ‘Playing turtle’
or pointing? In Proceedings of the British Society for
Research into Learning Mathematics, 28(3), 136–141.

Müller, C. (2002). A brief history of the origins of the

ISGS. Retrieved from www.gesturestudies.com/ history.php
(December 2013).

Nemirovsky, R. & Borba, M. (2003) Perceptual-motor activity

and imagination in mathematics learning. In Pateman, N.,
Dougherty, B., & Zilliox, J. (Eds.). Proceedings of the
27th Conference of the International Gr oup for the
Psychology of Mathematics Education held jointly with the
25th Conference of PME-NA. Honolulu: University of Hawaii.

Nemirovsky, R., & Ferrara, F. (2009). Mathematical

imagination and embodied cognition. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 70(2), 159–174.

Nemirovsky, R., Kelton, M. L., & Rhodehamel, B. (2012).

Gesture and imagination: On the constitution and uses of
phantasms. Gesture, 12(2), 130–165.

Nicol, C. & Gerofsky, S. (2009). Mapping multiple worlds:

Imagining school mathematics beyond the grid. In
Liljedahl, P., Oesterle, S. & Abu-Bakare, V. (Eds.),
Proceedings of CMESG 2009: Canadian Mathematics Education
Study Group annual meeting (pp. 111–116). Toronto: York
University.

Noble, T ., Nemirovsky, R., Wright, T., & Tierney, C.

(2001). Experiencing change: The mathematics of change in
multiple environments. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 85–108.

Núñez, R. (2004a). Do real numbers really move? Language,

thought, and gesture: The embodied cognitive foundations of
mathematics. Embodied artificial intelligence (pp. 54–73).
Berlin & Heidelberg: Springer.

Núñez, R. (2004b). Embodied cognition and the nature of

mathematics: Language, gesture, and abstrac tion. In K.
Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of the
26th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society
(pp. 36–37). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Núñez, R. E. (2008). A fresh look at the foundations of

mathematics: Gesture and the psychological reality of
conceptual metaphor . In A. Cienki & C. Müller (Eds.),
Metaphor and gesture (pp. 93–114). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.

Núñez, R. E., Edwards, L. D., & Matos, J. F. (1999).

Embodied cognition as grounding for situatedness and
context in mathematics education. Educational Studies in
Mathematics 39, 45–65.

Papert, S. (1993). Mindstorms. New York: Basic Books.

Paterson, M. (2007). The senses of touch: Haptics, affects

and technologies. New York: Berg.

Plato. (1976). The meno. (G.M.A. Grube, Trans.).

Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing.

Plato. (2004). The republic. (C.D.C. Reeve, Trans.).

Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing.

Presmeg, N. C. (1997). A semiotic framework for linking

cultural practice and classroom mathematics. In J. A.
Dossey, J. O. Swafford, M. Parmantie, & A. E. Dossey
(Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th Annual Meeting of the
North American Chapter of the International Group for the
Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 151–156).

Presmeg, N. (2003). Beliefs about the nature of mathematics

in the bridging of everyday and school mathematical
practices. In Beliefs: A Hidden Variable in Mathematics
Education? (pp. 293–312). Amsterdam: Springer.

Presmeg, N. (2005). Metaphor and metonymy in processes of

semiosis in mathematics education. In Activity and sign
(pp. 105–115). New York: Springer US.

Presmeg, N. C. (2006). Research on visualization in

learning and teaching mathematics. Handbook of research on
the psychology of mathematics education , 205–235.

Presmeg, N. (2008). Spatial abilities research as a

foundation for visualization in teaching and learning
mathematics. In Critical Issues in Mathematics Education
(pp. 83–95). New York: Springer US.

Radford, L. (2002). The seen, the spoken and the written: A

semiotic approach to the problem of objectification of
mathematical knowledge. For the Learning of Mathematics,
22(2), 14–23.

Radford, L. (2009). Why do gestures matter? Sensuous

cognition and the palpability of mathematical meanings.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(2), 11–126.

Radford, L. (2010). The eye as theoretician: Seeing

structures in generalizing activities. For the Learning of
Mathematics, 30(2), 2–7.

Radford, L. (2013). Sensuous cognition. In D. Martinovic,

V. Freiman, & Z. Karadag (Eds.), Visual mathematics and
cyberlearning (pp. 141–162). Dordrecht: Springer.

Radford, L., Edwards, L., & Arzarello, F. (2009).

Introduction: beyond words. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 70(2), 91–95.

Radford, L., & Puig, L. (2007). Syntax and meaning as

sensuous, visual, historical forms of algebraic thinking.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66 (2), 145–164.

Rancière, J. (2004). The politics of aesthetics: The

distribution of the sensible. (G. Rockhill, Trans.). New
York: Continuum.

Robutti, O. (2006). Motion, technology, gestures in

interpreting graphs. International Journal for Technology
in Mathematics Education, 13(3), 117–125.

Robutti, O., Edwards, L., & Ferrara, F. (2012, July).

Enrica’s explanation: Multimodality and gesture. In
Proceedings of 36th Conference of the International Group
for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (p. 27).
Taipei, Taiwan.

Roth, W. M. (2001). Gestures: Their role in teaching and

learning. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 365–392.

Roth. W. M. (2010). Incarnation: Radicalizing the

embodiment of mathematics. For the Learning of
Mathematics, 30 (2), 8–17.

Roth, W. M., & Bowen, G. M. (1998). Decalages in talk and

gesture: Visual and verbal semiotics of ecology lectures.
Linguistics and Education, 10(3), 335–358.

Roth, W. M., & McGinn, M. K. (1998). Inscriptions: Toward a

theory of representing as social practice. Review of
Educational Research, 68(1), 35–59.

Rotman, B. (2005). Gesture in the head: mathematics and

mobility. In Proceedings of the Mathematics and Narrative
Conference. Mykonos, Greece.

Sabena, C., Radford, L., & Bardini, C. (2005).

Synchronizing gestures, words and actions in pattern
generalizations. In Proceedings of the 29 PME Conference
(Vol. 4, pp. 129–136). Melbourne, Australia: University of
Melbourne.

Salk, J. (1983). Anatomy of r eality: merging of intuition

and reason (Convergence series). New York: Columbia
University Press.

Schechner, R. (2003). Performance theory. London: Routledge.

Schechner, R. (2011). Between theater and anthropology.

Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Sheets-Johnstone, M. (1999). The primacy of movement.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Sinclair, N. (2001). The aesthetic is relevant. For the

Learning of Mathematics, 21(1), 25–32.

Sinclair, N. (2009). Aesthetics as a liberating force in

mathematics education? ZDM—The International Journal on
Mathematics Education, 41(1–2), 45–60.

Sinclair, N., De Freitas, E., & Ferrara, F. (2013).

Virtual encounters: The murky and fur tive world of
mathematical inventiveness. ZDM—The International Journal
on Mathematics Education, 45(2), 239–252.

Sinclair, N., Pimm, D., & Higginson, W. (2006).

Mathematics and the aesthetic: New approaches to an
ancient affinity. New York: Springer .

Slingerland, E.E.G. (2008). What science offers the

humanities. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Stewart, K. (2007). Ordinary affects. Durham, NC: Duke

University Press.

Streeck, J. (2009). Gesturecraft: The manu-facture of

meaning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Swanson, D. M. (2007). Cultural beads and mathematical

AIDS: A critical narrative of disadvantage, social context
and school mathematics in post-apartheid South Africa, with
reflections and implications for ‘glocal’ contexts.
Philosophy of Education Journal, 21(2), 1–78.

Taimina, D. (2009). Crocheting adventures with hyperbolic

planes. Wellesley, MA: A. K. Peters.

Tarde, G. (2010). Gabriel Tarde on communication and social

influence: Selected papers. University of Chicago Press.

Toulmin, S. (1992). Cosmopolis: The hidden agenda of

modernity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Turkle, S. (1984). The second self: Computers and the human

spirit. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Turner, V. (1986). From ritual to theater: The human

seriousness of play. New York: PAJ Publications.

Tyler, I. (2000). Reframing pregnant embodiment. In S.

Ahmed, J. Kilby, C. Lury, M. McNeil & B. Skeggs (Eds.),
Transformations: Thinking through feminism (pp. 288–301).
New York: Routledge.

Walkerdine, V. (1998). Counting girls out: Girls and

mathematics. Abingdon, UK: Psychology Press.

Walshaw, M. (Ed.) (2004). Mathematics education within the

postmodern. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Weaver, J. A. (2010). Educating the posthuman:

Biosciences, fiction, and curriculum studies. Rotterdam:
Sense Publishers.

Whitehead, A. N., & Russell, B. (2011). Principia

mathematica. Seaside, OR: Rough Draft Printing.

Wilde, M. H. (1999). Why embodiment now? Advances in

Nursing Science, 22(2), 25–38.

Yaglom, I. M. (1981). Elementary geometry, then and now. In

C. Davis, B. Grünbaum, & F. A. Sherk (Eds.), The geometric
vein (pp. 253–269). New York: Springer.

Zevenbergen, R. (2000). Cracking the “code” of mathematics

classrooms: School success as a function of linguistic,
social and cultural background. In J. Boaler (Ed.),
Multiple Perspectives on Mathematics Teaching and Learning
(pp. 201–223). Westport, CT: Ablex.

Zizek, S. (1997). The plague of fantasies . London: Verso.

4 Configuring Learning Theory to Support
Teaching

AERA (2005). Annual meeting program. Retrieved from

www.aera.net/Portals/38/docs/Annual_
Meeting/AM_2005_000_Full%20Program.pdf

Aikenhead, G. S., & Jegede, O. J. (1999). Cross-cultural

science education: A cognitive explanation of a cultural
phenomenon. Journal for Research in Science Teaching,
36(3), 269–287.

Alexander, P. A. (2007). Bridging cognition and

socioculturalism within conceptual change research:
Unnecessary foray or unachievable feat? Educational
Psychologist, 42(1), 67–73. Retrieved from www.
tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00461520709336919.

Anderson, J. R., Greeno, J. G., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H.

A. (2000). Perspectives on learning, thinking, and
activity. Educational Researcher, 29(4), 11–13.

Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1996).

Situated learning and education. Educational Researcher,
25 (4), 5–11.

Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1997).

Situative versus cognitive perspectives: Form versus
substance. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 18–21.

Apple, M. W., & Au, W. (Eds.) (2014). Critical education

(Vol. 2). New York: Routledge.

Arthur, A., & Hancock B. (2007). Introduction to the

research process. The National Institute for Health
Research, Research Design Services for the East
Midlands/Yorkshire & the Humber.

Baker, D., & Taylor, P.C.S. (1995). The effect of culture

on the learning of science in non-Western countries: The
results of an integrated research review. International
Journal of Science Education, 17, 695–704.

Ball, D. L. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical

horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary school
mathematics. The Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 373–397.

Barnes, B. (1985). About science. Oxford: Blackwell.

Beatty, B. (1996). Rethinking the historical role of

psychology in educational reform. In D. Olson &. N.
Torrance (Eds.), Handbook of education and human
development: New models of learning, teaching and
schooling (pp. 100–116). Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.

Benjamin, L. T., Jr. (2007). A brief history of moder n

psychology. Oxford: Blackwell.

Bernstein, R. J. (1983). Beyond objectivism and relativism:

Science, hermeneutics, and praxis. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press.

Biesta, G. (2009). Good education in an age of measur

ement: On the need to reconnect with the question of
purpose in education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation
and Accountability, 21, 33-46.

Bishop, J. P. (2012). “She’s always been the smart one.

I’ve always been the dumb one”: Identities in the
mathematics classroom. Journal for Resear ch in Mathematics
Education, 43(1), 34–74.

Boesch, E. E. (1971). Zwischen zwei wirklichkeiten.

Prolegomena zu einer ökologischen psychologie. Bern:
Huber.

Boyd, W. L., & Mitchell, D. E. (2001). The politics of the

reading wars. In T. Loveless. (Ed.), The great curriculum
debate: How should we teach r eading and math? (pp.
299–341). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Brainer d, C. J. (2003). Jean Piaget: Learning, research,

and American Education. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. Schunk
(Eds.), Educational psychology: A century of contributions
(pp. 251–287). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.)

(2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and
school (Expanded Ed.). Washington, DC: Committee on
Developments in the Science of Learning, National Research
Council.

Bransford, J. D., Stevens, R., Schwartz, D. L., Meltzoff,

P. K., Pea, R. D., Roschelle, J., Vye, N., Kuhl, P., Bell,
P., Barron, B., Reeves, B., & Sabelli, N. (2006). Learning
theories and education: Toward a decade of synergy. In. P.
A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.) Handbook of educational
psychology (2nd ed., pp. 209–244). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Bredo, E. (1994). Reconstructing educational psychology:
Situated cognition and Deweyan pragmatism. Educational
Psychologist, 29(1), 23–35.

Briggs, D., & Domingue, B. (2011). Due diligence and the

evaluation of teachers. Boulder, CO: National Education
Policy Center.

Br ooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1999). In search of

understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms.
Upper Saddle River , NJ: Prentice Hall.

Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in

a community of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom
lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom
practice (pp. 229–270). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Brown, B. A. (2004). Discursive identity: Assimilation into

the culture of science and its implications for minority
students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(8),
810–834.

Brown, G., Manogue, M., & Sadownik, L. (2001). Refreshing

lecturing: A guide for lectures. Medical Teacher, 23(3),
231–244.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated

cognition and the culture of learning. Educational
Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.

Bruner, J. (1983). State of the child. New York Review,

30(16), 83–89.

Burbules, N., & Berk, R. (1999). Critical thinking and

critical pedagogy: Relations, differences, and limits. In
T. Popkewitz & L. Fendler (Eds.), Critical theories in
education. New York: Routledge.

Burns, M. S., Griffin, P., & Snow, C. E. (1999). Starting

out right: A guide to promoting children’s reading
success. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Burton, L. (2004). Mathematicians as enquirers: Learning

about learning mathematics. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Cantor, G. N. (1983). Conflict, learning, and Piaget:

Comments on Zimmerman and Blom’s “Toward an empirical test
of the role of cognitive conflict in learning.”
Developmental Review, 3(1), 39–53.
Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., & Carey, D.
A. (1988). Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of
students’ problem solving in elementary arithmetic. Journal
for Resear ch in Mathematics Education, 19, 385–401.

Case, R. (1992). Neo-Piagetian theories of child

development. In R. J. Sternberg & C. A. Berg (Eds.),
Intellectual development (pp. 161–196). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.

Chomsky, N. (1959). A review of B. F. Skinner’s Verbal

Behavior. Language, 35 (1), 26–58.

Clark, L. M., Badertscher, E. M., & Napp, C. (2013).

African American mathematics teachers as agents in their
African American students’ mathematics identity formation.
Teachers College Record, 115(2). Retrieved from
www.tcrecord.org; ID number: 16835; date accessed:
7/26/2013 5:46:27 p.m.

Clark, R. C., Nguyen, F., & Sweller, J. (2006). Efficiency

in learning: Evidence-based guidelines to manage cognitive
load. San Francisco: Pfeif fer.

Cobb, P. (2007). Putting philosophy to work: Coping with

multiple theoretical perspectives. In Frank K. Lester, Jr.
(Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching
and learning (pp. 3–38). Greenwich, CT: Information Age
Publishing.

Cobb, P., & Steffe, L. P. (1983). The constructivist

researcher as teacher and model builder. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 14, 83–94.

Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). Defining the outcomes of teacher

education: What’s social justice got to do with it?
Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 32(3), 193–212.

Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology. Cambridge, MA: The

Belknap Press.

Collins, H. M., & Pinch, T. J. (1993). The golem: What

everyone should know about science. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.

Confrey , J. (1990). A review of the research on student

conceptions in mathematics, science, and pro gramming. In
C. B. Cazden (Ed.), Review of research in education (pp.
3–56). Washington, DC: American Educational Research
Association.

Costello, C. Y. (2005). Professional identity crisis:

Race, class, gender, and success at professional schools.
Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

Cubberly, E. P. (1920). The history of education. Boston:

Houghton Mifflin.

Dahl, K., Scharer , P., Lawson, L., & Grogan, P. (1999).

Phonics instruction and student achievement in whole
language first-grade classrooms. Reading Research Quar
terly, 34(3), 312–341. doi:10.1598/ RRQ.34.3.4.

Danziger, K. (1990). Constructing the subject. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Davidson, D. (1974). On the very idea of a conceptual

scheme. Proceedings and Addresses of the American
Philosophical Association, 47, 5–20.

Dechant, E. (1993). Whole-language reading: A

comprehensive teaching guide. Lancaster, PA: Technomic.

Delpit, L. (2006). Other people’s children: Cultural

conflict in the classroom. New York: New Press.

Design-Based Research Collaborative (2003). Design-based

research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry.
Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.

Dewey, J. (1900). School and society. Chicago: University

of Chicago Press.

diSessa, A. A. (2006). A history of conceptual change

research: Threads and fault lines. In R. K. Sawyer, (Ed.),
The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp.
265–281). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Donovan, M. S., & Bransford, J. D. (Eds.) (2005). How

students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the
classroom . Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Draper, R. J. (2002). School mathematics reform,

constructivism, and literacy: A case for literacy
instruction in the reform-oriented math classroom. Journal
of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45(6), 20–529. Retrieved
from http://jwilson.coe.uga.edu/EMA
T7050/Students/Ramsey/DraperMathLiteracy.pdg.pdf.
Driver-Linn, E. (2003). Where is psychology going?
Structural fault lines revealed by psychologists’ use of
Kuhn. American Psychologist, 58, 269–278. Retrieved from
www.radford.edu/~tpierce/622%20files/
Driver-Linn%20(2003)%20Kuhn.pdf.

Durkheim, E. (1895/1964). The rules of sociological method.

New York: The Free Press. (Originally published as Les
règles de la mêthode sociologique. Paris: Alcan, 1895.)

Egan, K. (1997). The educated mind: How cognitive tools

shape our understanding. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.

Eggen, P., & Kauchak, D. (2013). Educational Psychology:

Windows on Classrooms. Boston: Pearson.

English, L. D. (Ed.) (2008). Handbook of international

research in mathematics education (2nd ed.). New Y ork:
Routledge.

Ernest, P. (1998). Social constructivism as a philosophy of

mathematics. Albany, NY: State University of New York
Press.

Fischer, K. W. (1980). A theory of cognitive development:

The control and construction of hierarchies of skills.
Psychological Review, 87, 477–531.

Fletcher, G. (1995). The scientific credibility of folk

psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Fox, B. J. (2000). Word identification strategies: Phonics

from a new perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Fox, E., & Riconscente, M. (2008). Metacognition and

self-regulation in James, Piaget, and Vygotsky.
Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 373–389.

Freire, P. (1998). Teachers as cultural workers. Boulder,

CO: Westview Press.

Fu, Q., Fu, X., & Dienes, Z. (2008). Implicit sequence

learning and conscious awareness. Consciousness and
Cognition 17, 185–202.

Gardner, M. (1987). Riddles of the sphinx and other

mathematical puzzle tales. Washington, DC: Mathematical
Association of America.
Geertz, C. (2000). Available light: Anthropological
reflections on philosophical topics. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.

Gergen, K. J. (2002). Social construction and pedagogical

practice. In K. J. Gergen, Social construction in context
(pp. 115–136). London & Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Giroux, H. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals: T oward a

critical pedagogy of learning. South Hadley, MA: Bergin
Garvey.

Giroux, H. (1997). Pedagogy and the politics of hope:

Theory, culture, and schooling. Boulder, CO: West view.

von Glasersfeld, E. (1987). Learning as a constructive

activity. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation
in the teaching and learning of mathematics. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers, 3–17.

von Glasersfeld, E. (1991). Abstraction, re-presentation,

and reflection: An interpretation of experience and
Piaget’s approach. In L. P. Steffe (Ed.), Epistemological
foundations of mathematical knowledge (pp. 45–67). New
York: Springer-Verlag.

von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constr uctivism: A way

of knowing and learning. New York: Falmer Press.

Glick, J. A. (1983). Piaget, Vygotsky, and Werner. In S. W

apner & B. Kaplan (Eds.), Toward a holistic developmental
psychology (pp. 35–52). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Goodman, K. S. (1986). What’s whole in whole language?

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Goodman, K. S. (Ed.) (1998). In defense of good teaching:

What teachers need to know about the “Reading Wars.” York,
ME: Stenhouse.

Goodson-Espy, T . (1998). The roles of reification and

reflective abstraction in the development of abstract
thought: Transitions from arithmetic to algebra.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 36, 219–245.

Gray. E., & Tall, D. (2001). Relationships between

embodied objects and symbolic procepts: An explanatory
theory of success and failure in mathematics. Proceedings
of PME 25, Ütrecht, Holland: University of Ütrecht.

Green, E. (2014). Building a better teacher: How teaching

works (and how to teach it to everyone). New York: W. W.
Norton & Company Inc.

Greeno, J. G. (1978). Understanding and procedural

knowledge in mathematics instruction. Educational
Psychologist, 12(3), 94–143.

Greeno, J. G. (1993). For research to reform education and

cognitive science. In L. A. Penner, G. M. Batsche, H. M.
Knoff, & D. L. Nelson (Eds.), The challenges in mathematics
and science education: Psychology’s response (pp.
153–192). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.

Greeno, J. G. (1997). On claims that answer the wrong

question. Educational Researcher, 26 (1), 5–17.

Greeno, J. G. (2011). A situative perspective on cognition

and learning in interaction. In T. Koschmann (Ed.),
Theorizing learning and practice (pp. 41–72). New York:
Springer.

Greeno, J. G., Collins, A.M., & Resnick, L. B. (1996).

Cognition and learning. In D.C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee
(Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15–46). New
York: Macmillan.

Gruenewald, D. A. (2003). The best of both worlds: A

critical pedagogy of place. Educational Researcher, 32(4),
3–12.

Gutiérrez, R. (2002). Enabling the practice of mathematics

teachers in context: Toward a new research agenda.
Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 4, 145–189.

Gutstein, E. (2006). Reading and writing the world with

mathematics: Toward a pedagogy for social justice. New
York, NY: Routledge.

Hall, E. T. (1966) The hidden dimension. New York:

Doubleday.

Hall, V. C. (2003). Educational psychology from 1820 to

1920. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds.), Educational
psychology: A century of contributions (pp. 3–40). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Harel, G., & Sowder, L. (2007). Toward comprehensive
perspectives on the lear ning and teaching of proof. In F.
K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics
education (pp. 805–842). Charlotte, NC: Information Age
Publishers.

Healy, C. C. (1993a). 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. 85–104). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Publishers.

Healy, C. C. (1993b). Build-A-Book Geometry: A story of

student discovery. Berkeley, CA: Key Curriculum Press.

Hergenhahn, B. R. (2009). An introduction to the history of

psychology (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage
Learning.

Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. P. (1992). Learning and

teaching with understanding. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.),
Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning
(pp. 65–97). New York: Macmillan Co.

Hirst, W., & Manier, D. (1995). Opening vistas for

cognitive psychology. In L.M.W. Martin, K. Nelson, & E.
Tobach (Eds.), Sociocultural psychology: Theory and
practice of doing and knowing (pp. 89–124). New York:
Cambridge University Press.

Honig, B. (1996). How should we teach our children to

read?: The role of skills in a comprehensive reading
program–A balanced approach. San Francisco: Far West
Laboratory for Educational Research and Development.

Hopkins, D., & Stern, D. (1996). Quality teachers, quality

schools: International perspectives and policy
implications. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 501–517.

Howe, K. R., & Berv, J. (2000). Constructing

constructivism, epistemological and pedagogical. In D.C.
Phillips (Ed.), Constructivism in education: Opinions and
second opinions on controversial issues. Ninety-ninth
Yearbook of the National Society of the Study of Education,
Part I (pp. 19–40). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hunt, M. (1993). The story of psychology . New York:

Doubleday.

Hutchins, E. (1995). How a cockpit remembers its speed.

Cognitive Science, 19, 265–288.

Hutchison, A. (2012). Mind the gap: Education reform policy

and pedagogical practice. The International Journal of
Educational Organization and Leadership, 19, 1–12.

Inhelder, B., Sinclair, H., & Bovet, M. (1974). Learning

and the development of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Har vard
University Press.

Jones, S., & Vagle, M. D. (2013). Living contradictions and

working for change toward a theory of social
class–sensitive pedagogy. Educational Researcher , 42,
129–141.

Kennedy, M. M. (1999). A test of some common contentions

about educational research. American Educational Resear ch
Journal, 36, 511–541.

Kenny, M.E., & Bledsoe, M. (2005). Contributions of the

relational context to career adaptability among urban
adolescents. Journal of V ocational Behaviour, 66(2),
257–272.

Kim, Y. Y. (1988). Communication and cross-cultural

adaptation: An integrative theory. Intercommunication
Series, 2. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters,
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/ 1988-97819-000.

Kincheloe, J., & Steinberg, S. (2007). Cutting class:

Socio-economic status and education. Boulder, CO: Rowman &
Littlefield.

Kirshner, D. (2002). Untangling teachers’ diverse

aspirations for student learning: A crossdisciplinary
strategy for relating psychological theory to pedagogical
practice. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
33(1), 46–58.

Kirshner, D. (2004). Enculturation: The neglected learning

metaphor in mathematics education. In D. McDougall & J.
A. Ross (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-sixth annual
meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of
Mathematics Education, North American Chapter (vol. 2,
pp. 765–772), Toronto: OISE/UT.

Kirshner, D. (2012). The decline of lear ning theory as an

influence on pedagogy: A crossdisciplinary analysis.
Paper presented at AERA Annual Meeting, V ancouver, Canada,
April.
Kirshner, D., & Awtry, T. (2004). V isual salience of
algebraic transformations. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 35(4), 224–257.

Kirshner, D., & Meng, L. (2011). Enculturation and

acculturation. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the
sciences of learning (pp. 1148–1151). Berlin: Springer
Publishing.

Kirsner, K. Speelman, C. Maybery, M., O’Brien-Malone, A.,

Anderson, M., & McCleod, C. (Eds.) (2013). Implicit and
explicit mental processes. East Sussex, UK: Psychology
Press.

Klein, D. (2005). The state of state MATH standards.

Washington, DC: Fordham Foundation. Retrieved from
www.math.jhu.edu/~wsw/ED/mathstandards05FINAL.pdf.

Klein, D. (2007). A quarter century of US ‘math wars’ and

political partisanship. BSHM Bulletin: Jour nal of the
British Society for the History of Mathematics, 22(1),
22–33, doi: 10.1080/17498430601148762.

Klein, D., Askey, R., Milgram, R. J., Wu, H., Scharlemann,

M., Tsang, B., et al. (1999, November 18). An open letter
to United States Secretary of Education, Richard Riley. The
Washington Post.

Kottow, M. H. (1992). Classical medicine v alternative

medical practices. Journal of Medical Ethics, 18, 18–22.
Retrieved from http://jme.bmj.com/content/18/1/18.full.pdf.

Krashen, S. D. (2003). False claims about phonemic

awareness, phonics, skills vs. whole language, and
recreational reading. NoChildLeft.com, 1(5). Retrieved from
www.nochildleft.com/2003/may03 reading.html.

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific

revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions

(enlarged ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kuhn, T. S. (2000). The road since Structure: Philosophical

Essays, 1970–1993, with an autobiographical interview
edited by Conant & J. Haugland. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

Labaree, D. F. (2000). On the nature of teaching and

teacher education: Difficult practices that look easy.
Journal of Teacher Education, 51 , 228–233.

Lakoff, G., & Núñez, R. E. (2000). Where mathematics comes

from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being.
New York: Basic Books.

Lagemann, E. C. (1989). The plural worlds of educational

research. History of Education Quarterly, 29(2), 185–214.
doi:10.2307/368309. Retrieved from
www.jstor.org/stable/368309.

Lagemann, E. C. (2000). An elusive science: The troubling

history of education research . Chicago: University of
Chicago.

Lamiell, J. T. (2013). Critical personalism: On its tenets,

its historical obscurity, and its future prospects. In J.
Martin & M. H. Bickhard (Eds.), The psychology of
personhood: Philosophical, historical,
social-developmental, and narrative perspectives (pp.
101–123). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Lampert, M. (1985). How do teachers manage to teach?

Perspectives on problems in practice. Harvard Educational
Review, 55, 178–194.

Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press.

Leahey, T. H. (1992). The mythical revolutions of American

psychology. American Psychologist, 47, 308–318. Retrieved
from www
.radford.edu/~tpierce/622%20files/Leahey%20%281992%29%20

Leary, D. E. (1994). Psyche’s muse: The role of metaphor in

the history of psychology. In D. E. Leary (Ed.), Metaphors
in the history of psychology (pp. 1–78). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.

Leiter, K. (1980). A primer on ethnomethodology. New Y ork:

Oxford University Press.

Lerman, S. (2009). Pedagogy, discourse and identity. In L.

Black, H. Mendick, & Y. Solomon (Eds.), Mathematical
relationships: Identities and participation (pp. 147–159).
New York: Routledge.

Lesh, R., & Sriraman, B. (2005). Mathematics education as a

design science. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik,
37(6), 490–505.

Lester, F. K. (2010). On the theoretical, conceptual, and

philosophical foundations for research in mathematics
education. In B. Sriraman & L. English (Eds.) (2010).
Theories of mathematics education: Seeking new fr ontiers
(Advances in Mathematics Education) (pp. 67–85).
Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Science. Reprinted from
International Reviews on Mathematical Education, 37(6),
457–467, 2005.

Lewin, P. (1995). The social already inhabits the

epistemic: A discussion of Driver; Wood, Cobb, & Yackel;
and von Glasersfeld. In L. P. Steffe & G. Gale (Eds.),
Constructivism in education (pp. 423–432). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Li, S. (2001). How close is too close? A comparison of

proxemic reactions of Singaporean Chinese to male
intruders of four ethnicities. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
93, 124–126.

Loveless, T. (2001). Introduction. In T. Loveless (Ed.),

The great curriculum debate: How should we teach reading
and math? (pp. 1–12). Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution Press.

Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary

mathematics: Teacher’s understanding of fundamental
mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Maddock, M. N. (1981). Science education: An

anthropological viewpoint. Studies in Science Education,
8, 1–26.

Mark, J., Cuoco, A., Goldenberg, E. P., & Sword, S. (2010).

Developing mathematical habits of mind. Mathematics
Teaching in the Middle School, 15(9), 505–509.

Marr , D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation

into the human representation and processing of visual
information. New York: Freeman.

McCarty, L. P., & Schwandt, T. A. (2000). Seductive

illusions: Von Glasersfeld and Gergen on epistemology and
education. In D. C. Phillips (Ed.), Constructivism in
education: Opinions and second opinions on controversial
issues. Ninety-ninth yearbook of the National Society of
the Study of Education, Part I (pp. 41–85). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

McCombs, B. L. (2003). A framework for the redesign of

K-12 education in the context of current educational
reform. Theory Into Practice, 42(2), 93–101.

McLeod, D. B., Stake, R. E., Schappelle, B., &

Mellissinos, M. (1995). International influences on the
NCTM Standards: A case study of educational change. In D.
T. Owens, M. K. Reed, & G. M. Millsaps (Eds.), Proceedings
of the seventeenth annual meeting of the North American
Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of
Mathematics Education (pp. 240–246). Columbus, OH: ERIC
Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental
Education.

McRae, M. (2011). Tribal science: Brains, beliefs, and bad

ideas. St. Lucia, Australia: University of Queensland
Press.

Mehan, H., & Wood, H. (1975). The reality of

ethnomethodology. New York: Wiley.

Merton, R. K. (1942/1973). The normative structure of

science. In R. K. Merton, The sociology of science:
Theoretical and empirical investigations (pp. 267–278).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Millei, Z, Griffiths, T. G., & Parkes, R. J. (2010).

Re-theorizing discipline in education: Problems, politics,
& possibilities. New York: Peter Lang.

Morgan, C. L. (1894/1903). An introduction to comparative

psychology (2nd ed.). London: Walter Scott Publishing.

Morris, E. K. (2003). B. F. Skinner: A behavior analyst in

educational psychology. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. Schunk
(Eds.), Educational psychology: A century of contributions
(pp. 229–250). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Moscardini, L. (2014). Developing equitable elementary

mathematics classr ooms through teachers learning about
children’s mathematical thinking: Cognitively Guided
Instruction as an inclusive pedagogy. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 43, 69–79.

Murray, D. J. (1988). A history of Western psychology (2nd

ed). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Nardi, B. A. (1996). Studying context: A comparison of

activity theory, situated action models, and distributed
cognition. In Nardi, B. A. (Ed.), Context and
consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer
interaction (pp. 69–102). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Nasir, N. S., & Cobb, P. (Eds.). (2002). Editors’

introduction to Diversity, equity, and mathematical
learning. Special issue of Mathematical Thinking and
Problem Solving, 4(2&3), 91–102.

Nasir, N. S., & Saxe, G. B. (2003). Ethnic and academic

identities: A cultural practice perspective on emerging
tensions and their management in the lives of minority
students. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 14–18.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education.

(2002). Professional standards for the accreditation of
schools, colleges, and departments of education.
Washington, DC: Author.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989).

Curriculum and evaluation standards for school
mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

National Dissemination Center for Children with

Disabilities (NICHCY) (2009). How NCLB defines “Highly
Qualified.” Retrieved from
http://nichcy.org/schools-administrators/hqt/nclb.

National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations

for success: The final report of the National Mathematics
Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education.

National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain,

mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2005). How students learn:

History, mathematics, and science in the classroom. M. S.
Donovan & J. D. Bransford (Eds.). Committee on How People
Learn: A Targeted Report for Teachers. Division of
Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.

Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Niss, M. (2004). Key issues and trends in research on

mathematical educational. In H. Fujita, Y. Hashimoto, B.
Hodgson, P. Yee Lee, S. Lerman, & T. Sawada (Eds.),
Proceedings of the ninth international congress on
mathematical education (pp. 37–57). Dordrecht,
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/1–4020–7910–9/page/1.

Noddings, N. (1990). Constr uctivism in mathematics

education. 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, Monograph Number 4 (pp. 7–18). Reston, VA:
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

North, A. (2015). Ar e ‘learning styles’ a symptom of

education’s ills? New York Times, Op Talk, 2/25/15.
Retrieved from

Nuthall, G., (2004). Relating classroom teaching to student

learning: A critical analysis of why research has failed
to bridge the theory-practice gap. Harvard Educational
Review,74(3), 273–306. Retrieved from
http://her.hepg.org/content/e08k1276713824u5/fulltext.pdf.

Oberheim, E., & Hoyningen-Huene, P. (2013). The

incommensurability of scientific theories. In E. N. Zalta
(Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring
Edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/
archives/spr2013/entries/incommensurability/.

Olson, D. R. (2003). Psychological theory and educational

reform: How school remakes mind and society. Cambridge,
MA: Cambridge University Press.

Olson, D. R., & Bruner, J. S. (1996). Folk psychology and

folk pedagogy. In D. R. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), The
handbook of education and human development (pp. 9–27).
Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

Ormrod, J. E. (2000). Behaviorist views of learning. In J.

E. Ormord, Educational psychology: Developing learners
(3rd ed.) (pp. 394–432). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.

Ormrod, J. E. (2009). Essentials of educational psychology.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Ostrove J. M., & Cole E. R. (2003). Privileging class:

Toward a critical psychology of social class in the
context of education. Journal of Social Issues, 59,
677–692. doi:10.1046/j.0022–4537.2003.00084.x.
Otero, J. (1998). Influence of knowledge activation and
context on comprehension monitoring of science texts. In
D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.).
Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp.
145–164). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Otterness, J. (2009). Teaching and learning—It’s not rocket

science! Phi Delta Kappan, 91(2), 86–88.

Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. London: Routledge &

Kegan Paul.

Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2009).

Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological
Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105–119.

Pavlov, I. P. (1897/1910). The work of the digestive

glands. (W. H. Thompson, Trans.) London: Charles Griffin &
Co.

Pavlov, I. P. (1927). Conditioned reflexes: An

investigation of the physiological activity of the cerebral
cortex . (G. V. Anrep, Trans./Ed.) London: Oxford
University Press.

Paz, T., & Leron, U. (2009). The slippery road from actions
on objects to functions and variables. Journal for Research
in Mathematics Education, 40(1), 18–39.

Pedamonte, B. (2007). How can the r elationship between

argumentation and proof be analysed? Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 66(1), 23–41. Retrieved from
http://link.springer.com/article/10.
1007%2Fs10649–006–9057-x.

Penuel, W. R., & Wertsch, J. V. (1995). Vygotsky and

identity formation: A sociocultural approach. Educational
Psychologist, 30, 83–92.

Perkins, D., & Ritchhart, R. (2004). When is good

thinking? In D. Y. Dai & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.),
Motivation, emotion, and cognition: Integrative
perspectives on intellectual functioning and development
(pp. 175–194). Mawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Perrenet, J., & Taconis, R. (2009). Mathematical

enculturation: Shifts in problem solving beliefs and
behavior during the bachelor programme. Educational Studies
in Mathematics, 71, 181–198.
doi:10.1007/s10649-008-9166-9.

Phillips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly:

The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher,
24(7), 5–12.

Piaget, J. (1965/1995). Sociological studies (T. Brown, R.

Campbell, N. Emler, M. Ferrari, M. Gribetz, R. Kitchener,
W. Mays, A. Notari, C. Sherrard, and L. Smith, Trans.). New
York: Routledge.

Piaget, J. (1970/1983). Piaget’s theory. In P. H. Mussen

(Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (4th ed., Vol. 1, pp.
103–128). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Piaget, J. (1971). Biology and Knowledge. Edinburgh

University Press, Edinbur gh.

Piaget, J. (1975). L’equilibration des structures

cognitives. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Piaget, J. (1977a). Problems of equilibration. In M. H.

Appel, & L. S. Goldberg, (Eds.), Topics in cognitive
development (Vol. 1, pp. 3–14). New York: Plenum.

Piaget, J. (1977b). Recherches sur l’abstraction

reflechissante , Vols. 1 & 2. Paris: Presses
Universitaires de France.

Pinch, T. (2007). The sociology of science and technology.

In C. D. Bryant & D. L. Peck (Eds.), 21st century
sociology: A reference handbook (vol. 2) (pp. 266–276).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Polya, G. (1957). How to solve it: A new aspect of

mathematical method (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Pr ess.

Powell, J. W. (1883). Human evolution: Annual address of

the President, J. W. Powell, Delivered Novem ber 6, 1883.
Transactions of the Anthropological Society of Washington,
2 , 176–208.

Prawat, R. S. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs about teaching and

learning: A constructivist perspective. American Journal of
Education, 100, 354–395.

Pr essley, M., & Roehrig, A. D. (2003). Educational

psychology in the modern era: 1960 to the present. In B. J.
Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds.), Educational psychology: A
century of contributions (pp. 333–366). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Pressman, B. (2007). Substitute teaching from A to Z. New

York: McGraw-Hill.

Reber, A. S. (1967). Implicit learning of artificial

grammars. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,
6, 855–863.

Reber, A. S. (1993). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge:

An essay on the cognitive unconscious (Oxford Psychology
Series No. 19). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; New
York: Clarendon Press.

Regehr, G. (2010). It’s NOT rocket science: Rethinking our

metaphors for research in health professions education.
Medical Education, 44(1), 31–39. Retrieved from
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pubmed/20078754.

Remland, M.S., Jones, T. S., & Brinkman, H. (1991).

Proxemic and haptic behavior in three European countries.
Jour nal of Nonverbal Behavior, 15(4), 215–232.

Resendez, M. & Azin, M. (2007). The relationship between

using Saxon elementary and middle school math and student
performance on California statewide assessments. Austin,
TX: Harcourt.

Richey, R. C., Klein, J. D., & Tracey, M. W. (2011). The

instructional design knowledge base: Theory, r esearch,
and practice. New York: Routledge.

Rippa, S. A. (1971). Education in a free society (2nd.

ed.). New York: David McKay Company.

Rosenberg, A. (2005). Philosophy of science: A contemporary

approach (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Rubin, B.C. (2007). Lear ner identity amid figured worlds:

Constructing (in)competence at an urban high school. The
Urban Review, 39, 217–249.

Sarkar, H. (2007). Group rationality in scientific

research. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sawyer, R. K. (2002a). Emergence in sociology: Contemporary

philosophy of mind and some implications for sociological
theory. American Journal of Sociology, 107(3), 551–585.
Retrieved from www. jstor.org/stable/10.1086/338780.
Sawyer, R. K. (2002b). Durkheim’s dilemma: Toward a
sociology of emergence. Sociological Theory, 20(2),
227–247. doi:10.1111/1467–9558.00160.

Saxon Publishers (1992). Saxon Publishers (a promotional

catalogue). Norman, OK: Author.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building.

In J. W. Guthrie (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Education (2nd
ed., pp. 1370–1373). New York: Macmillan Reference, USA.

Scherer, J. (2011). Measuring teaching using value-added

modeling: The imperfect panacea. NASSP Bulletin, 95(2),
122–140. doi:10.1177/0192636511410052.

Schoen, H. L., Fey, J. T., Hirsch, C. R., & Coxford, A. F.

(1999). Issues and options in the Math Wars. Phi Delta
Kappan, 80(6), 444–453.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think

mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense
making in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of
research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp.
334–370). New York: Macmillan.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (2007). Method. In Frank K. Lester, Jr.

(Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching
and learning (pp. 69–107). Greenwich, CT: Information Age
Publishing.

Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1977). Cross-cultural studies of

memory and cognition. In R. V. Kvail, Jr., & J. W. Hagen
(Eds.), Perspectives on the development of memory and
cognition (pp. 239–272). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Secada, W. (1995). Social and critical dimensions for

equity in mathematics education. In W. Secada, E. Fennema,
& L. B. Adajian (Eds.). New directions for equity in
mathematics education (pp. 146–164). New York: Cambridge
University Press.

Serpell, R. (2001). Cultural dimensions of literacy

promotion and schooling. In L. Ver hoven & C. E. Snow
(Eds.), Literacy and motivation: Reading engagement in
individuals and groups (pp. 243–273). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the

dangers of choosing just one. Educational Resear cher,
27(2), 4–13.

Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: Human

development, the growth of discourses, and mathematizing.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Sfard, A., & Linchevski, L. (1994). The gains and the

pitfalls of reification: The case of algebra. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 26, 191–228.

Shapin, S. (1995). Here and everywhere—sociology of

scientific knowledge. Annual Review of Sociology, 21,
289–321.

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations

of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review , 57(1),
1–21.

Sigel, I. E. (1979). On becoming a thinker: A

psychoeducational model. Educational Psychologist, 14,
70–78.

Simon, M. A., Saldanha, L., McClintock, E., Karagoz Akar,

G., Watanabe, T., & Ozgur Zembat, I. (2010). A developing
approach to studying students’ learning through their
mathematical activity. Cognition and Instr uction, 28,
70–112.

Simon, M. A., & Tzur, R. (2004). Explicating the role of

mathematical tasks in conceptual learning: An elaboration
of the hypothetical learning trajector y. Mathematical
Thinking and Learning, 6(2), 91–104.

Simon, M. A., Tzur, R., Heinz, K., & Kinzel, M. (2004).

Explicating a mechanism for conceptual learning:
Elaborating the construct of reflective abstraction.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(5),
305–329.

Skinner, B. F. (1958a). Verbal behavior. New York:

Macmillan.

Skinner, B. F. (1958b). Teaching machines. Science, 128,

969–977.

Sloboda, J. A., & Rogers, D. (Eds.) (1987). Cognitive

processes in mathematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Smith, E. E. (2001). Cognitive psychology: History.

International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral
sciences . New York: Elsevier, pp. 2140–2147. Retrieved
from http://mechanism.ucsd.edu/teaching/
w07/philpsych/smith.cogpsychhistory.pdf.

Snow, C. E. (2001). Preventing reading difficulties in

young children: Precursors and fallout. In T. Loveless.
(Ed.), The great curriculum debate: How should we teach
reading and math? (pp. 229–246). Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution Press.

Spivey, N. N. (1997). The constructivist metaphor: Reading,

writing, and the making of meaning. San Diego: Academic
Press.

Staats, A. W. (1981). Paradigmatic behaviorism, unified

theory, unified theory construction methods, and the
Zeitgeist of separatism. American Psychologist, 36(3),
239–256. doi: 10.1037/0003–066X.36.3.239.

Stanic, G. M. A., & Kilpatrick, J. (1988). Historical

perspectives on problem solving in the mathematics
curriculum. In R. I. Charles & E. A. Silver (Eds.), The
teaching and assessing of mathematical problem solving
(pp. 1–22). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates;
Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some

consequences of individual differences in the acquisition
of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–406.

Steffe, L. P. (1991). The constructivist teaching

experiment: Illustrations and implications. In E. von
Glasersfeld (Ed.), Radical constructivism in mathematics
education (pp. 177–194). Dordrecht, Holland: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.

Steffe, L. (1994). Children’s multiplying schemes. In G.

Harel & J. Confrey (Eds.), The development of
multiplicative reasoning in the learning of mathematics
(pp. 3–40). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Steffe, L. P. (2003). Fractional commensurate,

composition, and adding schemes: Learning trajectories of
Jason and Laura: Grade 5. Journal of Mathematical Behavior,
22 , 237–295.

Steffe, L. P., & Kieren, T. (1994). Radical constructivism

and mathematics education. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 25(6), 711–733.
Steffe, L. P., & Thompson, P. W. (2000). Teaching
experiment methodology: Underlying principles and
essential elements. In A. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook
of resear ch design in mathematics and science education
(pp. 267–306). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Metaphors of mind: Conceptions of

the nature of intelligence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.

Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap:

Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving
education in the classroom. New York: The Free Press.

Stylianides, G. J., & Stylianides, A. J. (2009).

Facilitating the transition from empirical arguments to
proof. Journal for Resear ch in Mathematics Education,
40(3), 314–352.

Sund, R. B., & Picard, A. J. (1972). Behavioral objectives

and evaluation measures: Science and mathematics. Columbus,
OH: Charles Merrill Publishing.

Thomas, C. (2004). Distracted subject: Madness and gender

in Shakespeare and early modern culture. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press.

Thompson, P. W. (1994). 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: State University of New York Press.

Thompson, P. W. (2013). In the absence of meaning. . . . In

Leatham, K. (Ed.), Vital directions for resear ch in
mathematics education (pp. 57–93). New York: Springer.

Thorndike, E. L. (1898). Animal intelligence: An

experimental study of the associative processes in animals.
New York: Macmillan.

Thorndike, E. L. (1910). The contribution of psychology to

education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1, 5–12.

Thorndike, E. L. (1911). Animal intelligence: Experimental

studies. New York: Macmillan. Retrieved from
https://archive.or
g/stream/animalintelligen00thor#page/n5/mode/2up.
Thorndike, E. L., & Gates, A. I. (1929). The main
characteristics of learning. In Elementary principles of
education (pp. 84–106). New York: The Macmillan Company.

Thorndike, E. L., & Woodworth, R. L. (1901). The influence

of improvement in one mental function upon the efficiency
of other functions. Psychological Review, 8, 247–261.

Vågan, A. (2011). Towards a sociocultural perspective on

identity formation in education. Mind, Culture, and
Activity, 18, 43–57.

VanderStoep, S. W., & Seifert, C. M. (1993). Learning “how”

versus learning “when”: Improving transfer of
problem-solving principles. The Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 3(1), 93–111.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1926/1997). Educational psychology (R.

Silverman, Trans.) Boca Raton, FL: St. Lucie Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1927/1987). The historical meaning of the

crisis in psychology: A methodological investigation. New
York: Plenum Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1934/1986). Thought and language (Chapter

6, “The development of scientific concepts in childhood”).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Wandersee, J. H., Mintzes, J. J., & Novak, J. D. (1994).

Research on alternative conceptions in science. In D. L.
Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and
learning (pp. 177–210). New York: Macmillan Publishing
Company.

Wasley, P. (2006, June 6). Accreditor of education schools

drops controversial ‘social justice’ standard for teacher
candidates. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved
from http://chronicle.com/
article/Accreditor-of-Education/14458/.

Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views

it. Psychological Review, 20, 158–177.

Weimer, W. B., & Palermo, D. S. (1973). Paradigms and

normal science in psychology. Science Studies, 3, 211–244.

White, B. Y. (1993). ThinkerTools: Causal models,

conceptual change, and science education. Cognition and
Instruction, 10(1), 1–100. Retrieved from
www.jstor.org/stable/3233779?origin=JSTOR-pdf&
seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents.

White, S. H. (1991). Three visions of a psychology of

education. In L. T. Landsmann (Ed.), Culture, schooling,
and psychological development (pp. 1–38). Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.

Wilson, S. M. (2003). California dreaming: Reforming

mathematics education. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.

Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice

as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the
conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges
facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72(2),
131–175. Retrieved from
http://rer.sagepub.com/content/72/2/131.full. pdf+html.

Wittmann, E. (1995). Mathematics education as a ‘design

science.’ Educational Studies in Mathematics, 29, 355–374.

Wojcikiewicz, S. K. (2010). Dewey, Peirce, and the

categories of learning. Education and Culture, 26 (2),
65–82.

Wojcikiewicz, S. K., & Wenzel, A. (2012, April). Theories

of learning as aspects of experience: A philosophical
system for reconceptualizing, and teaching, behaviorist,
cognitive, and situative perspectives. Paper presented at
AERA Annual Meeting, Vancouver , Canada.

Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms,

argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 27 (4), 458–477. This
page intentionally left blank
5 Young Children’s Access to Powerful
Mathematics Ideas: A Review of Current
Challenges and New Developments in the
Early Years

Alexander, K. L., & Entwisle, D. R., (1988). Achievement in

the first 2 years of school: Patterns and processes.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development, 53(2, Serial No 218).

Anderson, J., Bobis, J., & Way, J. (2008). Teachers as

learners: Building knowledge in and through the practice
of teaching mathematics. In H. Forgaz, A. Barkatasas, A.
Bishop, B. Clarke, S. Keast, W. T. Seah, P. Sullivan, & S.
Willis (Eds.), Research in mathematics education in
Australasia 2004–2007 (pp. 313–335). Rotterdam, The
Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Anthony, G., & Walshaw, M. (2007). Ef fective pedagogy in

mathematics/pa¯ngarau. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry
of Education.

Arnold, D. H., & Doctoroff, G. L. (2003). The early

education of socioeconomically disadvantaged children.
Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 517–545.

Aubrey, C. (2004). Implementing the foundation stage in

reception classes. British Educational Research Journal,
30(5), 633–656.

Aubrey, C., Dahl, S., & Godfrey, R. (2006). Early

mathematics development and later achievement: Further
evidence. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 18(1),
27–46.

Aunola, K., Leskinen, E., Lerkkanen, M.-K., & Nurmi, J.-E.

(2004). Developmental dynamics of math performance from
preschool to grade 2. Journal of Educational Psychology,
96(4), 699−713.

Australian Curriculum, Assessment, and Reporting Authority

(2014). The Australian Curriculum. Retrieved from
www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/Curriculum/Overview

Balfanz, R. (1999). Why do we teach children so little

mathematics? Some historical considerations. In J. V.
Copley (Ed.), Mathematics in the early years (pp. 3–10).
Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content

knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of
Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.

Baroody , A. J. (2006). Why children have difficulties

mastering the basic number combinations and how to help
them. Teaching Children Mathematics, 13(1), 22–31.

Bar oody, A. J., Lai, M., & Mix, K. S. (2006). The

development of young children’s early number and operation
sense and its implications for early childhood education.
In B. Spodek & O. Saracho (Eds.), Handbook of research on
the education of young children (V ol. 2, pp. 187–221).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Baroody, A. J., & Wilkins, J.L.M. (1999). The development

of informal counting, number, and arithmetic skills and
concepts. In J. Copeley (Ed.), Mathematics in the early
years, birth to five. Reston, VA: National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics.

Battista, M. T. (2007). The development of geometric and

spatial thinking. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of
research on mathematics teaching and lear ning (pp.
843–908). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics.

Bergen, D. (2009). Play as the learning medium for future

scientists, mathematicians, and engineers. American
Journal of Play, 1(4), 413–428.

Blanton, M., & Kaput, J. (2003). Developing elementary

teachers’ algebra eyes and ears. Teaching Children
Mathematics, 10(2), 70–77.

Bobis, J., Clarke, B., Clarke, D., Thomas, G., Wright, R.,
Young-Loveridge, J., & Gould, P. (2005). Supporting
teachers in the development of young children’s
mathematical thinking: Three large scale cases.
Mathematics Education Research Journal, 16(3), 27–57.

Bobis, J., Higgins, J., Cavanagh, M., & Roche, A. (2012).

Professional knowledge of practising teachers of
mathematics. In J. Greenlees, T. Logan, T. Lowrie, A.
MacDonald, & B. Perry (Eds.), Review of Australasian
mathematics education resear ch: 2008–2011 (pp. 313–341),
Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Bowman, B., Donovan, M. S., & Burns, M.S. (Eds.). (2001).

Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers . Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
Brizuela, B. M., Martinez, M. V., & Cayton-Hodges, G. A.
(2013). The impact of early algebra: Results from a
longitudinal intervention. Journal of Research in
Mathematics Education / Revista de Investigación en
Didáctica de las Matemáticas, 2(2), 209–241.

Bruce, C., Esmonde, I., Ross, J., Gookie, L., & Beatty, R.
(2010). The effects of sustained classroom-embedded
teacher professional learning on teacher efficacy and
related student achievement. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 26(8), 1598–1608.

Bruce, C. & Flynn, T. (2012). Integrating instruction and

play in a Kindergarten to Grade 2 lesson study project. In
L. R. Van Zoest, J. J. Lo, & J. L. Kratky, (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 34th annual meeting of the North
American Chapter of the International Group for the
Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 853–856).
Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan University.

Bruce, C., Flynn, T., McPherson, R., Bennett, S. (2012).

Mathematics for Young Children. Retrieved from
http://tmerc.ca/m4yc/.

Bruce, C. D., & Hawes, Z. (2014). The role of 2D and 3D

mental rotation in mathematics for young children? What is
it? Why is it important? And what can we do about it? ZDM:
The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 47(3),
1–14. doi: 10.1007/s11858–014–0637

Bruce, C., & Moss, J. & Flynn, T. (2013). A “no-ceiling”

approach to young children’s mathematics: Preliminary
results of an innovative professional learning program. In
M. Martinez, & A. Castro Superfine (Eds.), Pr oceedings of
the 35th annual meeting of the North American Chapter of
the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics
Education (p. 911). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.

Bruce, C. D., Moss, J., Sinclair, N., Whiteley, W.,

Okamoto, Y., McGarvey , L., . . . Davis, B. (2013, April).
Early years spatial reasoning: Learning, teaching, and
research implications. Paper presented at the NCTM
research presession: Linking research and practice, Denver,
CO.

Cannon, J. S., Jacknowitz, A., & Painter, G. (2006). Is

full better than half? Examining the longitudinal effects
of full-day kindergarten attendance. Journal of Policy
Analysis & Management, 25(2), 299–321.
doi:10.1002/pam.20174

Carraher, D., Martinez, M., & Schlieman, A. (2008). Early

algebra and mathematical generalization. ZDM: The
International Journal on Mathematics Education, 40, 3–22.

Case, R., Griffin, S., & Kelly, W. (1999). Socioeconomic

gradients in mathematical ability and their responsiveness
to intervention during early childhood. In D. Keating & C.
Hertzman (Eds.), Developmental health and the wealth of
nations: Social, biological, and educational dynamics (pp.
125–152). New York: Guilford Press.

Case, R., & Okamoto, Y. (1996). The role of central

conceptual structures in the development of children’s
thought. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development, 61(1–2, Serial No. 246).

Casey, B. M., Andrews, N., Schindler, H., Kersh, J. E.,

Samper, A., & Copley, J. (2008). The development of
spatial skills through interventions involving block
building activities. Cognition and Instr uction, 26,
269–309.

Cheng, Y. L., & Mix, K. S. (2012). Spatial training

improves children’s mathematics ability. Journal of
Cognition and Development . Advanced online publication.
doi: 10.1080/15248372.2012.725186

Chokshi, S., & Fernandez, C. (2004). Challenges to

importing Japanese lesson study: Concerns, misconceptions,
and nuances. Phi Delta Kappan (March), 520–525.

Claessens, A., Duncan, G., & Engel, M. (2009). Kindergarten

skills and fifth-grade achievement: Evidence from the
ECLS-K. Economics of Education Review, 28, 415–427.

Claessens, A. & Engel, M. (2011, April). How important is

where you start? Early mathematical knowledge and later
school success . Paper presented at the 2011 Annual Meeting
of the American Educational Research Association (AERA),
New Orleans, LA.

Claessens, A. & Engel, M. (2013). How Important is where

you start? Early mathematics knowledge and later school
success. T eachers College Record, 115, 1–29.

Clarke, D., Clarke, B., & Roche, A. (2011). Building

teachers’ expertise in understanding, assessing and
developing children’s mathematical thinking: the power of
task-based, one-to-one assessment interviews. ZDM: The
International Journal on Mathematics Education, 43(6–7),
901–913.

Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2002). Effects of a

preschool mathematics cur riculum: Summary research on the
Building Blocks project. University of Buffalo, State
University of New York. Retrieved from gse.
buffalo.edu/org/buildingblocks/index_2.htm

Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2007). Effects of a

preschool mathematics curriculum: Summative resear ch on
the Building Blocks project. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 38(2), 136–163.

Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2008). Experimental

evaluation of the effects of a research-based pre school
mathematics curriculum. American Educational Research
Journal, 45, 443–494.

Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2009). Learning and

teaching early math: The learning trajectories approach .
New York: Routledge.

Clements, D., & Sarama, J. (2011a). Early childhood

mathematics intervention. Science, 333 , 968–970.

Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2011b). Early childhood

teacher education: The case of geometry. Journal of
Mathematics Teacher Education , 14(2), 133–148.

Clements, D. H.,, & Sarama, J. (2013). Rethinking early

mathematics: What Is research-based curriculum for young
children? In L. English & J. Mulligan (Eds.),
Reconceptualizing early mathematics learning (pp.
121–148). New York: Springer.

Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., Spitler, M. E., Lange, A. A.,

& Wolfe, C. B. (2011) Mathematics learned by young
children in an intervention based on learning trajectories:
A large-scale cluster randomized trial. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 42(2), 127–166.

Copley, J. V. (2004). The early childhood collaborative: A

professional development model to communicate and implement
the standards. In D. H. Clements & J. Sarama (Eds.),
Engaging young children in mathematics: Standards for
early childhood mathematics education (pp. 401–414).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Copley, J. V., & Padron, Y. (1999). Preparing teachers of
young learners: Professional development of early
childhood teachers in mathematics and science. Dialogue on
early childhood: Science, mathematics, and technology
education. Washington, DC: American Association for the
Advancement of Science (AAAS).

Crosnoe, R., & Cooper, C. E. (2010). Economically

disadvantaged children’s transition into elementary school:
Linking family process, school contexts, and educational
policy. American Educational Research Journal, 47(2),
258–291.

Cross, C. T., Woods, T. A., & Schweingruber, H. (Eds.)

(2009). Mathematics learning in early childhood.
Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

de Vries, E., Thomas, L., & Warren, E. (2010). Teaching

mathematics and play-based learning in an indigenous early
childhood setting: Early childhood teachers’ perspectives.
In L. Sparrow, B. Kissane, & C. Hurst (Eds.), Shaping the
future of mathematics education: Proceedings of the 33rd
annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research
Group of Australasia (pp. 719–722). Fremantle: MERGA.

Desimone, L. (2011) A primer on effective professional

development. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(6), 68–71.

Diamond, A., Barnett, W. S., Thomas, J., & Munro, S.

(2007). Preschool program improves cognitive contr ol.
Science, 318, 1387–1388. doi:10.1126/science.1151148

Dockett, S. & Perry, B. (2007). Starting school:

Perceptions, experiences and expectations. Sidney:
University of New South Wales Press.

Doig, B., Groves, S. & Fujii, T. (2011). The critical role

of task development in lesson study. In L.C. Hart et al.,
(eds.), Lesson study research and practice in mathematics
education, Springer: New York.

Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson,

K., Huston, A. C., Klebanov, P., . . . & Japel, C. (2007).
School readiness and later achievement. Developmental
Psychology, 43, 1428–1446.

Ehrlich, S., Levine, S.C., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2006). The

importance of gesture in children’s spatial r easoning.
Developmental Psychology, 42(6), 1259–1268.
English, L. D. (2004). Promoting the development of young
children’s mathematical and analogical reasoning. In L. D.
English (Ed.), Mathematical and analogical reasoning of
young lear ners. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

English, L. D. (2012). Data modelling with first-grade

students. Educational Studies in Mathematics Education,
81(1), 15–30.

English, L. D. (2013). Reconceptualizing statistics

learning in the early years. In L. D. English & J. Mulligan
(Eds.). Reconceptualizing early mathematics lear ning, (pp.
67–82). New York: Springer.

English, L. D. & Mulligan, J. (2013). Perspectives on

reconceptualizing early mathematics learning. In L. D.
English & J. Mulligan (Eds.), Reconceptualizing early
mathematics learning (pp. 121–148). New York: Springer.

Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., Levi, L.,

Jacobs, V. R., & Empson, S. B. (1996). A longitudinal study
of learning to use children’s thinking in mathematics
instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 27(4), 403–434.

Fisher, K. R., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Newcombe, N., & Golinkoff,

R. M. (2013). Taking shape: Supporting preschoolers’
acquisition of geometric knowledge through guided play.
Child development, 84(6), 1872–1878.

Frede, E., Jung, K., Barnett, W. S., Lamy, C. E., &

Figueras, A. (2007). The Abbott preschool program
longitudinal effects study (APPLES). Rutgers, NJ: National
Institute for Early Education Research.

Freudenthal, H. (1981). Major problems of mathematics

education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12,
133–150.

Fukkink, R., & Lont, A. (2007). Does training matter? A

meta-analysis and review of caregiver training studies.
Early Childhood Research Quar terly, 22(3), 294–311.

Gathercole, S. E., & Pickering, S. J. (2000). Assessment

of working memory in six- and seven-year old children.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 92 , 377–390.

Geary, D. C., Hoard, M. K., Nugent, L., & Bailey, D. H.

(2013). Adolescents’ functional numeracy is predicted by
their school entry number system knowledge. PLoS ONE, 8,
e54651. doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0054651

Ginsburg, H. P. (2006). Mathematical play and playful

mathematics: A guide for early education. In D. Singer, R.
M. Golinkoff, & K. Hirsh-Pasek (Eds.), Play = Learning: How
play motivates and enhances children’s cognitive and
social-emotional growth (pp. 145–165). New York: Oxford
University Press.

Ginsburg, H. P. (2009). The challenge of formative

assessment in mathematics education: Children’s minds,
teachers’ minds. Human Development, 52, 109–128. doi:
10.1159/000202729

Ginsburg, H. P., & Ertel B. (2008). Knowing the

mathematics in early childhood mathematics. In O. Saracho
& B. Spodek (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on
mathematics in early childhood education (pp. 45–66).
Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Ginsburg, H. P., Hyson, M., & Woods, T. A. (Eds.). (2014).

Preparing early childhood educators to teach math: Pr
ofessional development that works. Baltimore, MD: Paul H.
Brookes Publishing.

Ginsburg, H. P., Lee, J. S., & Boyd, J. S. (2008).

Mathematics education for young children: What it is and
how to promote it. Social Policy Report of the Society for
Research in Child Development, 22, 3–23.

Ginsburg, H. P., Lewis, A., & Clements, M. (2008). School

readiness and early childhood education: What we can learn
from federal investments in research on mathematics
programs? A working paper prepared for a working meeting
on recent school readiness research: Guiding the synthesis
of early childhood research. Washington, DC: October
21–22. Retrieved from http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/10/School
Readiness/apb3.pdf.

Ginsburg, H. P., & Pappas, S. (2004). SES, ethnic, and

gender differences in young children’s informal addition
and subtraction: A clinical interview investigation.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 25, 171–192.

Ginsburg, H. P., & Russell, R. L. (1981). Social class and

racial influences on early mathematical thinking.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development, 46 (6, Serial No. 193).

Goldsmith, L. T., Doerr, H. M., & Lewis, C. C. (2014).

Mathematics teachers’ learning: a conceptual framework and
synthesis of research, Journal of Mathematics Teacher
Education, 17(1), 5–36.

Graham, T. A., Nash, C., & Paul, K. (1997). Young

children’s exposure to mathematics: The child care
context. Early Childhood Education Journal, 25(1), 31–38.

Gravemeijer, K. (1994). Developing realistic mathematics

education. Utrecht: Freudenthal Institute.

Greenes, C., Ginsburg, H., & Balfanz, R. (2004). Big math

for little kids, Early Childhood Research Quar terly, 19,
159–166.

Griffin, S. (2004). Number Worlds: A research-based

mathematics program for young children. In D. H. Clements,
J. Sarama, & A.-M. DiBiase (Eds.), Engaging young children
in mathematics: Standards for early childhood mathematics
education (pp. 325–342). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Griffin, S. (2007). Early intervention for children at risk

of developing mathematical learning difficulties. In D.
B. Berch & M. M. Mazzocco (Eds.), Why is math so hard for
some children? The nature and origins of mathematical
learning difficulties and disabilities (pp. 373–396).
Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.

Griffin, S., & Case, R. (1996). Number worlds:

Kindergarten level. Dur ham, NH: Number Worlds Alliance.

Griffin, S., Case, R., & Siegler, R. (1994). Rightstart:

Providing the central conceptual prerequisites for first
formal learning of arithmetic to students at risk for
school failure. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons:
Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp.
24–49). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Guskey, T. R. (2003). What makes professional development

effective? Phi Delta Kappan, 84(10), 748–750.

Hachey , A. (2013). The early childhood mathematics

education revolution. Early Education and Development, 24,
419–430.

Hamre, B. K., Pianta, R. C., Burchinal, M., & Downer, J.

T. (2010, March). A course on supporting early language
and literacy development through teacher-child interaction:
Effects on teacher beliefs, knowledge and practice.
Presentation at the Meetings of the Society for Research in
Educational Effectiveness, Washington, DC.

Hawes, Z., Lefevre, J., Xui, C., & Bruce, C. (2014).

Development of a new reliable 3D mental rotation blocks
task (3D MRBT) for clinical interviews, Mind, Brain and
Education, 8(3).

Hirsh-Pasek, K., Hyson, M., & Rescorla, L. (1990). Academic

environments in preschool: Do they pressure or challenge
young children? Early Education and Development, 1 (6),
401–423.

Hunting, R. (2003). Part–whole number knowledge in

preschool children. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 22,
217–235.

Hunting, R., Bobis, J., Doig, B., English, L., Mousley, J.,
Mulligan, J., . . . Young-Loveridge, J. (2013).
Mathematical thinking in preschool children in rural and r
egional Australia: Research and practice. Camberwell: ACER
Press.

Hunting, R. P., Mousley, J. A., & Perry, B. (2012). A

study of rural preschool practitioners’ views on young
children’s mathematical thinking. Mathematics Education
Resear ch Journal. doi:10.1007/ s13394–011–0030–3

Jansen, P., Schmelter, A., Quaiser-Pohl, C., Neuburger, S.,

& Heil, M. (2013). Mental rotation performance in primary
school age children: Are there gender differences in
chronometric tests?. Cognitive Development, 28(1), 51–62.

Jones, K. (2000). Teacher knowledge and professional

development in geometry . In Rowland, T. (Ed.),
Proceedings of the British Society for Research into
Learning Mathematics 20(3).

Jordan, N., Kaplan, D., Olah, L. N., & Locuniak, M.

(2006). Number sense growth in kindergarten: A
longitudinal investigation of children at risk for
mathematics difficulties. Child Development, 77, 153–175.

Jordan, N., & Levine, S. (2009). Socioeconomic variation,

number competence, and mathematics learning difficulties in
young children. Developmental Disabilities Research
Reviews, 15, 60–68.

Klibanoff, R., Levine, S. C., Huttenlocher, J., Vasilyeva,

M., & Hedges, L. (2006). Preschool children’s
mathematical knowledge: The effect of teacher “math talk.”
Developmental Psychology, 42(1), 59–69.

Kolstad, R. K., & Hughes, S. (1994). Teacher attitudes

towards mathematics. Journal of Instructional Psychology,
21, 44–48.

Kowalski, K., Pretti-Frontczak, K., & Johnson, L. (2001).

Preschool teachers’ beliefs concerning the importance of
various developmental skills and abilities. Journal of
Research in Childhood Education, 16, 5–14.

Lee, J. S. (2006). Preschool teachers’ shared beliefs

about appropriate pedagogy for 4-year-olds. Early
Childhood Education Journal, 33(6), 433–441.

Lee, J. S. (2010). Exploring kindergarten teachers’

pedagogical content knowledge of mathematics, International
Journal of Early Childhood, 42, 27–41.
doi:10.1007/s13158-010-0003-9

Lee, J. S., & Ginsburg, H. P. (2007). Preschool teachers’

beliefs about appropriate early literacy and mathematics
education for low- and middle-socioeconomic children. Early
Education and Development, 18(1), 111–143.

Lee, J. S., & Ginsburg, H. P. (2009). Early childhood

teachers’ misconceptions about mathematics education for
young children in the United States. Australasian Journal
of Early Childhood , 34(4), 37–45.

Lee, V. E, & Burkam, D. T. (2002). Inequality at the

starting gate: Social background differ ences in
achievement as children begin school. Washington, DC:
Economic Policy Institute.

Levenson, E., Tirosh, D., & Tsamir, P. (2011). Preschool

geometry theory, research, and practical perspectives.
Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Levine, S. C., Huttenlocher, J., Taylor, A., & Langrock,

A. (1999). Early sex differences in spatial skill.
Developmental Psychology, 35(4), 940–949.

Lewis, C., Perry, R., & Murata, A. (2006). How should

research contribute to instructional improvement: The case
of lesson study. Educational Researcher, 35(3), 3–14.

Lin, H-L., Lawrence, F. R., & Gorrell, J. (2003). Kindergar

ten teachers’ views of children’s readiness for school.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18(2), 225–237.

MacDonald, A., Davies, N., Dockett, S., & Perry, B. (2012).

Early childhood mathematics education. In B. Perr y, T.
Lowrie, T. Logan, A. MacDonald & J. Greenlees (Eds.).
Research in Mathematics Education in Australasia 2008–2011
(pp. 169–192). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense
Publishers.

Marcon, R. (2002). Moving up the grades: Relationship

between preschool model and later school success. Early
Childhood Research and Practice, 4(1), 1–23.

Mast, J. & Ginsburg, H. (2010). Child study/lesson study:

Developing minds to understand and teach children. In N.
Lyons (Ed.), Handbook of r eflection and reflective
inquiry: Mapping a way of knowing for professional
reflective inquiry (pp. 257–271). New York: Springer.

Mix, K. S., & Cheng, Y-L. (2012). The relation between

space and math: Developmental and educational
implications. Advances in Child Development and Behavior,
197–242.

Moss, J., Caswell, B., Chang, D., Hawes, Z., Naqvi, S., &
Tepylo, D. (2012). Math for Young Children. Retrieved from

Moss, J., Hawes, Z., Naqvi, S., & Caswell, B. (2015).

Adapting Japanese Lesson Study to enhance the teaching and
learning of geometry and spatial reasoning in early years
classrooms: A case study. ZDM: The international journal
on mathematics education, 15(3).

Moss, J. & London-McNab, S. (2011) An approach to geometric

and numeric patterning that fosters second grade students’
reasoning and generalizing about functions and
co-variation. In J. Cai & E. Knuth (Eds.), Early
algebraization: A global dialogue from multiple
perspectives (Advances in Mathematics Education). New York:
Springer .

Mulligan, J. T., & Mitchelmore, M. (2009). A wareness of

pattern and structure in early mathematical development.
Mathematics Education Research Journal, 21(2), 33–49.

Mulligan, J. T., & Mitchelmore, M. C. (2013). Early

awareness of mathematical pattern and structure. In L. D.
English & J. Mulligan (Eds.). Reconceptualizing early
mathematics learning (pp. 29–45). New York: Springer.
Mulligan, J. T., Prescott, A., Papic, M., & Mitchelmore, M.
C. (2006). Improving early numeracy through a Pattern and
Str ucture Mathematics Awareness Program (PASMAP). In P.
Grootenboer, R. Zevenbergen & M. Chinnappan (Eds.),
Identities, cultures and learning spaces: Proceedings of
the 29th annual conference of the Mathematics Education
Research Group of Australasia, (pp. 376–383). Canberra:
MERGA.

Murata, A. (2013). Diversity and high academic expectations

without tracking: Inclusively responsive instruction. The
Journal of Learning Sciences, 21(2), 312–335.

National Association for the Education of Young Children

and the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
(2002). Position statement: Early childhood mathematics:
Promoting good beginnings. Retrieved from
www.naeyc.org/about/position/psmath.asp.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000).

Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston,
VA: Author.

National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations

for success: The final report of the National Mathematics
Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education.

National Research Council. (2009). Mathematics learning in

early childhood: Paths toward excellence and equity.
Committee on Early Childhood Mathematics, C. T. Cross, T.
A. Woods, & H. Schweingruber (Eds.), Center for
Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and
Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Newcombe, N. (2010). Picture this: Increasing math and

science learning by improving spatial thinking. American
Educator, 34(2), 29–35.

Newcombe, N. S. (2013). Seeing relationships: Using

spatial thinking to teach science, mathematics, and social
studies. American Educator, 37(1), 26–31.

Newcombe, N., & Frick, A. (2010). Early education for

spatial. intelligence: Why, what, and how. Mind, Brain and
Education, 4(3), 102–111.

Newton, K., & Alexander, P. (2013). Early mathematics

learning in perspective: Eras and forces of change. In L.
English & J. Mulligan (Eds.). Reconceptualizing early
mathematics learning, (pp. 5–28). New York: Springer.

Papic, M. (2013). Improving numeracy outcomes for young

Australian Indigenous children through the Patterns and
Early Algebra Preschool (PEAP) Professional Development
(PD) Program. In L. D. English & J. Mulligan (Eds.).
Reconceptualizing early mathematics learning (pp. 253–281).
New York: Springer.

Papic, M., Mulligan, J. T., & Mitchelmore, M. C. (2011).

Assessing the development of preschoolers’ mathematical
patterning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
42(3), 237–268.

Perry, C. (2011). Motivation and attitude of preservice

elementary teachers toward mathematics. School Science and
Mathematics, 111(1), 2–10.

Perry, B., & Dockett, S. (2002). Young children’s access

to powerful mathematical ideas. In L. D. English (Ed.).
Handbook of international resear ch in mathematics
education: Directions for the 21st century (pp. 81–111).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Perry, B. & Dockett, S. (2008). Young children’s access to

powerful mathematical ideas. In L. D. English (Ed.),
Handbook of international research in mathematics education
(2nd ed., pp. 75–108). New York, Routledge.

Perry, B., & Dockett, S. (2013). Reflecting on young

children’s mathematics learning. In L. D. English & J. T.
Mulligan (Eds.), Reconceptualizing Early Mathematics
Learning, Springer Series: Advances in Mathematics
Education, 149–162.

Pr esser, A. L., Clements, M., Ginsburg, H., & Ertle, B.

(2012). Effects of a preschool and kinder garten
mathematics curriculum: Big Math for Little Kids (pp.
1–55). Retrieved from cct.edc.org/sites/cct.
edc.org/files/publications/BigMathPaper_Final.pdf

Purpura, D. J., Baroody, A. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (2013).

The transition from informal to formal mathematical
knowledge: Mediation by numeral knowledge. Jour nal of
Educational Psychology, 105, 453–464.

Radford, L. (2008). Iconicity and contraction: A semiotic

investigation of forms of algebraic generalizations of
patterns in different contexts. ZDM: The International
Journal on Mathematics Education, 40, 83–96.
Ritchie, S. J., & Bates, T. C. (2013). Enduring links from
childhood mathematics and reading achievement to adult
socioeconomic status. Psychological Science, 24(7),
1301–1308. doi: 10.1177/ 0956797612466268

Sarama, J. (2004). Technology in early childhood

mathematics: Building Blocks™ as an innovative
technology-based curriculum. In D. H. Clements, J. Sarama
& A.-M. DiBiase (Eds.), Engaging young children in
mathematics: Standards for early childhood mathematics
education (pp. 361–375). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2002). Building Blocks for

young children’s mathematical development. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 27(1&2), 93–109.

Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2008). Linking research and

software development. In G. W. Blume & M. K. Heid (Eds.),
Research on technology and the teaching and learning of
mathematics: Vol. 2. Cases and perspectives (pp. 113–130).
New York: Information Age Publishing.

Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2009). Early childhood

mathematics education research: Learning trajectories for
young children. London: Routledge.

Saxe, G. B., Guberman, S. R., & Gearhart, M. (1987). Goals

and contexts: A reply to the commentaries. Reply to
commentaries of Social Processes in Early Number
Development (1987), Monographs for the Society for
Research in Child Development, 52(2), 160–163.

Seo, K., & Ginsburg, H. (2004). What is developmentally

appropriate in early childhood mathematics education?
Lessons from new research. In D. Clements, J. Sarama, & A.
Dibiase (Eds.), Engaging young children in mathematics:
Standards for early childhood mathematics education (pp.
91–104). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

Schoenfeld, A., & Stipek, D. (2011). Mathematics matters:

Children’s mathematical journey starts early . Report of a
conference held November 7–8. Berkeley CA. University of
California Berkeley.

Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth

in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

Simpson, A., & Linder, S. (2014). An examination of

mathematics professional development opportunities in early
childhood settings. Educational Journal, 42(5), 335–342.

Sinclair, N., & Bruce, C. (2014). Spatial reasoning for

young learners (research forum). In Liljedahl, P., Nicol,
C., Oesterle, S., & Allan, D. (Eds.). Proceedings of the
Joint Meeting of PME 38 and PME-NA 36 (Vol. 1).
Vancouver, Canada: PME.

Sinclair, N., & Crespo, S. (2006). Learning mathematics

with dynamic computer environments. Teaching Children
Mathematics 12(9), 436–444.

Sinclair, N., & Jackiw, N. (2011). TouchCounts [computer

software]. Tangible Mathematics Project, Simon Fraser
University.

Sinclair, N., & Moss, J. (2012). The more it changes, the

more it becomes the same: The development of the routine
of shape identification in dynamic geometry environments.
International Journal of Education Research, 51&52, 28–44.

Singer, D., Golinkoff, R. M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (Eds.).

(2006). Play = Learning: How play motivates and enhances
children’s cognitive and social-emotional growth. New York:
Oxford University Press.

Starkey, P., & Klein, A. (2008). Sociocultural influences

on young children’s mathematical knowledge. In O. Saracho
& B. Spodek (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on
mathematics in early childhood education (pp. 253–276).
Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Starkey, P., Klein, A., & Wakeley, A. (2004). Enhancing

young children’s mathematical knowledge through a pr
e-kindergarten mathematics intervention. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 19, 99–120.

Stipek, D. (2013). Mathematics in early childhood

education: revolution or evolution? Early Education and
Development, 24: 431–435. doi: 10.1080/10409289.2013.777285

Stipek, D. (2014). Play and mathematics: An equation that

works. Preschool Matters . . . Today! A blog of the
National Institute for Early Education Research. Retrieved
from http://preschoolmatters. or
g/2014/03/14/play-and-mathematics-an-equation-that-works/

Stockard, J., & Engelmann, K. (2008). Academic kindergarten

and later academic success: The impact of direct instr
uction (Technical Report 2008–7). Eugene, OR: National
Institute for Direct Instruction.

Stylianides, A. J., & Stylianides, G. J. (2013). Seeking

research-gr ounded solutions to problems of practice:
Classroom-based interventions in mathematics education.
ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education,
45(3), 333–340.

Takahashi, A., & Yoshida, M. (2004). Ideas for

establishing Lesson-Study communities. Teaching Children
Mathematics (May), 436–443.

Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007).

Teacher professional learning and development: Best
evidence synthesis iteration [BES]. Wellington, New
Zealand: Ministry of Education.

Tirosh, D., Tsamir, P., & Levenson, E. (2011). Using

theories to build kindergarten teachers’ mathematical
knowledge for teaching. In K. Ruthven & T. Rowland (Eds.),
Mathematical Knowledge in Teaching (pp. 231–250).
Dordrecht: Springer.

Tirosh, D., Tsamir, P., Levenson, E., & Tabach, M. (2011).

From preschool teachers’ professional development to
children’s knowledge: Comparing sets. Journal of Math
Teacher Educators, 14, 113–131.

Tout, K., Zaslow, M. & Berry, D. (2006). Quality and

qualifications: Links between professional develop ment and
quality in early care and education settings. In M. Zaslow
& I. Martinez-Beck (Eds.). Critical issues in early
childhood professional development. Baltimor e, MD: Brookes
Publishing.

Tzuriel, D., & Egozi, G. (2010). Gender differences in

spatial ability of young children: The effects of training
and pr ocessing strategies. Child development, 81(5),
1417–1430.

Uttal, D. H., Meadow, N. G., Tipton, E., Hand, L. L.,

Alden, A. R., Warren, C., & Newcombe, N. S. (2013). The
malleability of spatial skills: A meta-analysis of training
studies. Psychological bulletin, 139(2), 352.

Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (Ed.) (2008). Children learn

mathematics. A learning-teaching trajectory with
intermediate attainment targets for calculation with whole
numbers in primary school. Rotterdam /Tapei: Sense
Publishers.

Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., & Buijs, K. (2005). Young

children learn measur ement and geometry. A
learning-teaching trajectory with intermediate attainment
targets for the lower grades in primary school. Utrecht,
The Netherlands: Freudenthal Institute.

Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., & Buys, K. (Eds.). (2008).

Young children learn measur ement and geometry. Rotterdam,
The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., Elia, I. & Robitzsch, A. (in

press). Kindergartners’ performance in two types of
imaginary perspective taking. ZDM: The International
Journal on Mathematics Education (3).

Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., Kühne, C., & Lombard, A. P.

(2012). Learning pathway for number in the early primary
grades. Illovo, South Africa: Macmillan.

Van Hiele, P. (1999). Developing geometric thinking

through activities that begin with play. Teaching Childr
en Mathematics (February), pp. 310–316.

van Nes, F., & de Lange, J. (2007). Mathematics education

and neurosciences: Relating spatial structures to the
development of spatial sense and number sense. The Montana
Mathematics Enthusiast, 4(2), 210–229.

Verdine, B. N., Golinkoff, R., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Newcombe,

N., Filipowocz, A. T., & Chang, A. (2013). Deconstructiong
builidng blocks: Preschoolers’ spatial assembly preformance
relates to early mathematics skills. Child Development.
doi: 10.1111/cdev.12165

Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2009). Spatial

ability for STEM domains: Aligning over fifty years of
cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its
importance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101,
817–835.

Warren, E., & Cooper, T. J. (2008). Generalising the

pattern rule for visual growth patterns: Actions that
support 8 year olds thinking. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 67, 171–185.

Warren, E., & Quine, J. (2013). Enhancing teacher

professional development for early years mathematics
teachers working in disadvantaged contexts. In L. D.
English & J. Mulligan (Eds.). Reconceptualizing early
mathematics learning (pp. 283–308). New York: Springer.

Watts, T., Duncan, G., Siegler, R., & Davis-Kean, P.

(2014). What’s past is prologue: Relations between early
mathematics knowledge and high school achievement.
Educational Researcher , 43 (7), 352–360.

Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional

development through understanding authentic professional
learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 702–739.

West, J., Denton, K., & Germino-Hausken, E. (2000).

America’s kindergarteners. Statistical analysis r eport,
NCES2000–070. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National
Center for Education Statistics.

Whiteley, W. (2002). Teaching to see like a mathematician.

Presentation at the Visual Representation and
Interpretation conference, Liverpool, UK. Retrieved from
www.math.yorku.ca/~whiteley/Teach ing_to_see.pdf.

Zaslow, M. (2010) Quality Measurement in Early Childhood

Settings. In M. Zaslow, I. Martinez-Beck, K Tout , T
Halle H P. Ginsburg & M. Hyson (Eds.), Towards the
identification of features of ef fective professional
development for early childhood educators. Prepared for
Policy and Program Studies Service, Office of Planning,
Evaluation and Policy Development, U.S. Department of
Education. Retrieved from www.ed.gov/about/offices/list

Zaslow, M., Tout, K., Halle, T., Whittaker, J. V., &

Lavelle, B. (2010). Towards the identification of featur es
of effective professional development for early childhood
educators. Prepared for Policy and Program Studies
Service, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy
Development, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from
www.ed.gov/about/offices/list.
6 Powerful Ideas in Elementary School
Mathematics

Aleksandrov, A. D. (1999). A general view of mathematics.

In Aleksandrov, A. D., & Kolmogorov, A. N. (Eds.). (1999).
Mathematics: its content, methods and meaning. N.
Chelmsford, MA: Courier Dover Publications.

Blanton, M. (2008). Algebra and the elementary classroom:

Transforming thinking, transforming practice. New York:
Pearson Education.

Blanton, M., & Kaput, J. (2000). Generalizing and

progressively formalizing in a third grade mathematics
classroom: Conversations about even and odd numbers. In M.
Fernández (Ed.), Proceedings of the 20th Annual Meeting of
the for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, North
American Chapter (p. 115). Columbus, OH, ERIC
Clearinghouse (ED446945).

Booth, L. R. (1988). Children’s difficulties in beginning

algebra. In A. F. Coxford & A. P. Shulte (Eds.), The ideas
of algebra, K-12: 1988 Yearbook (pp. 20–32). Reston, VA:
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Brizuela, B. M., Blanton, M., Gardiner, A., Newman-Owens,

A., & Sawrey, K. (in press). A first grade student’s
exploration of variable and variable notation. Estudios de
Psicología. Abingdon, UK: Taylor & Francis.

Brizuela, B. M., & Earnest, D. (2008). Multiple notational

systems and algebraic understandings: The case of the
“best deal” problem. In J. Kaput, D. Carraher, & M. Blanton
(Eds.), Algebra in the Early Grades (pp. 273–301).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Brizuela, B. M., & Schliemann, A. D. (2004). Fourth graders

solving linear equations. For the Learning of Mathematics,
24(2), 33–40.

Cai, J. & Knuth, E. (Eds.). (2011). Early algebraization:

A global dialogue from multiple perspectives. New York,
NY: Springer.

Carpenter , T. P., & Franke, M. (2001). Developing

algebraic reasoning in the elementary school:
Generalization and proof. In H. Chick, K. Stacey, J.
Vincent, & J. Vincent (Eds.), The future of the teaching
and learning of algebra. Proceedings of the 12th ICMI Study
Conference (Vol. 1, pp. 155–162). Melbourne, Australia: The
University of Melbourne.

Carpenter, T . P., Franke, M. L., & Levi, L. (2003).

Thinking mathematically: Integrating arithmetic and
algebra in elementary school. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Carpenter , T. P., Moser, J. M., & Romberg, T. A. (1982)

(Eds.), Addition and subtraction: A cognitive view.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Carraher, D. W., Brizuela, B. M., & Earnest, D. (2001). The

reification of additive differences in early algebra. In
H. Chick, K. Stacey, J. Vincent, & J. Vincent (Eds.), Pr
oceedings of the Twelfth ICMI Study Conference: The future
of the teaching and learning of algebra (Vol. 1, pp.
163–170). Melbourne, Australia: University of Melbourne
Press.

Carraher , D. W., Martinez, M., & Schliemann, A. D.

(2008). Early algebra and mathematical generalization. ZDM
– The International Journal on Mathematics Education,
40(1), 3-22.

Carraher, D. W. & Schliemann, A. D. (2007) Early algebra

and algebraic reasoning. In F. Lester (ed.) Second
handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning:
A project of the National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics (Vol 2, pp. 669–705). Charlotte, NC:
Information Age Publishing.

Carraher, D. W., Schliemann, A. D., & Brizuela, B. (2000,

October). Early algebra, early arithmetic: Treating
operations as functions. Plenary address at the 22nd
Meeting of the Psychology of Mathematics Education, North
American Chapter, Tucson, AZ (available in CD-ROM).

Carraher, D. W., Schliemann, A. D., & Brizuela, B. (2005).

Treating operations as functions. In D. Carraher & R.
Nemirovsky (Eds.), Monographs of the Journal for Research
in Mathematics Education, 8 , CD-ROM only.

Carraher, D. W., Schliemann, A. D., Brizuela, B. M., &

Earnest, D. (2006). Arithmetic and algebra in early
mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education , 37(2), 87–115.

Carraher, D. W., Schliemann, A. D., Brizuela, B., &

Earnest, D. (2014). Arithmetic and Algebra in early
Mathematics Education. In E. A. Silver & P. A. Kenney
(Editors). Lessons Learned from Research: Volume 2. Useful
Resear ch on Teaching Important Mathematics to All
Students. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics.

Carraher, D. W., Schliemann, A. D., & Schwartz, J. L.

(2008). Early algebra is not the same as algebra early. In
J. Kaput, D. Carraher & M. Blanton (Eds.), Algebra in the
early grades. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Carraher, T. N., Carraher, D. W., & Schliemann, A. D.

(1985). Mathematics in the streets and in schools. British
Journal of Developmental Psychology, 3(1), 21–29.

Davydov, V. V. (1991). Psychological abilities of primary

school children in learning mathematics (Vol. 6). Reston,
VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Dougherty, B. (2008). Measure up: A quantitative view of

early algebra. In J. Kaput, D. Carraher, & M. Blanton
(Eds.), Algebra in the early grades. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Dubinsky, E., & Harel, G. (Eds.) (1992). The concept of

function: Aspects of epistemology and pedagogy.
Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.

Filoy, E., & Rojano, T. (1989). Solving equations: The

transition from arithmetic to algebra. For the Learning of
Mathematics , 2, 19–25.

Fridman, L. M. (1991). Features of introducing the concept

of concrete numbers in the primary grades. In V. V.
Davydov (Ed.), Psychological abilities of primary school
children in learning mathematics. Vol 6: Soviet studies in
mathematics education (pp. 148–180). Reston, VA: National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Harel, G. & Confrey, J. (1994) (Eds.), The development of

multiplicative reasoning in the learning of mathematics.
Albany: State University of New York Press.

JCGM (2012) International vocabulary of metrology: Basic

and general concepts and associated terms (VIM, 3rd ed.).
Sèvres, France: Bureau Internacional de Poids et Measures
(BIPM), Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology, JCGM
200:2012 (JCGM 200:2008 with minor corrections). Retrieved
from www.bipm.org/en/publications/guides/, May 5, 2015.

Kieran, C. (1981). Concepts associated with the equality

symbol. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12, 317–326.
Kaput, J. (1998). Transforming algebra from an engine of
inequity to an engine of mathematical power by
“algebrafying” the K–12 curriculum. In National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences Education
Board Center for Science, Mathematics and Engineering
Education, National Research Council (Sponsors). The
Nature and Role of Algebra in the K-14 Curriculum (pp.
25–26). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Kirshner, D., & Awtry, T. (2004). Visual salience of

algebraic transformations. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 35(4), 224–257.

Lacampagne, C. B. (1995). The Algebra Initiative

Colloquium. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
OERI.

Langrall, C., Mooney, E. S., Nishet, S. & Jones, G. S.

(2008). Elementary school students’ access to powerful
mathematical ideas. In L. D. English & D. Kirshner (Eds.)
Handbook of international research in mathematics
education (2nd ed., pp. 109–135). New York, Routledge.

Lesh, R. A & Landau, M. (Eds.) (1983). Acquisition of

mathematics concepts and processes. New York: Academic
Press.

Mikulina, G. G. (1991). The psychological features of

solving problems with letter data. In V. Davydov (Ed.),
Soviet studies in mathematics education (vol. 6, pp.
181–232). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics.

Moss, J. & Beatty, R. (2006). Knowledge building in

mathematics: Supporting collaborative learning in pattern
problems. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, pp.
441–465.

Oehrtman, M. C., Carlson, M. P., & Thompson, P. W. (2008).

Foundational reasoning abilities that promote coherence in
students’ understandings of function. In M. P. Carlson & C.
Rasmussen (Eds.), Making the connection: Research and
practice in undergraduate mathematics (pp. 27–42).
Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.

Peled, I., & Carraher, D. W. (2008). Signed numbers and

algebraic thinking. In J. Kaput, D. W. Carraher, & M.
Blanton (Eds.), Algebra in the early grades. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Piaget, J., & Garcia, R. (1991). Vers une logique des
significations. Geneva: Murionde Editeur.

Poincaré, H. (1969). Intuition and logic in mathematics.

The Mathematics Teacher, 62(2), pp. 205–212.

Romberg, T., Fennema, E., & Carpenter, T. (1993) (Eds.)

Integrating r esearch on the graphical representation of
functions (pp. 41–68). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Rosen, K. (2012). Axioms for the real numbers and positive

integers. In Discrete Mathematics and its applications
(pp. A1–A6). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Schliemann, A. D. (1998). Logic of meanings and situated

cognition. Learning and Instruction, 8 (6), pp. 549–560.

Schliemann, A. D., Carraher, D. W. & Brizuela, B. M.

(2001). When tables become function tables. In M. v. d.
Heuvel-Panhuizen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 25th Conference
of the Inter national Group for the Psychology of
Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 145–152). Utrecht, The
Netherlands: Freudenthal Institute.

Schliemann, A. D., Carraher, D. W., & Brizuela, B. M.

(2007). Bringing out the algebraic character of
arithmetic: From children’s ideas to classroom practice.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Schliemann A. D., Carraher D. W., & Brizuela B. M. (2012).

Algebra in elementary school. In L. Coulange & J.-P.
Drouhard (Eds.) Enseignement de l’algèbre élémentaire:
Bilan et perspectives (pp. 109–124). Special Issue of
Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques.

Schliemann, A. D., Carraher, D. W., & Caddle, M. (2013).

From seeing points to seeing intervals in number lines and
graphs. In B. Brizuela & B. Gravel (Eds.) Show me what you
know: Exploring representations across STEM disciplines.
New York: Teachers College Press.

Schliemann, A. D., Carraher, D. W., Goodrow, A., Caddle,

M., & Porter, M. (2013). Equations in elementary school.
In A.M. Lindmeier & A. Heinze (Eds.). Proceedings of the
37th Conference of the International Group for the
Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 161–168).
Kiel, Germany: PME.
Schmittau, J. & Morris, A. (2004) The development of
algebra in the elementary mathematics curriculum of V. V.
Davydov. The Mathematics Educator, 8(1), 60–87

Schoenfeld, A. (1995). Report of Working Group 1. In C. B.

Lacampagne (Ed.), The Algebra Initiative Colloquium: Vol.
2. Working Group Papers (pp. 11–18). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, OERI.

Schwartz, J. L. (1996). Semantic aspects of quantity.

Unpublished manuscript, MIT and Harvard Graduate School of
Education, Cambridge, MA.

Schwartz, J. & Yerushalmy, M. (1992). Getting students to

function on and with algebra. In E. Dubinsky & G. Harel
(Eds.), The concept of function: Aspects of epistemology
and pedagogy (pp. 261–289). Washington, DC: Mathematical
Association of America.

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.

Vergnaud, G. (1982). A classification of cognitive tasks

and operations of thought involved in addition and
subtraction problems. In T. P. Carpenter, J. M., Moser, &
T. A. Romberg (Eds.), Addition and subtraction: A
cognitive view (pp. 39–59). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Vergnaud, G. (1983). Multiplicative structures. In R. A.

Lesh & M. Landau (Eds.), Acquisition of mathematics
concepts and pr ocesses (pp. 127–174). New York: Academic
Press.

Vergnaud, G. (1994). Multiplicative conceptual field: What

and why? In G. Harel & J. Confrey (Eds.), The development
of multiplicative reasoning in the learning of mathematics
(pp. 41–59). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Vergnaud, G. (1996). The theor y of conceptual fields. In

L. Steffe & P. Nesher (Eds.), Theories of mathematical
learning (pp. 219–239). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Whitney, H. (1968a). The mathematics of physical

quantities: Part I: mathematical models for measurement.
American Mathematical Monthly, 75(2), 115–138.
Whitney, H. (1968b). The mathematics of physical
quantities, Part 2: Quantity structures and dimensional
analysis. American Mathematical Monthly, 75(3), 227–256.
7 Students’ Access to Mathematics
Learning in the Middle and Junior
Secondary Schools

Arcavi, A. (1994). Symbol sense: Informal sense-making in

formal mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 14(3),
24–35. Retrieved from
http://flm-journal.org/index.php?do=show&lang=en&show
Menu=14%2C3.

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

Artigue, M. (2007). L’impact curricular des technologies

sur l’éducation mathématique [The curricular impact of
technology on mathematics education]. Paper presented at
the XII CIAEM Conference, Querétaro, Mexico. Retrieved
from www.centroedumatematica.com/ciaem/?q=es/node/237.

Bartolini, M., & Mariotti, A. (2008). Semiotic mediation in

the mathematics classroom: Artifacts and signs after a
Vygotskian perspective. In L. English (Ed.), Handbook of
international research in mathematics education (2nd ed.,
pp.746–783). New York: Routledge.

Booth, L. (1984). Algebra: Children’s strategies and

errors. Windsor, Berkshire: NFER-NELSON.

Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.) (2000). How

people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school.
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Drouhard, J. P. (1992). Les écritures symboliques de

l’algèbre élémentaire [The symbolic writings of elementary
algebra]. Doctoral dissertation, Université Paris 7.
Retrieved from http://tel.archives-ouvertes.
fr/tel-00925358.

Filloy, E. (1993). Tendencias cognitivas y procesos de

abstracción en el aprendizaje del algebra y de la
geometría [Cognitive tendencies and processes of
abstraction in the learning of algebra and geometry].
Enseñanza de las Ciencias 11(2), 160–166. Retrieved from
http://ddd.uab.cat/record/18?ln= carecord/14?ln=ca.

Filloy, E. & Rojano, T. (1989). Solving equations: The

transition from arithmetic to algebra. For the Learning of
Mathematics, 9(2), 19–25. Retrieved from
http://flm-journal.org/index.php?do=show
&lang=en&showMenu=9%2C2.

Filloy, E., Rojano, T., & Puig, L. (2008). Educational

algebra. A theoretical and empirical approach. New York:
Springer.

Filloy, E., Rojano, T., & Solares, A. (2010). Problems

dealing with unknown quantities and two different levels of
representing unknowns. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 41 (1), 52–80. Retrieved from
www.nctm.org/publications/article.aspx?id=26190.

Freudenthal, H. (1983). The algebraic language. In H.

Freudenthal, Didactical phenomenology of mathematical
structures (pp. 461–490). Dordrecht: Reidel.
doi:10.1007/0–306–47235-X_16

Gravemeijer, K. (1994). Developing realistic mathematics

education. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Freudenthal
Institute.

Gravemeijer, K. (2004). Local instruction theories as means

of support for teachers in reform mathematics education.
Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6 (2), 105–128.
doi:10.1207/ s15327833mtl0602_3

Griffin, S. (2004). Building number sense with Number

Worlds: A mathematics program for young children. Early
Childhood Research Quar terly, 19 (1), 173–180. Retrieved
from www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S0885200604000146.

Hart, K. (1981). Children’s understanding of mathematics:

11–16. London: John Murray

Hoch, M. (2007). Structure sense in high school algebra.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Tel Aviv University,
Israel.

Hoch, M., & Dreyfus, T. (2006). Structure sense versus

manipulation skills: An unexpected r esult. In J. Novotná,
H. Moraová, M. Krátká, & N. Stehlíková (Eds.), Proceedings
of the 30th Conference of the International Group for the
Psychology of Mathematics Education, 3, 305–312. Prague,
Czech Republic: PME.

Hoch, M., & Dreyfus, T. (2010). Developing Katy’s algebraic

structure sense. Proceedings of CERME 6, January
28–February 1, 2009, Lyon France © INRP 2010. Retrieved
from www.inrp.fr/editions/ cerme6.

Hoffmann, M.H.G, Lenhard, J., & Seeger, F. (Eds.) (2005).

Activity and sign. Grounding mathematics education. New
York: Springer.

Hoopes, J. (Ed.) (1991). Peirce on signs. Writings on

semiotics by Charles Sanders Peirce. Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press.

Horton, R. M., & Leonard, W. H. (2005). Mathematical

modeling in science: Using spreadsheets to cre ate
mathematical models and address scientific inquiry. The
Science Teacher, 72(5), 40–45.

Kennewell, S. (2009). Reflections on the interactive

whiteboard phenomenon: A synthesis of research from the
UK. Por tugal: Observatório dos Recursos Educativos.
Retrieved from
www.ore.org.pt/filesobservatorio/pdf/KENNEWELL.pdf.

Kieran, C. (1981). Concepts associated with the equality

symbol. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12, 317–26.
doi:10.1007/BF00311062

Kieran, C. (2007). Research on the learning and teaching of

school algebra at the middle, secondary, and college
level: Building meaning for symbols and their manipulation.
In F. Lester (Ed.) Second handbook of research on
mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 707–762).
Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Kirshner, D. (1987). Linguistic analysis of symbolic

elementary algebra. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of British Columbia.

Kirshner, D. (1989). The visual syntax of algebra. Journal

for Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 274–287.
Retrieved from
www.nctm.org/publications/article.aspx?id=38660.

Küchemann, D. (1981). Algebra. In K. Hart (Ed.) Children’s

understanding of mathematics 11–16 (pp. 102–119). London:
Murray.

Lagrange, J-B (2003). Learning techniques and concepts

using CAS: A practical and theoretical reflection. In J.
T. Fey (Ed.) Computer algebra systems in secondary school
mathematics education (pp. 269–283). Reston, VA: National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Linchevski, L. & Liveneh, D (1999). Structure sense: The

relationship between algebraic and numerical contexts.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 40 (2), 173–196.
Retrieved from www.jstor.org/ stable/3483083.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000).

Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston,
VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Noss, R., Hoyles, C., Mavrikis, M., Geraniou, E.,

Gutierrez-Santos, S., & Pearce, D. (2009). Broadening the
sense of “dynamic”: A microworld to support students’
mathematical generalization. In Special Issue of ZDM: The
International Journal on Mathematics Education,
Transforming mathematics education through the use of
dynamic mathematics technologies, 41(4), 493–503.
doi:10.1007/ s11858–009–0182–8

Otte, M. (2005). Mathematics, sign and activity. In M.H.G.

Hoffmann, J. Lenhard, & F. Seeger (Eds.), Activity and
sign. Grounding mathematics education (pp. 9–22). New York:
Springer.

Peirce, C. S. (1868). On a new list of categories.

Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 7,
287–298.

Peirce, C. S. (1931–1958). Collected papers of Charles

Sanders Peirce. C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss, Eds. (Vols. 1–6)
and A. Burks, Ed. (Vols. 7–8). Cambridge, MA: The Belknap
Press of Harvard University Press.

Pr esmeg, N. (2005). Metaphor and metonym in processes of

semiosis in mathematics education. In M.H.G. Hoffmann, J.
Lenhard, & F. Seeger (Eds.) (2005). Activity and sign.
Grounding mathematics education (pp. 105–115). New York:
Springer.

Puig, L. (2003). Signos, textos y sistemas matemáticos de

signos [Signs, texts and mathematical sign systems]. In E.
Filloy (Ed.) Matemática Educativa: Aspectos de la
investigación actual (pp. 174–186). México: Fondo de
Cultura Económica/Cinvestav.

Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (2007).

Mathematics. Programme for key state 3 and attainment tar
gets (p. 145). Retrieved from
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130123124929/
http://media.education.gov
.uk/assets/files/pdf/q/mathematics%202007%20programme%20
of%20study%20for%20key%20stage%203.pdf.

Radford, L. (2000). Signs and meanings in students’

emerging algebraic thinking: A semiotic analysis.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 42, 237–268.
doi:10.1023/A:1017530828058

Radford, L., Schubring, G., & Seeger, F. (Eds.) (2008).

Semiotics in mathematics education. Rotter dam/ Taipei:
Sense Publishers.

Rojano, T. (2008). Mathematics learning in the middle

school/junior secondary school: Student access to powerful
mathematical ideas. In L. English (Ed.) Handbook of
International Research in Mathematics Education (2nd ed.,
pp. 136–153). New York: Routledge.

Rojano, T. (2014). El futuro de las tecnologías digitales

en la educación matemática: Prospectiva a treinta años de
investigación intensiva en el campo. [The future of digital
technologies in mathematics education: A prospective after
30 years of intensive research in the field]. Educación
Matemática, número especial: 25 años [special issue: 25
years], 11–30. Retrieved from
www.revista-educacion-matematica.
com/volumen-25/numero-e/11-30.

Rojano, T., & Abreu, J-L (2012). Dialogues with Prometheus:

Intelligent support for teaching mathematics. In C.
Kynigos, J-E Clayson, & N. Yiannoutso (Eds.) Proceedings
of the Constructionism 2012 Confer ence (pp. 544–548).
Athens, Greece.

Rojano, T., Filloy, E., & Puig, L (2014). Intertextuality

and sense production in the learning of algebraic methods.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 87(3), 389–407.
Retrieved from http://link.springer.
com/article/10.1007/s10649-014-9561-3.

Rojano, T., & García-Campos, M (2014). Intelligent

dialogues with tertiary education pupils. Working with
parameterized modeling activities. In P . Liljedahl & C.
Nicol (Eds.), Proceedings of the 38th Conference of the
International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics
Education, 6, 210. July 15–20, Vancouver: Simon Fraser
University/British Columbia University.
Royal Society/JMC (1997). Teaching and learning algebra
pre-19. Report of a Royal Society/Joint Mathematical
Council Working Group (pp. 3–4). London: Royal Society.

Schoenfeld, A. (1988). When good teaching leads to bad

results: The disasters of well taught mathematics classes.
Educational Psychologist, 23, 145–166.
doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2302_5

Secretaría de Educación Pública (SEP). (2006). Reforma de

la educación secundaria. Fundamentación curricular.
Matemáticas [Reform of secondary school education.
Curricular foundations. Mathematics].

Sierpinska, A. (1995). Mathematics: “In context,” “pure,”

or “with applications”? For the Learning of Mathematics,
15(1), 2–15. Retrieved from
http://flm-journal.org/index.php?do=show&lang=en&
showMenu=15%2C1.

Streefland, L. (Ed.) (1991). Fractions in realistic

mathematics education. A paradigm of developmental
research. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Sutherland, R. (2007). Teaching for learning mathematics.

Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Sutherland, R., & Rojano, T. (2012). Technology and

curricula in mathematics education. In S. Lerman (Ed.)
Encyclopedia of mathematics education. New York: Springer.

Trigueros, M., Lozano, M., Sandoval, I., Lage, A., Jinich,

E., García, H., & Tovilla, E. (2006). Developing resources
for teaching and learning mathematics with digital
technologies in Enciclomedia, a national project. In C.
Hoyles, J. B. Lagrange, L. H. Son, & N. Sinclair (Eds.)
Proceedings of the 17th Study Conference of the
International Commission on Mathematical Instruction (pp.
556–563). Hanoi Institute of Technology and Didirem
Université Paris 7.

Trouche, L. (2004). Managing the complexity of

human/machine interactions in computerized learning
environments: Guiding students’ pr ocess through
instrumental orchestrations. International Journal of
Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9, 281–307.
doi:10.1007/s10758–004–3468–5

Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2003). The didactical use of

models in realistic mathematics education: An example from
a longitudinal trajectory on percentage. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 54 (1), pp. 9–35.
doi:10.1023/B:EDUC.0000005212.03219.dc
8 Mathematical Structure, Proof, and
Definition in Advanced Mathematical
Thinking

Alcock, L. (2010). Mathematicians’ perspectives on teaching

and learning of proof. Research in Collegiate Mathematics
Education, CBMS Issues in Mathematics Education, 16, 63–91.

Antonini, S., & Mariotti, M. A. (2006). Abduction and the

explanation of anomalies: The case of proof by
contradiction. Proceedings of the CERME, 6, 322–331. Lyon,
France.

Artmann, B. (1988). The concept of number: From quartenions

to monads and topological fields. New York/ Chichester:
John Wiley & Sons.

Asghari, H. A. (2004). Organizing with a focus on defining.

A phenomenographic approach. In A. B. Fuglestad, (Ed.)
Proceedings of the 28th PME Conference, 2, 63–70. Bergen,
Norway.

Balacheff, N. (2010). Bridging knowing and proving in

mathematics: A didactical perspective. In G. Hanna, H. N.
Jahnke, & H. Pulte (Eds.) Explanation and proof in
mathematics. Philosophical and educational Perspectives
(pp. 115–137). New York: Springer.

Barnard, T . (1998). Compressed units of mathematical

thought. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17(4), 401–404.

Bergé, A. (2008). The completeness property of the set of

real numbers in the transition from calculus to analysis.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67(3), 217–235.

Chevallard, Y. (1989). Le passage de l’arithmétique á

l’algébrique dans l’ enseignement des mathématiques au
college. Petit X, 19, 43–72.

Chevallard, Y. (1998). Analyses des practiques enseignantes

et didactique des mathematics : l’approche
anthropologique. Actes de l’ École d’été de la Rochelle,
19(2), 91–118.

Cottrill, J., Dubinsky, E., Nichols, D., Schwingendorf, K.,

Thomas, K., & Vidakovic, D. (1996). Understanding the limit
concept: Beginning with a coordinated process scheme.
Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 15 (2), 167–192.

Curley, N., & Meehan, M. (2010). Example generation

exercises in an introductory analysis course. MSOR
Connections, 10(1), 49–51.

Dahlber g, R. P., & Housman, D. L. (1997). Facilitating

learning events through example generation. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 33(3), 283–299.

Davis, R. B., & Vinner, S. (1986). The notion of limit:

Some seemingly unavoidable misconception stages. Journal
of Mathematical Behavior, 5 (3), 281–303.

De Guzmán, M., Hodgson, B. R., Robert, A., & Villani, V.

(1998). Difficulties in the passage from secondary to
tertiary education. In G. Fischer and U. Rehmann (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Congress of
Mathematicians, (Vol 3., pp. 747–762). Berlin: Documenta
Mathematica.

De Villiers, M. (1998). An alternative approach to pr oof

in Dynamic Geometry. In R. Lehrer & D. Chazan (Eds.),
Designing learning environments for developing
understanding of geometry and space (pp. 369–393).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Downs, M., & Mamona-Downs, J. (2005). The proof language as

a regulator of rigor in proof, and its effect on student
behavior . Proceedings of CERME, 4, 1748–1757. Sant Feliu
de Guixols, Spain.

Dreyfus, T., & Eisenberg, T. (1996). On different facets

of mathematical thinking. In R. J. Sternberg & T.
Ben-Zeev (Eds.). The nature of mathematical thinking (pp.
253–284). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Durand-Guerrier, V. (2003). Which notion of implication is

the right one? From logical considerations to a didactic
perspective. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 53(1),
5–34.

Ebert, C., Ebert, G., & Klin, M. (2004). From the principle
of bijection to the isomorphism of structures: an analysis
of some teaching paradigms in discrete mathematics. ZDM:
The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 36(5),
172–183.

Edwards, B. S., & Ward, M. B. (2004). Surprises from

mathematics education research: Student (mis)use of
mathematical definitions. The American Mathematical
Monthly, 111(5), 411–424.
Edwards, B. S., & Ward, M. B. (2008). The role of
mathematical definitions in mathematics and in
undergraduate mathematics courses. In M. P. Carlson & C.
Rasmussen (Eds.), Making the connection; Research and
Teaching in Undergraduate Mathematics Education (pp.
223–232). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of
America.

Font, V., Godino, J. D., & Gallardo, J. (2013). The

emergence of objects from mathematical practices.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 82(1), 97–124.

Gravemeijer, K. (1999). How emergent models may foster the

constitution of formal mathematics. Mathematical Thinking
and Learning, 1(2), 155–177.

Greer, B., & Harel, G. (1998). The role of isomorphisms in

mathematical cognition. The Journal of Mathematical
Behavior, 17(1), 5–24.

Hamdan, M. (2006). Equivalent structures on sets:

Equivalence classes, partitions and fiber structures of
functions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 62(2),
127–147.

Hanna, G., & Barbeau E. (2008). Proofs as bearers of

Mathematical Knowledge. ZDM: The International Journal on
Mathematics Education, 40(3), 345–353.

Kondratieva, M. (2011). The promise of interconnecting

problems for enriching students’ experiences in
mathematics. The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, 8(1&2),
355–382.

Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and refutations: The logic of

mathematical discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Lakoff, G., & Nunez, R. E. (2000). Where mathematics comes

from. New York: Basic Books.

Leikin, R., & Winicki-Landman, G. (2000). On equivalent and

non-equivalent definitions II. For the Learning of
Mathematics, 20(2), 24–29.

Ler on, U. (1983). Structuring mathematical proofs. The

American Mathematical Monthly, 90(3), 174–184.

Leron, U. (1985). A direct approach to indirect proofs.

Educational Studies in Mathematics, 16(3), 321–325.
Lobato, J., & Siebert, D. (2002). Quantitative reasoning in
a reconceived view of transfer. Journal of Mathematical
Behavior, 21(1), 87–116.

Mamona-Downs, J. (2014). Reconciling two non-equivalent

definitions for the limit of two-variable real functions.
Talk presented at the MAA Joint Mathematics Meeting,
Baltimore, MD.

Mamona-Downs, J., & Downs, M. (2004). Realization of

techniques in problem solving: The construction of
bijections for enumeration Tasks. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 56 (2&3), 235–253.

Mamona-Downs, J., & Downs, M. (2011). Proof: A game for

pedants? Proceedings of CERME, 7, 213–223, Rzeszów,
Poland.

Mamona-Downs, J., & Downs, M. (2013). Problem solving and

its elements in forming proof. The Mathematics Enthusiast,
10(1), 137–162.

Mamona-Downs, J., & Megalou, F. (2013) Students’

understanding of limiting behavior at a point for
functions from R 2 to R. Journal of Mathematical Behavior,
32(1) 53–68.

Marrongelle, K., & Rasmussen, C. (2008). Meeting new

teaching challenges: Teaching strategies that mediate
between all lectur e and all student discovery. In M.
Carlson, & C. Rasmussen (Eds.), Making the connection:
Research and teaching in undergraduate mathematics
education (pp. 167–178). Washington, DC: The Mathematical
Association of America.

Martinez, M. V., & Brizuela, B. M. (2009). Modelling and

proof in high school. In M. Tzekaki, M. Kaldrimidou, & H.
Sakonidis (Eds.) Proceedings of the 33rd PME Confer ence,
4, 113–120. Thessaloniki, Greece.

Martínez-Planell, R., Gonzalez, A. C., DiCristina, G., &

Acevedo, V. (2012). Students’ conceptions of infinite
series. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 81(2), 235–249.

Mason, J., Stephens, M., & Watson, A. (2009). Appreciating

mathematical structure for all. Mathematics Education
Research Journal, 21(2), 10–32.

Mejia-Ramos, J. P., Fuller, E., Weber, K., Rhoads, K., &

Samkoff, A. (2012). An assessment model for proof
comprehension in under graduate mathematics. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 79(1), 3–18.

Mills, M. (2011). Mathematicians’ pedagogical thoughts and

practices in proof presentation. In S. Brown, S. Larsen,
K. Marrongelle, & M. Oehrtman (Eds.) Proceedings of the
14th Conference for Resear ch in Undergraduate Mathematics
Education, 4, 167–172. Portland, Oregon.

Moore, R. C. (1994). Making the transition to formal

proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27(3), 249–266.

Niss, M. (2006). The structur e of mathematics and its

influence on the learning process. In J. Maasz & W.
Schloeglmann (Eds.), New Mathematics Education Research and
Practice (pp. 51–62). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Novotná, J., & Hoch, M. (2008). How structure sense for

algebraic expressions or equations is related to str
ucture sense for abstract algebra. Mathematics Education
Research Journal, 20(2), 93–104.

Ouvrier-Buffet, C. (2006). Exploring mathematical

definition construction processes. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 63(3), 259–282.

Ouvrier-Buffet, C. (2011). A mathematical experience

involving defining processes: In-action definitions and
zero-definitions. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
76(2), 165–182.

Parameswaran, R. (2010). Expert mathematicians’ approach

to understanding definitions. The Mathematics Educator,
20(1), 43–51.

Pedemonte, B. (2007). How can the relationship between

argumentation and proof be analysed? Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 66(1), 23–41.

Pinto, M.M.F. (1996). Students use of quantifiers. Paper

presented to the Advanced Mathematical Thinking Working
Group at the Twentieth Conference of the International
Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education,
Valencia, Spain.

Polya, G. (1954). Mathematics and plausible reasoning.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Prasada, S., Ferenz, K., & Haskell, T. (2002). Conceiving

of entities as objects and as stuff. Cognition, 83(2),
141–165.

Raman, M., Sandefur, J., Birky, G., Campbell, C., & Somers,
K. (2009). “Is that a proof?”: Using video to teach and
learn how to prove at university level. In F.-L. Lin, F.-J.
Hsieh, G. Hanna & M. de Villiers (Eds.), Proceedings of
the ICMI Study 19 Conference: Proof and Proving in
Mathematics Education, 2, 154–159. Taipei, Taiwan.

Rasmussen, C., Zandieh, M., King, K., & Teppo, A. (2005).

Advancing mathematical activity: A practice-oriented view
of Advanced Mathematical Thinking. Mathematical Thinking
and Learning, 7(1), 51–73.

Rav, Y. (1999). Why do we prove theorems? Philosophia

Mathematica, 7(1), 5–41.

Rickart, C. (1996). Structuralism and mathematical

thinking. In R. J. Sternberg & T. Ben-Zeev (Eds.), The
nature of mathematical thinking (pp. 285–300). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rose, J. S. (1978). a course on group theory . Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Selden, A., McKee, K., & Selden, J. (2010). Affect,

behavioural schemas and the proving process. International
Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and
Technology, 41(2), 199–215.

Selinski, N. E. (2012). Examining students’ mathematical

transition between secondary school and university: working
with vectors and linear independence. In S. Brown, S.
Larsen, K. Marrongelle & M. Oehrtman (Eds.), Proceedings
of the 15th Conference on Research in Undergraduate
Mathematics Education, 1, 403–416. Portland, Oregon.

Sweller, J., Clark, R., & Kirschner, P. (2010). Teaching

general problem-solving skills is not a substitute for, or
a viable addition to, teaching mathematics. Notices of the
AMS, 57(10), 1303–1304.

Tall, D. (2004). Introducing three worlds of mathematics.

For the Learning of Mathematics, 23(3), 29–33.

Tall, D., & Vinner, S. (1981). Concept image and concept

definition in mathematics with particular reference to
limits and continuity . Educational Studies in Mathematics,
12(2), 151–169.
Thurston, W. P. (1995). On proof and progress in
mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 15(1),
29–37.

Timmermans, B. (2012). Prehistory of the concept of

mathematical structur e: Isomorphism between group theory,
crystallography and philosophy. The Mathematical
Intelligencer, 34(3), 41–54.

Van Hiele, P. (1986). Structure and insight. A theory of

mathematics education. Orlando, FL: Academic University
Press.

Vollrath, H. J. (1994). Reflection on mathematical concepts

as starting points for didactical thinking. In R. Biehler,
W. Scholz, R. Strasser, & B. Winkelmann (Eds.), Didactics
of mathematics as a scientific discipline (pp. 61–72).
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Watson, A., & Mason, J. (2005). Mathematics as a

constructive activity: learners generating examples.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawr ence Erlbaum Associates.

Weber, K. (2010). Mathematics majors’ perceptions of

conviction, validity, and proof. Mathematical Thinking and
Learning, 12(4), 306–336.

Weber, K. (2012). Mathematicians’ perspectives on their

pedagogical practice with respect to proof. International
Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and
Technology, 43(4), 463–482.

Weber, K., & Alcock, L. (2004). Semantic and syntactic

proof productions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 56
(2–3), 209–234.

Weber, K., & Mejia-Ramos, J. P. (2011). Why and how

mathematicians read proofs: An exploratory study.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 76(3), 329–344.

Weinberg, A., & Wiesner, E. (2011). Understanding

mathematics textbooks through reader -oriented theory.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 76(1), 49–63.

Wilhelmi, M. R., Godino, J. D., & Lacasta, E. (2007).

Didactic effectiveness of mathematical definitions. The
case of the absolute value. International Electronic
Journal of Mathematics Education, 27(2), 3–9.
Wilkerson-Jerde, M. H., & Wilensky, U. (2011). How do
mathematicians learn math?: Resources and acts for
constructing and understanding mathematics. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 78(1), 21–43.

Woo, J., & Yim, J. (2008). Revisiting 0.999. . . and (–8)

1/3 in school mathematics from the perspective of the
algebraic permanence principle. For the Learning of
Mathematics, 28(2), 11–16.

Yusof, Y. M., & Tall, D. (1999). Changing attitudes to

university mathematics through problem solving.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 37(1), 67–82.

Zandieh, M., & Rasmussen, C. (2010). Defining as a

mathematical activity: A framework for characterizing
progress from informal to more formal ways of reasoning.
The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 29(2), 57–75.

Zaslavsky, O., & Shir, K. (2005). Students’ conceptions of

a mathematical definition. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 36 (4), 317–346.
9 Reform as an Issue for Mathematics
Education Research: Thinking About
Change, Communication, and Cooperation

Amit, M., & Fried, M. N. (2008). The complexities of

change: aspects of reform and reform research in
mathematics education. In L. English (Ed.), Handbook of
International Research in Mathematics Education (2nd Ed.,
pp. 385–414). New York: Routledge.

Atweh, B., Graven, M., Secada, W., & Valero, P. (Eds.)

(2011). Mapping equity and quality in mathematics
education. Dordrecht: Springer

Ball, D. L., Ferrini-Mundy, J., Kilpatrick, J., Milgram, J.

R., Schmid, W., & Schaar, R. (2005). Reaching for common
ground in K–12 mathematics education. Notices of the
American Mathematical Society, 52(9), 1055–1058.

Battista, M. T. (1999). The mathematical miseducation of

America’s youth. The Phi Delta Kappan, 80(6), 424–433.

Ben-David, D. (2011). Israel’s educational achievements:

Updated international comparisons. In D. Ben-David (Ed.),
State of the nation report: Society, economy and policy in
Israel 2010. Jerusalem: Taub Center of Social Policy
Studies in Israel.

Brann, E.T.H. (1979). Paradoxes of education in a republic.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bury, J. B. (1956). History as a science. In F. Stern

(Ed.), The varieties of history (pp. 209–223). New York:
Meridian Books.

California Department of Education (1992). Mathematics

framework for California public schools: Kindergarten
through grade twelve. Sacramento, CA: California Department
of Education.

Carr, E. H. (1967). What is history? Harmondsworth, UK:

Penguin Books.

Car r, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical.

Education, knowledge and action research. Lewes, UK:
Falmer.

Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2012). Mathematics

standards. Retrieved from www.corestandards.org/Math
(accessed August 20, 2013).
Corry, L. (1989). Linearity and reflexivity in the growth
of mathematical knowledge. Science in Context, 3, 409–440.

Cuban, L. (2006). The laptop revolution has no clothes.

Education Week 26(8), 29. Retrieved from www. edweek.org/
(accessed August 20, 2013).

Cuoco, A. (2003). Teaching mathematics in the United

States. Notices of the American Mathematics Society,
50(7), 777–787.

Davis, p. J., & Hersh, R. (1981). The Mathematical

Experience. Boston: Birkhäuser.

Dick, B. (1999). Sources of Rigour in Action Research:

Addressing the Issues of Trustworthiness and Credibility.
A paper presented at the Association for Qualitative
Research Conference “Issues of rigour in qualitative
research” at the Duxton Hotel, Melbourne, Victoria, 6–10
July 1999.

Egan, K. (2005). Students’ development in theory and

practice: The doubtful role of research. Harvard
Education Review, 75(1), 25–41.

Elliott, J. (1978). What is action-research in schools?

Journal of Curriculum Studies, 10, 355–357.

Elkana, Y. (1981). A programmatic attempt at an

anthropology of knowledge. In E. Mendelson & Y. Elkana
(Eds.), Sociology of the Sciences: Vol. 5. Sciences and
Cultures (pp. 1–76). Dordrecht: Reidel.

Félix, L. (1998). Essai sur l’histoire de la CIEAEM. In T.

Bernet & F. Jaquet (Eds.), La CIEAEM au travers de ses 50
premières rencontres: Matériaux pur l’histoire de la
Commission. Neuchâtel, Switzerland.

Fried, M. N., & Dreyfus, T. (Eds.) (2014). Mathematics and

mathematics education: Searching for common ground. New
York: Springer.

Ginsburg, H. P., Klein, A., & Starkey, P. (1998). The

development of children’s mathematical thinking:
Connecting research with practice. In I. Sigel & A.
Renninger (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology, 5th Ed.:
Vol. 4. Child Psychology and Practice (pp. 401–476). New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
Goldenberg, P. (2014). “Mathematical Literacy”: An
Inadequate Metaphor. In M. N. Fried & T. Dreyfus, (Eds.),
Mathematics and Mathematics Education: Searching for Common
Ground (pp. 139–156). New York: Springer.

Goldin, G. A. (2002). Connecting understandings from

mathematics and mathematics education research. In A. D.
Cockburn & E. Nardi (Eds.), PME26: Proceedings of the 26th
Annual Conference 1 (pp. 161–166). Norwich, UK: University
of East Anglia.

Goodlad, J. I. (1987). Towards a healthy ecosystem. In The

Ecology of School Renewal: 86th Yearbook of the National
Society for the Study of Education, Part I (pp. 210–221).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Griffiths, H. B., & Howson, A. G. (1979). Mathematics,

society and curricula. London: Cambridge University Press.

Gunnarsdóttir , G. H., & Pálsdóttir, G. (2011). Lesson

Study in teacher education: A tool to establish a
learning community. In M. Pytlak, E. Swoboda, & T. Rowland
(Eds.), CERME7 Proceedings of the Seventh Congress of the
Eur opean Society for Research in Mathematics Education.
Rzeszow, Poland. Retrieved from www.cerme7.univ.rzeszow.pl
(accessed August 20, 2013.

Hass, C. G. (1964). Who should plan the curriculum? In A.

Crow & L. D. Crow (Eds.), Vital Issues in American
Education (pp. 143–148). New York/Toronto/London: Bantam
Books.

Howson, G., Keitel, K., & Kilpatrick, J. (1981). Curriculum

development in mathematics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Kelly, A. E., & Lesh, R. (2000). Trends and shifts in

research methods. In A. Kelly, & R. Lesh (Eds.) Handbook
of Research Design in Mathematics & Science Education (pp.
35–44). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kennedy, M. (2005). Inside teaching: How classroom life

undermines reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.

Kilpatrick, J. (1992). History of research in mathematics

education. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of Research on
Mathematics Teaching and Lear ning (pp. 3–37). New York:
Macmillan Publishing Company.
Kilpatrick, J. (1997). Confronting refor m. American
Mathematical Monthly, 104, 955–962.

Kilpatrick, J. (2014). We must cultivate our common ground.

In M. N. Fried & T. Dreyfus, (Eds.), Mathematics and
Mathematics Education: Searching for Common Ground (pp.
337–343). New York: Springer.

Koblitz, N. (1996). The case against computers in K–13 math

education (kindergarten through calculus). The
Mathematical Intelligencer, 18, 9–16.

Lesh, R., & Lovitts, B. (2000). Research agendas:

Identifying priority problems and developing useful
theoretical perspectives. In A. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.),
Handbook of Research Design in Mathematics & Science
Education (pp. 45–72). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Lewis, C. C., Perry, R. R., & Hurd, J. (2009). Improving

mathematics instruction through lesson study: A
theoretical model and North American case. Journal of
Mathematics Teacher Education, 12, 285–304.

Milgram, J. (2013). Testimony to the Indiana Senate

Education Committee. Retrieved from http://

NCTM (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics). (1989).

Curriculum and evaluation standards for school
mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

NCTM (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics). (2000).

Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston,
VA: Author. Retrieved from http://standards.nctm.org
(accessed August 20, 2013).

Niss, M. (2014). Mathematics and mathematics education

policy. In M. N. Fried & T. Dreyfus (Eds.), Mathematics
and Mathematics Education: Searching for Common Ground
(pp. 261–275). New York: Springer.

Niss, M., & Højgaard, T. (Eds.) (2011). Competencies and

mathematical learning. Ideas and inspiration for the
development of mathematics teaching and learning in
Denmark. IMFUFA-text number 485. Roskilde, Denmark:
Roskilde University.

OCDE (Orange County Department of Education). (2011).

Common Core State Standards for California. Retrieved from
www.ocde.us/CommonCoreCA/Pages/default.aspx (accessed May
22, 2014).

Perry, R. R. & Lewis, C. C. (2009).What is successful

adaptation of Lesson Study in the U.S.? Journal of
Educational Change, 10(4), 365–391.

Roitman, J. (1997). A mathematician looks at the standards.

Retrieved from www.stolaf.edu/other/
extend/Expectations/nise.html (accessed August 20, 2013).

Romberg, T. A. & Collins, A. (2000). The impact of

standards-based reform on methods of resear ch in schools.
In A. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.) Handbook of Research Design
in Mathematics & Science Education (pp. 73–86). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Senk, S. L. & Thompson, D. R. (Eds.) (2003).

Standards-based school mathematics curricula: What are
they? What do students learn? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Shimizu, Y. (1999). Aspects of mathematics teacher

education in Japan: Focusing on teachers’ roles. Journal of
Mathematics Teacher Education, 2(1), 107–116.

Stigler, J. W. & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap. New

York: The Free Press.

Thwaites, B. (1972). SMP: The first ten years. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Usiskin, Z. (1999–2000). Educating the public about school

mathematics. UCSMP Newsletter (26, Winter), 4–12.

Wong, N. Y. (2003). The influence of technology on the

mathematics curriculum. In A. J. Bishop, M. A. Clements,
C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick & F.K.S. Leung (Eds.), Second
international handbook of mathematics education (pp.
271–321). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Wooton, W. (1965). SMSG: The making of a curriculum. New

Haven/London: Yale University Press.
10 Prospective Mathematics Teachers’
Learning and Knowledge for Teaching

Alsawaie, O. N., & Alghazo, I. M. (2010). The effect of

video-based approach on prospective teachers’ ability to
analyze mathematics teaching. Journal of Mathematics
Teacher Education, 13(3), 223–241.

Ball, D. L., Lubienski, S. T., & Mewborn, D. S. (2001).

Research on teaching mathematics: The unsolved problems of
teachers’ mathematical knowledge. In V. Richardson (Ed),
Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 433–456).
Washington, DC: AERA.

Ball, D. L, Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2005).

Articulating domains of mathematical knowledge of
teaching. Paper presented at the American Education
Research Association Conference, Montreal, Canada.

Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content

knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of
Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.

Barrantes, M., & Blanco, L. J. (2006). A study of

prospective primary teachers conceptions of teaching and
learning school geometry . Journal of Mathematics Teacher
Education, 9(5), 411–436.

Bartell, T. G., Webel, C., Bowen, B., & Dyson, N. (2013).

Prospective teacher learning: recognizing evidence of
conceptual understanding. Journal of Mathematics Teacher
Education, 16(1), 57–79.

Ben-Chaim, D., Keret, Y., & Ilany, B.-S. (2007). Designing

and implementing authentic investigative proportional
reasoning tasks: The impact on pre-service mathematics
teachers’ content and pedagogical knowledge and attitudes.
Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 10(4–6), 333–340.

Beswick, K., Callingham, R., & Watson, J. (2012). The

nature and development of middle school mathematics
teachers’ knowledge. Jour nal of Mathematics Teacher
Education, 15(2), 131–157.

Caglayan, G. (2013). Prospective mathematics teachers’

sense making of polynomial multiplication and
factorization modeled with algebra tiles. Journal of
Mathematics Teacher Education, 16, 349–378.

Charalambous, C. Y., Hill, H. C., & Ball, D. L. (2011).

Prospective teachers’ learning to provide instructional
explanations: how does it look and what might it take?
Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14(6), 441–463.

Charalambous, C. Y., Philippou, G. N., & Kyriakides, L.

(2008). Tracing the development of preservice teachers’
efficacy beliefs in teaching mathematics during fieldwork.
Educational Studies in Mathemat ics, 67, 125–142.

Crespo, S., & Sinclair, N. (2008). What makes a problem

mathematically interesting? Inviting prospective teachers
to pose better pr oblems. Journal of Mathematics Teacher
Education, 11(5), 395–415.

Davis, J. D. (2009). Understanding the influence of two

mathematics textbooks on prospective secondary teachers’
knowledge. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 12 ,
365–389.

Fernández, C., Llinares, S., & Valls, J. (2012). Learning

to notice students’ mathematical thinking through on-line
discussions. ZDM: The Inter national Journal on Mathematics
Education, 44, 477–459.

Fernandez, M. L., & Zilliox, J. (2011). Investigating

approaches to lesson study in prospective mathematics
teacher education. In L. C. Hart, A. Alston & A. Murata
(Eds.), Lesson study, research and practice in mathematics
education (pp. 85–102). Dordrecht: Springer.

Goos, M., & Benninon, A. (2008). Developing a communal

identity as beginning teachers of mathematics: Emergence of
an online community of practice. Journal of Mathematics T
eacher Education, 11, 41–60.

Hill, H., Ball, D. L., & Schilling, S. G. (2008). Unpacking

pedagogical content knowledge: Conceptualizing and
measuring teachers’ topic-specific knowledge of students.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(4),
372–400.

Hill, H. C., Blunk, M. L., Charalambous, C. Y., Lewis, J.

M., Phelps, G. C., Sleep, D. L. (2008). Mathematical
knowledge for teaching and the mathematical quality of
instruction: An exploratory study. Cognition and
Instruction, 26, 430–511.

I˙mre, S. Y., & Akkoç, H. (2012). Investigating the

development of prospective mathematics teachers’
pedagogical content knowledge of generalising number
patterns through school practicum. Jour nal of Mathematics
Teacher Education, 15(3), 207–226.

Isiksal, M., & Cakiroglu, E. (2011). The nature of

prospective mathematics teachers’ pedagogical content
knowledge: The case of multiplication of fractions. Journal
of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14, 3, 213–230.

Jansen, A. (2009) Prospective elementary teachers’

motivation to participate in whole-class discussions during
mathematics content courses for teachers. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, (2009) 71:145–160.

Jansen, A., & Spitzer, S. M. (2009). Prospective middle

school mathematics teachers’ reflective thinking skills:
Descriptions of their students’ thinking and
interpretations of their teaching. Journal of Mathematics
Teacher Education, 12(2), 133–151.

Jaworski, B., & Gellert, U. (2003). Educating new

mathematics teachers: Integrating theory and practice, and
the roles of practicing teachers. In A. J. Bishop, M. A.
Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick & F.K.S. Leung (Eds.),
Second international handbook of mathematics education (pp.
829–875). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Karp, A. (2010). Analyzing and attempting to overcome pr

ospective teachers’ difficulties during problem-solving
instruction. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education,
13(2), 121–139.

Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.). (2001).

Adding it up: Helping children lear n mathematics.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Krauss, S., Brunner, M., Kunter, M., Baumert, J., Neubrand,

M., Blum, W., & Jordan, A. (2008). Pedagogical content
knowledge and content knowledge of secondary mathematics
teachers. Jour nal of Educational Psychology,
100(716–715).

Lavy, I., & Shriki, A. (2008). Investigating changes in

prospective teachers’ views of a “good teacher” while
engaging in computerized project-based learning. Jour nal
of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(4), 259–284.

Leatham, K. R., & Peterson, B. E. (2010). Secondary

mathematics cooperating teachers’ perceptions of the
purpose of student teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher
Education, 13 (2), 99–119.
Llewellyn, A. (2009). “Gender games”: A post-structural
exploration of the prospective teacher, mathematics and
identity . Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 12(6),
411–426.

Llinares, S., & Krainer, K. (2006). Mathematics (student)

teachers and teacher educators as learners. In A.
Gutierrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the
psychology of mathematics education: Past, present and
future (pp. 429–460). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Llinares, S., & Valls, J. (2007). The building of

pre-service primary teachers’ knowledge of mathematics
teaching: interaction and online video studies.
Instructional Science, 37(3), 247–271.

Llinares, S., & Valls, J. (2010). Prospective primary

mathematics teachers’ learning from online discussions in
a virtual video-based environment. Journal of Mathematics
Teacher Education, 13(2), 177–196.

Lloyd, G. M. (2008). Curriculum use while learning to

teach: One student teacher’s appropriation of mathematics
curriculum materials. Jour nal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 39(1), 63–94.

Lo, J.-J., Grant, T. J., & Flowers, J. (2008). Challenges

in deepening prospective teachers’ understanding of
multiplication through justification. Journal of
Mathematics T eacher Education, 11, 5–22.

Lo, J.-J., & Luo, F. (2012). Prospective elementary

teachers’ knowledge of fraction division. Journal of
Mathematics Teacher Education, 15(6), 481–500.

Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

McGraw, R., Lynch, K., Koc, Y., Budak, A., & Brown, C. A.
(2007). The multimedia case as a tool for professional
development: An analysis of online and face-to-face
interaction among mathematics pre-service teachers,
mathematicians, and mathematics teacher educators. Journal
of Mathematics Teacher Education, 10(2), 95–121.

Morris, A. K., Hiebert, J., & Spitzer, S. M. (2009).

Mathematical knowledge for teaching in planning and
evaluating instruction: What can preservice teachers learn?
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40(5),
491–529.

Murata, A., & Pothen, B. E. (2011). Lesson study in

preservice primary mathematics methods courses: Connecting
emerging practice and understanding. In L. C. Hart, A.
Alston, & A. Murata (Eds.), Lesson study, research and
practice in mathematics education (pp. 103–116).
Dordrecht: Springer.

Nason, R., Chalmers, C., & Yeh, A. (2012). Facilitating

growth in prospective teachers’ knowledge: teaching
geometry in primary schools. Journal of Mathematics Teacher
Education, 15(3), 227–249.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991).

Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston,
VA: Author.

Newton, J. N. (2009). Instructional practices related to

prospective elementary school teachers’ motivation for
fractions. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 12,
89–109.

Nicol, C., & Crespo, S. (2006). Learning to teach with

mathematics textbooks: How preservice teachers interpret
and use curriculum materials. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 62, 331–355.

Osana, H., Lacroix, G., Tucker, B. J., & Desrosiers, C.

(2007). The role of content knowledge and problem features
on preservice teachers’ appraisal of elementary tasks.
Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9(4), 347–380.

Peretz, D. (2006). Enhancing reasoning attitudes of

prospective elementary school mathematics teachers.
Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9(4), 381–400.

Peterson, B. E., & Williams, S. R. (2008). Learning

mathematics for teaching in the student teaching
experience: Two contrasting cases. Journal of Mathematics
Teacher Education, 11 (6), 459–478.

Philipp, R. A., Ambrose, R., Lamb, L.L.C., Sowder, J. T.,

Schappele, B. P., Sowder, L., et al. (2007). Effects of
early field experiences on the mathematics content
knowledge of prospective and beliefs of primary school
teachers: An experimental study. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 38(5), 438–476.

Pitta-Pantazi, D., & Christou, C. (2011). The structure of

prospective kindergarten teachers’ proportional reasoning.
Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14(2), 149–169.

Ponte, J. P., & Chapman, O. (2006). Mathematics teachers’

knowledge and practices. In A. Gutierrez & P. Boero
(Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of
mathematics education: Past, present and future (pp.
461–494). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Ponte, J. P., & Chapman, O. (2008). Preservice mathematics

teachers’ knowledge and development. In L. D. English
(Ed.) Handbook of international r esearch in mathematics
education: Directions for the 21st century (2nd Ed., pp.
225–263). New York: Routledge.

Potari, D. (2011). Response to part II: Emerging issues

from lesson study appr oaches in prospective mathematics
teacher education. In L. C. Hart, A. Alston, & A. Murata
(Eds.), Lesson study, research and practice in mathematics
education (pp. 127–132). Dordrecht: Springer.

Prediger , S. (2010). How to develop

mathematics-for-teaching and for understanding: The case of
meanings of the equal sign. Journal of Mathematics Teacher
Education, 13(1), 73–93.

Rhoads, K., Radu, I., & Weber, K. (2011). Teacher

internship experiences of pr ospective high school
mathematics teachers. International Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education, 9(4), 975–998.

Ricks, T. E. (2011). Process reflection during Japanese

lesson study experiences by prospective secondary
mathematics teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher
Education, 14(4), 251–267.

Ryken, A. (2009). Multiple representations as sites for

teacher reflection about mathematics learning. Journal of
Mathematics Teacher Education, 12, 347–364

Santagata, R., Zannoni, C., & Stigler, J. W. (2007). The

role of lesson analysis in preservice teacher education:
An empirical investigation of teacher learning from a
virtual video-based field experience. Journal of
Mathematics Teacher Education, 10(2), 123–140.

Seaman, C. E., & Szydlik, J. E. (2007). Mathematical

sophistication among preservice elementary teachers.
Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 10(3), 167–182.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge
growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15 (2), 4–14.

Son, J.-W., & Crespo, S. (2009). Pr ospective teachers’

reasoning and response to a student’s non-traditional
strategy when dividing fractions. Journal of Mathematics
Teacher Education, 12, 235–261.

Spitzer, S. M., Phelps, C. M., Beyers, J.E.R., Johnson, D.

Y., & Sieminski, E. M. (2011). Developing prospective
elementary teachers’ abilities to identify evidence of
student mathematical achievement. Journal of Mathematics
Teacher Education, 14, 67–87.

Steele, M. D., Hillen, A. F., Smith, M. S. (2013).

Developing mathematical knowledge for teaching in a
methods course: The case of function. Journal of
Mathematics Teacher Education, 16, 451–482.

Stephens, A. C. (2006). Equivalence and relational

thinking: Preservice elementary teachers’ awareness of
opportunities and misconceptions. Journal of Mathematics
Teacher Education, 9(3), 221–248.

Stockero, S. L. (2008). Using a video-based curriculum to

develop a reflective stance in prospective mathematics
teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(5),
373–394.

Stylianides, G. J., Stylianides, A. J., & Philippou, G. N.

(2007). Preservice teachers’ knowledge of proof by
mathematical induction. Journal of Mathematics Teacher
Education, 10(3), 145166.

Swars, S. L., Smith, S. Z., Smith, M. E., & Hart, L. C.

(2009). A longitudinal study of effects of a developmental
teacher preparation program on elementary prospective
teachers’ mathematics beliefs. Journal of Mathematics
Teacher Education, 12(1), 47–66.

Tatto, M. T., Lerman, S., & Novotna, J. (2010). The

organization of the mathematics preparation and
development of teachers: A report from the ICMI Study 15.
Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 13(4), 313–324.

Tobias, J. M. (2013). Prospective elementary teachers’

development of fraction language for defining the whole.
Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 16 (2), 85–103.

Watson, A., & Mason, J. (2007). Taken-as-shared: A review

of common assumptions about mathematical tasks in teacher
education. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 10(4),
205–215.

Wilson, S. M., Floden, R. E., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001).

Teacher pr eparation research: Current knowledge, gaps, and
recommendations. Washington, DC: University of Washington
Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.

Yow, J. A. (2012). Prospective teacher beliefs about

liberative and oppressive mathematics teaching practices: A
first step toward equitable instruction. Journal of
Mathematics T eacher Education, 15(1), 83–96.
11 Educating Future Mathematics Education
Professors

Andža¯ns, A., Bonka, D., & Grevholm, B. (Eds.). (2008).

Selected papers of the ICME 11 Discussion Group 12:
Rethinking doctoral programs in mathematics education.
Rı¯ga: University of Latvia, Ma¯cı¯bu gra¯mata. Retrieved
from

Ball, D. L. (1990). The mathematical understandings that

prospective teachers bring to teacher education.
Elementary School Journal, 90, 449–466.

Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content

knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of
Teacher Education, 59, 389–407.

Bass, H. (2005). Mathematics, mathematicians, and

mathematics education. Bulletin of the American
Mathematical Society , 42, 417–430.

Bernstein, B. L., Evans, B., Fyffe, J., Halai, N., Hall, F.

L., Jensen, H. S., Marsh, H., & Ortega, S. (2014). The
continuing evolution of the research doctorate. In M. Nerad
& B. Evans (Eds.), Globalization and its impacts on the
quality of PhD education: Forces and forms in doctoral
education worldwide (pp. 5–30). Rotterdam, the
Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Bromme, R. (1994). Beyond subject matter: A psychological

topology of teachers’ professional knowledge. In R.
Biehler, R. W. Scholz, R. Sträßer, & B. Winkelmann (Eds.),
Didactics of mathematics as a scientific discipline (pp.
73–88). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.

Carrillo, J., Climent, N., Contreras, L. C., &

Muñoz-Catalán, M. C. (2013, February). Determining
specialized knowledge for mathematics teaching. Paper
presented in Working Group 17 at the Eighth Congress of
European Research in Mathematics Education (CERME 8),
Manavgat-Side, Antalya, Turkey.

Curaj, A., Scott, P., Vlasceanu, L., & Wilson, L. (Eds.).

(2012). European higher education at the crossroads:
Between the Bologna Process and national reforms.
Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.

de Ibarrola, M., & Anderson, L. W. (Eds.). (2014). The

nurturing of new educational researchers: Dialogues and
debates. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Dewey, J. (1964). The relation of theory to practice in
education. New York: Random House. (Original work
published 1904.)

Dossey, J. A., & Lappan G. (2001). The mathematics

education of mathematics educators in doctoral programs in
mathematics education. In R. E. Reys & J. Kilpatrick
(Eds.), CBMS Issues in Mathematics Education: Vol. 9. One
field, many paths: U.S. doctoral programs in mathematics
education (pp. 67–72). Providence, RI: American
Mathematical Society.

Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice:

Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching.
Teachers College Record, 103, 1113–1055.

Feiman-Nemser, S. (2012). Teachers as learners. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard Education Press.

Feiman-Nemser, S. (2013). The role of experience in the

education of teacher educators. In M. Ben-Peretz (with S.
Kleeman, R. Reichenberg, & S. Shimoni) (Ed.), Teacher
educators as members of an evolving profession (pp.
189–210). New York: Rowan & Littlefield.

Grevholm, B. (2008). A Norwegian doctoral programme in

didactics of mathematics—Doctoral programmes in the Nor dic
research communities. In A. Andža¯ns, D. Bonka, & B.
Grevholm (Eds.), Selected papers of the ICME 11 Discussion
Group 12: Rethinking doctoral programs in mathematics
education (pp. 26–43). Rı¯ga: University of Latvia, Ma¯cı¯
bu gra¯mata. Retrieved from http://math.
unipa.it/~grim/icme11_dg12_proceedings_final.pdf.

Grevholm, B. (2009). Nordic collaboration in mathematics

education research. Nordic Studies in Mathematics
Education, 14(4), 89–100.

Grevholm, B. (2010). Mathematics teacher education: A

Scandinavian perspective. In G. Anthony & B. Grevholm
(Eds.), SMDF Papers: No. 8. Teachers of mathematics:
Recruitment, retention, professional development and
identity (pp. 93–100). Kristiansand, Sweden: Svensk
förening för MatematikDidaktisk Forskning.

Grossman, P. L., & Schoenfeld, A. (with Lee, C. D.).

(2005). Teaching subject matter. In L. Darling-Hammond, J.
Bransford, P. LePage, K. Hammerness, & H. Duffy (Eds.),
Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers
should learn and be able to do (pp. 201–231). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Kilpatrick, J. (1992). A history of research in mathematics

education. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on
mathematics r esearch and teaching (pp. 3–39). New York:
Macmillan.

Kiley, M., Bell, K., & Feng, L. (2013, November). Report of

the online surveys related to OLT-funded project:
Coursework in Australian Doctoral Education: What’s
happening, why, and future directions? (Report to the
Council of Deans and Directors of Graduate Studies in
Australia [DDOGS]). Canberra: Australian National
University, Centre for Higher Education, Learning &
Teaching. Retrieved from
http://chelt.anu.edu.au/doctoral-coursework/presentations.

Klein, F. (1932). Elementary mathematics from an advanced

standpoint: Arithmetic, algebra, analysis (3rd Ed., Vol.
1). (E. R. Hedrick & C. A. Noble, Trans.) New York:
Macmillan. (Original work published 1924.)

McIntyre, D. J., Byrd, D. M., & Foxx, S. M. (1996). Field

and laboratory experiences. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook
of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 171–193).
New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Mewborn, D. S. (2008). Program delivery issues,

opportunities, and challenges. In R. E. Reys & J. A. Dossey
(Eds.), CBMS Issues in Mathematics Education: Vol. 15. U.S.
doctorates in mathematics education: Developing stewards
of the discipline (pp. 129–136). Providence, RI: American
Mathematical Society.

Nerad, M., & Trzyna, T. (2008). Globalization and doctoral

education—toward a r esearch agenda. In M. Nerad & M.
Heggelund (Eds.), Toward a global PhD? Forces and forms in
doctoral education worldwide (pp. 300–312). Seattle:
University of Washington Press.

Philipp, R. A., Ambrose, R., Lamb, L. L., Sowder, J. T.,

Schappelle, B. T., Sowder, L., Thanheiser, E., & Chauvot,
J. (2007). Effects of early field experiences on the
mathematical content knowledge and beliefs of prospective
elementary school teachers: An experimental study. Journal
for Research in Mathematics Education, 38, 438–476.

Reys, R. E., & Kilpatrick, J. (Eds.). (2001). CBMS Issues

in Mathematics Education: Vol. 9. One field, many paths:
U.S. doctoral programs in mathematics education.
Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.

Reys, R., Glasgow, R., Teuscher, D., & Nevels, N. (2007).

Doctoral programs in mathematics education in the United
States: 2007 Status Report. Notices of the American
Mathematical Society, 54(11), 1283–1293.

Rowe, D. E. (1985). Felix Klein’s “Erlanger Antrittsrede”:

A transcription with English translation and commentary.
Historia Mathematica, 12, 123–141.

Rowland, T., Turner, F., Thwaites, A., & Huckstep, P.

(2009). Developing primary mathematics teaching:
Reflecting on practice with the knowledge quartet. London:
Sage.

Silverman, J., & Thompson, P. W. (2008). Toward a framework

for the development of mathematical knowledge for
teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11,
499–511. Retrieved from

Van, L. K. (2012). First course: Formal coursework and the

new Australian PhD: An interview with Margaret Kiley.
Digital Cultur e & Education, 5(2), 119–126. Retrieved
from www.digitalcultureandedu
cation.com/cms/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/van.pdf.

Vithal, R., Adler, J., & Keitel, C. (Eds.). (2005).

Researching mathematics education in South Africa:
Perspectives, practices and possibilities. Pretoria, South
Africa: Human Sciences Research Council.

Walbesser, H. H., & Eisenberg, T. (1971). What research

competencies for the mathematics educator? American
Mathematical Monthly, 78, 667–673. This page intentionally
left blank
12 Problem Solving in a 21st-Century
Mathematics Curriculum

Altonji, J. G. (1995). The effects of high school

curriculum on education and labor market outcomes. The
Journal of Human Resources, 30(3), 409–438.

Anderson, J. (2014). Forging new opportunities for problem

solving in Australian mathematics classrooms through the
first national mathematics curriculum. In Y. Li & G. Lappan
(Eds.), Mathematics curriculum in school education (pp.
209–230). Dordrecht: Springer.

Atkinson, R. D., & Mayo, M. (2010). Refueling the U.S.

innovation economy: Fresh approaches to science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education.
The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation.
Retrieved from
www.itif.org/files/2010-refueling-innovation-economy.pdf.

Autor, D., Levy, F., & Murnane, R. (2003). The skill

content of recent technological change: An empirical
exploration. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(4),
1279–1333.

Bakker, A., Kent, P., Derry, J., Noss, R., & Hoyles, C.
(2008). Statistical inference at work: Statistical Process
Control as an example. Statistics Education Research
Journal, 7(2), 130–145.

Barton, P. E. (2000). What jobs require: Literacy,

education, and training, 1940–2006. Educational Testing
Service Policy Information Report.

Barton, P. E. (2006). High school reform and work: Facing

labor market realities. Educational Testing Service Policy
Information Report.

Bishop, J. (1993). Improving job matches in the U.S. labor

market. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity.
Microeconomics, 1993(1), 335–400.

Bishop, J. H., & Mane, F. (2004). The impacts of

career-technical education on high school labor market
success. Economics of Education Review , 23, 381–402

Boaler, J. (2009). The elephant in the classroom: Helping

children learn and love maths. London: Souvenir Press.

Bowles, Ginits, & Osborne (2001). The determinants of

earnings: A behavioral approach. Journal of Economic
Literature, 39( 4), 1137–1176.

Brynjolfsson, E. & McAfee, A. (2011). Race against the

machine: How the digital revolution is accelerating
innovation, driving productivity, and ir reversibly
transforming employment and the economy. Lexington, MA:
Digital Frontier Press.

Business Council. (2013, May). CEO survey results: The

Business Council survey of CEOs in collaboration with the
Conference Board. Retrieved from
www.thebusinesscouncil.org/assets/TCB_BCS_ MAY_2013.pdf.

Cawley, J., Heckman, J. J., & Vytlacil, E. J. (2001). Three

observations on wages and measured cognitive ability.
Labour Economics, 8(4), 419–442.

Cognition & Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990).

Anchored instr uction and its relationship to situated
cognition. Educational Researcher, 19(6), 2–10.

Cooper, B. & Dunne, M. (1998). Anyone for tennis? Social

class differences in children’s responses to national
curriculum mathematics testing. The Sociological Review,
46(1), 115–148.

Davis, P. J. (1988). Applied mathematics as social

contract. Mathematics Magazine, 61(3), 139–147.

de Abreu, G. (2002). Mathematics learning in out-of-school

contexts: A cultural psychology perspective. In L. D.
English (Ed.). Handbook of International research in
mathematics Education (pp. 323–353). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Doerr, H. M., & English, L. D. (2003). A Modeling

perspective on students' mathematical reasoning about
data. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34
(2), 110–136.

Dudley, U. (2010). What is mathematics for? Notices of the

AMS, 57(5), 608–613.

Duncker, K. (1945). On problem solving. Psychological

Monographs, 58(5).

English, L. D. (2007). Interdisciplinary modelling in the

primary mathematics curriculum. In J. Watson & K. Beswick
(Eds.), Mathematics: Essential research, essential
practice. Pr oceedings of the 30th annual conference of
the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia
(Vol. 2, pp. 275–284). Adelaide: MERGA.

English, L. D. (2013). Complex modelling in the primary and

middle school years: An interdisciplinary approach. In G.
Stillman, G. Kaiser, W. Blum, & J. Brown (Eds.),
Mathematical modelling: Connecting to practice—Teaching
practice and the practice of applied mathematicians (pp.
491–505). New York: Springer.

English, L. D., Hudson, P. B., & Dawes, L. (2012).

Engineering design processes in seventh-grade classrooms:
Bridging the engineering education gap. European Journal of
Engineering Education, 37(5), 436–447.

English, L. D., & Sriraman, B. (2010). Problem solving for

the 21st century. In B. Sriraman & L. D. English (Eds.),
Advances in Mathematics Education. Theories of mathematics
education: Seeking new frontiers (pp. 263–285). New York:
Springer.

English, L. D., & Watson, J. M. (2014). Statistical

literacy in the elementary school: Opportunities for
problem posing. In F. Singer, N. Ellerton, & J. Cai (Eds.),
Problem posing: From research to effective practice.
Dordrecht: Springer.

Fischer, K. (2013). The employment mismatch. The Chronicle

of Higher Education (March 4). Retrieved from

Gainsburg, J. (2006). The mathematical modeling of

structural engineers. Mathematical Thinking and Learning,
8(1), 3–36.

Gainsburg, J. (2007a). The mathematical disposition of

structural engineers. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 38(5), 477–506.

Gainsburg, J. (2007b). Problem solving and learning in

everyday structural engineering work. In R. A. Lesh, E.
Hamilton, & J. Kaput (Eds.), Foundations for the future in
mathematics education (pp. 37–56). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Gallup (2013, May 28). 21st century skills and the

workplace: A 2013 Microsoft Partners in Learning and
Pearson Foundation study. Retrieved from
www.gallup.com/services/176699/21st-century-skills-
workplace.aspx.
Goldin, C. & Katz, L. F. (2008). The race between
education and technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

Goos, M., & Galbraith, P. (1996). Do it this way!

Metacognitive strategies in collaborative mathematical
problem solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 30,
229–260.

Goos, M., Galbraith, P., & Renshaw, P. (2002). Socially

mediated metacognition: creating collaborative zones of
proximal development in small group problem solving.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49, 193–223.

Greenstone, M. & Looney, A. (2011). Where is the best

place to invest $102,000—In stocks, bonds, or a college
degree? Report from the Hamilton Project, Brookings.
Retrieved from www.brookings.edu/
research/papers/2011/06/25-education-greenstone-looney.

Greiffenhagen, C., & Sharrock, W. (2008). School

mathematics and its everyday other? Revisiting Lave’s
‘Cognition in Practice.’ Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 69, 1–21.

Grubb, W. N., & Lazerson, M. (2004). The education gospel:

The economic power of schooling. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

Hamilton, E., Lesh, R., Lester , F., & Brilleslyper, M.

(2008). Model-eliciting activities (MEAs) as a bridge
between engineering education research and mathematics
education resear ch. Advances in Engineering Education,
1(2), 1–25.

Handel, M. J. (in press). What do people do at work? A

profile of U.S. jobs from the survey of workplace skills,
technology, and management practices (ST AMP). In F. Green
& M. Keese (Eds). Paris: OECD Publishing.

Hanushek, E. A., & Woessmann, L. (2008). The role of

cognitive skills in economic development, Journal of
Economic Literatur e, 46(3), 607–668.

Hanushek, E. A., & Woessmann. L. (2011). How much do

educational outcomes matter for developed countries?
Economic Policy, 26(67).

Harvard Graduate School of Education (GSE). (2011,

February). Pathways to prosperity: Meeting the challenge
of preparing young Americans for the 21st century. Report
from the Pathways to Prosperity Project.

Heckman, J. J., Stixrud, J., & Urzua, S. (2006). The

effects of cognitive and noncognitive abilities on labor
market outcomes and social behavior. Journal of Labor
Economics, 4(3), 411–482.

Hegedus, S. (2013). Young children’s investigating advanced

mathematical concepts with haptic technologies: Future
design perspectives. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 10(1–2),
87–108.

Hibbard, J. H., Peters, E., Dixon, A., & Tusler, M.

(2007). Consumer competencies and the use of comparative
quality information: It isn’t just about literacy . Medical
Care Research and Review, 62(4), 379–394.

Hohensee, C. (2014). Backward transfer: An investigation of

the influence of quadratic functions instruction on
students’ prior ways of reasoning about linear functions.
Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 16(2), 135–174.

Hoyles, C., Noss, R., Kent, P., & Bakker, A. (2010).

Improving mathematics at work: The need for
techno-mathematical literacies. London: Routledge.

Hoyles, C., Noss, R., & Pozzi, S. (2001). Proportional

reasoning in nursing practice. Jour nal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 32, 4–27.

Kapa, E. (2001). A metacognitive support during the

process of problem solving in a computerized environment.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47, 317–336.

Kaiser, G. (2010). Introduction: ICTMA and the teaching of

modelling and applications. In R. Lesh, P. Galbraith, C.
R. Haines, & A. Hurford (Eds.), Modeling students’
mathematical modeling competencies (pp. 1–2). New York:
Springer.

Kaput, J., Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (2008). Developing new

notations for a learnable mathematics in the computational
era. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international
research in mathematics education (2nd ed., pp. 693–715).
New York: Routledge.

Kent, P., & Noss, R. (2002, January). The mathematical

components of engineering expertise: The relationship
between doing and understanding mathematics. Paper
submitted to the Institution of Electrical Engineers
Annual Symposium on Engineering Education, London.

Kilpatrick, J. (1981). One point of view: Stop the

bandwagon, I want off. Arithmetic Teacher, 28(8), 2.

Kramarski, B., Weisse, I., & Kololshi-Minsker, I. (2010).

How can self-regulated learning support the problem
solving of third-grade students with mathematics anxiety?
The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 42
(2), 179–193.

Krugman, P. (2011, March 9). Degrees and dollars. New York

Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.
com/2011/03/07/opinion/07krugman.html.

Langdon, D., McKittrick, G., Beede, D., Khan, B., & Doms,
M. (2011). STEM: Good jobs now and for the future. U.S.
Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics
Administration. Retrieved from www.
esa.doc.gov/Reports/stem-good-jobs-now-and-future.

Lesh, R. & Doerr, H. M. (2003). Foundations of a models and

modeling perspective on mathematics teaching, learning,
and problem solving. In R. Lesh & H. M. Doerr (Eds.),
Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on
mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching (pp.
3–33). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lesh, R., & Fennewald, T. (2010). Introduction to part 1

modeling: What is it? Why do it? In R. Lesh, P. Galbraith,
C. R. Haines, & A. Hurford (Eds.), Modeling students’
mathematical modeling competencies (pp. 5–10). New York:
Springer.

Lesh, R., & Harel, G. (2003). Problem solving, modeling,

and local conceptual development. Mathematical Thinking and
Learning, 5 (2–3), 157–189.

Lesh, R. & Zawojewski, J. S. (2007). Problem solving and

modeling. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research
on mathematics teaching and lear ning (pp. 763–804).
Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Lesh, R., Zawojewski, J., & Carmona, G. (2003). What

mathematical abilities are needed for success beyond
school in a technology-based age of information? In R. Lesh
& H. M. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and
modeling perspectives on mathematics teaching, learning,
and pr oblem solving. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Lester, F. K., Jr. (2013). Thoughts about research on

mathematical problem-solving instruction. The Mathematics
Enthusiast, 10(1&2), 245–278.

Lester, F. K., Jr., & Charles, R. I. (Eds.). (2003).

Teaching mathematics through problem solving: Grades pr
e-K–6. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics.

Lester, F. K., Jr., & Kehle, P. E. (2003). From problem

solving to modeling: The evolution of thinking about
research on complex mathematical activity . In R. Lesh &
H. Doerr, (Eds.), Beyond con structivism: Models and
modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving,
learning and teaching (pp. 501–518), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Levine, P. B., & Zimmerman, D. J. (1995). The benefit of

additional high-school math and science classes for young
men and women. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics,
13(2), 137–149.

Levy, F., & Murnane, R.J. (2004). The new division of

labor: How computers are creating the next job market.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Lim, G, & Kim, C. (2013). Who has to pay for their

education? Evidence from European tertiary educa tion.
Educational Researcher, 42(4), 250–252.

Lobato, J. (2003). How design experiments can inform a

rethinking of transfer and vice versa. Educational
Researcher, 32(1), 17–20.

Lubienski, S. (2000). Problem solving as a means toward

mathematics for all: An exploratory look through a class
lens. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(4),
454–482.

Mamona-Downs, J., & Downs, M. (2013). Problem solving and

its elements in forming proof. The Mathematics Enthusiast,
10(1–2), 137–162.

McKenna, A. F., & Agogino, A.M. (2004, April). Supporting

mechanical reasoning with a representationally-rich
learning environment. Journal of Engineering Education,
97–104.
Mehta, J. (2013). How paradigms create policies: The
transformation of American educational policy, 1980–2001.
American Educational Research Journal, 50(2), 285–324.

MetLife. (2010). The MetLife survey of the American

teacher: Preparing students for college and careers.
Retrieved from www.metlife.com/teachersurvey.

Miller, R. (n.d.). Education and economic growth: From the

19th to 21st century. Paper commissioned by Cisco Systems.
Retrieved from

Moreno Armella, L., & Santos-Trigos, M. (2013).

Introduction to international perspectives on problem
solving research in mathematics education. The Mathematics
Enthusiast, 10(1–2), 3–8.

Murnane, R. J., & Levy, F. (1996). Teaching the new basic

skills: Principles for educating children to thrive in a
changing economy. New York: The Free Press.

Murnane, R. J., Willett, J. B., & Levy, F. (1995). The

growing importance of cognitive skills in wage
determination. The Review of Economics and Statistics,
77(2), 251–266.

National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE). (2013,

May). What does it really mean to be college and work
ready? The mathematics required of first year community
college students. Retrieved from www.ncee.org.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1980). An

agenda for action. Reston, VA: Author.

Nelson, W., Fagerlin, A., & Peters, E. (2008). Clinical

implications of numeracy: Theory and practice. The Society
of Behavioral Medicine, 35, 261–274. Retrieved from
http://link.springer.com/article/
10.1007%2Fs12160-008-9037-8.

Newell, H. A., & Simon, A. H. (1972). Human problem

solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Nunes, T., Schliemann, A. D., & Carraher, D. W. (1993).

Street mathematics and school mathematics. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

OECD. (2010). The high cost of low educational performance:

The long-run economic impact of improving PISA outcomes.
Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from
www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/

OECD (2014). PISA 2012 results: What students know and can
do: Vol. 1. Student performance in mathematics, reading and
science—Volume 1. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from
www.oecd.org/
pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results-volume-I.pdf.

Packer, A. (1997). Mathematical competencies that employers

expect. In L. A. Steen (Ed.), Why numbers count:
Quantitative literacy for tomorrow’s America (pp.
137–154). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.

Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2006). Are they

really ready to work? Employers’ perspectives on the basic
knowledge and applied skills of new entrants to the 21st
century U.S. workforce. Retrieved from www.p21.org.

Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2008). 21st century

skills, education and competitiveness: A resources and
policy guide. Retrieved from www .p21.org.

Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2009). P21 framework

definitions. Retrieved from www.p21.org.

Pellegrino, J. W., & Hilton, M. L. (Eds.) (2012). Education

for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and
skills in the 21st century. Washington, DC: National
Academies Pr ess. Retrieved from www.

Peters, E., Hibbard, J., Slovic, P., & Dieckmann, N.

(2007). Numeracy skill and the communication,
comprehension, and use of risk-benefit information. Health
Affairs, 26(3), 741–748.

Peters, E., & Levin, I. P. (2008). Dissecting the

risky-choice framing effect: Numeracy as an
individual-difference factor in weighting risky and
riskless options. Judgment and Decision Making, 3 (6),
435–448.

Polya, G. (1945). How to solve it. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press.

Reyna, V. F., Nelson, W. L., Han, P. K., and Dieckmann, N.

F. (2009). How numeracy influences risk comprehension and
medical decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 135(6),
943–973.
Rigelman, N. R. (2013). Become a mathematical problem
solver. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 18(7),
416–423.

Salzman, H., Kuehn, D., & Lowell, L. (2013, April 24).

Guestworkers in the high-skill U.S. labor market: An
analysis of supply, employment, and wage trends. EPI
Briefing Paper #359, Economy Policy Institute. Retrieved
from

Schneider, W., & Artelt, C. (2010). Metacognition and

mathematics education. ZDM: The International Journal on
Mathematics Education, 42, 149–161.

Schoen, H. L., & Charles, R. I. (2003). Teaching

mathematics through problem solving: Grades 6–12. Res ton,
VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving.

Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (2008). Problem solving in the United

States, 1970–2008: Research and theory, practice and
politics. In G. Tör ner, A. H. Schoenfeld, & K. Reiss
(Eds.), Problem solving around the world—Summing up the
state of the art. ZDM: The International Journal on
Mathematics Education, special issue (1).

Schoenfeld, A. H. (2013). Reflections on problem solving

theory and practice. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 10(1&2),
9–34.

Schultz, T. W. (1975). The value of the ability to deal

with disequilibria. American Economic Review, 13(3),
827–846.

Silver, E. (Ed.). (1985). Teaching and learning

mathematical problem solving: Multiple research
perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Silver, E. A., Mesa, V., Morris, K. A., Star, J. R., &

Benken, B. M. (2009). Teaching mathematics for
understanding: An analysis of lessons submitted by teachers
seeking NBPTS certification. U.S. Educational Research
Journal, 46(2), 501–531.

Singer, F., Ellerton., N., & Cai, J. (Eds.). (2015).

Mathematical problem posing: From research to effective
practice. Dordrecht: Springer.
Stanic, G.M.A., & Kilpatrick, J. (1989). Historical
perspectives on problem solving in the mathematics
curriculum. In R. I. Charles & E. A. Silver (Eds.), The
teaching and assessing of mathematical problem solving
(Vol. 3, pp. 1–22). Reston, VA: National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics.

Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W ., & Henningsen, M. (1996).

Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and
reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform
classrooms. American Education Research Journal, 33,
455–488.

Stillman, G., & Galbraith, P. (2011). Evolution of

applications and modelling in a senior secondary
curriculum. In Kaiser, G., Blum, W., Borr omeo Ferri, R.,
& Stillman, G. (Eds.), Trends in teaching and learning of
mathematical modelling: ICTMA14 (pp. 689–699). New York:
Springer.

Suh, J. M., Seshaiyer, P., Moore, K., Green, M., Jewell,

H., & Rice, I. (2013). Being an environmentally friendly
package engineer. Teaching Children Mathematics, 20(4),
261–263.

Swanson, R. E. (2013). Overcoming the run response.

Mathematics Teaching in the Middle school, 19 (2), 94–99.

Tienken, C. H. (2008). Rankings of international

achievement test performance and economic strength:
Correlation or conjecture? International Journal of
Education Policy & Leadership, 3(4).

Toerner, G., Schoenfeld, A. H., & Reiss, K. (Eds.).

(2008). Problem Solving Around the World—Summing up the
State of the Art. ZDM: The International Journal on
Mathematics Education, 39(5–6), plus special issue (1).

Tucker, M. (2013, June 6). A framework for thinking and

learning. EducationWeek. Retrieved from

Vedder, R., Denhart, C., & Robe, J. (2013). Why are recent
college graduates underemployed? University enrollments
and labor-market r ealities. Center for College
Affordability and Productivity. Retrieved from

Welch, F. (1970). Education in production. Journal of

Political Economy, 78(1), 35–59.

Wolf, A. (2009, July-August). Misunderstanding education:

Why increasing enrollments can’t and won’t fix the
economy. Change. Retrieved from
www.changemag.org/July-August 2009/full-mis
understanding.html.

Zaback, K., Carlson, A., & Crellin, M. (2012). The

economic benefit of postsecondary degrees: A state and
national-level analysis. Report from the State Higher
Education Executive Officers. Retrieved fr om

Zawojewski, J. (2010). Problem solving versus modeling. In

R. A. Lesh, P. L. Galbraith, C. R. Haines, & A. Hurford
(Eds.). Modeling students’ mathematical modeling
competencies (pp. 237–244). Dordrecht: Springer.
13 Critical Issues in Culture and
Mathematics Learning

de Abreu, G., Bishop, A. J., & Presmeg, N. C. (Eds.).

(2002). Transitions between contexts of mathematical
practices. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic
Press.

Adler, J. (2001). Teaching mathematics in multilingual

classrooms. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Andersson, A. & Seah, W. T. (2013). Facilitating

mathematics learning in different contexts: The values
perspective. Proceedings of the seventh international
mathematics education and society conference (MES7), 1(2),
193–202. International Mathematics Education and Society
Conference (MES7), South Africa.

Appelbaum, P. (1995). Popular culture, educational

discourse, and mathematics. Albany, NY: State University of
New York Press.

Appelbaum, P. (2002). Multicultural and diversity

education: A reference handbook. Santa Barbara, CA:
ABC-CLIO.

Appelbaum, P. (2008). Embracing mathematics: On becoming a

teacher and changing with mathematics. New York:
Routledge.

Appelbaum, P. (2012). Democracy & mathematics circles/Le

démocratie et les cercles mathématiques. Prezi for a
workshop held at the International Commission for the Study
and Improvement of Mathematics Teaching, Rhodes, Greece.
Retrieved from http://prezi.com/s_3pvca2bb8j/

Ascher, M. (1991). Ethnomathematics: A multicultural view

of mathematical ideas. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Atweh, B., Forgasz, H., & Nebres, B. (Eds.). (2001).

Sociocultural research on mathematics education: An
international perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Atweh, B. (2007, November). Pedagogy for socially

response-able mathematics education. In Proceedings of the
annual conference of the Australian Association of Research
in Education. Fremantle, West Australia. Retrieved from
www.aare.edu.au/07pap/atw07600.pdf.
Atweh, B., Graven, M., & Secada, W. (Eds.) (2011). Mapping
equity and quality in mathematics education. Dor drecht,
The Netherlands: Springer.

Baker, D., Clay, J., & Fox, C. (1996). Challenging ways of

knowing in English, maths and science. Bristol, PA: Falmer
Press.

Balibar , E. & Swenson, J. (2003). We, the people of

Europe? Reflections on transnational citizenship. Prince
ton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Barton, B. (1995). Making sense of ethnomathematics:

Ethnomathematics is making sense. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 31(1–2), pp. 201–233.

Barton, B. (1996a). Anthropology perspectives on

mathematics and mathematics education. In A. Bishop, M. A.
Clements, C. Keitel-Kreidt, J. Kilpatrick, & F. K-S. Leung
(Eds.), International handbook of mathematics education
(pp. 1035–1053). New York: Springer Publishing.

Barton, B. (1996b). Ethnomathematics: Exploring cultural

diversity in mathematics. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, the University of Auckland.

Barton, B. (1996c). Making sense of ethnomathematics:

Ethnomathematics is making sense. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 31(1–2), 201–233.

Bazin, M., & Tamez, M. (2002). Math and science across

cultures: Activities and investigations fr om the
Exploratorium. New York: The New Press.

Berlinski, D. (2000). The advent of the algorithm: The idea

that rules the world. New York: Harcourt Brace.

Bishop, A. (Ed.). (1988a). Mathematics education and cultur

e. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Bishop, A. (1988b). Mathematical enculturation: A cultural

perspective on mathematics education. Boston, MA: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.

Bishop, A. (2002). Mathematical acculturation, cultural

conflicts, and transition. In G. de Abreu, A. Bishop, & N.
Presmeg, (Eds.), Transitions between contexts of
mathematical practices (pp. 193–212). Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Bishop, A. (2007). Values in mathematics and science
education: An empirical investigation. In U. Geller t & E.
Jablonka (Eds.), Mathematisation and demathematisation:
Social, philosophical, and educa tional ramifications (pp.
123–139). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Boaler, J. (Ed.) (2000). Multiple perspectives on

mathematics teaching and learning. Westport, CT: Ablex.

Brown, S., & Walter, M. (2005). The art of problem posing.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Burks, R. (2010). “Survivor” math: Using popular culture to

enhance learning mathematics. PRIMUS: Problems, Resources,
and Issues in Mathematics Undergraduate Studies, 21(1),
62–72.

Chappell, M. & Thompson, D. (2009). Math, culture, and

popular media: Activities to engage middle school students
through film, literature, and the Internet. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.

Chronaki, A. (2005). Learning about ‘learning identities’

in the school arithmetic practice: The experience of two
young minority Gypsy girls in the Greek context of
education. European Journal of Psychology of Education,
20(1), pp. 61–74.

Civil, M., & Kahn, L. (2001). Mathematics instruction

developed from a garden theme. Teaching Children
Mathematics, 7(7), 400–405.

Civil, M. (1996). Teaching mathematics to minority

students: Dilemmas I face. Paper presented at working
group 22 (Mathematics, Education, Society and Culture) at
the 8th International Congress on Mathematical Education
(ICME). Sevilla, Spain.

Civil, M. (2002). Everyday mathematics, mathematicians’

mathematics, and school mathematics: Can we bring them
together? In B. Brenner & J. Moschkovich (Eds.), Everyday
and academic mathematics in the classroom (pp. 40–62).
Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Civil, M. (2008). Mathematics teaching and learning of

immigrant students. A look at the key themes from recent
research. Prepared for ICME Survey Team 5: Mathematics
Education in Multicultural and Multilingual Environments,
Monterrey, Mexico. Retrieved from
http://math.arizona.edu/~cemela/
english/content/ICME_PME/MCivil-SurveyTeam5-ICME11.pdf.

Cline-Cohen, P. (1982). A calculating people: The spread of

numeracy in early America. Berkeley: University of
California Press.

Cotton, T. (2010). Understanding and teaching primary

mathematics. Edinburgh Gate: Pearson Education.

D’Ambrosio, U. (1985). Ethnomathematics and its place in

the history and pedagogy of mathematics. For the Learning
of Mathematics, 5, 44–48.

D’Ambrosio, U. (1987). Reflections on ethnomathematics.

International Study Group on Ethnomathematics Newsletter,
3(1), 3–5.

D’Ambrosio, U. (1988). Ethnomathematics: A research

program in the history of ideas and in cognition. Inter
national Study Group on Ethnomathematics Newsletter, 4(1),
5–8.

D’Ambrosio, U. (1999). Ethnomathematics and its first

international congress. ZDM: The International Journal on
Mathematics Education, 31(2), 50–53.

D’Ambrosio, U. (2006). Ethnomathematics. Rotterdam, The

Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Davis, P., & Hersh, R. (1986). Descartes’ dream: The world

according to mathematics. San Diego, CA: Harcourt, Brace,
Jovanovich.

Diéz-Palomar, J. (2012). Family mathematics education:

Improvement performance beyond the classroom walls. Paper
presented at the American Educational Research Association,
Vancouver, Canada.

Dominguez, D. (2012). When home came to school: Mexican

mothers and their children finding (and solving)
mathematical problems in their life experiences. Paper
presented at the American Educational Research
Association, Vancouver, Canada.

Dowling, P. (1998). The sociology of mathematics

education: Mathematical myths/pedagogic texts. Bristol,
PA: Falmer Press.

Eglash, R. (1999). African fractals: Modern computing and

indigenous design. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University
Press.

Fasheh, M. J. (2012). The role of mathematics in the

destruction of communities, and what we can do to reverse
this process, including using mathematics. In Skovsmose, O.
& Greer, B. (Eds.), Opening the cage: Critique and
politics of mathematics education (pp. 93–106). Rotterdam,
The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Favilli, F. (Ed.) (2007). Ethnomathematics and mathematics

education. Proceedings of the 10th international congress
of mathematics education, discussion group 15:
Ethnomathematics. Pisa: Tipografia Editrice Pisana.

François, K. (2007). The untouchable and frightening status

of mathematics. In K. Francois & J.-P. van Bendegem
(Eds.), Mathematics education library: Vol. 42.
Philosophical dimensions in mathematics education (pp.
13–39). New York: Springer.

Frankenstein, M. (1987). Critical mathematics education: An

application of Paulo Freire’s epistemology . In I. Shor
(Ed.), Freire for the classroom: A sourcebook for
liberatory teaching (pp. 180–210). Portsmouth, NH:
Boyton/Cook.

Gates, P. (2006). The place of equity and social justice in

the history of PME. In A. Gutiérrez & P. Boero (Eds.),
Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics
education: Past, present and future (pp. 367–402).
Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Geertz, C. (1973a). Religion as a cultural system. In The

interpretation of cultures (pp. 87–125). New York: Basic
Books.

Geertz, C. (1973b). Thick description: Toward an

interpretive theory of culture. In The interpretation of
cultures (pp. 3–30). New York: Basic Books.

Gerardo, J. M., Guitiérrez, R., & Irving, S. (2012).

Playing games to “change the game”: Preservice teachers
learning to support Latina/o adolescents through an
after-school mathematics club. Paper presented at the
American Educational Research Association, Vancouver,
Canada.

Gerdes, P. (1988). On possible uses of traditional Angolan

sand drawings in the mathematics classroom, Educational
Studies in Mathematics,19(1), 3–22.
Gerdes, P. (1992). On the history of mathematics in Africa
south of the Sahara. AMUCHMA Newsletter, 9, 3–32. Maputo:
Higher Pedagogical Institute.

Gerdes, P. (1994). Reflections on ethnomathematics. For the

Learning of Mathematics, 14(2), 19–21.

Gerdes, P. (1996). Ethnomathematics and mathematics

education. In A. Bishop, M. A. Clements, C. Keitel-Kreidt,
J. Kilpatrick, & F. K-S. Leung (Eds.), International
handbook of mathematics education (pp. 909–943). New York:
Springer-Verlag.

Gerofsky, S. (2001). Genre analysis as a way of

understanding pedagogy in mathematics education. In J.
Weaver, M. Morris, & Peter Appelbaum (Eds.), (Post) modern
science (education): propositions and alternative paths
(pp. 147–176). New York: Peter Lang.

Gerofsky, S. (2010). The impossibility of “real-life” word

problems (according to Bakhtin, Lacan, Zizek and
Baudrillard). Discourse, 31(1), 61–74.

Giroux, H. A. (2011). On critical pedagogy. Bloomsbury

Publishing Inc.1385 Broadway, 5th Floor New York, NY 10018

Goble, R. (2013). Making curriculum pop: A resource sharing

community for educators interested in better practices and
teaching with pop culture. Retrieved from
http://mcpopmb.ning.com/.

González, N., Moll, L., & Amanti, C. (Eds.) (2005). Funds

of knowledge: Theorizing practice in households,
communities, and classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Gorgorió, N., & Planas, N. (2001). Teaching mathematics in

multilingual classrooms. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 47, 7–33.

Govaris, C., & Antwniadou, A. (2000). Children of

immigrants in a Greek kindergarten. International Journal
of the Humanities, 3(1), 113–118.

Grootenboer, P., Lomas, G., & Ingram, N. (2008). The af

fective domain and mathematics education. In B. Perry, T.
Lowrie, T. Logan, A. MacDonald, & J. Greenlees, (Eds.),
Research in mathematics education in Australasia 2008–2011
(pp. 23–37). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Gutiérrez, R. (2002a). Beyond essentialism: The complexity
of language in teaching mathematics to Latina/o students.
American Educational Resear ch Journal, 39(4), 1047–1088.

Gutiérrez, R. (2002b). Enabling the practice of mathematics

teachers in context: Toward a new equity research agenda.
Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 4(2–3), 145–187.

Gutiérrez, R. (2010). The sociopolitical turn in

mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 44(1), 37–68.

Gutstein, E. (2003). Teaching and learning mathematics for

social justice in an urban, Latino school. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 34, 37–73.

Gutstein, E. (2006). Reading and writing the world with

mathematics: Toward a pedagogy for social justice. London:
Taylor & Francis.

Gutstein, E. (2012). Mathematics as a weapon in the

struggle. In B. Greer & O. Skovsmose (Eds.), Opening the
cage: Critique and politics of mathematics education (pp.
23–48). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Gutstein, E., Lipman, P., Hernández, P., & de los Reyes, R.

(1997). Culturally relevant mathematics teaching in a
Mexican American context. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 28 (6), 709–737.

Gutstein, E., & Peterson, B. (Eds.) (2005). Rethinking

mathematics: Teaching social justice by the numbers.
Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools.

Keitel, C., Klotzmann, E., & Skovsmose, O. (1993). Beyond

the tunnel vision: Analyzing the relationship between
mathematics, society and technology. In C. Keitel & K.
Ruthven (Eds.), Lear ning from computers: mathematics
education and technology (pp. 243–279). New York:
Springer-Verlag.

Kirshner, D. (2004). Enculturation: The neglected lear ning

metaphor in mathematics education. In D. McDougall & J.
A. Ross (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-sixth annual
meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of
Mathematics Education, North American Chapter (Vol. 2, pp.
765–772). Toronto: OISE/UT.

Klein, R. & Showalter, D. (2012). Where’s the math? In J.

Díez-Palomar & C. Kanes (Eds.), Family and community in
and out of the classroom: Ways to improve mathematics
achievement (pp. 115–122). Barcelona: Univ. Autònoma de
Barcelona.

Knijnik, G., W anderer, F., & Oliveira, C. J. (2005).

Cultural differences, oral mathematics and calculators in
a teacher training course of the Brazilian Landless
Movement. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics
Education, 37(2), 101–108.

Kumashiro, K. K. (2009). Against common sense: Teaching and

learning toward social justice. London: Taylor & Francis.

Leonard, J., & Martin, D. B. (Eds.) (2013). The brilliance

of Black children in mathematics: Beyond the numbers and
toward new discourse. Charlotte, NC: Information Age
Publishers.

Lerman, S. (Ed.). (1994). Cultural perspectives on the

mathematics classroom. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer
Academic Press.

Lerman, S. (2000). The social turn in mathematics education

research. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on
mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 19–44). Westport,
CT: Ablex.

Lerman, S. (2001). Cultural, discursive, psychology: A

sociocultural approach to studying the teaching and
learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 46(1–2), 133–150.

Lipka, J. (2005). Math in a cultural context: Two case

studies of a successful culturally based math project.
Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 36(4), 367–385.

Lipka, J., & Mohatt, G. V. (1998). Transforming the culture

of schools: Yup’ik Eskimo examples. Sociocultural,
political, and historical studies in education. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lipka, J. Sharp, N., Adams, B., & Sharp, F. (2007).

Creating a third space for authentic biculturalism:
Examples from math in a cultural context. Journal of
American Indian Education, 46 (3), 94–115.

Martin, D. B. (2000). Mathematics success and failure

among African-American youth: The roles of sociohistorical
context, community forces, school influence, and individual
agency. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Martin, D. B. (Ed.) (2009). Mathematics teaching, learning,

and liberation in the lives of Black children. London:
Routledge.

Martin, D. B. & Gohlson, M. (2012). On becoming and being a

critical Black scholar in mathematics education: The
politics of race and identity. In Opening the cage:
Critique and politics of mathematics education (pp.
203–222). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Mason, J., Burton, L., & Stacey, K. (1985). Thinking

mathematically. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Matthews, J. (1989). Escalante: The best teacher in

America. New York: Henry Holt & Co.

Mellin-Olsen, S. (1987). The politics of mathematics

education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: D. Reidel.

Mishra, V . (2012). What was multiculturalism? Melbourne:

Melbourne University Publishing.

Moreira, D. (2003). A Matemática na educação familiar:

Memórias escolares, ideias sobre a Matemática e relação
educativa em grupos domésticos de baixa escolaridade.
Quadrante. Revista de Investigação em Educação Matemática,
12(2), 3–23.

Moreira, D., & Pires G. (2012). O processo educativo das

crianças ciganas e a aprendizagem da matemática. A. I.
Afonso (Ed.), Etnografias com ciganos. Difer enciação e
resistência cultural (pp. 71–87). Lisboa: Edições Colibri.

Moschkovich, J. N. (2007). Examining mathematical

discourse practices. For the Learning of Mathematics,
27(1), 24–30.

Moses, R., & C. Cobb. (2001). Radical equations: Civil

rights fr om Mississippi to the algebra project. Boston,
MA: Beacon Press.

Mukhopadhyay, S., & Roth, W. M. (2012). Alternative forms

of knowing (in) mathematics: Celebrating diversity of
mathematical practices. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense
Publishers.

Nasir, N. S., Hand, V., & Taylor, E. V. (2008). Culture and

mathematics in school: Boundaries between “cultural” and
“domain” knowledge in the mathematics classroom and beyond.
Review of Educational Research, 32, 187–240.

Nolan, K. (2009). Mathematics in and through social

justice: Another misunderstood marriage? Journal of
Mathematics Teacher Education, 12(3), 205–216.

Olin, D. (2003). Crash course: Ethnomathematics. New York

Times (February 23). Retrieved from www.
nytimes.com/2003/02/23/magazine/23CRASH.html.

Orey, D. C., & Rosa, M. (2008). Ethnomathematics and

cultural representations: Teaching in highly diverse
contexts. Acta Scientiae, 10 (1), 27–46.

Palhares, P. (2012).. Mathematics education and

ethnomathematics. A connection in need of reinforcement.
REDIMA T-Journal of Research in Mathematics Education,
1(1), 79–92.

Pinxten, R., van Dooren, I., & Harvey, F. (1983). Anthr

opology of space. Philadelphia, PA: University of
Pennsylvania Press.

Pinxten, R., van Dooren, I., & Soberon, E. (1987). Towar

ds a Navajo geometry. Ghent, Belgium: KKI Press.

Polya, G. (1945). How to solve it: A new aspect of

mathematical method. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.

Popkewtiz, T. (2004). The alchemy of the mathematics

curriculum: Inscriptions and the fabrication of the child.
American Educational Research Journal, 41(1), 3–34.

Popmatics. (2010). The intersection of pop culture and

mathematics: Creating a generation of mathematicians.
Retrieved from http://popmatics.wordpress.com/.

Powell, A., & Frankenstein, M. (1997). Ethnomathematics:

Challenging Eurocentrism in mathematics education. Albany,
NY: State University of New York Press.

Presmeg, N. (2002). Beliefs about the nature of mathematics

in the bridging of everyday and school mathematical
practices. In G. Leder, E. Pehkonen, & G. Torner (Eds.),
Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education? (pp.
293–312). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Presmeg, N. (2007). The role of culture in teaching and
learning mathematics. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook
of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp.
435–460). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics.

Radosavljevic, A. (2012). Mathematics socialization through

games: Bilingual third graders after school. Paper
presented at the American Educational Research Association,
Vancouver, Canada.

Radtke, F. (1994). The formation of ethnic minorities and

the transformation of social into ethnic conflicts in a
so-called multicultural society—the case of Germany. In J.
Rex & B. Drury (Eds.), Ethnic mobilisation in a
multi-cultural Europe (pp. 30–37). Aldershot: Avebury.

Rosa, M., & Orey, D. C. (2011). Ethnomathematics: The

cultural aspects of mathematics. Revista Latinoamericana de
Ethnomatemática, 4(2), 32–54.

Sandlin, J., Schultz, B., & Burdick, S. (2009). Handbook of

public pedagogy: Education and learning beyond schooling.
New York: Routledge.

Schoenfeld, A. (1991). On mathematics as sense-making: An

informal attack on the unfortunate divorce of formal and
informal mathematics. In J. F. Voss, D. N. Perkins, & J. W.
Segal (Eds.), Informal rea soning and education (pp.
311–343). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Seah, W. T. (2004). Shifting the lens of inquiry into the

socialization of mathematics teachers. Nature of value
differences. In I. Putt, R. Faragher, & M. McLean (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 27th annual conference of the
mathematics education r esearch group of Australasia (Vol.
2, pp. 501–508). Townsville: James Cook University.

Skovsmose, O. (1994). Towar d a philosophy of critical

mathematics education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: D.
Reidel.

Skovsmose, O. (2004). Critical mathematics education for

the future. In Niss, M. & Emborg, E. (Eds.), Proceedings
of the 10th international congress on mathematics
education (ICME). Retrieved from www.

Skovsmose, O. (2011). An invitation to critical mathematics

education. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Skovsmose, O., & Penteado, M. G. (2011). In B. Atweh, M.
Graven, & W. Secada (Eds.), Mapping equity and quality in
mathematics education (pp. 77–90). Dordrecht, The
Netherlands; Springer.

Sleeter, C. E., & Grant, C. (2007). Making choices for

multicultural education: Five approaches to race, class
and gender. New York: Wiley.

Sleeter, C. E., & Soriano, E., (Eds.). (2012). Creating

solidarity across diverse communities: International
perspectives . New York: Teachers College Press.

Stathopoulou, Ch. (2005). Ethnomathematics: Exploring the

cultural dimension of mathematics and of mathematics
education. Athens: Atrapos.

Stathopoulou, Ch. (2006). Exploring informal mathematics of

craftsmen in the designing tradition of ‘Xysta’ at Pyrgi
of Chios. For the Learning of Mathematics, 26(3), 9–14.

Stathopoulou, Ch., & Kalabasis F. (2002). Teaching

mathematics to first grade Romany children, through
familiar every day money dealings. In P. Volero & O.
Skovsmose (Eds.), Proceedings of the Mathematics Education
and Society Conference (pp. 507–514). Helsingør, Denmark:
Danmarks Paedagogiske Universitet.

Swanson, D. (2010). Paradox and politics of disadvantage:

narratizing critical moments of discourse and mathematics
pedagogy within the “glocal.” In M. Walshaw (Ed.),
Unpacking pedagogy: New perspectives for mathematics (pp.
245–263). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Swanson, D. & Appelbaum, P. (2013). Refusal as a democratic

catalyst for mathematics education development. Pythagoras,
33(2). Retrieved from www
.pythagoras.org.za/index.php/pythagoras/article/ view/189.

Sykes, C. (1995). Dumbing down our kids: Why American

children feel good about themselves but can’t read, write,
or add. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin.

Tate, W. (1997). Critical race theory and education:

History, theory, and implications. Review of Research in
Education, 22, 195–247.

Tate, W. F., Anderson, C. R., & King, K. (Eds.) (2011).

Disrupting tradition: Pathways for research and practice
in mathematics education. Reston, VA: National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics.

Tate, W. F., & D’Ambrosio, B. S. (Eds.) (1997, January).

Equity, reform, and resear ch in mathematics education,
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(6),
650–782.

Téllez, K., Moschkovich, J. & Civil, M. (2011). Latinos/as

and mathematics education: Research on learning and
teaching in classrooms and communities. Charlotte, NC:
Information Age Publishing.

Trifonas, P. (2012). Learning the virtual life: Public

pedagogy in a digital world. New York: Routledge.

Valero, P. & Stentof, D. (2010). The “post” move of

critical mathematics education. In H. Alrø, O. Ravn, & P.
Valero (Eds.), Critical mathematics education: Past,
present and future: Festschrift for Ole Skovsmose (pp.
183–196). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Vithal, R., & Skovsmose, O. (1997). The end of innocence: A

critique of “ethnomathematics.” Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 34(2), 131–157.

Walkerdine, V. (1987). The mastery of reason: Cognitive

development and the production of meaning. New York:
Routledge.

Walshaw, M. (2007). Working with Foucault in education.

Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Walshaw, M. (2010). The performance of self in the art of

research. Educational Insights, 13(1). Retrieved from

Whitin, D., & Sandra Wilde. (1995). It’s the story that
counts: More children’s books for mathematical Learning,
K–6. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Willey, C., Lopez Leiva, C.A., & Vomvoridi-Ivanovic, E.

(2012). Reconnecting with powerful, personal resources to
teach and learn mathematics: Experiences of three Latina/o
preservice teachers. Paper presented at the American
Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada.

Zaslavsky, C. (1973a). Africa counts: Number and pattern in

African culture. Boston, MA: Prindle, Weber & Schmid.

Zaslavsky, C. (1973b). Mathematics in the study of African

culture . Arithmetic Teacher, 20, 532–535.
Zaslavsky, C. (1993). Multicultural mathematics:
Interdisciplinary cooperative-learning activities.
Portland, ME: J. Weston Walch.

Zaslavsky, C. (1996). The multicultural math classroom:

bringing in the world. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Zaslavsky, C. (1998). Math games and activities from around

the world. Chicago: Chicago Review Press, 1998.

Zolkower, B. (1995). Math fictions: What really solves the

problem? Social Text, 43(3), 133–162.
14 Mathematics Education and Democracy:
An Open Landscape of Tensions,
Uncertainties, and Challenges

Alrø, H., Ravn, O., & Valero, P. (Eds.) (2010). Critical

mathematics education: Past, present, and future.
Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Aguilar, M. S., & Zavaleta, J.G.M. (2012). On the links

between mathematics education and democracy: A literature
review. Pythagoras, 33(2). Retrieved from
www.pythagoras.org.za/index.php/ pythagoras/issue/view/21

Appelbaum, P.M. (1995). Popular culture, educational

discourse, and mathematics. Albany, NY: State University
of New York Press.

Baber, S. A. (2007). Interplay of citizenship, education

and mathematics: Formation of foregrounds of Pakistani
immigrants in Denmark . Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Aalborg: Aalborg University.

Bauman, Z. (1989). Modernity and the holocaust. Cambridge,

UK: Polity Press & Blackwell Publishing.

Beck, U. (1992). Risk society. London: Sage Publications.

(First German edition 1986.)

Beck, U. (1999). World risk society. Cambridge, UK: Polity

Press.

Benn, S. I., & Peters, R. S. (1959). Social principles of

the democratic state. London: Allen & Unwin.

Bernal, M. (1987). Black Athena: Afr oasiatic roots of

classical civilization: Vol. 1. The fabrication of Ancient
Greece, 1785–1985. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University
Press.

Bohman, J., & Rehg, W. (Eds.). (1997). Deliberative

democracy: Essays on r eason and politics. Cambridge, MA:
The MIT Press.

Brijlall, D., Bansilal, S., & Moore-Russo, D. (2012).

Exploring teachers’ conceptions of representations in
mathematics through the lens of positive deliberative
interaction. Pythagoras, 33(2). Retrieved from
www.pythagoras.org.za/index.php/pythagoras/issue/view/21

Bury, J. B. (1955). The idea of progress: An inquiry into

its origin and growth. With an introduction by Charles A.
Bead. New York: Dover Publications. (First published 1932.)

Castells, M. (1996). The information age: Economy, society

and culture: Vol. 1. The Rise of the Network Society.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Castells, M. (1997). The information age: Economy, society

and culture: Vol. 2. The Power of Identity). Oxford:
Blackwell Publishers.

Castells, M. (1998). The information age: Economy, society

and culture: Vol. 3. End of Millennium). Oxford: Blackwell
Publishers.

Chronaki, A. (2010). Revisiting mathemacy: A

process-reading of critical mathematics education. In H.
Alrø, O. Ravn, & P. Valero (Eds.), Critical mathematics
education: Past, present and future (pp. 31–49).
Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Daher, W. (2012). Student teachers’ perceptions of

democracy in the mathematics classr oom: Freedom, equality
and dialogue. Pythagoras, 33(2). Retrieved from
www.pythagoras.org.za/index.php/ pythagoras/issue/view/21

D’Ambrosio, U. (1994). Cultural framing of mathematics

teaching and learning. In R. Biehler, R. W. Scholz, R.
Strasser, & B. Winkelmann (Eds.), Didactics of mathematics
as a scientific discipline (pp. 443–455). Dordrecht:
Kluwer.

D’Ambrosio, U. (2006). Ethnomathematics: Link between

transitions and modernity. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

D’Ambrosio, U. (2012). A broad concept of social justice.

In A. A. Wager & D. W. Stinson (Eds.), Teaching mathematics
for social justice: Conversations with mathematics
educators (pp. 201–213). Reston, VA: National Council of
Mathematics Teachers.

Dewey, J. (1963). Experience and education. New York:

Macmillan Publishing Company (First edition 1938.)

Dewey, J. (1966). Democracy and education. New York: The

Free Press (First edition 1916).

Dewey, J. (1974). On education. (R. D. Archambault, Ed.)

Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Forgasz, H., & Rivera, F. (Eds.) (2012). Towards equity in
mathematics education: Gender, culture, and diversity. New
York: Springer.

Foucault, M. (1991). Discipline and punish: The birth of

the prison. London: Penguin Books. (First French edition
1975.)

Frankenstein, M. (2012). Beyond math content and process:

Proposals for underlying aspects of social justice
education. In A. A. Wager & D. W. Stinson (Eds.), Teaching
mathematics for social justice: Conversations with
mathematics educators (pp. 49–62). Reston, VA: National
Council of Mathematics Teachers.

Gallie, W. B. (1956). Essentially contested concepts.

Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 56 , 167–198.

Gates, P. (2006). The place of equity and social justice in

the history of PME. In A. Gutérrez & P. Boero (Eds.),
Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics
education: Past, present and futur e (pp. 367–402).
Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Gellert, U., & Jablonka, E. (2009). The demathematising

effect of technology: Calling for critical competence. In
P. Ernest, B. Greer, & B. Sriraman (Eds.), Critical issues
in mathematics education (pp. 19–24). Charlotte, NC:
Information Age Publishing.

Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S.,

Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new pr oduction of
knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in
contemporary societies. London: Sage Publications.

Greer, B. Mukhopadhyay, S., Powell, A. B., & Nelson-Barber,

S. (Eds.) (2009). Culturally responsive mathematics
education. New Y ork: Routledge.

Gutstein, E. (2003). Teaching and learning mathematics for

social justice in an urban, Latino school. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 34, 37–73.

Gutstein, E. (2006). Reading and writing the world with

mathematics: Toward a pedagogy for social justice. New
York & London: Routledge.

Gutstein, E. (2012a). Reflections on teaching and learning

mathematics for social justice in urban schools. In A. A.
Wager & D. W. Stinson (Eds.), Teaching mathematics for
social justice: Conversations with mathematics educators
(pp. 63–78). Reston, VA: National Council of Mathematics
Teachers.

Gutstein, E. (2012b). Mathematics as a weapon in a

struggle. In O. Skovsmose & B. Greer (Eds.), Opening the
cage: Critique and politics of mathematics education (pp.
23–48). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Hannaford, C. (1998). Mathematics teaching is democratic

education. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics
Education, 98(6), 181–187.

Healy, L., & Fernandes, S.H.A.A. (2011). The role of

gestur es in the mathematical practices of those who do
not see with their eyes. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 77, 157–174.

Husserl, E. (1970). The crisis of European sciences and

transcendental phenomenology. (D. Car, Trans.) Evanston,
IL: Northwestern University Press. (First German version
1936.)

Jablonka, E. (2010). Reflections on mathematical modelling.

In H. Alrø, O. Ravn, & P. Valero (Eds.), Critical
mathematics education: Past, present and future (pp.
89–100). Rotterdam: Sense Publisher.

Jablonka, E., & Gellert, U. (2007).

Mathematisation—demathematisation. In U. Gellert & E.
Jablonka (Eds.), Mathematization and de-mathematization:
Social, philosophical and educational ramifications (pp.
1–18). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Johnston, B., & Yasukawa, K. (2001). Numeracy: Negotiating

the world through mathematics. In B. Atweh, H. Forgasz, &
B. Nebres (Eds.), Sociocultural research on mathematics
education (pp. 279–294). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Khuzwayo, H. B., & Bansilal, S. (2012). Granting learners

an authentic voice in the mathematics classroom for the
benefit of both the teacher and the learner. Pythagoras,
33(2). Retrieved from www.
pythagoras.org.za/index.php/pythagoras/issue/view/21

Locke, J. (1988). Two treatises of government. (P. Laslett,

Ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. (First
published 1689.)
Lyotard, J. F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report
on knowledge. (G. Bennington & B. Massuni, Trans.)
Manchester: Manchester University Press. (Original French
edition 1979.)

Marcone, R., & Penteado, M. G. (2013).Teaching mathematics

for blind students: A challenge at university.
International Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 3, 23–35.

Martin, D. B. (2009). Mathematics teaching, learning, and

liberation in the lives of black children. New York:
Routledge.

Mehrtens, H. (1993). The social system of mathematics and

National Socialism: A survey. In S. Restivo, J. P. van
Bendegem, & R. Fisher, R. (Eds.), Math worlds:
Philosophical and social studies of mathematics and
mathematics education (pp. 219–246). Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.

Mellin-Olsen, S. (1987). The politics of mathematics

education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel Publishing
Company.

Mhlolo, M. K., & Schäfer, M. (2012). Towards empowering

learners in a democratic mathematics classroom: To what
extent are teachers’ listening orientations conducive to
and respectful of learners’ thinking? Pythagoras, 33(2).
Retrieved from
www.pythagoras.org.za/index.php/pythagoras/issue/ view/21

Nisbet, R. A. (1980). History of the idea of progress. New

York: Basic Books.

Orrill, R. (2001). Mathematics, numeracy , and democracy.

In L. A. Steen (Ed.), Mathematics and democracy. The case
for quantitative literacy (pp. 8−20). Princeton, NJ: The
National Council on Education and the Disciplines & The
Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation.

Pais, A. (2012). A critical approach to equity. In O.

Skovsmose & B. Greer (Eds.), Opening the cage: Critique and
politics of mathematics education (pp. 49–92). Rotterdam:
Sense Publishers.

Penteado, M. G., & Skovsmose, O. (2009). How to draw with

a worn-out mouse? Searching for social justice through
collaboration. Journal for Mathematics Teacher Education,
12(3), 217–230.
Powell, A. B., & Frankenstein, M. (Eds.). (1997).
Ethnomathematics: Challenging Eurocentrism in mathematics
education. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice. Oxford: Oxford

University Press. (First published 1971.)

Rousseau, J. J. (1968). The social contract. London:

Penguin Books (First French edition 1762.)

Said, E. W. (1979). Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books.

Skovsmose, O. (1990). Mathematical education and democracy

. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 21, 109–128.

Skovsmose, O. (1998). Linking mathematics education and

democracy: Citizenship, mathematics archaeology, mathemacy
and deliberative interaction. ZDM: The International
Journal on Mathematics Education, 98(6), 195–203.

Skovsmose, O. (2005). Travelling through education:

Uncertainty, mathematics, responsibility. Rotterdam: Sense
Publishers.

Skovsmose, O. (2009a). Researching possibilities. In M.

Setati, R. Vithal, C. Malcolm, & R. Dhunpath (Eds.),
Researching possibilities in mathematics, science and
technology education (pp. 105–119). New York: Nova Science
Publishers.

Skovsmose, O. (2009b). Towards a critical professionalism

in university science and mathematics educa tion. In O.
Skovsmose, P. Valero, & O. Ravn Christensen (Eds.),
University sciences and mathematics education in
transition (pp. 325–346). New York: Springer.

Skovsmose, O. (2012). Symbolic power, robotting, and

surveilling. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 80(1),
119–132.

Skovsmose, O. (2014). Foregrounds. Rotterdam: Sense

Publishers.

Skovsmose, O., & Greer, B. (Eds.) (2012). Opening the cage:

Critique and politics of mathematics education. Rotterdam:
Sense Publishers.

Skovsmose, O., & Penteado, M. G. (2011). Ghettoes in the

classroom and the construction of possibilities. In B.
Atweh, M. Graven, W. Secada, & P. Valero. (eds.), Mapping
equity and quality in mathematics education (pp. 77–90).
New York: Springer.

Skovsmose, O., & Penteado, M. G. (2012). Mathematics

education and democracy: An on-going challenge. In S.
Kafoussi, C. Skoumpourdi & F. Kalavasis (Eds.),
International Journal for Mathematics in Education , 4,
15–29.

Skovsmose, O., & Valero, P. (2001). Breaking political

neutrality: The critical engagement of mathematics
education with democracy. In B. Atweh, H. Forgasz, & B.
Nebres (Eds.), Sociocultural research on mathematics
education (pp. 37–55). Mahwah, NJ, & London: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Skovsmose, O., & Valero, P. (2002). Democratic access to

powerful mathematical ideas. In L. English (Ed.), Handbook
of international resear ch in mathematics education (pp.
383–407). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Skovsmose, O., Valero, P., & Ravn Christensen, O. (Eds.)

(2009). University sciences and mathematics education in
transition. New York: Springer.

Sriraman, B. (Ed.) (2008). The Montana Mathematics

Enthusiast: Monograph 1. International perspectives on
social justice in mathematics education. Charlotte, NC:
Information Age Publishing, Inc.

Swanson, D., & Appelbaum, P. (2012). Refusal as a

democratic catalyst for mathematics education development,
Pythagoras, 33(2). Retrieved from
www.pythagoras.org.za/index.php/pythagoras/issue/ view/21

Tate, W. F. (1996). Mathematizing and the democracy: The

need for an education that is multicultural and social
reconstructionist. In C. A. Grant & M. L. Gómez (Eds.),
Making schooling multicultural: Campus and classroom (pp.
185–201). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Valero, P. (2002). Reform, democracy, and mathematics

education: Towards a socio-political frame for
understanding change in the organization of secondary
school mathematics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Department of Curriculum Research, The Danish University of
Education, Copenhagen.

Valero, P., García, G., Camelo, F., Mancera, G., & Romero,
J. (2012). Mathematics education and the dignity of being.
Pythagoras, 33(2). Retrieved from
www.pythagoras.org.za/index.php/pythagoras/ issue/view/21

Vithal, R. (1999). Democracy and authority: A

complementarity in Mathematics Education? ZDM: The
International Journal on Mathematics Education, 99(1),
27–36.

Vithal, R. (2003). In search of a pedagogy of conflict and

dialogue for mathematics education. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.

Vithal, R. (2009). Researching, and learning mathematics at

the margin: From “shelter” to school. In P. Ernest, B.
Greer, & B. Sriraman (Eds.), Critical issues in mathematics
education (pp. 475–484). Charlotte, NC: Information Age
Publishing.

Vithal R. (2010). Democratising mathematics education

doctoral research teaching and learning: Undoing the
North-South divide. In H. Alrø, O. Ravn, & P. Valero, P.
(Eds.), Critical mathematics education: Past, present and
future (pp. 197–207). Rotterdam: Sense Publisher.

Vithal, R. (2012). Mathematics education, democracy and

development: Exploring connections. Pythagoras, 33 (2).
Retrieved from
www.pythagoras.org.za/index.php/pythagoras/issue/view/21.

Vithal, R. & Skovsmose, O. (Eds.) (2012). Mathematics

education, democracy and development. Pythagoras, 33(2).
Retrieved from www.pythagoras.or
g.za/index.php/pythagoras/issue/view/21.

Volmink, J. (1994). Mathematics by all. In S. Lerman (Ed.),

Cultural perspectives on the mathematics classroom (pp.
51–68). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.

Wager, A. A., & Stinson, D. W. (Eds.) (2012). Teaching

mathematics for social justice: Conversations with
mathematics educators. Reston, VA: National Council of
Mathematics T eachers.

Woodrow, D. (1997). Democratic education: Does it

exist—especially for mathematics education? For the
Learning of Mathematics, 17(3), 11–16.

Wright-Mills, C. (1959). The sociological imagination.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15 Toward a Sociology of Mathematics
Education: Examining Democratic Access in
U.S. Schools

Allensworth, E., Nomi, T., Montgomery, N., & Lee, V.

(2009). College preparatory curriculum for all: Academic
consequences of requiring Algebra and English I for ninth
graders in Chicago. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 31, 367–391.

Berry , R. (2008). Access to upper level mathematics: The

students of successful African American middle school
boys. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39,
464–488.

Carnevale, A. P., Rose, S. J., & Cheah, B. (2011). The

college payoff: Education, occupations, lifetime earnings .
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Center on Education
and the Workforce.

Clark, M., Chiang, H., Silva, T., McConnell, S.,

Sonnenfeld, K., Erbe, A., & Puma, M. (2013). The
effectiveness of secondar y math teachers from Teach for
America and the Teaching Fellows programs (NCEE
2013–4015). Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education
Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Cohen, E. (2000). Equitable classrooms in a changing

society. In M. Hallinan (Ed.), Handbook of the Sociology
of Education (pp. 265–283). New York: Kluwer.

D’Ambrosio, B., Frankenstein, M., Gutierr ez, R., Kastberg,

S., Martin, D., Moschkovich, J., Taylor, E., & Barnes, D.
(2013). Introduction to the JRME Equity Special Issue.
Journal for Resear ch in Mathematics Education, 44(1),
5–10.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education:

How our commitment to equity will determine our future. New
York: Teachers College Press.

Darling-Hammond, L., Holtzman, D., Gatlin, S. J., &

Heilig, J. V. (2005). Does teacher preparation matter?
Evidence about teacher certification, Teach for America,
and teacher effectiveness. Education Policy Analysis
Archives, 13(42), 1–51.

Dowling, P. (1998). The sociology of mathematics

education: Mathematical myths/pedagogical texts London:
Routledge.

Fetler, M. (1999). High school staffing characteristics

and mathematics test results. Education Policy Analysis
Archives, 79(9), 1–22.

Frankenberg, E. (2006). The segregation of American

teachers. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at
Harvard University.

Freeman, C., Scafidi, B., & Sjoquist, D. (2005). Racial

segregation in Georgia public schools, 1994–2001: Trends,
causes, and impact on teacher quality . In J. Boger & G.
Orfield (Eds.), School resegregation: Must the South turn
back? (pp. 143–163). Chapel Hill, NC: University of North
Carolina Press.

Gamoran, A., Anderson, C., Quiroz, P., Secada, W.,

Williams, T., & Ashmann, S. (2003). Transforming teaching
in math and science: How schools and districts can support
change . New York: Teachers College Press.

Gutierrez, R. (2013). The sociopolitical turn in

mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 44(1), 37–68.

Gutierrez, R., & Dixon-Roman, E. (2011). Beyond gap gazing:

How can thinking about education comprehensively help us
(re)envision mathematics education? In B. Atweh, M. Graven,
W. Secada, & P. Valero (Eds.), Mapping equity and quality
in mathematics education (pp. 21–34). London: Springer.

Hallinan, M. (2000). Introduction: Sociology of education

at the threshold of the twenty-first century . In M.
Hallinan (Ed.), Handbook of the sociology of education (pp.
1–12). New York: Kluwer.

Heilig, J. V., & Jez, S. J. (2010). Teach for America: A

review of the evidence. Boulder, CA & Tempe, AZ: Education
and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research
Unit.

Hill, H., & Lubienski, S. (2007). Teachers’ mathematics

knowledge for teaching and school context: A study of
California teachers. Educational Policy, 21(5), 747–768.

Hogrebe, M., & Tate, W. (2012). Place, poverty, and

algebra: A statewide comparative spatial analysis of
variable relationships. Journal of Mathematics Education at
Teachers College, 3, 12–24.
Horn, I., & Little, J. (2009). Attending to problems of
practice: Routines and resources for professional learning
in teachers’ workplace interactions. American Educational
Research Journal, 47, 181–217.

Ingersoll, R., & Merrill, L. (2013). Seven trends: The

transformation of the teaching force. Philadelphia, PA:
Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

Ingersoll, R., & Perda, D. (2009). The mathematics and

science teacher shortage: Fact and myth. Philadelphia, PA:
Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

Jackson, K. (2009). The social construction of youth and

mathematics: The case of a fifth-grade classr oom. In D.
Martin (Ed.), Mathematics teaching, learning, and
liberation in the lives of Black children (pp. 175–198).
New York: Routledge.

JRME Equity Special Issue Editorial Panel. (2013).

Addressing racism. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 44, 23–36.

Kane, T., Rockoff, J., & Staiger, D. (2008). What does

certification tell us about teacher effectiveness?
Evidence from New Y ork City. Economics of Education
Review, 27, 615–631.

Leonard, J., & Martin, D. (Eds.). (2013). The brilliance of

Black children in mathematics: Beyond the numbers and
toward new discourse . Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Lochner, L., & Moretti, E. (2001). The effect of education

on crime: Evidence from prison inmates, arrests, and
self-reports (No. w8605). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of
Economic Research.

Loeb, S., & Reininger, M. (2004). Public policy and

teacher labor markets: What we know and why it matters.
East Lansing: Education Policy Center at Michigan State
University.

Lubienski, S. (2007). Research, reform, and equity in U.S.

mathematics education In N. Nasir & P. Cobb (Eds.),
Improving access to mathematics: Diversity and equity in
the classroom (pp. 10–23). New York: Teachers College
Press.

Martin, D. (2006). Mathematics learning and participation

as racialized forms of experience: African American
parents speak on the struggle for mathematics literacy.
Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 8(3), 197–229.

Martin, D. (2009a). Liberating the production of knowledge

about African American children and mathematics. In D.
Martin (Ed.), Mathematics teaching, learning, and
liberation in the lives of Black children (pp. 3–35). New
York: Routledge.

Martin, D. (2009b). Researching race in mathematics

education. Teachers College Record, 111(2), 295–338.

Martin, D. (2011). What does quality mean in the context of

White institutional space? In B. Atweh, M. Graven, W.
Secada, & P. Valero (Eds.), Mapping equity and quality in
mathematics education (pp. 437–450). London: Springer.

Martin, D. (2013). Race, racial projects, and mathematics

education. Jour nal for Research in Mathematics Education,
44(1), 316–333.

Mesquita, M., Restivo, S., & D’Ambrosio, U. (2011).

Asphalt children and city streets: A life, a city, and a
case study of history, culture, and ethnomathematics in São
Paulo . Boston, MA: Sense Publishers.

Milner, H. (2012). But what is urban education? Urban

Education, 47, 556–561.

Milner, H., & Lomotey, K. (Eds.)(2014). Handbook of urban

education. New York: Routledge.

Moore, L. (2013, April 6). [Three Rivers] homeowners suffer

greatest property value losses in reappraisal. The
Commercial Appeal.

Nasir, N., & Cobb, P. (Eds.). (2007). Improving access to

mathematics: Diversity and equity in the classroom. New
York: Teachers College Press.

Nasir, N., & de Royston, M. (2013). Power, identity, and

mathematical practices outside and inside school. Journal
for Research in Mathematics Education, 44(1), 264–287.

Nasir, N., Hand, V., & Taylor, E. (2008). Culture and

mathematics in school: Boundaries between “cultural” and
“domain” knowledge in the mathematics classroom and beyond.
Review of Research in Education, 32, 187–240.
Nasir, N., & Shah, N. (2011). On defense: African American
males making sense of racialized narratives in mathematics
education. Journal of African American Males in Education,
2(1), 24–45.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A

nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform.
Washington, DC: United States Department of Education.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Research

Committee. (2005). Equity in school mathematics education:
How can research contribute? Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 36(2), 92–100.

Plunk, A., Tate, W., Bierut, L., & Grucza, R. (2014).

Intended and unintended effects of state-mandated high
school science and mathematics course graduation
requirements on educational attainment. Educational
Researcher, 43(5), 230–241.

Restivo, S. (2007). Theory of mind, social science, and

mathematical practice. In B. van Kerkhove & J. P. van
Bendegem (Eds.), Perspectives on mathematical practices:
Bringing together philosophy of mathematics, sociology of
mathematics, and mathematics education (pp. 83–106).
Dordrecht: Springer.

Restivo, S., & Bauchspies, W. (2006). The will to

mathematics: Minds, morals, and numbers. Foundations of
Science, 11, 197–215.

Ronfeldt, M., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2013). How teacher

turnover harms student achievement. American Educational
Research Journal, 50(1), 4–36.

Rousseau-Anderson, C. (2007). Examining school mathematics

through the lenses of learning and equity. In G. Martin &
M. Strutchens (Eds.), The learning of mathematics: 2007
yearbook (pp. 97–113). Reston, VA: National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics.

Rousseau-Anderson, C., & Tate, W. (2008). Still separate,

still unequal: Democratic access to mathematics in U.S.
schools. In L. English (Ed.), Handbook of international
research in mathematics education (2nd ed., pp. 299–318).
New York: Routledge.

Small, M. L. (2014, March 17). No two ghettos are alike.

The Chronicle Review. Retrieved fr om http://
m.chronicle.com/article/No-Two-Ghettos-Are-Alike/145301
(August 1, 2014).

Stein, M. K., Smith, M., Henningsen, M., & Silver, E.

(2009). Implementing standards-based mathematics instr
uction: A casebook for professional development (2nd ed.).
New York: Teachers College Press.

Stinson, D. (2006). African American male adolescents,

schooling (and mathematics): Deficiency, refection, and
achievement. Review of Educational Research, 76(4),
477–506.

Stinson, D. (2013). Negotiating the “white male myth”:

African American male students and success in school
mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
44(1), 69–99.

Stinson, D., & Bullock, E. (2012). Critical postmodern

theory in mathematics education research: A praxis of
uncertainty. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 80, 41–55.

T ate, W. (2008). The political economy of teacher quality

in school mathematics: African American males, opportunity
structures, politics and method. American Behavioral
Scientist, 51(7), 953–971.

Tate, W., Jones, B., Thorne-Wallington, E., & Hogrebe, M.

(2012). Science and the city: Thinking geospatially about
opportunity to learn. Urban Education, 47, 399–433.

Tate, W., & Rousseau, C. (2002). Access and opportunity:

The political and social context of mathematics education.
In L. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in
mathematics education (pp. 271–299). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Tate, W., & Rousseau, C. (2007). Engineering change in

mathematics education: Research, policy, and practice. In
F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics
teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 1209–1246). Greenwich,
CT: Information Age Publishing.

Valero, P. (2007). A socio-political look at equity in the

school organization of mathematics education ZDM: The
International Journal on Mathematics Education, 39,
225–233.

V arelas, M., Martin, D., & Kane, J. (2012). Content

knowledge and identity construction: A framework to
strengthen African American students’ mathematics and
science learning in urban elementary schools. Human
Development, 55, 319–339.

Walshaw, M. (2013). Post-structuralism and ethical

practical action: Issues of power and identity. Journal
for Research in Mathematics Education, 44(1), 100–118.

Warren, B. (2011, September 2). County’s infant mortality

rate stirs plea. The Commercial Appeal.

W aters, D. (2012, December 2). [Three Rivers] community

becomes lab for do or die experiment. The Commercial
Appeal.

Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms,

argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 27 (4), 458–477.
16 Mathematics Learning In and Out of
School: Towards Continuity or
Discontinuity?

Abreu, G. de (1995). Understanding how children experience

the relationship between home and school mathematics.
Mind, Culture and Activity: An International Journal, 2(2),
119–142.

Abreu, G. de (1998a). The mathematics learning in

sociocultural contexts: The mediating role of social
valorisation. Learning and Instruction, 8(6), 567–572.

Abreu, G. de (1998b). Reflecting on mathematics in and out

of school from a cultural psychology perspective. In
A.O.A.K. Newstead (Ed.), PME—The International group for
the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 1, pp.
115–130). Stellenbosh, South Africa: PME.

Abreu, G. de (1999). Learning mathematics in and outside

school: Two views on situated learning. In J. Bliss, R.
Saljo, & P. Light (Eds.), Learning sites: Social and
technological resources for learning (pp. 17–31). Oxford:
Elsevier Science.

Abreu, G. de (2014). Cultural diversity in mathematics

education. In Encyclopedia of mathematics education (pp.
125–129). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Abreu, G. de, Bishop, A., & Pompeu, G. (1997). What

children and teachers count as mathematics. In T. Nunes &
P. Bryant (Eds.), Learning and teaching mathematics: An
international perspective (pp. 233–264). Hove, UK:
Psychology Press.

Abreu, G. de, Bishop, A., & Presmeg, N. (2002a).

Transitions between contexts of mathematical practices.
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Abreu, G. de, & Cline, T. (1998). Studying social

representations of mathematics learning in multiethnic
primary schools: Work in progress. Papers on Social
Representations, 7(1–2), 1–20.

Abreu, G. de, & Cline, T. (2003). Schooled mathematics and

cultural knowledge. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 11(1),
11–30.

Abreu, G. de, & Cline, T. (2005). Parents’ representations

of their children’s mathematics learning in multiethnic
primary schools. British Educational Research Journal,
31(6), 697–722.

Abreu, G. de, Cline, T., & Shamsi, T. (2002b). Exploring

ways parents participate in their children’s school
mathematical learning: Case studies in a multi-ethnic
primary school. In G. de Abreu, A. Bishop, & N. Presmeg
(Eds.), Transitions between contexts of mathematical
practices (pp. 123–147). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Kluwer.

Abreu, G. de, Crafter, S., Gorgorió, N., & Prat, M. (2013,

February). Understanding immigrant students’ transitions as
mathematical learners from a dialogical self perspective.
CERME 8. Antalya, Turkey. Retrieved from
http://cerme8.metu.edu.tr/wgpapers/WG10/WG10_de_Abreu.pdf

Abreu, G. de, & Elbers, E. (2005). Introduction: The social

mediation of learning in multiethnic schools. European
Journal of Psychology of Education, 20(1), 3–11.

Anderson, D. D., & Gold, E. (2006). Home to school:

Numeracy practices and mathematical identities.
Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 8(3), 261–286.

Andrews, J., & Yee, W.C. (2006). Children’s ‘funds of

knowledge’ and their real life activities: T wo minority
ethnic children learning in out of school contexts in the
UK. Educational Review, 58(4), 435–449.

Arcavi, A. (2002). The everyday and the academic in

mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 11, 12–29.

Baker, D. A., Street, B. V., & Tomlin, A. (2006).

Navigating schooled numeracies: Explanations for low
achievement in mathematics of UK children from low SES
background. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 8(3),
287–307.

Bose, A., & Subramaniam, K. (2011). Exploring school

children’s out of school mathematics. In Proceedings of the
35th Conference of the International Group for the
Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp.
177–184).

Brenner, M. (1983). The practice of arithmetic in Liberian

schools. Paper presented at the American Anthropological
Association, Chicago.
Brown, M., Askew, M., Baker, D., Denvir, H., & Millet, A.
(1998). Is the national numeracy strategy research-based?
British Journal of Educational Studies, 46(4), 362–385.

Carraher, T., Carraher, D., & Schliemann, A. (1982). Na

vida, dez; na escola, zero. Os contextos culturais da
aprendizagem da matematica. Cadernos de Pesquisa, 42 ,
76–86.

Carraher, T. N., Schliemann, A.D., & Carraher, D. W.

(1988). Mathematical concepts in everyday life. In G. Saxe
& R. M. Gearhart (Eds.), Children’s mathematics: New dir
ections in child development (pp. 71–88). San Francisco:
Jossey Bass.

Chronaki, A. (2005). Learning about “learning identities”

in the school arithmetic practice: The experience of two
minority gypsy girls in the Gr eek context of education.
European Journal of Psychology of Education, 20(1), 61–74.

Civil, M. (2008, July). Mathematics teaching and learning

of immigrant students: A survey of recent research .
Manuscript prepared for the 11th International Congress of
Mathematics Education (ICME) Survey Team 5: Mathematics
Education in Multicultural and Multilingual Environments,
Monterrey, Mexico.

Civil, M., & Andrade, R. (2002). Transitions between home

and school mathematics: rays of hope amidst the passing
clouds. In G. de Abreu, A. Bishop, & N. Presmeg (Eds.),
Transitions between contexts of mathematical practice (pp.
149–169). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Civil, M., & Menéndez, J. M. (2011). Impressions of Mexican

immigrant families on their early experiences with school
mathematics in Arizona. In R. Kitchen & M. Civil (Eds.),
Transnational and borderland studies in mathematics
education (pp. 47–68). New York: Routledge.

Cobb, P. (1995). Mathematical learning and small group

interaction: four case studies. In P. Cobb & H. Bauersfeld
(Eds.), The emergence of mathematical meaning (pp.
25–129). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cobb, P., & Hodge, L. L. (2002). A relational perspective

on issues of cultural diversity and equity as they play
out in the mathematics classroom. Mathematical Thinking and
Learning (Special Issue, “Diversity, Equity and
Mathematical Learning”), 4 (2–3), 249–284.
Cole, M. (1977). An ethnographic psychology of cognition.
In P. N. Johnson-Laird & P. C. Wason (Eds.), Thinking
(pp. 468–482). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cole, M. (1995). Culture and cognitive development: From

cross-cultural research to creating systems of cultural
mediation. Culture & Psychology, 1, 25–54.

Cole, M. (1998). Can cultural psychology help us to think

about diversity? Mind, Culture and Activity, 5(4),
291–304.

Cole, M., Gay, J., & Glick, J. (1968). Some experimental

studies of Kpelle quantitative behaviour. Psychonomic
Monograph, 2(10).

Crafter, S. (2012). Making sense of homework: Parental

resources for understanding mathematical learning in
multicultural settings. In E. Hjörne, G. van der Aalsvoort,
& G. de Abreu (Eds.), Learning, social interaction and
diversity—Exploring identities in school practices (pp.
53–68). Sense Publications.

Crafter, S., & Abreu, G. de (2010). Constructing identities

in multicultural learning contexts. Mind, Culture and
Activity, 7(2):102–118.

Crafter, S., & Abreu, G. de (2011). Teachers’ discussions

about parental use of implicit and explicit math ematics in
the home. Seventh Conference of the European Society for
Research in Mathematics Education (9–11 February, Rzeszow,
Poland). Working Group 10.

Crafter, S., & Abreu, G. de (2013). Exploring parents’

cultural models of mathematical knowledge in multiethnic
primary schools. In G. Marsico, K. Komatsu, & A. Iannaccone
(Eds.), Crossing boundaries: Intercontextual dynamics
between family and school (pp. 209–228). Charlotte, NC:
Information Age Publication.

D’Ambrosio, U. (1985). Socio-cultural basis for

mathematics education. Campinas, Brasil: Unicamp.

de Haan, M., & Elbers, E. (2008). Diversity in the

construction of modes of collaboration in multiethnic
classrooms. In B. van Oers, W. Wardekker, E. Elbers, & R.
van der Veer (Eds.) The transformation of learning:
advances in cultural-historical activity (pp. 219–241).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Elbers, E., & de Haan, M. (2005). The construction of word
meaning in a multicultural classroom. Mediational tools in
peer collaboration during mathematics lessons. European
Journal of Psychology of Education, 20(1), 45–59.

Forman, E., Larreamendy-Joerns, J., Stein, M. K., & A.

Brown. (1998). “You’re going to want to find out which and
prove it”: Collective ar gumentation in a mathematics
classroom. Learning and Instruction, 8(6), 527–548.

Forman, E. A., Minick, N., & Stone, C. A. (Eds.). (1993).

Contexts for learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gay, J., & Cole, M. (1967). The new mathematics and an old
culture: a study of learning among the Kpelle of Liberia.
New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Ginsburg, H. P., Choi, Y. E., Lopez, L. S., Netley, R., &

Chao-Yuan, C. (1997). Happy birthday to you: Early
mathematical thinking of Asian, South American, and U.S.
children. In T. Nunes & P. Bryant (Eds.), Learning and
teaching mathematics (pp. 163–207). Hove, UK: Psychology
Press.

Goodnow, J. J. (1990). The socialization of cognition:

What’s involved? In J. W. Stiegler, R. A. Shweder, & G.
Herdt (Eds.), Cultural psychology (pp. 259–286). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Gorgorió, N., & Abreu, G. de (2009). Social

representations as mediators of practice in mathematics
classrooms with immigrant students. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 72(1), 61–76.

Gorgorió, N., Abreu, G. de, César, M., & Valero, P. (2005).

Issues and challenges of researching mathematics education
in multicultural settings . Paper presented at the CERME 4
— The Fourth Conference of the European Society for
Research in Mathematics Education, Sant Feliu de Guixols,
Spain.

Gorgorió, N., Planas, N., & Vilella, X. (2002). Immigrant

children learning mathematics in mainstream schools. In G.
de Abr eu, A. Bishop, & N. Presmeg (Eds.), Transitions
between contexts of mathemati cal practice (pp. 23–52).
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Greenfield, P ., & Lave, J. (1982). Cognitive aspects of

informal education. In D. A. Wagner & H. W. Stevenson
(Eds.), Cultural perspectives on child development. San
Francisco: Freeman.

Guberman, S. R. (1996). The development of everyday

mathematics in Brazilian children with limited formal
education. Child Development, 67, 1609–1623.

Hughes, M., & Pollard, A. (2006). Home-school knowledge

exchange in context. Educational Review, 58(4), 385–395.

Hyde, J. S., Else-Quest, N. M., Alibali, M. W., Knuth, E.,

& Romberg, T. (2006). Mathematics in the home: Homework
practices and mother—child interactions doing mathematics.
Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 25(2), 136–152.

Jurkak, M., & Sharhin, I. (1999). An ethnographic study

of the computational strategies of a group of young street
vendors in Beirut. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 40,
155–172.

Lave, J. (1977). Cognitive consequences of traditional

apprenticeship training in West Africa. Anthropology and
Education Quarterly, 8(3), 177–180.

Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

LeFevre, J. A., Skwarchuk, S. L., Smith-Chant, B. L.,

Fast, L., Kamawar, D., & Bisanz, J. (2009). Home numeracy
experiences and children’s math performance in the early
school years. Canadian Jour nal of Behavioural Science,
41(2), 55–66.

Litowitz, B. E. (1993). Deconstruction in the Zone of

Proximal Development. In E. Froman, N. Minick, & C. A.
Stone (Eds.), Contexts for learning (pp. 184–185). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.

Masinglia, J. O. (1994). Mathematics practice in carpet

laying. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 25, 430–461.

McMullen, R., & Abreu, G. de (2011). Mothers’ experiences

of their children’s school mathematics at home: The impact
of being a mother-teacher. Research in Mathematics
Education,13(1), 59–74.

Minick, N., Stone, C. A., & Forman, E. A. (1993).

Integration of individual, social, and institutional
processes in accounts of children’s learning and
development. In E. A. Forman, N. Minick, & C. A. Stone
(Eds.), Contexts for learning (pp. 3–16). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Murtaugh, M. (1985). The practice of arithmetic by American

grocery shoppers. Anthropology and Education Quarterly,
16(3), 186–192.

Nasir, N. S., & Cobb, P. (2002). Diversity, equity, and

mathematical learning. Mathematical Thinking and Learning,
4(2 & 3), 91–102.

Newton, R., & Abreu, G. de (2012). Parents as mathematical

facilitators: analyzing goals in parent-child mathematical
activity. In F . J. Diez-Palomar and C. Kanes (Eds.),
Family and the community in and out of the classroom:
Ways to improve mathematics achievement. Barcelona:
Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Servei de Publicacions.

Nunes, T. (1992a). Cognitive invariants and cultural

variation in mathematical concepts. International Journal
of Behavioral Development, 15(4), 433–453.

Nunes, T. (1992b). Ethnomathematics and everyday cognition.

In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on
mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 557–574). New York:
Macmillan.

Nunes, T., & Bryant, P. (1996). Children doing mathematics.

Oxford: Blackwell.

Nunes, T., Schliemann, A., & Carraher, D. (1993). Street

mathematics and school mathematics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

OFSTED. (1999). Raising the attainment of minority ethnic

pupils. School and LEA responses: Office of Her Majesty’s
Chief Inspector of Schools.

O’Toole, S., & Abreu, G. de (2005). Parents’ past

experiences as a mediational tool for understanding their
child’s current mathematical learning. European Journal of
Psychology of Education, 20(1), 75–89.

Pettito, A. L., & Ginsburg, H. P. (1982). Mental arithmetic

in Africa and America: Strategies, principles, and
explanations. International Journal of Psychology, 17,
81–102.

Resnick, L. B., Pontecorvo, C., & Säljö, R. (1997).

Discourse, tools and reasoning. In L. B. Resnick, C.
Pontecorvo, R. Säljö, & B. Burge (Eds.), Discourse, tools
and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition (pp. 1–20).
New York: Springer and NATO Scientific Affairs Division.

Rogoff, B., & Lave, J. (Eds.). (1984). Everyday cognition:

Its development in social context. Cambridge, MA: Harvar d
University Press.

Säljö, R., & Wyndhamn, J. (1993). Solving everyday problems

in the formal setting. An empirical study of the school as
context for thought. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.),
Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and
context (pp. 327–342). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Saxe, G. B. (1982). Culture and the development of

numerical cognition: Studies among the Oksapmin of Papua
New Guinea. In C. G. Brainerd (Ed.), Children’s logical
and mathematical cognition (pp. 157–176). New York:
Springer Verlag.

Saxe, G. B. (1991). Culture and cognitive development:

studies in mathematical understanding . Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Saxe, G. B. (1996). Studying cognitive development in

sociocultural context: The development of a practice based
approach. In R. Jessor, A. Colby, & R. Shweder (Eds.),
Ethnography and human development (pp. 275–303). Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.

Saxe, G. B. (2012). Approaches to reduction in treatments

of culture-cognition relations: Affordances and
limitations. Commentary on Gauvain and Munroe. Human
Development, 55, 233–242.

Saxe, G. B., & Esmonde, I. (2005). Studying cognition in

flux: A historical treatment of Fu in the shifting
structure of Oksapmin Mathematics. Mind, Culture &
Activity, 12(3–4), 171–225.

Saxe, G. B., Guberman, S. R., & Gearhart, M. (1987). Social

processes in early number development. Monographs of the
Society for Research in Child Development, 52 (2), 1–137.

Saxe, G. B., & Posner, J. (1983). The development of

numerical cognition: Cross-cultural perspectives. In H. P.
Ginsburg (Ed.), The development of mathematical thinking
(pp. 291–317). London: Academic Press.

Schubauer-Leoni, M. L. (1990). Ecritures additivies en

classe ou en dehors de la classe: Une affaire de contexte.
Resonances, 6, 16–18.

Schubauer -Leoni, M.-L., & Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (1997).

Social interactions and mathematics learn ing. In T. Nunes
& P. Bryant (Eds.), Learning and teaching mathematics: An
international perspective (pp. 265–283). Hove, UK:
Psychology Press.

Scribner, S. (1984). Cognitive studies of work. The Quar

terly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Human Cognition, 6
(Special Issue), 1–50). San Diego: University of
California.

Shweder, R. A. (1990). Cultural psychology—What is it? In

J. W. Stiegler, R. A. Shweder, & G. Herdt (Eds.), Cultural
psychology (pp. 1–43). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Stiegler, J. W., Shweder, R. A., & Herdt, G. (Eds.) (1990).

Cultural psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Stone, C. A. (1993). What is missing in the metaphor of

scaffolding? In E. A. Forman, N. Minick, & C. A. Stone
(Eds.), Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in
children’s development (pp. 169–183). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Suárez-Orozco, C., & Suárez-Orozco, M. M. (2001). Children

of immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Subramaniam, K., & Bose, A. (2012). Measurement units and

modes: The Indian context. Proceedings of the 12th
International Congr ess on Mathematical Education (ICME-12)
(Vol. 1983).

Tajfel, H. (1978). Social categorisation, social identity

and social comparison. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation
between social groups: Studies in social psychology of
intergroup relations (pp. 61–76). London: Academic Press.

Vandermaas-Peeler, M., Nelson, J., Bumpass, C., & Sassine,

B. (2009). Numeracy-related exchanges in joint storybook
reading and play. International Journal of Early Years
Education, 17(1), 67–84.

Van Oers, B. (1998). From context to contextualising.

Learning and Instruction, 8(6), 473–488.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of
higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

Walkerdine, V. (1988). The mastery of reason. London:

Routledge.

Winter, J., Salway, L., Yee, W.C., & Hughes, M. (2004).

Linking home and school mathematics: The home school
knowledge exchange project. Research in Mathematics
Education, 6(1), 59–75.
17 Perspectives on Complex Systems in
Mathematics Learning

Anderson, J. R., & Lebiere, C. (1998). Learning. In J. R.

Anderson & C. Lebiere (Eds.), The atomic components of
thought (pp. 101–142). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Archibald, T. (2007, April). History of changing the

culture: From the French revolution to the 21st century.
Paper presented at Changing the Culture, Simon Fraser
University, Vancouver, Canada. Abstract retrieved from
www.pims.math.ca/educational/changing-culture/2007

Bell, E. T. (1937). Men of mathematics: The lives and

achievements of the great mathematicians from Zeno to
Poincaré. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Borwein, J., & Devlin, K. (2008). The computer as crucible:

an introduction to experimental mathematics . Natick, MA:
A. K. Peters.

Bowers, J. & Nickerson, S. (2001). Identifying cyclic

patterns of interaction to study individual and collective
learning. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 3(1), 1–28,
doi:10.1207/S15327833MTL0301_01

Buchanan, M. (2002). Ubiquity: Why catastrophes happen. New

York: Broadway Books.

Burger, E. B., & Starbird, M. (2005). The heart of

mathematics: An invitation to effective thinking (2nd
ed.). Emeryville, CA: Key College Publishing.

Burton, L. (Ed.). (1999). Learning mathematics: From

hierarchies to networks. London: Falmer.

Carse, J. (1987). Finite and infinite games. New York:

Simon & Schuster.

Cobb, P. (1999). Individual and collective mathematical

development: the case of statistical data analysis.
Mathematics Thinking and Learning, 1(1), 5–43.

Cobb, P., & Bauersfeld, H. (Eds.). (1995). Emergence of

mathematics meaning: Interaction in classroom cultures.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cohen, J. S., & Stewart, I. (1995). Collapse of chaos:

Discovering simplicity in a complex world. London:
Penguin.

Davis, B. (2011). Mathematics teachers’ subtle, complex

disciplinary knowledge. Science, 332, 1506–1507.

Davis, B. & Renert, M. (2014). The math teachers know:

Profound understanding of emergent mathematics. New York:
Routledge.

Davis, B., & Simmt, E. (2003). Understanding learning

systems: Mathematics education and complexity science.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(2)
137–167.

Davis, B., & Simmt, E. (2006). Mathematics-for-teaching: An

ongoing investigation of the mathematics that teachers
(need to) know. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61(3)
293–319.

Davis, B., Sumara, D., & Luce-Kapler, R. (2008). Engaging

minds: Changing teaching in complex times. New York:
Routledge.

English, L. D. (2006). Mathematical modeling in the primary

school: Children’s construction of a consumer guide.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 62(3). 303–329.

English, L. D., (2008). Introducing complex systems into

the mathematics curriculum. Teaching Children Mathematics,
15(1), 38–47.

English, L. D. (2011). Complex learning through cognitively

demanding tasks. Mathematics Enthusiast, 8(3). 483–506.

Ernest, P. (1994). Social constructivism and the psychology

of mathematics education. London: Falmer.

Ernest, P. (2011). The unit of analysis in mathematics

education: Bridging the political-technical divide. Paper
presented at the Mathematics Education and Contemporary
Theory. Manchester Metropolitan University, July 17–19,
2011.

Fauvel, J. & Grey, J. (1987). The history of mathematics:

S reader. London: Macmillan Education with The Open
University.

Font, V., Godino, J. D., & Gallardo, J. (2013). The

emergence of objects from mathematical practices.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 82(1), 97–124.
Foote, R. (2007). Mathematics and complex systems.
<A3+7>Science</A3+7>, <A3+7>318</A3+7>, 410–412.

Hegedus, S. J., & Moreno-Armella, L. (2011). The emergence

of mathematical structur es. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 77(2–3), 369–388.

Hershkowitz, R., & Schwarz, B. (1999). The emergent

perspective in rich learning environments: some r oles of
tools and activities in the construction of
sociomathematical norms. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 39(1–3), 149–166.

Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (2008). Next steps in implementing

Kaput’s research programme. Educational Studies in
Mathematics , 68(2), 85–94.

Hurford, A. (2010). Complexity theories and theories of

learning: literature reviews and syntheses. In B. Sriraman
& L. D. English (Eds.), Theories of mathematics education:
Seeking new frontiers (pp. 567–590). New York: Springer.

Jacobson, M., & Wilensky, U. (2006). Complex systems in

education: Scientific and educational importance and
research challenges for the learning sciences. Journal of
the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 11–34.

Kaput, J. J. (1992). Technology and mathematics education.

In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbooks on mathematics teaching
and learning (pp. 515–556). New York: Macmillan.

Khan, S. (2011, March). Let’s use video to reinvent

education. TED2011. Retrieved from www.ted.com/
talks/salman_khan_let_s_use_video_to_reinvent_education

Kilgore, D. (1999). Understanding learning in social

movements: A theory of collective learning. International
Journal of Lifelong Education, 18 (3), 191–202. doi:
10.1080/026013799293784

Laborde, C., Perrin-Glorian, M., & Sierpinska, A. (Eds.)

(2005). Beyond the apparent banality of the mathematics
classroom . New York: Springer.

Lemke, J. L. (2000). Across the scales of time: Artifacts,

activities, and meanings in ecosocial systems. Mind,
Culture, and Activity, 7 (4), 273–290.

Lerman, S. (2000). The social turn in mathematics

education. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on
mathematics education (pp. 19–44). Westport, CT: Ablex.

Lesh, R. (2010). The importance of complex systems in K–12

mathematics education. In Sriraman, B. & English, L. D.
(Eds.), Theories of mathematics education: seeking new
frontiers (pp. 563–566). Berlin: Springer.

Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. (Eds.) (2003). Beyond

constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on
mathematics problem solving learning and teaching. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lesh, R., Galbraith, P. L., Haines, C. R., & Hurford, A.

(Eds.). (2010). Modeling students’ mathematical modeling
competencies. New York: Springer.

Martin, L. C., & Towers, J. (2011). Improvisational

understanding in the mathematics classroom. In R. K.
Sawyer (Ed.), Structure and improvisation in creative
teaching (pp. 252–278). New York: Cambridge University
Press.

Maturana, H., & Varela, F. (1992). The tree of knowledge:

The biological roots of human understanding. Boston:
Shambhala Publications.

McLuhan, M. (1964/2013). Understanding media: The

extensions of man. Berkeley, CA: Gingko Press.

Milbrath, L. W. (1989). Envisioning a sustainable society:

Learning our way out. Albany, NY: State University of New
York Press.

Mitchell, M. (2009). Complexity: A guided tour. Oxford, UK:

Oxford University Press.

Moreno-Armella, L., Hegedus, S. J., & Kaput, J. J. (2008).

From static to dynamic mathematics: Historical and
representational perspectives. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 68(2), 99–111.

Nixon, L., Kendle, M., Bowdoin, D., Bailey, A., Wressell,

L., Alshammari, M., Agra, E., & Donaldon, J., (2013).
Massively open: How massive open online courses changed the
world. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: children, computers, and

powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.
Piaget, J. (1953). The origin of intelligence in the child.
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Pirie, S., & Kieren, T. (1994). Growth in mathematical

understanding: How can we characterise it and how can we
represent it? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26(2),
165–190.

Proulx, J. (2013). Mental mathematics, emergence of

strategies, and the enactivist theory of cognition.
Educational Studies in Mathematics.
doi:10.1007/s10649–013–9480–8

Reber, A. S. (1993). Oxford Psychology Series: No. 19.

Implicit learning and tacit knowledge: An essay on the
cognitive unconscious. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press;
New York: Clarendon Press.

Roschelle, J., Vahey, P., Tatar, D., Kaput, J., & Hegedus,
S. J. (2003). Five key considerations for networking in a
handheld-based mathematics classroom. In N. A. Pateman, B.
J. Dougherty, & J. T. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the
2003 Joint Meeting of PME and PMENA (V ol. 4, pp. 71–78).
Honolulu: University of Hawaii.

Sawyer, R. K. (2002a). Emergence in psychology: Lessons

from the history of non-reductionist science. Human
Development, 45, 2–28.

Sawyer , R. K. (2002b). Emergence in sociology:

Contemporary philosophy of mind and some implications for
sociological theory. American Journal of Sociology,
107(3), 551–585.

Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: Human

development, the growth of discourses, and mathematizing.
New York: Cambridge University Press.

Stewart, I. (1989). Does God play dice? Cambridge, MA:

Blackwell.

Stroup, W. M., & Wilensky, U. (2000). Assessing learning

as emergent phenomena: moving constructivist statistics
beyond the bell curve. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.),
Handbook of Research in Mathematics and Science Education
(pp. 877–911). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Towers, J., Martin, L., & Heater, B. (2013). Teaching and

learning mathematics in the collective. Jour nal of
Mathematical Behavior, 32, 424–433.
van Oers, B. (2010). Emergent mathematical thinking in the
context of play. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
74(1–3), 23–37.

Waldrop, M. M. (1992). Complexity: The emerging science on

the edge of order and chaos. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Watts, Duncan (2003). Six degrees: The science of a

connected age. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Wilensky, U., & Resnick, M. (1999). Thinking in levels: A

dynamic systems approach to making sense of the world.
Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1), 3–19.
18 Researching Mathematical Meanings for
Teaching

Arnon, I., Cottril, J., Dubinsky, E., Oktac, A., Fuentes,

S. R., Trigueros, M., & Weller, K. (2014). APOS Theory: A
framework for research and curriculum development in
mathematics education. New York: Springer.

Bridgman, P. W. (1955). Reflections of a physicist (Kindle

ed.). Retrieved from Amazon.com.

Bringuier, J. C. (1980). Conversations with Jean Piaget.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and

methodological challenges in creating complex interventions
in classroom settings. Jour nal of the Learning Sciences,
2, 141–178. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/1466837.
doi:10.2307/1466837

Carlson, M. P., 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.

Carlson, M. P., Oehrtman, M. C., & Engelke, N. (2010). The

precalculus concept assessment (PCA) instrument: A tool
for assessing students’ reasoning patterns and
understandings. Cognition and Instruction, 28 , 113–145.

Carpenter, T. P., Coburn, T. G., Reys, R. E., & Wilson, J.

W. (1976). Notes from National Assessment: Addition and
multiplication with fractions. The Arithmetic Teacher, 23 ,
137–142. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/41191386.
doi:10.2307/41191386

Castillo-Garsow, C. C. (2010). Teaching the Ver hulst

model: A teaching experiment in covariational reasoning
and exponential growth. Ph.D. dissertation, Arizona State
University, Tempe, AZ. Retrieved from

Charalambous, C. Y., & Hill, H. C. (2012). Teacher

knowledge, curriculum materials, and quality of
instruction: Unpacking a complex relationship. Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 44, 443–466.

Chazan, D. (1993). F(x)=G(x)?: An approach to modeling with

algebra. For the Learning of Mathematics, 13, 22–26.

Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble,
L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research.
Educational Researcher, 32, 9–13.

Confrey, J. (1992). Using computers to promote students’

inventions on the function concept. In S. Malcom, L.
Roberts, & K. Sheingold (Eds.), This year in school
science 1991 (pp. 141–174). Washington, DC: AAAS.

Confrey, J. (1994). Splitting, similarity, and rate of

change: A new approach to multiplication and exponential
functions. In G. Harel & J. Confrey (Eds.), The
development of multiplicative reasoning in the learning of
mathematics (pp. 293–330). Albany: State University of
New York Press.

Confrey, J., & Smith, E. (1995). Splitting, covariation and

their role in the development of exponential function.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26, 66–86.

Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston: D. C. Heath.

Dubinsky, E., & McDonald, M. A. (2001). APOS: A

constructivist theory of learning in undergrad mathematics
education research. New ICME Studies Series, 7, 275–282.

Glasersfeld, E. v. (1978). Radical constructivism and

Piaget’s concept of knowledge. In F. B. Murray (Ed.),
Impact of Piagetian Theory (pp. 109–122). Baltimore, MD:
University Park Press.

Glasersfeld, E. v. (1981). The concepts of adaptation and

viability in a radical constructivist theory of knowledge.
In I. Sigel & R. M. Golinkoff (Eds.), Piagetian Theory and
Research: New Directions and Research (pp. 87–95).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Glasersfeld, E. v. (1985). Reconstructing the concept of

knowledge. Archives de Psychologie, 53, 91–101.

Glasersfeld, E. v. (1992). Constructivism reconstructed: A

reply to Suchting. Science & Education, 1, 379–384.

Harel, G. (2008). What is mathematics? A pedagogical answer

to a philosophical question. In R. B. Gold & R. Simons
(Eds.), Current issues in the philosophy of mathematics
from the perspective of mathematicians (pp. 265–290).
Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.

Harel, G. (2013). Intellectual need. In K. Leatham (Ed.),

Vital directions for research in mathematics education
(pp. 119–151). New York: Springer.

Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force

concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141–158.

Hill, H. C. (2011). Measuring the mathematical quality of

instruction. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14,
25–47.

Hill, H. C., Blunk, M. L., Charalambous, C. Y., Lewis, J.

M., Phelps, G. C., Sleep, L., et al. (2008). Mathematical
knowledge for teaching and the mathematical quality of
instruction: An exploratory study. Cognition and
Instruction, 26, 430–511.

Hill, H. C., & Charalambous, C. Y. (2012). Teacher

knowledge, curriculum materials, and quality of
instruction: Lessons learned and open issues. Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 44, 559–576. doi:10.
1080/00220272.2012.716978

Howe, K. R., & Berv, J. (2000). Constructing

constructivism, epistemological and pedagogical. In D. C.
Phillips (Ed.), Constructivism in education: Opinions and
second opinions on controversial issues, Yearbook of the
National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 19–40).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Izsák, A. (2012). Measuring mathematical knowledge for

teaching fractions with drawn quantities. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 43, 391–427.

Japan Ministry of Education. (2008). Japanese Mathematics

Curriculum in the Course of Study (A. Takahashi, T.
Watanabe, & Y. Makoto, Trans.). Madison, WI: Global
Education Resources.

Johnckheere, A., Mandelbrot, B. B., & Piaget, J. (1958). La

lecture de l’expérience [Observation and decoding of
reality]. Paris: P.U.F.

Kennedy, K. A., & Wilson, M. R. (2007). Using progress

variables to map intellectual development. In R. W.
Lissitz (Ed.), Assessing and modeling cognitive development
in schools: Intellectual growth and standard setting.
Maple Grove, MN: JAM Press.

Lobato, J., & Thanheiser, E. (2000). Using technology to

promote and examine students’ construction of
ratio-as-measure. In Proceedings of the 22nd annual meeting
of the North American chapter of the International Group
for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp.
371–377). Tucson, AZ: PME-NA.

Mason, J., & Spence, M. (1999). Beyond mere knowledge of

mathematics: The importance of knowing-to act in the
moment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 38, 135–161.
doi:10.1023/A:1003622804002

Monk, G. S. (1992). Students’ understanding of a function

given by a physical model. In G. Harel & E. Dubinsky
(Eds.), The concept of function: Aspects of epistemology
and pedagogy (pp. 175–194). Washington, DC: Mathematical
Association of America.

Monk, S., & Nemirovsky, R. (1994). The case of Dan: Student

construction of a functional situation through visual
attributes. In E. Dubinsky, A. H. Schoenfeld, & J. J. Kaput
(Eds.), Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education, 1,
Issues in Mathematics Education (pp. 139–168). Providence,
RI: American Mathematical Society.

Montangero, J., & Maurice-Naville, D. (1997). Piaget or the

advance of knowledge. (A. Curnu-Wells, Trans.) Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Musgrave, S., & Thompson, P. W. (in press). Function

notation as idiom. In P. Liljedahl & C. C. Nicol (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 38th Meeting of the International Group
for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Vancouver,
BC: PME.

Norton, A. H., & Wilkins, J. L. M. (2009). A quantitative

analysis of children’s splitting operations and fraction
schemes. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 28(2), 150–161.

Oehrtman, M. C., Carlson, M. P., & Thompson, P. W. (2008).

Foundational reasoning abilities that promote coherence in
students’ understandings of function. In M. P. Carlson & C.
Rasmussen (Eds.), MAA Notes. Making the connection:
Research and practice in undergraduate mathematics (pp.
27–42). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of
America.

Phillips, D. C. (2000). An opinionated account of the

constructivist landscape. In D. C. Phillips (Ed.),
Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of
Education. Constructivism in education: Opinions and
second opinions on controversial issues (pp. 1–16).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children.
New York: W. W. Norton.

Piaget, J. (1968). Six psychological studies. New York:

Vintage Books.

Piaget, J. (2001). Studies in reflecting abstraction. (R.

L. Campbell, Trans.) New York: Psychology Press.

Piaget, J., & Garcia, R. (1991). Toward a logic of

meanings. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Saldanha, L. A., & Thompson, P. W. (1998). Re-thinking

co-variation from a quantitative perspective: Simultaneous
continuous variation. In S. B. Berenson & W. N. Coulombe
(Eds.), Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Psychology
of Mathematics Education—North America, (Vol. 1, pp.
298–304). Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University.
Retrieved from http://pat-thompson.
net/PDFversions/1998SimulConV ar.pdf.

Savinainen, A., & Scott, P. (2002). The force concept

inventory: a tool for monitoring student learning. Physics
Education, 37, 45–52. doi:10.1088/0031–9120/37/1/306

Schilling, S. G., Blunk, M., & Hill, H. C. (2007). Test

validation and the MKT measures: Generalizations and
conclusions. Measurement, 5, 118–128.
doi:10.1080/15366360701487146

Simon, M. A., & Blume, G. W. (1994). Mathematical modeling

as a component of understanding ratio-asmeasure: A study of
prospective elementary teachers. Journal of Mathematical
Behavior, 13, 183–197. doi:10.1016/0732–3123(94)90022–1

Steffe, L. P. (1991). The learning paradox. In L. P.

Steffe (Ed.), Epistemological foundations of mathematical
experience (pp. 26–44). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative

research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded
theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Suchting, W. A. (1992). Constructivism deconstructed.

Science & Education, 1, 223–254.

Thompson, A. G. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and conceptions:

A synthesis of research. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook
of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp.
127–146). New York: Macmillan.

Thompson, A. G., & Thompson, P. W. (1996). Talking about

rates conceptually, Part II: Mathematical knowledge for
teaching. Jour nal for Research in Mathematics Education,
27, 2–24.

Thompson, P. W. (1994a). 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. 179–234). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Thompson, P. W. (1994b). Students, functions, and the

undergraduate mathematics curriculum. In E. Dubinsky, A.
H. Schoenfeld, & J. J. Kaput (Eds.), Research in collegiate
mathematics education: Vol. 1. Issues in Mathematics
Education (pp. 21–44). Providence, RI: American
Mathematical Society.

Thompson, P. W. (2011). Quantitative reasoning and

mathematical modeling. In L. L. Hatfield, S. Chamberlain, &
S. Belbase (Eds.), WISDOMe Monographs. New perspectives and
directions for collaborative research in mathematics
education (pp. 33–57). Laramie: University of Wyoming.

Thompson, P. W. (2013). In the absence of meaning. In K.

Leatham (Ed.), Vital directions for resear ch in
mathematics education (pp. 57–93). New York: Springer.

Thompson, P. W., Carlson, M. P., Byerley, C., & Hatfield,

N. (2014). Schemes for thinking with magnitudes: A
hypothesis about foundational reasoning abilities in
algebra. In L. P. Steffe, L. L. Hatfield, & K. C. Moore
(Eds.), WISDOMe Monographs: Vol. 4. Epistemic algebra
students: Emerging models of students’ algebraic knowing
(pp. 1–24). Laramie: University of Wyoming.

Thompson, P. W., & Saldanha, L. A. (2003). Fractions and

multiplicative reasoning. In J. Kilpatrick, G. Martin, &
D. Schifter (Eds.), Research companion to the Principles
and Standards for School Mathematics (pp. 95–114). Reston,
VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Thompson, P. W., & Thompson, A. G. (1994). Talking about

rates conceptually, Part I: A teacher’s struggle. Journal
for Research in Mathematics Education, 25, 279–303.

Torbeyns, J., Schneider, M., Xin, Z., & Siegler, R. S.

(2014). Bridging the gap: Fraction understanding is
central to mathematics achievement in students from three
different continents. Learning and Instruction, 37(1),
5–13. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.03.002

Vinner, S., Hershkowitz, R., & Bruckheimer, M. (1981).

Some cognitive factors as causes of mistakes in the
addition of fractions. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 12, 70–76.

Wilson, M. R., & Sloane, K. (2000). From principles to

practice: An embedded assessment system. Applied
Measurement in Education, 13, 181–208.

Y oon, H., Hatfield, N., & Thompson, P. W. (in press).

Teachers’ meanings for function notation. In P. Liljedahl
& C. C. Nicol (Eds.), Proceedings of the 38th Meeting of
the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics
Education. Vancouver, BC: PME.
19 Measurement Challenges in Mathematics
Education Research

Aiken, L. R., Jr. (1970). Attitudes toward mathematics.

Review of Educational Research, 40(4), 551–596.

Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content

knowledge for teaching: What makes it so special? Journal
of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.

Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T.,
Jordan, A., Klusmann, U., Krauss, S., Neubrand, M., & Tsai,
Y-M. (2010). Teachers’ mathematical knowledge, cognitive
activation in the classroom, and student progress. American
Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 133–180.

Becker, W. C. (1992). Direct instruction: A twenty year

review. In R. P. West, & L. A. Hamerlynck (Eds.).
Designs for excellence in education: The legacy of B. F.
Skinner (pp. 71–112). Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Berliner, D. (2011). Rational responses to high stakes

testing: the case of curriculum nar rowing and the harm
that follows. Cambridge Journal of Education, 41:3,
287–302. doi:10.1080/03057 64X.2011.607151

Bishop, A. J. (1985). The social construction of meaning—a

significant development for mathematics education. For the
Learning of Mathematics, 5(1), 24–28.

Bishop, A. J. (1988). Mathematical enculturation: A

cultural perspective on mathematics education. Dordrecht:
Kluwer.

Boaler, J. (2002). Experiencing school mathematics:

Traditional and reform approaches to teaching and their
impact on student learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch model:

Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (2nd ed.).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bredo, E. (2012). Philosophies of educational research. In

J. L. Green, G. Camilli, & P. B. Elmore (Eds.) Handbook of
complementary methods in education research. New York:
Routledge.

Brown, M., Askew, M., Hodgen, J., Rhodes, V., & Wiliam, D.
(2003). Individual and cohort progression in learning
numeracy ages 5–11: Results from the Leverhulme 5-year
longitudinal study. Proceedings of the International
Conference on Mathematics and Science Learning (pp.
81–109). Taiwan, Taipei.

Burkhardt, H., & Schoenfeld, A. H. (2003) Improving

educational research: Toward a more useful, more
influential, and better-funded enterprise. Educational
Researcher, 32(9), 3–14.

Callingham, R. (2013). Chinese students and mathematical

problem solving. In S. Phillipson, H. Stoeger, & A.
Ziegler (Eds.) Exceptionality in East Asia. Explorations in
the actiotope model of giftedness (pp. 86–99). Abingdon,
Oxon: Routledge.

Callingham, R., & Bond, T. G. (2006). Research in

mathematics education: Insights from Rasch measurement.
Mathematics Education Research Journal, 18(2), 1–10.

Callingham, R., & Watson J. M. (2007, December).

Overcoming research design issues using Rasch measurement:
The StatSmart project. Paper presented at the Australian
Association for Research in Education International
Educational Research Conference 2007, Fremantle, Australia.
Retrieved from www.aare.edu.au/07pap/cal07042.pdf.

Callingham, R., & Watson, J. M. (2011). Measuring levels

of statistical pedagogical content knowledge. In C.
Batanero, G. Burrill, & C. Reading (Eds.) Teaching
statistics in school mathematics—Challenges for teaching
and teacher education: A joint ICMI/IASE study (pp.
283–293). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Car raher, T. N., Carraher, D. W., & Schliemann, A.D.

(1985). Mathematics in the streets and schools. British
Journal of Psychology 3, 21–29.

Cherr yholmes, C. H. (1988). Construct validity and

discourses of research. American Journal of Education,
96(3), 421–457.

Chick, H. L. (2011). God-like educators in a fallen world.

In J. Wright (Ed.) Proceedings of the annual conference of
the Australian Association for Research in Education .
Retrieved from www.aare.edu.au/

Chick, H. L., Baker, M., Pham, T., & Cheng, H. (2006).

Aspects of teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for
decimals. In J. Novotná, H. Moraová, M. Krátká, & N.
Stehliková (Eds.) Proceedings of the 30th Conference of
the Inter national Group for the Psychology of Mathematics
Education (Vol. 2, pp. 297–304). Prague: PME.

Chick, H. L., Pham, T., & Baker, M. (2006). Probing

teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge: Lessons from the
case of the subtraction algorithm. In P. Grootenboer, R.
Zevenbergen, & M. Chinnappan (eds.), Identities, cultures
and learning spaces. Proceedings of the 29th annual
conference of Mathematics Education Research Group of
Australasia (pp. 139–146). Sydney: MERGA.

Clarke, D. J. (2013). Contingent conceptions of

accomplished practice: The cultural specificity of
discourse in and about the mathematics classroom. ZDM: The
International Journal in Mathematics Education 45(1),
21–33.

Clarke, D. J., Emanuelsson, J., Jablonka, E., & Mok,

I.A.C. (2006). Making connections: Comparing mathematics
classrooms around the world. Rotter dam, The Netherlands:
Sense Publishers.

Clarke, D. J., Keitel, C., & Shimizu, Y. (2006).

Mathematics classrooms in twelve countries: The insider’s
perspective. Rotter dam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Clements, M. A. (Ken) (2004). Perspective on “Mathematics

in the streets and schools.” In T. P. Carpenter, J. A.
Dossy, & J. L. Koehler (eds.) Classics in mathematics
education research. Reston, VA: National Council of T
eachers of Mathematics.

Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., &

Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational
research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.

D’Ambrosio, B. (1985). Ethnomathematics and its place in

the history and pedagogy of mathematics. For the Learning
of Mathematics, 5, 44–8.

de Lange, J. (1987). Mathematics, insight and meaning.

Utrecht, The Netherlands: Utrecht University.

Eisenhart, M. A. (1988). The ethnographic research

tradition and mathematics education research. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 19(2), 99–114.

Ewing, B., (2011). Direct instruction in mathematics:

Issues for schools with high indigenous enrolments: A
literature review. Australian Journal of Teacher Education,
36(5), 63–91.

Fisher, W. P., Jr. (2004). Meaning and method in the

social sciences. Human Studies: A Journal for Philosophy
and the Social Sciences, 27(4), 429–54.

Goldin, G. A. (2003). Developing complex understandings: On

the relation of mathematics education research to
mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 54,
171–202.

Goldstein, H. (2004). International comparisons of student

attainment: Some issues arising from the PISA study.
Assessment in Education, 11, 319–330.

Harris, M. (1997). Common threads: Women, mathematics and

work. London, UK: Trentham Books.

Hill, H. C., Schilling, S. G., & Ball, D. L. (2004).

Developing measures of teachers’ mathematics for
teaching. Elementary School Journal, 105, 11–30.

Hoyles, C., Noss. R., Kent, P. & Bakker, A. (2010).

Improving mathematics at work: The need for
techno-mathematical literacies. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

International Association for the Evaluation of Educational

Achievement. (2007). TIMSS 2003. Mathematics items.
Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.

Jablonka, E. & Gellert, U. (2007).

Mathematisation—demathematisation. In E. Jablonka & U.
Gellert (Eds.) Mathematisation and demathematisation.
Social, philosophical and educational ramifications.
Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Kaur, B., Anthony, G., Ohtani, M., & Clarke D. J. (2013).

Student voice in mathematics classrooms around the world.
Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Kelly, G. J. (2012). Epistemology and educational research.

In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, & P. B. Elmore (Eds.) Handbook
of complementary methods in education research. New York:
Routledge.

Klein, D. (2007). A quarter century of US ‘math wars’ and

political partisanship. BSHM Bulletin: Journal of the
British Society for the History of Mathematics, 22(1),
22–33.
Kreiner, S., & Christensen, K. B. (2014). Analyses of
model fit and robustness. A new look at the PISA scaling
model underlying ranking of countries according to reading
literacy. Psychometrika, 79(2), 210–231.

Krutetskii, V. A. (1976). The psychology of mathematical

abilities in schoolchildren. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics

and culture in everyday life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.

Learners’ Perspective Study (n.d.). About the study.

Retrieved from www.lps.iccr.edu.au/index.php/
about-the-project

Leder, G. (1985). Measurement of attitude to mathematics.

For the Learning of Mathematics, 5(3), 18–21.

Lerman, S. (2010). Theories of mathematics education: Is

plurality a problem? In Sririman, B. & English, L. (Eds.)
Theories of mathematics education. Seeking new frontiers.
Heidelberg: Springer .

Leung, K.S.F. (2005a, August). In the books there are

golden houses: Mathematics assessment in East Asia.
Plenary address to the ICMI 3rd East Asian Regional
Conference on Mathematics Education, Shanghai.

Leung, K.S.F. (2005b). Some characteristics of East Asian

classrooms based on data from the 1999 TIMSS video study.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 60, 199–215.

Li, J. (2004). A Chinese cultural model of learning. In L.

Fan, N-Y, Wong, J. Cai, & S. Li (Eds.) How Chinese learn
mathematics: Perspectives from insiders (pp. 124–156).
Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.

Lietz, P. (2009). Variance in performance between students

within schools and between schools. Melbourne, VIC:
Australian Council for Educational Research. Retrieved from
www.ican.sa.edu.au/files/links/
ACER_DECS_variance_report.pdf.

Long, C., Wendt, H., & Dunne, T. (2011). Applying Rasch

measurement in mathematics education research: steps towar
ds a triangulated investigation into proficiency in the
multiplicative conceptual field. Educational Research and
Evaluation: An International Journal on Theory and
Practice, 17(5), 387–407.

Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics:

Teachers’ understanding of fundamental mathematics in
China and the United States. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Ma, X. & Kishor, N. (1997). Assessing the relationship

between attitude toward mathematics and achievement in
mathematics: A meta-analysis. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 28(1), 26–47.

Mason, J. (2002). Researching your own practice: The

discipline of noticing. London: Routledge Falmer.

Mason, J. & Johnston-Wilder, S. (2004). Fundamental

constructs in mathematics education. London: Routledge.

Messick, S. (1991). Validity of test interpretation and

use. In M. C. Alkin, (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational
Research (6th ed.), New York: Macmillan. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ ED395031.pdf.

Meyer, H-D. (2014) Open letter to Andreas Schleicher, OECD,

Paris. Retrieved from www.ilsole24ore.

Mundey, B. (1986). On the general theory of meaningful

representation. Synthese, 67, 391–437.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). The

condition of education: Mathematics performance.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics,
Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of
Education. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cnc.asp.

Neale, D. (1969). The role of attitudes in learning

mathematics. The Arithmetic Teacher, 16(8), 631–641.

Niss, M. (1999). Aspects of the nature and state of

research in mathematics education. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 40, 1–24.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

(OECD). (2003). The PISA 2003 assessment framework. Paris:
OECD. Retrieved from

Owens, K. (2001). The work of Glendon Lean on the counting

systems of Papua New Guinea and Oceania. Mathematics
Education Research Journal, 13(1), 47–71.

Piaget, J. (1941/1952). The child’s conception of number.

London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. (Original work published
1941.)

Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. (1947/1956). The child’s

conception of space. London: Routledge. (Original work
published 1947.)

Powell, A., & Frankenstein, M. (1997). Ethnomathematics:

Challenging Eurocentrism in mathematics education. Albany:
State University of New York Press.

Presmeg, N. (2014). A dance of instruction with

construction in mathematics education. In U Kortenkamp, B.
Brandt, C. Benz, G. Krummheuer, S. Ladel, & R. Vogel.
(Eds.) Early mathematics learning. Selected papers of the
POEM conference 2012 (pp. 9–17). New York: Springer.
Retrieved from www. springer.com/gp/book/9781461446774.

Ross, A., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2014). Complexity of

quantitative analyses used in mixed research articles
published in a flagship mathematics education journal.
International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches,
8(1), 80–90.

Rowland, T., Huckstep, P., & Thwaites, A. (2005).

Elementary teachers’ mathematics subject knowledge: The
knowledge quartet and the case of Naomi. Jour nal of
Mathematics Teacher Education, 8, 255–281.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (2004). The math wars. Educational Policy

18(1), 253–286.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (2008). Research methods in

(mathematics) education. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook
of international research in mathematics education (2nd
ed.). New Y ork: Routledge.

Seldon, A. (2002). Two research traditions separated by a

common subject: Mathematics and mathematics education.
Cookeville, TN: Tennessee Technological University.
Retrieved from https://www.tntech.
edu/files/math/reports/TR_2002_2.pdf.

Shimizu, Y., Kaur, B., Huang, R., & Clarke, D. J. (2010).

Mathematical tasks in classrooms around the world.
Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations
of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–22.

Siemon, D. (2013). Launching mathematical futures: The key

role of multiplicative thinking. In S. Hernert, J. Tillyer
& T. Spencer. (Eds.) Mathematics: Launching Futures,
Proceedings of the 24th Biennial Conference of the
Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers (pp. 36–52).
Adelaide, Australia: AAMT.

Siemon, D., Bleckly, J. & Neal, D. (2012). Working with the

big ideas in number and the Australian Curriculum
Mathematics. In W. Atweh, M. Goos, R Jorgensen, & D. Siemon
(Eds.) Engaging the Australian Curriculum
Mathematics—Perspectives from the field (pp. 19–46).
Mathematical Education Research Group of Australasia.
Retrieved from www
.merga.net.au/sites/default/files/editor/
books/1/Chapter%202%20Siemon.pdf.

Skemp, R. (1971). The psychology of learning mathematics.

Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books.

Sririman, B., & English, L. D. (2010). Surveying theories

and philosophies of mathematics education. In B. Sririman,
& L. D. English (Eds.), Theories of mathematics education.
Seeking new frontiers. Heidelberg: Springer.

Sririman, B., & Törner, G. (2008). Political

union/mathematics educational disunion. In L. D. English
(Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics
education (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Stacey, K., & Steinle, V. (2006). A case of the

inapplicability of the Rasch model: Mapping conceptual
learning. Mathematics Education Research Journal 18(2),
77–92.

Tsatsaroni, A., Lerman, S., & Xu, G. (2003). A sociological

description of changes in the intellectual field of
mathematics education research: Implications for the
identities of academics. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Chicago. ERIC# ED482512.

Walshaw, M. (2004) Introduction: Postmodernism meets

mathematics education. In M. Walshaw (Ed.) Mathematics
education within the postmodern. Charlotte, NC: Information
Age Publishing.
Wardlaw, C. (2006, September). Mathematics in HK/China.
Improving on being first in PISA. Address to the 50th
Anniversary Meeting of the Australian Mathematical Society,
Sydney.

Watson, J. M. (2001). Profiling teachers’ competence and

confidence to teach particular mathematics topics: The case
of chance and data. Journal of Mathematics Teacher
Education, 4, 305–337.

Wilson, L., Andrew, C., & Below, J. (2006). A comparison of

teacher/pupil interaction within mathematics lessons in St
Petersberg, Russia and North-East of England. British
Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 411–441.
20 Design Research: An Analysis and
Critique

Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice,

developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory
of professional education. In G. Sykes & L. Darling-Hammond
(Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of
policy and practice (pp. 3–32). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Ball, D. L., Sleep, L., Boerst, T., & Bass, H. (2009).

Combining the development of practice and the practice of
development in teacher education. Elementary School
Journal, 109(5), 458–474.

Bannan-Ritland, B. (2008). Teacher design research: An

emerging paradigm for teachers’ professional development.
In A. E. Kelly, R. Lesh & J. Y. Baek (Eds.), Handbook of
design research methods in education: Innovations in
science, technology, engineering and mathematics learning
and teaching (pp. 246–262). New York: Routledge.

Borko, H., Jacobs, J., Eiteljorg, E., & Pittman, M. E.

(2009). Video as a tool for fostering productive
discussions in mathematics professional development.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 417–436.

Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and

methodological challenges in creating complex interventions
in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2,
141–178.

Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppesco, S.,

& Easton, J. Q. (2010). Organizing schools for
improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

Byrnes, J. P. (1992). The conceptual basis of procedural

learning. Cognitive Development, 7(2), 235–257.

Cheeseman, J., McDonough, A., & Ferguson, S. (2012). The

effects of creating rich learning envir onments for
children to measure mass. In J. Dindyal, L. P. Cheng & S.
F. Ng (Eds.), Mathematics education: Expanding horizons
(Proceedings of the 35th annual conference of the
Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia).
Singapore: MERGA.
Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2004). Learning trajectories
in mathematics education. Mathematical Thinking and
Learning, 6, 81–89.

Cobb, P ., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., &

Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational
research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.

Cobb, P., Gresalfi, M., & Hodge, L. L. (2009). An

interpretive scheme for analyzing the identities that
students develop in mathematics classrooms. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 40, 40–68.

Cobb, P., & Jackson, K. (2012). Analyzing educational

policies: A learning design perspective. The Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 21 (4), 487–521.

Cobb, P., McClain, K., Lamberg, T., & Dean, C. (2003).

Situating teachers’ instructional practices in the
institutional setting of the school and district.
Educational Researcher, 32 (6), 13–24.

Cobb, P., & Steffe, L. (1983). The constructivist

researcher as teacher and model builder . Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 14, 83–94.

Cobb, P., Stephan, M., McClain, K., & Gravemeijer, K.

(2001). Participating in classroom mathematical practices.
The Jour nal of the Learning Sciences, 10(1–2), 113–163.

Cobb, P., & Yackel, E. (1998). A constructivist perspective

on the culture of the mathematics classroom. In F. Seeger
, J. Voigt & U. Waschescio (Eds.), The culture of the
mathematics classroom: Analysis and changes (pp.
158–190). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Cobb, P., Yackel, E., & Wood, T. (1995). The classroom

teaching experiment. In P. Cobb & H. Bauersfeld (Eds.),
Emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom
cultures (pp. 17–24). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Cobb, P., Zhao, Q., & Dean, C. (2009). Conducting design

experiments to support teachers’ learning: A reflection
from the field. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18,
165–199.

Coburn, C. E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond

numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher,
32(6), 3–12.
Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education.
In T. Scanon & T. O’Shey (Eds.), New directions in
educational technology (pp. 15–22). New York: Springer.

Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson,

N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the
learning pr ofession: A status report on teacher
development in the United States and abroad. Dallas, TX:
National Staf f Development Council.

DeCorte, E., Greer, B., & Verschaffel, L. (1996).

Mathematics learning and teaching. In D. Berliner & R.
Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp.
491–549). New York: Macmillan.

Design-Based Research Collaborative. (2003). Design-based

research: An emer ging paradigm for educational inquiry.
Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.

diSessa, A. A. (1992). Images of learning. In E. d. Corte,

M. C. Linn, H. Mandl & L. Verschaffel (Eds.),
Computer-based learning environments and pr oblem solving
(pp. 19–40). Berlin: Springer.

diSessa, A. A. (2002). Students’ criteria for

representational adequacy. In K. Gravemeijer, R. Lehrer,
B. v. Oers & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Symbolizing, modeling
and tool use in mathematics education (pp. 105–129).
Dortrecht: Kluwer.

diSessa, A. A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native

competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and
Instruction, 22(3), 293–331.

diSessa, A. A., & Cobb, P. (2004). Ontological innovation

and the role of theory in design experiments. Journal of
the Learning Sciences, 13, 77–103.

Doorman, M., Drijvers, P., Gravemeijer, K., Boon, P., &

Reed, H. (2013). Design research in mathematics education:
The case of an ict-rich learning arrangement for the
concept of function. In T. Plomp & N. Nieveen (Eds.),
Educational design research—Part B: Illustrative cases
(pp. 425–446). Enschede, The Netherlands: SLO.

Enyedy, N., & Mukhopadhyay, S. (2007). They don’t show

nothing I didn’t know: Emergent tensions between
culturally relevant pedagogy and mathematics pedagogy.
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16, 139–174.
Fishman, B., Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P., & Krajcik, J. S.
(2004). Creating a framework for research on systemic
technology innovations. Journal of the Learning Sciences,
13, 43–76.

Forman, E. A. (2003). 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.

Franke, M. L., Carpenter, T. P., Levi, L., & Fennema, E.

(2001). Capturing teachers’ generative change: A follow-up
study of professional development in mathematics. American
Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 653–689.

Franke, M. L., Kazemi, E., & Battey, D. (2007). Mathematics

teaching and classroom practice. In F. K. Lester (Ed.),
Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and
learning (pp. 225–256). Greenwich, CT: Information Age
Publishers.

Freudenthal, H. (1973). Mathematics as an educational task.

Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.

Garet, M., S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F.,

& Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development
effective? Results from a national sample of teachers.
American Educational Research Jour nal, 38, 915–945.

Gravemeijer, K. (1994a). Developing realistic mathematics

education. Utrecht, The Netherlands: CD-ß Press.

Gravemeijer, K. (1994b). Educational development and

developmental research. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 25, 443–471.

Gravemeijer, K., & Cobb, P. (2006). Design research from

the learning design perspective. In J. v. d. Akker, K.
Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational
design research (pp. 17–51). London: Routledge.

Grossman, P., Compton, C., Igra, D., Ronfeldt, M., Shahan,

E., & Williamson, P. W. (2009). Teaching practice: A
cross-professional perspective. Teachers College Record,
111(9), 2055–2100.
Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009).
Redefining teaching, re-imagining teacher education.
Teachers and teaching: Theory and practice, 15 (2),
273–289.

Grossman, P., O’Keefe, J., Kantor, T., & Delgado, P. C.

(2013, April). Seeking coherence: Organizational capacity
for professional development targeting cor e practices in
English language arts. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
San Francisco, CA.

Hall, R. (2001). Schedules of practical work for the

analysis of case studies of learning and development.
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10, 203–222.

Henningsen, M., & Stein, M. K. (1997). Mathematical tasks

and student cognition: Classroom-based factors that support
and inhibit high-level mathematical thinking and reasoning.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(5),
524–549.

Hesse, M. B. (1965). Forces and fields: A study of action

at a distance in the history of physics. Totowa, NJ:
Littlefield, Adams. & Co.

Hill, H. C., Ball, D. L., & Schilling, S. G. (2008).

Unpacking pedagogical content knowledge: Conceptualizing
and measuring teachers’ topic-specific knowledge of
students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
39(4), 372–400.

Hill, H. C., Schilling, S. G., & Ball, D. L. (2004).

Developing measures of teachers’ mathematics knowledge for
teaching. The Elementary School Journal, 105 (1), 11–30.

Horn, I. S. (2005). Learning on the job: A situated

account of teacher learning in high school mathematics
departments. Cognition and Instr uction, 23, 207–236.

Hoyles, C., Noss, R., & Pozzi, S. (2001). Proportional

reasoning in nursing practice. Jour nal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 32(1), 4–27.

Jackson, K., & Gibbons, L. (2014, April). Accounting for

how practitioners frame a common problem of
practice—students’ struggle in mathematics. Paper pr
esented at the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
Research Conference, New Orleans, LA.
Kazemi, E., & Franke, M. L. (2004). Teacher learning in
mathematics: Using student work to promote collective
inquiry. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7,
203–235.

Kazemi, E., & Hubbard, A. (2008). New directions for the

design and study of professional development: Attending to
the coevolution of teachers’ participation across contexts.
Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 428–441.

Kelly, A. E. (2004). Design research in education: Yes, but

is it methodological? Journal of the Learning Sciences,
13, 115–128.

Kwon, O. N., Ju, M-K., Kim, R. Y., Park, J. H., & Park, J.
S. (2013). Design research as an inquiry into students’
argumentation and justification: Focusing on the design of
intervention. In T . Plomp & N. Nieveen (Eds.),
Educational design research—Part B: Illustrative cases.
Enschede, The Netherlands: SLO.

Lamberg, T., & Middleton, J. A. (2009). Design research

perspectives on transitioning from individual microgenetic
inter views to a whole-class teaching experiment.
Educational Researcher, 38(4), 233–245.

Lampert, M., Beasley, H., Ghousseini, H., Kazemi, E., &

Franke, M. L. (2010). Using designed instructional
activities to enable novices to manage ambitious
mathematics teaching. In M. K. Stein & L. Kucan (Eds.),
Instructional explanations in the disciplines (pp.
129–141). New York: Springer.

Lampert, M., Franke, M. L., Kazemi, E., Ghousseini, H.,

Chan Turrou, A., Beasley, H., . . . Crowe, K. (2013).
Keeping it complex: Using rehearsals to support novice
teacher learning of ambitious teaching. Journal of Teacher
Education, 64(3), 226–243.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning:

Legitimate peripheral participation. London: Cambridge
University Press.

Lehrer, R., & Kim, M. J. (2009). Structuring variability by

negotiating its measure. Mathematics Education Research
Journal, 21(2), 116–133.

Lehrer, R., Kim, M. J., & Jones, S. (2011). Developing

conceptions of statistics by designing measures of
distribution. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics
Education, 43, 723–736.

Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., Strom, D., & Pligge, M. (2001).

Similarity of form and substance: Modeling material kind.
In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and
Instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 39–74).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lesh, R., & Kelly, A. E. (1997). Teachers’ evolving

conceptions of one-to-one tutoring: A three-tiered
teaching experiment. Journal for Resear ch in Mathematics
Education, 28(4), 398–430.

Little, J. W. (2003). Inside teacher community:

Representations of classroom practice. Teachers College
Recor d, 105, 913–945.

Lobato, J. (2003). How design experiments can inform a

rethinking of transfer and vice versa. Educational
Researcher, 32(1), 17–20.

Lobato, J. (2012). The actor-oriented transfer perspective

and its contributions to educational research and
practice. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 232–247.

Maxwell, J. A. (2004). Causal explanation, qualitative

research, and scientific inquiry in education. Educational
Researcher , 33(2), 3–11.

McDonald, M., Kazemi, E., & Kavanagh, S. S. (2013). Core

practices and pedagogies of teacher education: A call for a
common language and collective activity. Journal of Teacher
Education, 64 (5), 378–386.

Menchinskaya, N. A. (1969). Fifty years of Soviet

instructional psychology. In J. Kilpatrick & I. Wirzup
(Eds.), Soviet studies in the psychology of learning and
teaching mathematics (V ol. 1, pp. 5–27). Stanford, CA:
School Mathematics Study Group.

Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of

knowledge and thinking have to say about research on
teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15.

Saldanha, L., & Thompson, P. (2007). Exploring connections

between sampling distributions and statistical inference:
An analysis of students’ engagement and thinking in the
context of instruction involving repeated sampling.
International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education,
2, 270–297.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2006). Design experiments. In P. B.
Ellmore, G. Camilli, & J. Green (Eds.), Complementary
methods for research in education. Washington, DC: American
Educational Research Association.

Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002).

Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for
generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Sherin, M. G., & Han, S. Y. (2004). Teacher learning in

the context of video club. Teaching and T eacher
Education, 20, 163–183.

Simon, M. A. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy

from a constructivist perspective. Journal for Resear ch
in Mathematics Education, 26, 114–145.

Simon, M. A., Saldanha, L., McClintock, E., Karagoz Akar,

G., Watanabe, T., & Ozgur Zembat, I. (2010). A developing
approach to studying students’ learning through their
mathematical activity. Cognition and Instr uction, 28,
70–112.

Simpson, G., Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (2006). Exploring the

mathematics of motion through construction and
collaboration. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
22(2), 114–136.

Smith, J. P., & Thompson, P. W. (2007). Quantitative

reasoning and the development of algebraic reasoning. In
J. J. Kaput, D. W. Carraher, & M. L. Blanton (Eds.),
Algebra in the early grades (pp. 95–132). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Steffe, L. (1983). The teaching experiment methodology in a

constructivist research program. In M. Zweng, T. Green, J.
Kilpatrick, H. Pollak, & M. Suydam (Eds.), Proceedings of
the Fourth International Congress on Mathematical Education
(pp. 469–471). Boston: Birhauser.

Steffe, L., & Kieren, T. E. (1994). Radical constructivism

and mathematics education. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 25, 711–733.

Steffe, L., & Thompson, P. W. (2000). Teaching experiment

methodology: Underlying principles and essential elements.
In A. E. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research
design in mathematics and science education (pp.
267–307). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Stein, M. K., Engle, R. A., Smith, M. S., & Hughes, E. K.
(2008). Orchestrating productive mathematical discussions:
Five practices for helping teachers move beyond show and
tell. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(4), 313–340.

Stephan, M., & Akyuz, D. (2012). A proposed instructional

theory for integer addition and subtraction. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 43, 428–464.

Streefland, L. (1991). Fractions in realistic mathematics

education. A paradigm of developmental research.
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. (1984). Introduction to

qualitative r esearch methods: The search for meanings
(2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Thompson, P. W. (1994). Images of rate and operational

understanding of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26, 229–274.

Thompson, P. W. (1996). Imagery and the development of

mathematical reasoning. In L. P. Steffe, P. Nesher, P.
Cobb, G. Goldin, & B. Greer (Eds.), Theories of
mathematical learning (pp. 267–283). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Thompson, P. W., & Saldanha, L. A. (2000). Epistemological

analyses of mathematical ideas: A research methodology. In
M. Fernandez (Ed.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual
Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International
Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2,
pp. 403–407). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science,
Mathematics, and Environmental Education.

Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Tr effers, A. (1987). Three dimensions: A model of goal

and theory description in mathematics instruction—The
Wiskobas Project . Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.

van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2008). Mathematics

teachers’ “learning to notice” in the context of a video
club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 244–276.

W awro, M., Rasmussen, C., Zandieh, M., & Larson, C.

(2013). Design research within undergraduate mathematics
education: An example from intr oductory linear algebra. In
T. Plomp & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design
research—Par t B: Illustrative cases (pp. 905–925).
Enschede, The Netherlands: SLO.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning,

meaning, and identity . New York: Cambridge University
Press.

Zawojewski, J., Chamberlin, M., Hjalmarson, M. A., &

Lewis, C. (2008). Developing design studies in mathematics
education professional development: Studying teachers’
interpretive systems. In A. E. Kelly, R. Lesh, & J. Y.
Baek (Eds.), Handbook of design research methods in
education: Innovations in science, technology, engineering
and mathematics lear ning and teaching (pp. 219–245). New
York: Routledge.
21 The Intertwining of Theory and
Practice: Influences on Ways of Teaching
and Teachers’ Education

Artigue, M. (2011). Review of Bharath Sriraman & Lyn

English, “Theories of mathematics education— seeking new
frontiers.” Research in Mathematics Education, 13(3),
311–316.

Arzarello, F., Bazzini, L., & Chiappini, G. (2001). A model

for analyzing algebraic thinking. In R. Sutherland, T.
Rojano, A. Bell, & R. Lins (Eds.), Perspectives on school
algebra (pp.61–81). Dortrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Arzarello, F., Robutti, O., Sabena, C., Cusi, A., Garuti,

R., Malara, N. A., & Martignone, F. (2014). Meta-
didactical transposition: a theoretical model for teacher
education programs. In A. Clark-Wilson, O. Robutti, & N.
Sinclair (Eds.), The mathematics teacher in the digital
era: Vol. 2. An international perspective on technology
focused professional development (pp. 347–372). Dordrecht:
Springer.

Ball, D. (2000). Bridging practices. Intertwining content

and pedagogy in teaching and lear ning to teach. Journal
of Teacher Education, 5(3), 241–247.

Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content

knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of
Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.

Barwell, R. (2013), Discursive psychology as an alter

native perspective on mathematics teacher knowledge. ZDM:
The International Journal of Mathematics Education, 45,
595–606.

Bishop, A. J. (1998). Research and practioners. In J.

Kilpatrick & A. Sierpinska (Eds.), Mathematics education as
a research domain: A search for identity (pp. 33–45).
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Boaler, J. (2008). Bridging the gap between research and

practice: International examples of success. In M.
Menghini, F. Furinghetti, L. Giacardi, & F. Arzarello
(Eds.), The first century of the international commission
on mathematical instruction (1908–2008) (pp. 91–112). Roma:
Instituto della Enciclopedia Italiana.

Boero, P. (2001). Transformation and anticipation as key

processes in algebraic problem solving. In R. Sutherland,
T . Rojano, A. Bell, & R. Lins (Eds.), Perspectives on
school algebra (pp. 99–119). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.

Borko, H., & Putnam, R. (1995). Expanding a teachers’

knowledge base: A cognitive psychological perspective on
professional development. In T. Guskey & M. Huberman
(Eds.), Professional development in education: New
paradigms and practices (pp. 35–65). New York: Teachers
College Press.

Carpenter, T. (1988). Teaching as problem solving. In R.

Charles & E. Silver (Eds.), The teaching and assessing of
mathematical problem solving (pp. 187–202). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Chapman, O., & Heater, B. (2010). Understanding change

through a high school mathematics teacher’s journey to
inquiry-based teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher
Education, 13, 445–458.

Cobb, P. (2007). Putting philosophy to work: Coping with

multiple theoretical perspectives. In F. K. Lester, Jr.
(Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching
and learning: A project of the National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 3–38). Charlotte, NC:
Information Age.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1999). Relationship of

knowledge and practice. Teacher learning in communities.
In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of Research
in Education (Vol. 24, pp. 249–305). Washington, DC:
American Educational Research Association.

Coles, A. (2013). Using video for professional development:

the role of the discussion facilitator. Journal of
Mathematics Teacher Education, 16, 165–184.

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989).

Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading,
writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnik (Ed.), Knowing,
learning and instruction (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cusi, A. (2008). An approach to proof in elementary number

theory focused on representation and interpretation
aspects: The teacher’s role. In B. Czarnocha (Ed.),
Handbook of mathematics teaching research (pp. 107–122).
Rzeszów: Rzeszów University Press.
Cusi, A. (2009). Interrelation between anticipating thought
and interpretative aspects in the use of algebraic
language for the constr uction of proofs. In V.
Durand-Guerrier, S. Soury-Lavergne, & F. Arzarello (Eds.),
Proceedings of 6th CERME Conference (pp. 469–478). Lyon:
Service des publications, INRP.

Cusi, A., & Malara, N. A. (2008). Approaching early

algebra: Teachers educational process and classroom
experiences. Quadrante, 16(1), 57–80.

Cusi, A., & Malara, N. A. (2009). The role of the teacher

in developing proof activities by means of algebraic
language. In M. Tzekaki, M. Kaldrimidou, & H. Sakonidis
(Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Conference of the
International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics
Education (Vol. 2, pp. 361–368). Thessaloniki, Greece.

Cusi, A., & Malara, N. A. (2011). Analysis of the

teacher’s role in an approach to algebra as a tool for
thinking: problems pointed out during laboratorial
activities with perspective teachers. In M. Pytlak, T.
Rowland, & E. Swoboda (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th
Congress of the Eur opean Society for Research in
Mathematics Education (pp. 2619–2629). Rzeszow, Poland.

Cusi, A., & Malara, N. A. (2012). Educational processes in

early algebra to promote a linguistic approach: behavior
and emerging awar eness in teachers. In L. Coulange, J.P.
Drouhard, J. L. Dorier, & A. Robert (Eds.), Recherches en
didactique des mathématiques, Numéro spécial hors-série,
Enseignement de l’algèbr e élémentaire: bilan et
perspectives (pp. 299–319). Grenoble: La Pensée Sauvage.

Cusi, A., & Malara, N. A. (2013). A theoretical construct

to analyze the teacher’s role during introductory
activities to algebraic modelling. In B. Ubuz, C. Haser, &
M. A. Mariotti (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Congress of
the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education
(pp. 3015–3024). Antalya, Turkey.

Cusi, A., Malara, N. A., & Navarra, G. (2011). Early

algebra: Theoretical issues and educational strategies for
bringing the teachers to promote a linguistic and
metacognitive approach to it. In J. Cai & E. Knuth
(Eds.), Early algebraization: Cognitive, curricular, and
instr uctional perspectives (pp. 483–510).
Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer.

Duval, R. (2006). A cognitive analysis of problems of

comprehension in a learning of mathematics. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 61, 103–131.

Freudenthal, H. (1983). Major problems of mathematics

education. In M. Zweng, T. Green, J. Kilpatrick, H.
Pollack, & M. Suydam (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth
International Congr ess on Mathematical Education (pp.
1–7). Boston: Birkhäuser.

Goodchild, S. (2008). A quest for ‘good’ research: The

mathematics teacher educator as practitioner researcher in
a community of inquir y. In B. Jaworski & T. Wood (Eds.),
International handbook of mathematics teachers education:
Volume 4. Mathematics teacher educator as a developing
professional (pp. 201–220). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Goos, M. (2013). Sociocultural perspectives in research on

and with mathematics teachers: a zone theory approach.
ZDM: The International Journal of Mathematics Education,
45, 521–533.

Harel, G. (2010). Commentary on ‘On the theoretical,

conceptual, and philosophical foundations for research in
mathematics education’. In B. Sriraman & L. English
(Eds.), Theories of mathematics education: Seeking new
frontiers (pp. 87–95). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Science.

Jaworski, B. (1998). Mathematics teacher research: Process,

practice and the development of teaching. Journal of
Mathematics Teacher Education, 1, 3–31.

Jaworski, B. (2004). Grappling with complexity: Co-learning

in inquiry communities in mathematics teaching development.
In M. J. Hoines & A. B. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings of
the 28th Conference of the International Group for the
Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1n pp. 17–36).
Bergen, Norway.

Jaworski, B. (2006). Theory and practice in mathematics

teaching development: Critical inquiry as a mode of
learning in teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher, 9,
187–211.

Jaworski, B. (2008), Development of mathematics teachers

educators and its relation to teaching development. In B.
Jaworski & T. Wood (Eds.), International handbook of
mathematics teachers education: Volume 4. Mathematics
teacher educator as a developing professional (pp.
335–361). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Jaworski, B. (2012). Mathematics teaching development as a
human practice: Identifying and drawing the threads. ZDM.
The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 44,
613–625.

Kieran, C., Krainer, K., & Shaughnessy, J. M. (2013).

Linking research to practice: Teachers as key stake holders
in mathematics education research. In M. A. Clements, A.
Bishop, C. Keitel-Kreidt, J. Kilpatrick, & F.K.S. Leung
(Eds.), Third international handbook of mathematics
education (pp. 361–392). New York: Springer Science &
Business.

Kilpatrick, J. (1981). The reasonable ineffectiveness of

research in mathematics education. For the Learning of
Mathematics, 2(2), 22–29.

Koellner, K., Jacobs, J., Borko, H., Schneider, C.,

Pittman, M.E., Eiteljorg, E., Bunning, K., & Frykholm, J.
(2007). The problem-solving cycle: A model to support the
development of teachers’ professional knowledge.
Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 9 (3), 273–303.

Krainer, K. (2011). Teachers as stakeholders in mathematics

education research. In B. Ubuz (Ed.), Proceedings of the
35th Conference of the International Group for the
Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 47–62).
Ankara, Turkey.

Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity , consciousness and

personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Lerman, S. (2000). The social turn in mathematics

education research. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple
perspectives on mathematics teaching and learning (pp.
19–44). Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.

Lerman, S. (2006). Theories of mathematics education: Is

plurality a pr oblem? ZDM: The International Journal of
mathematics Education, 38, 8–13.

Lerman, S. (2013). Theories in practices: Mathematics

teaching and mathematics teachers education. ZDM: The
International Journal of Mathematics Education, 45,
623–631.

Lester, F., & Wiliam, D. (2002). On the purpose of

mathematics education research: Making productive
contributions to policy and practice. In L. English (Ed.),
Handbook of international research in mathematics education
(pp. 489–506). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Malara, N. A. (2003). Dialectics between theory and

practice: Theoretical issues and aspects of practice from
an early algebra pr oject. 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. 33–48).
Honolulu.

Malara, N. A., & Navarra, G. (2003). ArAl Project:

Arithmetic pathways towards pre-algebraic thinking.
Bologna: Pitagora.

Malara, N. A., & Navarra, G. (2011). Multicommented

transcripts methodology as an educational tool for
teachers involved in early algebra. In M. Pytlak, E.
Swoboda, & T. Rowland (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th
Congress of the European Society for Research in
Mathematics Education (pp. 2737–2745). Rzezsow (Poland).

Malara, N. A., & Zan, R. (2008). The complex interplay

between theory and practice: reflections and examples. In
L. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in
mathematics education (2nd ed., pp. 539–564). New York:
Routledge.

Marton, F., & Morris, P. (2002). What matters? Discovering

critical conditions of classroom learning. Goteborg: Acta
Universitatis Gothoburgensins.

Mason, J. (1990). Reflection on dialogue between theor y

and practice, reconciled by awareness. In F. Seeger & H.
Steinbring (Eds.), The dialogue between theory and practice
in mathematics education: Overcoming the broadcast
metaphor. Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on
Systematic Cooperation Between Theory and Practice in
Mathematics Education. Matherialen und Studien, band 38
(pp. 177–192). Bielefeld: Institut für Didaktik der
Mathematik.

Mason, J. (1998). Enabling teachers to be real teachers:

Necessary levels of awareness and structure of attention.
Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 1, 243–267.

Mason, J. (2002). Researching your own practice: The

discipline of noticing. London: Falmer Press.

Mason, J. (2008). Being mathematical with and in front of

learners. In B. Jaworski & T. Wood (Eds.), International
handbook of mathematics teachers education: Volume 4.
Mathematics teacher educator as a developing professional
(p. 31–55). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Mellone, M. (2011). The influence of theoretical tools on

teachers’ orientation to notice and classroom practice: A
case study. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14,
269–284.

Niss, M. (2007). Reflections on the state and trends in

research on mathematics teaching and learning. From here
to utopia. In F. K. Lester, Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of
research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project
of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp.
1293–1312). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Potari, D. (2013). The relationship of theory and practice

in mathematics teacher professional develop ment: An
activity theory perspective. ZDM: The International Journal
of Mathematics Education, 45, 507–519.

Richert, A. E. (1991). Using teacher cases or reflection

and enhanced understanding. In A. Lieberman & L. Miller
(Eds.), Staff development for education in the ’90s: New
demands, new realities, new perspectives (pp. 113–132). New
York: Teachers College Press.

Roesken, B. (2011). Hidden dimension in the professional

development of mathematics teachers. Rotterdam: Sense
Publishers.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically:

Problem solving, metacognition, and sense-making in
mathematics. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook for research on
mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334–370). New York:
Macmillan.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (2013). Classroom observations in theory

and practice. ZDM: The International Journal of
Mathematics Education, 45, 607–621.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge

growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.

Silver, E. A., & Herbst, P. G. (2007). Theory in

Mathematics Education Scholarship. In F. K. Lester, Jr.
(Ed.), Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching
and Learning: A project of the National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 39–67). Charlotte, NC:
Information Age Publishing.
Simon, M. (2009). Amidst multiple theories of learning in
mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 40(5), 477–490.

Simon, M. (2013). Promoting fundamental change in

mathematics teaching: A theoretical, methodological, and
empirical approach to the problem. ZDM: The International
Journal of Mathematics Education, 45, 573–582.

Simon, M., & Tzur, R. (1999). Explicating the teacher’s

perspective from the researchers’ perspective: generating
accounts of mathematics teachers’ practice. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 30, 252–264.

Sowder, J. T. (2007). The mathematical education and

development of teachers. In F. K. Lester, Jr. (Ed.),
Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and
learning: A project of the National Council of Teachers
of Mathematics (pp. 157–223). Charlotte, NC: Information
Age Publishing.

Sriraman, B., & English, L. (2010). Series advances in

mathematics education. Theories of mathematics
education—Seeking new frontiers. Berlin/Heidelberg:
Springer Science.

Thames, M., & Van Zoest, L. (2013). Building coherence in

research on mathematics teacher characteristics by
developing practice-based approaches. ZDM: The
International Journal of mathematics Education, 45,
583–594.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of

higher mental processes. Cambridge MA: Harvard University
Press.

White, A. L., Jaworski, B., Agudelo-Valderrama, C., &

Gooya, Z. (2013). Teachers learning from teachers. In M. A.
Clements, A. Bishop, C. Keitel-Kreidt, J. Kilpatrick, &
F.K.S. Leung (Eds.), Third international handbook of
mathematics education (pp. 393–430). New York: Springer
Science & Business.

Wittmann, E. C. (2001). Developing mathematics education

in a systematic process. Educational Studies in
mathematics, 48, 1–20.
22 Knowledge Creation Through Dialogic
Interaction Between the Practices of
Teaching and Researching

Bjuland, R., & Jaworski, B. (2009). Teachers’ perspectives

on collaboration with didacticians to create an inquiry
community. Research in Mathematics Education, 11, 21–38.

Bromme, R., & Tillema, H. (1995). Fusing experience and

theory: The structure of professional knowledge. Learning
and Instruction, 5, 261–267.

Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., & Carey,

D. A. (1988). Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of
students’ problem solving in elementary arithmetic. Journal
for Research in Mathematics Education, 19, 385–401.

Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Chiang,

C.-P., & Loef, M. (1989). Using knowledge of children’s
mathematics thinking in classroom teaching: An experimental
study. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 499–531.

Cooper, P., & McIntyre, D. (1996). Effective teaching and

learning: Teachers’ and students’ perspectives.
Buckingham: Open University Press.

Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., Levi, L.,

Jacobs, V. R., & Empson, S. B. (1996). A longitudinal study
of learning to use children’s thinking in mathematics
instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 27, 403–434.

Fennema, E., & Franke, M. L. (1992). Teachers’ knowledge

and its impact. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on
mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 147–164). New York,
NY: Macmillan.

Fennema, E., Franke, M. L., Carpenter, T. P ., & Carey, D.

A. (1993). Using children’s mathematical knowledge in
instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 30,
555–583.

Fernandez, C. (2002). Learning from Japanese approaches to

professional development: The case of lesson study. Journal
of Teacher Education, 53, 393–405.

Goodchild, S. (2014). Mathematics teaching development:

Learning from research projects in Southern Norway. ZDM:
The International Journal of Mathematics Education, 46,
305–316.
Goodchild, S., Fuglestad, A. B., & Jaworski, B. (2013).
Critical alignment in inquiry-based practice in developing
mathematics teaching. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
84, 393–412.

Gravemeijer, K. (1994). Educational development and

developmental research in mathematics education. Journal
for Research in Mathematics Education, 25, 443–471.

Hennessy, S., & Deaney, R. (2009). “Intermediate theory”

building: Integrating multiple teacher and researcher
perspectives through in-depth video analysis of pedagogic
strategies. Teachers College Record, 111, 1753–1795.

Huberman, M. (1993). Changing minds: The dissemination of

research and its effects on practice and theory. In C.
Day, J. Calderhead, & P. Denicolo (Eds.), Research on
teacher thinking: Understanding professional development
(pp. 34–52). London: Falmer.

Jaworski, B. (2004). Grappling with complexity: Co-learning

in inquiry communities in mathematics teaching
development. In M. Johnsen Høines & A. B. Fuglestad (Eds.)
Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International
Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1,
pp. 17–36). Bergen: Bergen University College.

Jaworski, B. (2006). Theory and practice in mathematics

teaching development: Critical inquiry as a mode of lear
ning in teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education,
9, 187–211.

Jaworski, B., Fuglestad, A. B., Bjuland, R., Breiteig, T.,

Goodchild, S., & Grevholm, B. (Eds.) (2007). Learning
communities in mathematics. Bergen, Nor way: Caspar Forlag.

Jaworski, B., Goodchild, S., Eriksen, S., & Daland, E.

(2011). Mediating mathematics teaching development and
pupils’ mathematical learning: The life cycle of a task.
In O. Zaslavsky & P. Sullivan (Eds.) Constructing
knowledge for teaching secondary mathematics: Tasks to
enhance prospective and practicing teacher learning (pp.
143–160). London: Springer.

Jørgensen, K. O., & Goodchild, S. (2009). Utvikling av unge

elevers relasjonelle forståelse i matematikk (Developing
young pupils’ r elational understanding in mathematics). In
J. Fauskanger, & R. Mosvold (Eds.) Å regne i alle fag (To
calculate in all subjects) (pp. 100–115). Oslo:
Universitetsforlaget.

Leinhardt, G. (1988a). Expertise in instructional lessons:

An example from fractions. In D. A Grouws & T. Cooney
(Eds.) Effective mathematics teaching (pp. 47–66). Reston,
VA: NCTM/LEA.

Leinhardt, G. (1988b). Situated knowledge and expertise in

teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.) Teachers’ professional
learning (pp. 146–168). London: Falmer.

Leinhardt, G. (1989). Math lessons: A contrast of novice

and expert competence. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 20 , 52–75.

Leinhardt, G., Putnam, T., Stein, M. K., & Baxter, J.

(1991). Where subject knowledge matters. Advances in
Research in T eaching, 2, 87–113.

Lewis, C., Perry, R., & Murata, A. (2006). How should

research contribute to instructional improvement? The case
of lesson study. Educational Researcher, 35(3) 3–14.

Lo, M. L., Pong, W. Y., & Chik, P.P.M. (Eds.) (2005). For
each and everyone: Catering for individual differences
through learning studies. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University
Press.

Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography—describing conceptions

of the world around us. Instructional Science, 10,
177–200.

Marton, F., & Lo, M. L. (2007). Learning from “The Learning

Study.” Journal of Research in Teacher Education, 1,
31–46.

Marton, F., & Pang, M. F. (2006). On some necessary

conditions of learning. The Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 15, 193–220.

Marton, F., Runesson, U., & Tsui, A.B.M. (2004). The space
of learning. In F. Marton, & A.B.M. Tsui (Eds.) Classroom
discourse and the space of learning (pp. 3–40). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Murata, A., Bofferding, L., Pother, B. E., Taylor, M. W., &

Wischnia, S. (2012). Making connections among student
learning, content, and teaching: Teacher talk paths in
elementary mathematics lesson study . Journal for Research
in Mathematics Education, 43, 616–650.
Ormel, B., Pareja-Roblin, N., McKenney, S., Voogt, J., &
Pieters, J. (2012). Research-practice interactions as
reported in recent design studies: still promising, still
hazy. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60,
967–986.

Pang, M. F., & Marton, F. (2003). Beyond “lesson study”:

Comparing two ways of facilitating the grasp of some
economic concepts. Instructional Science, 31, 175–194.

Peterson, P. L., Fennema, E., & Carpenter, T. P. (1991).

Teachers’ knowledge of students’ mathematics
problem-solving knowledge. Advances in Research on T
eaching, 2, 49–86.

Potari, D. (2013). The relationship of theory and practice

in mathematics teacher professional development: an
activity theory perspective. ZDM: The International Journal
of Mathematics Education, 45, 507–519.

Ruthven, K. (2002). Linking researching with teaching:

towards synergy of scholarly and craft knowledge. In L.
English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in
mathematics education (pp. 581–598). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Ruthven, K. (2005). Improving the development and

warranting of good practice in teaching. Cambridge Journal
of Education, 35, 407–426.

Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap:

Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving
education in the classroom. New York: The Free Press.

van Bommel, J. (2012). Improving teaching, improving

learning, improving as a teacher: Mathematical knowledge
for teaching as an object of learning. Doctoral
dissertation, Karlstad University, Sweden.

Watanabe, T. (2002). Learning from Japanese lesson study.

Educational Leadership, 59, 36–39.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Wittmann, E. C. (2001). Developing mathematics education

in a systematic process. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 48, 1–20. This page intentionally left blank
23 Foundations for the Future: The
Potential of Multimodal Technologies for
Learning Mathematics

Abrahamson, A. L. (1998). An overview of teaching and

learning research with classroom communication systems.
Paper presented at the Samos International Conference on
the Teaching of Mathematics, Village of Pythagorion. Samos,
Greece.

Abrahamson, A. L. (2000). A brief history of ClassTalk.

Paper presented at the Teachers Teaching with Technology
International Conference. Dallas, TX.

Battista, M. T. (1997). Shape makers: Developing geometric

reasoning with the Geometer’s Sketchpad. Berkeley, CA: Key
Curriculum Press.

Brady, C. E (2013). Perpectives in motion. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts,
Dartmouth.

Bretscher, N. (in press). Exploring the quantitative and

qualitative gap between expectations and implantation: A
survey of English mathematics teachers’ use of ICT. In A.
Clark-Wilson, O. Robutti, & N. Sinclair (Eds.). The
mathematics teacher in the digital age. Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Springer.

Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Burnstein, R., & Lederman, L. M. (2001). Using wireless

keypads in lecture classes. Physics Teacher, 39(8), 8–11.

Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten

years of experience and results. The Physics Teacher,
69(9), 970–977.

Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the

classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cuoco, A., & Goldenberg, P. (1997). Dynamic geometry as a

bridge from Euclidean Geometry to analysis. In J. R. King &
D. Schattschneider (Eds.), Geometry turned on!: Dynamic
software in lear ning, teaching and research (pp. 69–70).
Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.

Dalton, S., & Hegedus, S. (2013). Learning and motivation

in high school classrooms. In S. Hegedus & J. Roschelle
(Eds.), Democratizing access to impor tant mathematics
through dynamic representations: Contributions and visions
from the SimCalc Research Program. Berlin: Springer.

Dautenhahn, K. (2000). Design issues on interactive

environments for children with autism. In Proceedings of
the 3rd International Conference on Disability, Virtual
Reality and Associated Technologies, ICDVRAT (pp.
153–161). Alghero, Sardinia, Italy.

Dede, C. (2000). Emerging influences of infor mation

technology on school curriculum. Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 32(2), 281–303.

Dienes, Z. P. (1960). Building up mathematics. London:

Hutchinson.

Drijvers, P., Kieran, C., & Mariotti, M-A. (2009).

Integrating technology into mathematics education:
Theoretical perspectives. In C. Hoyles & J-B. Lagrange
(Eds.), Mathematics education and technology—rethinking
the terrain (pp. 89–132). New York: Springer.

Dufresne, R. J., Gerace, W. J., Leonard, W. J., Mestre, J.

P., & Wenk, L. (1996). Classtalk: A classroom
communication system for active learning. Journal for
Computing in Higher Education, 7 (2), 3–47.

Dwyer, M. C., & Pfeifer, R. E. (1999). Exploring

hyperbolic geometry with The Geometer’s Sketchpad.
Mathematics Teacher, 92(7), 632–637.

Falcade, R., Laborde, C., & Mariotti, M. A. (2007).

Approaching functions: Cabri tools as instruments of
semiotic mediation. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
66(3), 317–333.

Flowers, L. A. (2002). Developing purposes in college:

Differences between freshman and seniors. College Student
Journal, 36 , 478–484.

Gol Tabaghi, S. & Sinclair, N. (2013). Using dynamic

geometry software to explore eigenvectors: The emer gence
of dynamic-synthetic-geometric thinking. Technology,
Knowledge and Learning 18(3), 149–164.

Gorini, C. A. (1997). Dynamic visualization in calculus.

In J. R. King & D. Schattschneider (Eds.), Geometry tur ned
on!: Dynamic software in learning, teaching and research
(pp. 89–94). Washington, DC: The Mathematical Association
of America.

Güçler, B., Hegedus, S., Robidoux, R., & Jackiw, N. (2013).

Investigating the mathematical discourse of young learners
involved in multi-modal mathematical investigations: The
case of haptic technologies. In D. Martinovic, V. Freiman,
& Z. Karadag (Eds.), Visual mathematics cyberlearning (pp.
97–118). New York: Springer.

Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement vs. traditional

methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test
data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of
Physics, 66, 64–74.

Hartline, F. (1997). Analysis of 1st semester of Classtalk

use at MacIntosh elementary school. Yorktown, VA: Better
Education.

Hassan, R. (1992). Speech genre, semiotic mediation and the

development of higher mental functions. Language Sciences,
14(4), 489–528.

Hegedus, S. J., & Roschelle, J. (2012). Highly adaptive,

interactive instruction: Insights for the networked
classroom. In C. Dede & J. Richards (Eds.), Digital
teaching platforms (pp. 103–115). New York: Teachers
College Press.

Hegedus, S. J., & Roschelle, J. (2013). (Eds.).

Democratizing access to important mathematics through
dynamic representations: Contributions and visions from the
SimCalc Research Program. Berlin: Springer.

Hegedus, S. J., & Moreno-Armella, L. (2011). The emergence

of mathematical structur es. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 77(2–3), 369–388.

Hennessy, S., Ruthven, K., & Brindley, S.(2005). Teacher

perspectives on integrating ICT into subject teaching:
commitments, constrains, caution, and change. Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 37(2), 155–192.

Hollebrands, K. (2002). The role of a dynamic software

program for geometry in high school students’
understandings of geometric transformations. In D. Mewborn,
P. Sztajn, D. Y. White, H. G. Wiegel, R. L. Bryant, & K.
Nooney (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Annual Meeting of
the North American Chapter of the International Group for
the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp.
695–705). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse on Science,
Mathematics and Environmental Education.

Jackiw, N. (2003). Visualizing complex functions with the

Geometer’s Sketchpad. In T. Triandafillidis & K.
Hatzikiriakou (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International
Conference on Technology in Mathematics T eaching (pp.
291–299). Volos, Greece: University of Thessaly.

Jackiw, N. (2013). Touch & multitouch in dynamic geometry:

Sketchpad Explorer and “digital” mathematics. Proceedings
of ICTMT12 (pp. 149–155), Bari, Italy.

Jackiw, N., & Sinclair, N. (2007). Dynamic geometry

activity design for elementary school mathematics. In C.
Hoyles, J.-B. Lagrange, L. H. Sun, & N. Sinclair (Eds.),
Proceedings of the Seventeenth ICMI Study Conference
“Technology Revisited” (pp. 236–245). Paris, France: Hanoi
Institute of Technology and Didirem University.

Jaimes, A., & Sebe, N. (2007). Multimodal human computer

interaction: A survey. Computer Vision and Image
Understanding, 108(1–2), 116–134.

Kaput, J., Hegedus, S., & Lesh, R. (2007). Technology

becoming infrastructural in mathematics education. In R.
Lesh, E. Hamilton, & J. Kaput (Eds.), Foundations for the
future in mathematics and science (pp. 172–192). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Laborde, C. (2000). Dynamic geometry environments as a sour

ce of rich learning contexts for the complex activity of
proving. Educational Studies in Mathematics (Special
edition on proof in dynamic geometry environments),
44(1–3), 151–161.

Laborde, C. (2001). Integration of technology in the design

of geometry tasks with Cabri-Geometre. International
Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6, 283–317.

Ladel, S., & Kortenkamp, U. (2011). Implementation of a

multitouch-environment supporting finger symbol sets. In
M. Pytlak, T. Rowland, & E. Swoboda (Eds.), Proceedings of
the seventh Congress of the European Society for Research
in Maths Education (pp. 1792–1801). University of Rzeszów,
Poland.

Lakoff, G., & Nuñez, R. E. (2000). Where mathematics comes

from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being.
New York: Basic Books.
Mariotti, M. A. (2000). Introduction to proof: The
mediation of a dynamic software environment. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 44(1–2), 25–53.

Mariotti, M. A. (2003). The influence of technological

advances on students’ mathematics learning. In L. D.
English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in
mathematics education (pp. 695–723). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Moreno-Armella, L., & Hegedus, S. (2009). Co-action with

digital technologies. ZDM: The International Journal on
Mathematics Education, Special Issue: T ransforming
Mathematics Education through the Use of Dynamic
Mathematics Technologies, 41(4), 505–519.

Nemirovsky, R., & Borba, M. (2003). Perceptuo-motor

activity and imagination in mathematics learning. In N.
Pateman, B. Dougherty, & J. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of
the 27th International Conference for the Psychology of
Mathematics (Vol. 1, pp. 105–136). Honolulu, Hawai’i:
Program Committee.

Nemirovsky, R., Kelton, M. L., & Rhodehamel, B. (2013).

Playing mathematical instruments: Emerging perceptuomotor
integration with an interactive mathematics exhibit.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44(2),
372–415.

Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (1996). Windows on mathematical

meanings: Learning cultures and computers. Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Olive, J. (1997). Creating airfoils from circles: The

Jouowski transformation. In J. R. King & D.
Schattschneider (Eds.), Geometry turned on!: Dynamic
software in learning, teaching and research (pp.
169–177). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of
America.

Piazza, S. (2002). Peer instruction using an electronic

response system in large lecture classes. Presented at the
Pennsylvania State University, Center for Educational
Technology Services “Teaching with Technology” Series:
Departments of Kinesiology, Mechanical Engineering, and
Orthopedics and Rehabilitation.

Radford, L., Demers, S., Guzmán, J., & Cerulli, M. (2003).

Calculators, graphs, gestures and the production of
meaning. 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. 4, pp. 55–62). Honolulu, HI: University of
Hawaii.

Radford, L., Edwards, L., & Arzarello, F. (2009).

Introduction: Beyond wor ds. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 70(2), 91–95.

Radford, L., Miranda, I., & Guzmán, J. (2008). Relative

motion, graphs and the heteroglossic transformation of
meanings: A semiotic analysis. Paper presented at the
proceedings of the 32nd conference of the Inter national
Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Morelia,
México.

Rasmussen, C., Nemirovsky, R., Olszewski, J., Dost, K., &

Johnson, J. L. (2004). On forms of knowing: The role of
bodily activity and tools in mathematical learning.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 57(3), 313–316.

Roschelle, J., Abrahamson, A. L., & Penuel, W. (2003).

Catalyst: Towar d scientific studies of the pedagogical
integration of learning theory and classroom networks.
Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Roschelle, J., Knudsen, J., & Hegedus, S. (2010). From new

technological infrastructures to curricular activity
systems: Advanced designs for teaching and learning. In M.
J. Jacobsen & P. Reimann (Eds.), Designs for learning
environments of the future (pp. 233–262). New York:
Springer.

Rotman, B. (2000). Mathematics as sign. Palo Alto, CA:

Stanford University Press.

Shaffer, D. W. (1995). Exploring trigonometry with the

Geometer’s Sketchpad. Berkeley, CA: Key Curriculum Press.

Sinclair, N. (2001). The aesthetic is relevant. For the

Learning of Mathematics, 21(1), 25–33.

Sinclair, N. (2002a). Re-constructing a painting with

geometric eyes. For the Learning of Mathematics, 22(3),
19–23.

Sinclair, N. (2002b). The kissing triangles: The aesthetics

of mathematical discovery. International Journal of
Computers for Mathematical Learning, 7(1), 45–63.
Sinclair, N., Arzarello, F., Trigueros Gaisman, M., &
Lozano, M. D. (2009). Implementing digital technologies at
a national scale. In C. Hoyles & J. Lagrange (Eds.),
Digital technologies and mathematics teaching and
learning: Rethinking the terrain. Berlin: Springer .

Sinclair, N., & Crespo, S. (2006). Learning mathematics

with dynamic computer environments. T eaching Children
Mathematics, 12(9), 436–444.

Sinclair, N., & Moss, J. (2012). The more it changes, the

more it becomes the same: The development of the routine
of shape identification in dynamic geometry envir onments.
International Journal of Education Research, 51&52, 28–44.

Sinclair, N., & Sedaghat Jou, M. (2013). Finger counting

and adding with TouchCounts. Presented at CERME 8. Early
Mathematics Working Group. Antalya, Turkey.

Stroup, W. (2005). Learning the basics with calculus.

Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching,
24(2), 179–196.

Stroup, W. M., Ares, N. M., & Hurford, A. (2005). A

dialectic analysis of generativity: Issues of network
supported design in mathematics and science. Journal of
Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 7(3), 181–206.

Tall, D. O. (2013). How humans learn to think

mathematically: Exploring the three worlds of mathematics.
New York: Cambridge University Press.

Thompson Avant, M. J., & Heller, K. W. (2011). Examining

the effectiveness of TouchMath with students with physical
disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 32 (4),
309–321.

Tomasello, M. (1999). The Cultural Evolution of Human

Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

U.S. Department of Education. (2007). The nation’s report

card mathematics 2007: National assessment of educational
progress at grades 4 and 8. Washington, DC.

Vahey, P., Tatar , D., & Roschelle, J. (2007). Using

handhelds to link private cognition and public interaction.
Educational Technology, 47(3), 13–16.

Vygotsky, L. (1980). Mind in society: The development of

the higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

Yerushalmy, M., & Naftaliev, E. (2011). Design of

interactive diagrams structured upon generic animations.
Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 16(3), 221–246.
24 Statistical Software and Mathematics
Education: Affordances for Learning

Ainley, J., & Pratt, D. (2014). Expressions of uncertainty

when variation is partially determined. In K. Makar, B.
deSousa, & R. Gould (Eds.), Sustainability in statistics
education. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference
on the Teaching of Statistics. Flagstaff, AZ, July 13–18.
Voorburg, The Netherlands: International Statistical
Institute. Retrieved from http://iase-web.org/icots/9/
proceedings/pdfs/ICOTS9_9A1_AINLEY.pdf.

Allmond, S., & Makar, K. (2014). From hat plots to box

plots in TinkerPlots : Supporting students to write
conclusions which account for variability in data. In K.
Makar, B. deSousa, & R. Gould (Eds.), Sustainability in
statistics education. Proceedings of the 9th International
Conference on the Teaching of Statistics. Flagstaff, AZ,
July 13–18. Voorburg, The Netherlands: International
Statistical Institute. Retrieved from

Australian Education Council. (1991). A national statement

on mathematics for Australian schools. Melbourne: Author.

Bakker, A., Biehler, R., & Konold, C. (2005). Should young

students learn about box plots? In G. Burrill & M. Camden
(Eds.), Curricular development in statistics education.
International Association for Statistical Education (IASE)
Roundtable, Lund, Sweden, 2004 (pp. 163–173). Voorburg, The
Netherlands: International Statistical Institute.

Bakker, A., Derry, J., & Konold, C. (2006). Using

technology to support diagrammatic reasoning about center
and variation. In A. Rossman & B. Chance (Eds.), Working
cooperatively in statistics education. Proceedings of the
7th International Conference on the Teaching of Statistics.
Salvador, Bahai, Brazil, July 2–7. Voorburg, The
Netherlands: International Association for Statistical
Education and the International Statistical Institute.
Retrieved from http://iase-web.org/documents/papers/
icots7/2D4_BAKK.pdf.

Ben-Zvi, D. (2006). Scaffolding students’ informal

inference and argumentation. In A. Rossman & B. Chance
(Eds.), Working cooperatively in statistics education.
Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on the
Teaching of Statistics. Salvador, Bahai, Brazil, July 2–7.
Voorburg, The Netherlands: International Association for
Statistical Education and the International Statistical
Institute. Retrieved from
http://iase-web.org/documents/papers/icots7/2D1_BENZ.pdf.

Ben-Zvi, D., & Aridor, K. (2014). Students’ emergent roles

in developing their reasoning about uncertainty and
modeling. In K. Makar, B. deSousa, & R. Gould (Eds.),
Sustainability in statistics education. Proceedings of the
9th International Conference on the Teaching of Statistics.
Flagstaff, AZ, July 13–18. Voorburg, The Netherlands:
International Statistical Institute. Retrieved from http://

Ben-Zvi, D., Gil, E., & Apel, N. (2007). What is hidden

beyond the data? Helping young students to reason and
argue about some wider universe. In D. Pratt & J. Ainley
(Eds.), Reasoning about informal inferential statistical
reasoning: A collection of current research studies .
Proceedings of the Fifth International Research Forum on
Statistical Reasoning, Thinking, and Literacy (SRTL-5).
August 11–17. Warwick, UK: University of Warwick.

Biehler, R., Ben-Zvi, D., Bakker, A., & Makar, K. (2013).

Technology for enhancing statistical reasoning at the
school level. In M. A. Clement, A. J. Bishop, C. Keitel, J.
Kilpatrick, & A.Y.L. Leung (Eds.), Third international
handbook on mathematics education (pp. 643–689). New York:
Springer.

Bower, M. (2008). Affordance analysis—matching learning

tasks with learning technologies. Educational Media
International, 45(1), 3–15.

Brown, J., Stillman, G., & Herbert, S. (2004). Can the

notion of affordances be of use in the design of a
technology enriched mathematics curriculum? In I. Putt, R.
Faragher, & M. McLean (Eds.), Mathematics education for the
third millennium: Towards 2010. Pr oceedings of the 27th
Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research
Group of Australasia (Vol. 1, pp. 119–124). Sydney, NSW:
MERGA.

Browning, C., Goss, J., & Smith, D. O. (2014). Statistical

knowledge for teaching: Elementary preservice teachers. In
K. Makar, B. deSousa, & R. Gould (Eds.), Sustainability in
statistics education. Proceedings of the 9th International
Conference on the T eaching of Statistics. Flagstaff, AZ,
July 13–18. Voorburg, The Netherlands: International
Statistical Institute. Retrieved from http://iase-web.or g/
icots/9/proceedings/pdfs/ICOTS9_2F2_BROWNING.pdf.

Browning, C., & Smith, D. O. (2015). Utilizing technology

to engage statistical inquiry in light of the standards
for mathematical practice. In D. Polly (Ed.), Cases of
technology integration in mathematics education (pp.
205–226). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Burgess, T. (2014). Student perspectives on being intr

oduced to using TinkerPlots for investigations. In K.
Makar, B. deSousa, & R. Gould (Eds.), Sustainability in
statistics education. Proceedings of the 9th International
Conference on the Teaching of Statistics. Flagstaff, AZ,
July 13–18. Voorburg, The Netherlands: International
Statistical Institute. Retrieved from
http://iase-web.org/icots/9/
proceedings/pdfs/ICOTS9_2B3_BURGESS.pdf.

Chick, H. L. (2007). Teaching and learning by example. In

J. Watson & K. Beswick (Eds.), Essential research,
essential practice. Proceedings of the 30th annual
conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of
Australasia (Vol. 1, pp. 3–21). Adelaide, SA: MERGA.

Day, L. (2013). Using statistics to explore

cross-curricular and social issues oppor tunities. The
Australian Mathematics Teacher, 69(4), 3–7.

delMas, R., Garfield, J., & Zieffler, A. (2014). Using

TinkerPlots to develop tertiary students’ statistical
thinking in a modeling-based introductory statistics class.
In T. Wassong, D. Frischemeier, P. R. Fischer, R.
Hochmuth, & P. Bender (Eds.), Using tools for learning
mathematics and statistics (pp. 405–420). Heidelberg:
Springer Spektrum.

Fitzallen, N. (2006). A model of students’ statistical

thinking and reasoning about graphs in an ICT environment.
In P. Grootenboer, R. Zevenbergen, & M. Chinnappan (Eds.),
Identities, cultures and learning spaces. Pr oceedings of
29th annual conference of the Mathematics Education
Research Group of Australasia (pp. 203–210). Sydney:
MERGA.

Fitzallen, N. (2007). Evaluating data analysis software:

The case of TinkerPlots. Australian Primary Mathematics
Classroom, 12(1), 23–28.

Fitzallen, N. (2012). Interpreting graphs: Students

developing an understanding of covariation. In J. Dindyal,
L. P. Cheng, & S. F. Ng (Eds.), Mathematics education:
Expanding horizons. Proceedings of the 35th annual
conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of
Australasia (pp. 290–297). Sydney: MERGA.
Fitzallen, N. (2013). Characterising students’ interaction
with TinkerPlots. Technology Innovations in Statistics
Education, 7(1), Article 2. Retrieved from
www.escholarship.org/uc/item/1074n1dp#.

Fitzallen, N., & Brown, N. (2006). Evaluating data-analysis

software: Exploring opportunities for developing
statistical thinking and reasoning. In N. Armstrong & C.
Sherwood (Eds.), IT’s up here for thinking. Proceedings of
the Australian Computers in Education Conference (CD-ROM).
October 2–4. Lesmurdie, WA: Australian Council for
Computers in Education.

Fitzallen, N., & Watson, J. (2010). Developing statistical

reasoning facilitated by TinkerPlots. In C. Reading (Ed.),
Data and context in statistics education: Towards an
evidence-based society. Proceedings of the 8th
International Conference on the Teaching of Statistics.
Ljubljana, Slovenia, July 11–16. Voorburg, The
Netherlands: International Statistical Institute. Retrieved
from www .stat.auckland.ac.nz/~iase/
publications/icots8/ICOTS8_8A4_FITZALLEN.pdf.

Fitzallen, N., & Watson, J. (2011). Graph creation and

interpretation: Putting skills and context together.
Traditions and [new] practices. Proceedings of the joint
conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of
Australasia and the Australian Association of Mathematics
Teachers (pp. 203–209). Sydney: MERGA.

Fitzallen, N., & Watson, J. (2014). Extending the

curriculum with TinkerPlots: Opportunities for early
development of informal inference. In K. Makar, B. deSousa,
& R. Gould (Eds.), Sustainability in statistics education.
Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on the
Teaching of Statistics. Flagstaff, AZ, July 13–18.
Voorburg, The Netherlands: International Statistical
Institute. Retrieved from

Frischemeier, D. (2014). Comparing groups by using

TinkerPlots as part of a data analysis task—Tertiary
students’ strategies and difficulties. In K. Makar, B.
deSousa, & R. Gould (Eds.), Sustainability in statistics
education. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference
on the Teaching of Statistics. Flagstaff, AZ, July 13–18.
Voorburg, The Netherlands: International Statistical
Institute. Retrieved from

Garfield, J., delMas, R., & Zieffler, A. (2012).

Developing statistical modelers and thinkers in an
introductory, tertiary-level statistics course. ZDM: The
International Journal on Mathematics Education, 44,
883–898.

Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R.

Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and
knowing: Towar d an ecological psychology (pp. 67–82).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Goldenberg, E. P. (1991). The difference between graphing

software and educational graphing software. In W.
Zimmerman & S. Cunningham (Eds.), Visualization in teaching
and learning mathematics (pp. 77–86). Washington, DC:
Mathematical Association of America.

Goyne, J. S., McDonough, S. K., & Padgett, D. D. (2000).

Guidelines for evaluating educational software. The
Clearing House, 73(6), 345–348.

Hall, J. (2008, July). Using Census at School and T

inkerPlots to support Ontario elementary teachers’
statistics teaching and learning. In J. Garfield & M. G.
Ottaviani (Chairs), Topic 6: Building collaboration
between mathematics and statistics educators in teacher
education, Joint ICME/IASE Study: T eaching statistics in
school mathematics. Challenges for teaching and teacher
education, Monterrey, Mexico. Retrieved from
www.ugr.es/~icmi/iase_study/Files/Topic6.htm.

Harradine, A., & Konold, C. (2006). How representational

medium affects the data displays students make. In A.
Rossman & B. Chance (Eds.), Working cooperatively in
statistics education. Proceedings of the 7th
International Conference on the Teaching of Statistics
(CD-ROM). Salvador, Bahai, Brazil, July 2–7. Voorburg,
The Netherlands: International Statistical Institute and
the International Statistical Institute.

Hoyles, C., Bakker, A., Kent, P., & Noss, R. (2007).

Attributing meanings to representations of data: The case
of statistical process control. Mathematical Thinking and
Learning, 9, 331–360.

Hudson, R. A. (2012). Finding balance at the elusive mean.

Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 18, 301–306.

Ireland, S., & Watson, J. (2009). Building an

understanding of the connection between experimental and
theoretical aspects of probability. International
Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 4, 339–370.

Jonassen, D. H., & Land, S. M. (Eds.). (2000). Theoretical

foundations of learning environments . Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Jones, K. S. (2003). What is an affordance? Ecological

Psychology, 15(2), 107–114.

Kazak, S., Fujita, T., & Wegerif, R. (2014). Year 6

students’ reasoning about random ‘bunny hops’ through the
use of TinkerPlots and peer-to-peer dialogic interactions.
In K. Makar, B. deSousa, & R. Gould (Eds.),
Sustainability in statistics education. Proceedings of the
9th International Confer ence on the Teaching of
Statistics. Flagstaff, AZ, July 13–18. Voorburg, The
Netherlands: International Statistical Institute.
Retrieved from
http://iase-web.org/icots/9/proceedings/pdfs/ICOTS9_9F1_
KAZAK.pdf.

Kazak, S., & Konold, C. (2010). Development of ideas in

data and chance through the use of tools provided by
computer-based technology. In C. Reading (Ed.), Data and
context in statistics education: Towards an evidence-based
society. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on
the Teaching of Statistics. Ljubljana, Slovenia, July
11–16. Voorburg, The Netherlands: International Statistical
Institute. Retrieved from

Kazak, S., Wegerif, R., & Fujita, T. (2014). Supporting

students’ probabilistic reasoning through the use of
technology and dialogic talk. In S. Pope (Ed.), Proceedings
of the 8th British Congress of Mathematics Education (pp.
215–222). Nottingham, UK: British Society for Research into
Learning Mathematics.

Kennewell, S. (2001). Using affordances and constraints to

evaluate the use of information and communications
technology in teaching and learning. Journal of Information
Technology for Teacher Education, 10(1–2), 101–116.

Kidman, G. C., & Nason, R. (2000). When a visual

representation is not worth a thousand words. Technology in
Mathematics Education Conference (CD-ROM). December 11–14.
Auckland: University of Auckland and Auckland University
of Technology.

Konold, C. (2007). Designing a data analysis tool for

learners. In M. C. Lovett & P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with
data (pp. 267–291). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Konold, C., & Harradine, A. (2014). Contexts for

highlighting signal and noise. In T. Wassong, D.
Frischemeier , P. R. Fischer, R. Hochmuth, & P. Bender
(Eds.), Using tools for learning mathematics and
statistics (pp. 237–250). Heidelberg: Springer Spektrum.

Konold, C., Harradine, A., & Kazak, S. (2007).

Understanding distributions by modeling them. International
Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 12(3),
217–230.

Konold, C., & Lehrer, R. (2008). Technology and mathematics

education: An essay in honor of Jim Kaput. In L. D.
English (Ed.), Handbook of Inter national Research in
Mathematics Education (2nd ed., pp. 49–72). New York:
Routledge.

Konold, C., & Miller, C. (1994). DataScope. (Computer

software). Santa Barbara, CA: Intellimation Library for
the Macintosh.

Konold, C., & Miller, C. D. (2005). Tinkerplots: Dynamic

data exploration. (Computer software). Emeryville, CA: Key
Curriculum Press.

Konold, C. & Miller, C. D. (2011). TinkerPlots: Dynamic

data exploration. (Computer software, Version 2.0).
Emeryville, CA: Key Curriculum Press.

Land, S. M., Hannafin, M. J., & Oliver, K. (2012).

Student-centr ed learning environments: Foundations,
assumptions and design. In D. Jonassen & S. Land (Eds.),
Theoretical foundations of learning environments (2nd Ed.,
pp. 3–26). Hoboken, NJ: Taylor & Francis.

Lehrer, R., Kim, M. J., & Schauble, L. (2007). Supporting

the development of conceptions of statistics by engaging
students in measuring and modeling variability.
International Journal of Computers for Mathematical
Learning, 12(3), 195–216.

Madden, S. (2014). Designing technology-rich learning

environments for secondary teachers to explore and prepare
to teach statistics. In K. Makar, B. deSousa, & R. Gould
(Eds.), Sustainability in statistics education.
Proceedings of the 9th International Confer ence on the
Teaching of Statistics. Flagstaff, AZ, July 13–18.
Voorburg, The Netherlands: International Statistical
Institute. Retrieved from http:// iase-web.or
g/icots/9/proceedings/pdfs/ICOTS9_9E2_MADDEN.pdf.

Manor, H., Ben-Zvi, D., & Aridor, K. (2014). Students’

reasoning about uncertainty while making informal
statistical inferences in an “integrated pedagogic
approach.” In K. Makar, B. deSousa, & R. Gould (Eds.),
Sustainability in statistics education. Proceedings of the
9th International Confer ence on the Teaching of
Statistics. Flagstaff, AZ, July 13–18. Voorburg, The
Netherlands: International Statistical Institute. Retrieved
from
http://iase-web.org/icots/9/proceedings/pdfs/ICOTS9_8C2_
MANOR.pdf.

Meletiou-Mavrotheris, M., Paparistodemou, E., & Stylianou,

D. (2009). Enhancing statistics instruction in elementary
schools: Integrating technology in professional
development. The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, 6(1–2),
57–78.

Ministry of Education. (1992). Mathematics in the New

Zealand curriculum. Wellington, NZ: Author.

Monteiro, C., Asseker, A., Carvalho, L., & Campos, T.

(2010). Student teachers developing their knowledge about
data handling using TinkerPlots . In C. Reading (Ed.), Data
and context in statistics education: Towards an
evidence-based society. Proceedings of the 8th
International Conference on the Teaching of Statistics.
Ljubljana, Slovenia, July 11–16. Voorburg, The
Netherlands: International Statistical Institute.
Retrieved fr om

Murray, T., Blessing, S., & Ainsworth, S. (Eds.) (2003).

Authoring tools for advanced technology learning
environments: Toward cost-effective adaptive, interactive
and intelligent educational software. Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989).

Curriculum and evaluation standards for school
mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

Noll, J., Gebresenbet, M., & Glover, E. D. (2012). A

modeling and simulation approach to informal inference:
Success and challenges. In D. Ben-Zvi & K. Makar (Eds.),
Teaching and learning statistics. Proceedings of the 12th
International Congress on Mathematical Education, Topic
Study Group 12 (pp. 141–150). Seoul, Korea, July 8–15.
Paparistodemou, E., & Meletiou-Mavrotheris, M. (2008).
Developing young students’ informal inference skills in
data analysis. Statistics Education Research Journal, 7(2),
83–106. Retrieved from www.
stat.auckland.ac.nz/~iase/serj/SERJ7(2)_Paparistodemou.pdf.

Podworny, S., & Biehler, R. (2014). A learning trajectory

on hypothesis testing with TinkerPlots —Design and
exploratory evaluation. In K. Makar, B. deSousa, & R. Gould
(Eds.), Sustainability in statistics education.
Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on the
Teaching of Statistics. Flagstaff, AZ, July 13–18.
Voorburg, The Netherlands: International Statistical
Institute. Retrieved from http:// iase-web.or
g/icots/9/proceedings/pdfs/ICOTS9_9A2_PODWORNY.pdf.

Rossman, A. J. (2008). Reasoning about informal statistical

inference: One statistician’s view. Statistics Education
Research Journal, 7(2), 5–19. Retrieved from
www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/serj.

Rubin, A., & Hammerman, J. K. (2006). Understanding data

through new software representations. In G. F. Burrill
(Ed.), Thinking and reasoning with data and chance (pp.
241–256). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics.

Saldanha, L., & McAllister, M. (2014). Using re-sampling

and sampling variability in an applied context as a basis
for making statistical inferences with confidence. In K.
Makar, B. deSousa, & R. Gould (Eds.), Sustainability in
statistics education. Proceedings of the 9th International
Conference on the Teaching of Statistics. Flagstaff, AZ,
July 13–18. Voorburg, The Netherlands: International
Statistical Institute. Retrieved from

Schoenfeld, A. H. (1998). Making mathematics and making

pasta: From cookbook procedures to really cooking. In J.
G. Greeno & S. V. Goldman (Eds.), Thinking practices in
mathematics and science learning (pp. 299–320). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Stack, S., & Watson, J. (2013). Randomness, sample size,

imagination and metacognition: Making judgments about
differences in data sets. Australian Mathematics Teacher,
69(4), 23–30.

Tukey, J. W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Reading,

MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Watson, J. M. (2006). Statistical literacy at school:
Growth and goals. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Watson, J. M. (2014). TinkerPlots as an interactive tool

for learning about resampling. In T. Wassong, D.
Frischemeier, P. R. Fischer, R. Hochmuth, & P. Bender
(Eds.), Using tools for learning mathematics and statistics
(pp. 421–436). Heidelberg: Springer Spektrum.

Watson, J. M., & Chance, B. (2012). Building intuitions

about statistical inference based on resampling.
Australian Senior Mathematics Journal, 26(1), 6–18.

Watson, J. M., & Donne, J. (2009). TinkerPlots as a resear

ch tool to explore student understanding. Technology
Innovations in Statistics Education, 3(1), 1–35.

Watson, J. M., & English, L. D. (2013a). Data and

measurement in year 4 of the Australian Curriculum:
Mathematics. In S. Herbert, J. Tillyer, & T. Spencer
(Eds.), Mathematics: Launching futures. Proceedings of the
24th biennial conference of the Australian Association of
Mathematics Teachers (pp. 157–165). July 10–13. Adelaide:
AAMT.

Watson, J. M., & English, L. D. (2013b). The power of

percent. Australian Primary Mathematics Classr oom, 18(4),
14–18.

Watson, J. M., & Fitzallen, N. (2010). Development of

graph understanding in the mathematics curriculum. Report
for the NSW Depar tment of Education and Training. Sydney:
State of New South Wales through the Department of
Education and Training. Retrieved from

Webb, M. E. (2005). Affordances of ICT in science

learning: Implications for an integrated pedagogy.
International Jour nal of Science Education, 27(6),
705–735.

Weissglass, J., & Cummings, D. (1991). Dynamic visual

experiments with random phenomena. In W. Zimmerman & S.
Cunningham (Eds.), Visualization in teaching and learning
mathematics (pp. 215–223). Washington, DC: Mathematical
Association of America.

Weissglass, J., Theis, N., & Finzer, W. (1986). Hands-on

statistics: Explorations with a microcomputer . Belmont,
CA: Wordsworth.
Yilmaz, Z. (2013). Usage of TinkerPlots to address and
remediate 6th grade students’ misconceptions about mean
and median. Anthropologist, 16(1–2), 21–29.
25 The Use of Digital Technology in
Mathematical Practices: Reconciling
Traditional and Emerging Approaches

Artigue, M. (2002). Learning mathematics in a case

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, 2002.

Bottino, R. M., Artigue, M., & Noss, R. (2009). Building

European collaboration in technology-enhanced learning in
mathematics. In N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. de Jong, A.
Lazonder, & S. Barnes (Eds.), Technology-enhanced
learning: principles and products. (pp. 73–87). Dordrecht:
Springer Netherlands.

Chevallard, Y. (1985). La transposition didactique—Du

savoir savant au savoir enseigne. Grenoble : La Pensee
sauvage.

Dick, T. P. & Hollebrands, K. F. (2011). Focus in high

school mathematics: Technology to support reasoning and
sense making. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics.

Donald, M. (1991). Origins of the modern mind: Three stages

in the evolution of culture and cognition. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

Donald, M. (2001). A mind so rare. New York: Norton.

Duval, R. (2006). A cognitive analysis of problem of

comprehension in a learning of mathematics. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 61, 103–131.

Friedman, T. L. (2007). The world is flat. A brief history

of the twenty-first century (updated and expanded
edition.) New York: Picador/Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Kaput, J., & Schorr, R. (2008). Changing representational

infrastr uctures changes most everything. The case of
SimCalc, Algebra, and Calculus. In G. W. Blume & M. K. Heid
(Eds.), Research on technology and the teaching and
learning of mathematics: Vol. 2. Cases and perspectives
(pp. 211–253). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Lakoff, G., & Nuñez, R. E. (2000). Where mathematics comes

form. How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being.
New York: Basic Books.
Moreno-Armella, L., & Hegedus, S. (2009). Co-action with
digital technologies. ZDM: The International Journal of
Math Education, 41, 505–519.

Mor eno-Armella, L., Hegedus, S., & Kaput, J. (2008). From

static to dynamic mathematics: Historical and
representational perspectives. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 68(2), 99–112.

Moreno-Armella, L., & Santos-Trigo, M. (2008). Democratic

access and use of powerful mathematics in an emerging
country . In L. English (Ed.), Handbook of International
Research in Mathematics Education (2nd ed., pp. 319–351).
Routledge, Taylor & Francis.

Moreno-Armella, L., & Sriraman, B. (2010). Symbols and

mediation in mathematics education. In B. Sriraman & L.
English (Eds.), Theories of Mathematics Education (pp.
224–225). Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2009).

Focus in high school mathematics reasoning and sense
making. Reston, VA: Author.

Pea, R. D. (1985). Beyond amplification: Using the computer

to reorganize mental functioning. Educational Psychologist,
20(4), 167–182.

Prensky , M. (2010). Teaching digital natives. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Corwin/Sage.

Santos-Trigo, M., & Barrera-Mora, F. (2011). High school

teachers’ problem solving activities to r eview and extend
their mathematical and didactical knowledge, PRIMUS, 21(8),
699–718.

Santos-Trigo, M., & Camacho-Machin, M. (2009). Towards the

construction of a framework to deal with routine problems
to foster mathematical inquiry. PRIMUS, 19(3), 260–279.

Santos-Trigo, M., & Ortega-Moreno, F. (2013). Digit

technology, dynamic representations, and mathematical
reasoning: extending problem solving frameworks.
International Journal of Learning Technology, 8:2,
pp.186–200.

Santos-Trigo, M., & Reyes-Rodríguez, A. (2011). Teachers’

use of computational tools to construct and explore
dynamic mathematical models, International Journal of
Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 42(3),
313–336.

Schmidt, E. & Cohen, J. (2013). The new digital area.

Reshaping the future of people, nations and business
(eBook edition). New Y ork: Random House and Google.

Thom, R. (1972). Modern mathematics: Does it exist? In A.

G. Howson (Ed.), Developments in mathematics education.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Trouche, L. (2004). Managing the complexity of

human/machine interactions in computerized learning envir
onments: Guiding students’ command process through
instrumental orchestrations. International Journal of
Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9, 281–307.

Verillon, 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(1), 77–101.

Vizgin, V. (2001). On the emotional assumptions without

which one could not effectively investigate the laws of
nature. The American Mathematical Monthly, 108(3): 264–270.
26 Computerized Environments in
Mathematics Classrooms: A Research-Design
View

Arcavi, A., & Hadas, N. (2000). Computer mediated learning:

An example of an approach. International Journal of
Computers for Mathematical Learning, 5, 25–45.

Artigue, M., & Blomhøj, M. (2013). Conceptualizing

inquiry-based education in mathematics. ZDM—The
International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45,
797–810.

Balacheff, N., & Kaput, 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.
469–501). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.

Ben-Zvi, D., & Arcavi, A. (2001). Junior high school

students’ construction of global views of data and data
representations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 45,
35–65.

Davydov, V. V. (1972/1990). Soviet studies in mathematics

education: Vol. 2. Types of generalization in instruction:
Logical and psychological problems in the structuring of
school curricula (J. Kilpatrick, Ed., & J. Teller,
Trans.). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics. (Original work published in 1972).

de Lange, J. (1996). Using and applying mathematics in

education. In A. J. Bishop, K. Clements, C. Keitel, J.
Kilpatrick, & C. Laborde (Eds.), International handbook of
mathematics education (pp. 49–97). Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

de Villiers, M. (1998). An alternative appr oach to proof

in dynamic geometry. In R. Lehrer & D. Chazan (Eds.),
Designing learning environment for developing understanding
of geometry and space (pp. 369–393). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dolev-Cohen, O. (1996). The passage between representations

as an action of characterizing student’s lear ning in an
interactive computer based environment. Unpublished MA
thesis, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem. [In Hebrew]

Dreyfus, T. (1991). Advanced mathematical thinking

processes. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical
thinking (pp. 25–41). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer,
Mathematics Education Library .

Dreyfus, T., & Hadas, N. (1996). Proof as answer to the

question why. ZDM—The International Jour nal on
Mathematics Education, 28, 1–5.

Dreyfus, T., Hershkowitz, R., & Schwarz, B. (2001).

Abstraction in Context II: The case of peer interaction.
Cognitive Science Quarterly, 1, 307–368.

Dreyfus, T., Hershkowitz, R., & Schwarz, B. (2015). The

nested epistemic actions model for abstraction in
context—Theory as methodological tool and methodological
tool as theory. In A. Bikner-Ahsbahs, C. Knipping, & N.
Presmeg (Eds.), Approaches to qualitative research in
mathematics education: Examples of methodology and
methods. Dordrecht: Springer, Advances.

Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding. An

activity-theoretical approach to developmental research.
Helsinki: University of Helsinki.

Friedlander, A., & Stein, H. (2001). Students’ choice of

tools in solving equations in a technological learning
environment. In M. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen (Ed.),
Proceedings of the 25th International Conference for the
Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 441–448).
Utrecht, The Netherlands: PME.

Friedlander, A., & Tabach. M. (2001). Pr omoting multiple

representations in algebra. In A. A. Cuoco & F. R. Curcio
(Eds.), The roles of representation in school mathematics
(pp. 173–185). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers
of Mathematics, 63rd Y earbook.

Hadas, N., & Hershkowitz, R. (1998). Proof in geometry as

an explanatory and convincing tool. In A. Olivier & K.
Newstead (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22st PME Conference
(Vol. 3, pp. 25–32). Stellenbosch, South Africa: PME.

Hadas, N., Hershkowitz, R., & Schwarz, B. B. (2000). The

role of contradiction and uncertainty in promoting the
need to prove in dynamic geometry environments. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 44, 127–150.

Hanna, G. (1990). Some pedagogical aspects of proof.

Interchange, 21, 6–13.
Heid, M. K., Sheets, C., & Matras, M. N. (1990).
Computer—enhanced algebra: New roles and challenges for
teachers and students. In T. J. Cooney & C. R. Hirsh,
Teaching and learning mathematics in the 1990s (pp.
194–204). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics, 52nd Yearbook.

Hersh, R. (1993). Proving is convinsing and explaining.

Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24, 389–399.

Hershkowitz, R., Dreyfus, T., Ben-Zvi, D., Friedlander, A.,

Hadas, N., Resnick, N., Tabach, M., & Schwarz, B. B.
(2002). Mathematics curriculum development for computerized
environments: A designer-researcher-lear ner-activity. In
L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in
mathematics education (pp. 657–694). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Hershkowitz, R., Hadas, N., Dreyfus, T., & Schwarz, B. B.

(2007). Processes of abstraction, from the diversity of
individuals’ constructing of knowledge to a group’s “shared
knowledge.” Mathematics Education Research Journal, 19,
41–68.

Hershkowitz, R., Parzysz, B., & van Dormolen, J. (1996).

Shape and space. In A. J. Bishop, K. Clements, C. Keitel,
J. Kilpatrick & C. Laborde (Eds.), International handbook
of mathematics education (pp. 161–204). Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Hershkowitz, R., & Schwarz, B. B. (1999). Reflective

processes in a technology-based mathematics classroom.
Cognition and Instruction, 17, 65–91.

Hershkowitz, R., Schwarz, B. B., & Dreyfus, T. (2001).

Abstraction in context: Epistemic actions. Journal for
Resear ch in Mathematics Education, 32, 195–222.

Hershkowitz, R., Tabach, M., Rasmussen, C., & Dreyfus, T.

(2014). Knowledge shifts in a probability classroom—A case
study coordinating two methodologies. ZDM—The International
Journal on Mathematics Education, 46, 363–387.

Kaput, J. (1992). Technology and mathematics education. In

D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics
teaching and learning (pp. 515–556). Reston, VA: National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Kidron, I., & Dreyfus, T. (2010). Interacting parallel

constructions of knowledge in a CAS context. International
Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 15,
129–149.

Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework

for human-computer interaction research. In B. A. Nardi
(Ed.), Context and consciousness (pp. 17–44). Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.

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. Bishop, M. A. Clements, C. Keitel, J.
Kilpatrick, & F.K.S. Leung (Eds.), Second international
handbook of mathematics education (pp. 237–269).
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Pea, R. D. (1985). Beyond amplification: Using the computer

to reorganize mental functioning. Educational Psychologist,
20 , 167–182.

Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (1993). What is it that develops?

Cognition and Instruction, 11, 197–205.

Pontecorvo, C., & Girardet, H. (1993). Arguing and

reasoning in understanding historical topics. Cognition and
Instr uction, 11, 365–395.

Prusak, N., Hershkowitz, R., & Schwarz, B. B. (2012). From

visual reasoning to logical necessity through
argumentative design. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
79 , 19–40. doi:10.1007/ s10649-011-9335-0

Rasmussen, C., & Stephan, M. (2008). A methodology for

documenting collective activity. In A. E. Kelly, R. A.
Lesh, & J. Y. Baek (Eds.), Handbook of innovative design
research in science, technology, engineer ing, mathematics
(STEM) education (pp. 195–215). New York: Taylor &
Francis.

Rota, G.-C. (1997). Indiscrete thoughts (pp. 131–135).

Boston, MA: Birkhäuser.

Schwarz, B. B., & Dreyfus, T. (1995). New actions upon old

objects: A new ontological perspective on functions.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 29, 259–291.

Schwarz, B. B., Dreyfus, T., & Hershkowitz, R. (2009). The

nested epistemic actions model for abstraction in context.
In B. B. Schwarz, T. Dreyfus & R. Hershkowitz (Eds.),
Transformation of knowledge through classroom interaction
(pp. 11–41). London, UK: Routledge.

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.

Stein, H. (2002). Changes in the equation concept and its

solution methods in a technological learning environment.
Unpublished MA thesis, the Weizmann Institute of Science,
Rehovot. [In Hebrew]

Tabach, M., Arcavi, A., & Hershkowitz, R. (2008).

Transitions among different symbolic generalizations by
algebra beginners in a computer intensive environment.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 69, 53–71.

Tabach, M., & Friedlander, A. (2012). Five considerations

in task design—The case of improving grades.
Investigations in Mathematics Learning, 4, 32–49.

Tabach, M., Hershkowitz, R., & Arcavi, A. (2008). Learning

beginning algebra with spreadsheets in a computer
intensive environment. Journal of Mathematical Behavior,
27, 48–63.

Tabach, M., Hershkowitz, R., Arcavi, A., & Dreyfus, T.

(2008). Computerized environments in mathematics classr
ooms: A research-design view. In L. D. English, M. B.
Bussi, G. A. Jones, R. A. Lesh, B. Shriraman, & D. Tirosh
(Eds.), Handbook of international research in mathematics
education (2nd ed., pp. 784–805). New York: Routledge.

Tabach, M., Hershkowitz, R., & Dreyfus, T. (2013). Lear

ning beginning algebra in a computer intensive
environment: Design, difficulties, and reality. ZDM—The
International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45,
377–391. doi:10.1007/s11858–012–0458–2

Tabach, M., Hershkowitz, R., Rasmussen, C., & Dreyfus, T.

(2014). Knowledge shifts in the classroom— A case study.
Journal of Mathematics Behavior, 33, 192–208.
doi:10.1016/j.jmathb.2013.12.001

Tabach, M., Hershkowitz, R., & Schwarz, B. B. (2006).

Constructing and consolidating of algebraic knowledge
within dyadic processes: A case study. Educational Studies
in Mathematics, 63, 235–258.

Treffers, A., & Goffree, F. (1985). Rational analysis of

realistic mathematics education—The Wiskobas program. In
L. Streefland (Ed.), Proceedings of the 9th International
Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education
(Vol. 2. pp. 97–121). Utrecht, The Netherlands: OW&OC.

van Oers, B. (1998). The fallacy of de-contextualization.

Mind, Culture, and Activity, 5 , 143–153.

Weiss, D., & Dreyfus, T. (2009). Model based construction

of fraction comparison. In M. Tzekaki, M. Kaldrimidou & H.
Sakonidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Conference of the
International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics
Education (Vol. 1, p. 489). Thessaloniki, Greece: PME.

Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Socio-mathematical norms,

argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 458–477.

Yerushalmy, M., (2009). Technology-based algebra learning.

Epistemological discontinuities and curricular
implications. In B. B. Schwarz, T. Dreyfus & R. Hershkowitz
(Eds.), Transformation of knowledge through classroom
interaction (pp. 60–69). London, UK: Routledge.

Yerushalmy, M., & Chazan, D. (2002). Flux in school

algebra: Curricular change, graphing technology, and
research in students learning and teacher knowledge. In L.
D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in
mathematics education (pp. 725–756). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Zaslavsky, O., Nickerson, S., Stylianides, A., Kidron, I.,

& Winicki-Landman, G. (2012). The need for proof and
proving: Mathematical and pedagogical perspectives. In G.
Hanna & M. de Villiers (Eds.), Proof and proving in
mathematics education—the 19th ICMI study (pp. 215–230).
New York: Springer, New ICMI Study series, Vol. 15.
27 E-Textbooks in/for Teaching and
Learning Mathematics: A Potentially
Transformative Educational Technology

Adler, J. (2000). Conceptualising resources as a theme for

teacher education. Journal of Mathematics Teacher
Education, 3, 205–224.

Bremigan, E. G. (2005). An analysis of diagram modification

and construction in students’ solutions to applied
calculus problems. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 36(3), 248–277.

Brown, M. (2009). The teacher-tool relationship: theorising

the design and use of curriculum materials. In J.
Remillard, G. Lloyd, & B. Herbel-Eisenmann (Eds.),
Mathematics teachers at work: connecting curriculum
materials and classroom instruction (pp. 17–36). New York:
Routledge.

Bueno-Ravel, L., Ferrière, H., Forest, D., Gueudet, G.,

Laubé, S., Kuster, Y., & Sensevy, G. (2009). Technologies,
resources, and inquiry-based science teaching. A literature
review. Deliverable 5.1, Mind the Gap FP7 project 217725
(p. 32). Retrieved from www.migaproject.eu.

Cai, J., Wang, T., & Ding, M. (2014). How do exemplary

Chinese and US Mathematics teachers view instructional
coherence? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 85, 265–280.

Cartier, P. , & Chemla, K. (2000). La création des noms

mathématiques: l’exemple de Bourbaki. In D. Rousseau, & M.
Morvan (Eds.), La dénomination, le Temps des savoirs (Vol.
1, pp. 153–170). Paris: IHES.

Charalambous, C. Y., Delaney, S., Hsu, H. Y., & Mesa, V.

(2010). A comparative analysis of the addition and
subtraction of fractions in textbooks from three countries.
Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 12, 117–151.

Chazan, D., & Yerushalmy, M. (2003). On appreciating the

cognitive complexity of school algebra: Research on
algebra learning and directions of curricular change. In J.
Kilpatrick, D. Schifter, & G. Martin (Eds.), A Research
Companion to the Principles and Standards for School
Mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics.

Chazan, D., & Yerushalmy, M. (2014). The future of

mathematics textbooks: ramifications of technological
change. In M. Stochetti (Ed.), Media and Education in the
Digital Age: a critical introduction. New York: Peter
Lang.

Choppin, J., Carson, C., Borys, Z., Cerosaletti, C., &

Gillis, R. (2014). A typology for analyzing digital
curricula in mathematics education. International Journal
of Education in Mathematics, Science and T echnology,
2(1), 11–25.

Cohen, D. K., Raudenbush, S. W., & Loewenberg Ball, D.

(2003). Resources, instruction and resear ch. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 119–142.

Collopy, R.M.B. (2003). Curriculum materials as a

professional development tool: How a mathematics textbook
affected two teachers’ learning. Elementary School Journal,
103(3), 287–311.

Confrey, J., & Stohl, V. (Eds.) (2004). On evaluating

curricular ef fectiveness: Judging the quality of K–12
mathematics evaluations. Washington, DC: National Academies
Press.

Drucker, P. (1992). The age of discontinuity: Guidelines to

our changing society. New York: Harper & Row.

Fan, L. (2013). Textbook research as scientific resear ch:

towards a common ground on issues and methods of research
on mathematics textbooks. ZDM—The International Journal on
Mathematics Education, 45(5), 765–777.

Fan, L., Zhu, Y., & Miao, Z. (2013). Textbook research in

mathematics education: development status and directions.
ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education,
45(5), 633–646.

Friesen, N. (2013). The past and likely future of an

educational form: A textbook case. Educational
researcher, 42 , 498–508.

Goldenberg, P., & Mason, J. (2008). Spreading light on and

with example spaces. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
69(2) 183–194.

Gould, P. (2011). Electronic mathematics textbooks: Old

wine in new skins? Paper presented at APEC-Tsukuba
International Conference V (Tsukuba Session), Japan.
Retrieved from www.criced.
Guedj, D. (1985). Nicholas Bourbaki, collective
mathematician an interview with Claude Chevalley. The
Mathematical Intelligencer, 7(2), 18–22.

Gueudet, G., Pepin, B., & Trouche, L. (Eds.) (2012). From

text to ‘lived’ resources: Mathematics curriculum materials
and teacher development. New York: Springer.

Gueudet, G., Pepin, B., & Trouche, L. (2013a). T extbook

design and digital resources. In C. Margolinas (Ed.),
Designing and using tasks for learning mathematics, 22nd
ICMI Study. Retrieved from

Gueudet, G., Pepin, B., & Trouche, L. (2013b). Collective

work with resources: an essential dimension for teacher
documentation. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics
Education, 45(7), 1003–1016.

Gueudet, G., Sabra, H., Pepin, B., & Trouche, L. (in

press). Resources, task design and mathematics teachers’
collective engagement: towar ds e-textbooks as shared
living resources. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education.

Gueudet, G., & Trouche, L. (2009a). Towards new

documentation systems for mathematics teachers?
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 71(3), 199–218.

Gueudet, G., & Trouche, L. (2009b). Conception et usages de

ressources pour et par les professeurs: Développement
associatif et développement professionnel. Dossiers De
l’Ingénierie Educative, 65, 78–82.

Haggarty, L., & Pepin, B. (2002). An investigation of

mathematics textbooks and their use in English, French and
German Classrooms: Who gets an oppor tunity to learn what?
British Educational Research Journal, 28(4), 567–590.

Henningsen, M., & Stein, M. (1997). Mathematical tasks and

student’s cognition: Classroom-based factors that support
and inhibit high-level mathematical thinking and reasoning.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28,
524–94.9.

Herbst, P. (1995). The construction of the real number

system in textbooks: a contribution to the analysis of
discoursive practices in mathematics. Unpublished master’s
thesis, University of Georgia, Athens.

Herbst, P. (2002). Establishing a custom of proving in

American school geometry: evolution of the two-column
proof in the early twentieth century. Educational Studies
in Mathematics, 49(3), 283–312.

Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. (1992). Learning and teaching

with understanding. In D.A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of
research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 65–97).
New York: Macmillan.

Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., W

earne, D., Human, P. , Murray, H., & Olivier, A. (1997).
Making sense: teaching and learning mathematics with
understanding. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., Garnier, H., Giwin, K. B.,

Hollingsworth, H., Jacobs, J., & Stigler, J. (2003).
Teaching mathematics in seven countries: results from the
TIMSS video study. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education, National Center for Educational Statistics.

Hoyles, C., Kalas, I., Trouche, L., Hivon, L., Noss, R., &
Wilensky, U. (2010). Connectivity and virtual networks for
learning. In C. Hoyles, & J.-B. Lagrange, Mathematics
education and technology-rethinking the terrain (pp.
439–462). New York: Springer.

Kidwell, P. A., Ackerberg-Hastings, A., & Roberts, D. L.

(2008). Tools of American mathematics teaching, 1800–2000.
Baltimor e, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Korea Education and Research Information Service (KERIS).

(2007). Concept map of digital textbook. Retrieved from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Concept_of_dt.PNG.

Kortenkamp, U., Blessing, A. M., Dohrmann, C., Kreis, Y.,

Libbrecht, P., & Mercat, C. (2009). Interoperable
interactive geometry for Europe: First technological and
educational results and futur e challenges of the Intergeo
project. In V. Durand-Guerrier, S. Soury-Lavergne, & F.
Arzarello (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Eur opean
Conference on Research on Mathematics Education (pp.
1150–1160). Lyon: INRP. Retrieved from
www.inrp.fr/editions/cer me6.

Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images—The

grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.

Kuhn, T . (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions.

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Li, Y. (2000). A comparison of problems that follow

selected content presentations in American and Chinese
mathematics textbooks. Jour nal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 31, 234–241.

Lloyd, G. M. (2009). School mathematics curriculum

materials for teachers’ learning: future elementary
teachers’ interactions with curriculum materials in a
mathematics course in the United States. ZDM—The
International Journal on Mathematics Education, 41,
763–775.

Love, E., & Pimm, D. (1996). This is so: a text on texts.

In A. Bishop, K. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & C.
Laborde (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics
education (Vol. 1, pp. 371–409). New York: Springer.

Margolinas, C. (Ed.). (2013). Task design in mathematics

education. Proceedings of ICMI Study 22. Oxford. Retrieved
from

Mesa, V. (2010). Strategies for controlling the work in

mathematics textbooks for introductory calculus. Research
in Collegiate Mathematics Education, 16, 235–265.

Murata, A. (2008). Mathematics teaching and learning as a

mediating process: The case of tape diagrams. Mathematical
Thinking and Learning, 10(4), 374–406.

Naftaliev, E., & Yerushalmy, M. (2013). Guiding

explorations: Design principles and functions of
interactive diagrams. Computers in the Schools, 30(1–2),
61–75.

National Research Council (1989). Everybody counts: A

report to the nation on the future of mathematics
education. W ashington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2004). J. Confrey & V. Stohl

(Eds.). On evaluating curricular effectiveness: Judging
the quality of K–12 mathematics evaluations . Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.

Netz, R. (1999). The shaping of deduction in Greek

mathematics: A study in cognitive history. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Oesterholm, M., & Bergqvist, E. (2013). What is so

special about mathematical texts? Analyses of common claims
in research literature and of properties of textbooks.
ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education,
45(5), 751–763.

Pepin, B. (2012). Working with teachers on curriculum

materials to develop mathematical knowledge in/for
teaching: Task analysis as ‘catalytic tool’ for feedback
and teacher learning. In G. Gueudet, B. Pepin, & L.
Trouche (Eds.) From text to ‘lived’ resources: Mathematics
curriculum material and teacher development (pp.
123–142). New York: Springer.

Pepin, B., & Gueudet, G. (2013). Curricular resources and

textbooks. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
mathematics education (pp 132–135). New York: Springer.

Pepin, B., Gueudet, G., & Trouche, L. (2013a).

Investigating textbooks as crucial interfaces between
culture, policy and teacher curricular practice: two
contrasted case studies in France and Norway. ZDM—The
International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45 (5),
685-698.

Pepin, B., Gueudet, G., & Trouche, L. (2013b). Re-sourcing

teachers’ work and interactions: a collective perspective
on resources, their use and transformation. ZDM—The
International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(7),
929–944.

Proust, C. (2012). Masters’ writings and students’

writings: School material in Mesopotamia. In G. Gueudet, B.
Pepin, & L. Trouche (Eds.) From text to ‘lived’ resources:
Mathematics curriculum material and teacher Development
(pp. 161–180). New York: Springer.

Rezat, S. (2006). A model of textbook use. In J. Novotná,

H. Moraová, M. Krátká & N. a. Stehlíko vá (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 30th Conference of the International
Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol.
4, pp. 409–416). Prague: Charles University, Faculty of
Education.

Rezat, S. (2013). The textbook-in-use: Students’

utilization schemes of mathematics textbooks related to
self-regulated practicing. ZDM—The Inter national Journal
on Mathematics Education, 45(5), 659–670.

Robitaille, D., & Travers, K. (1992). International studies

of achievement in mathematics. In D. Grouws (Ed.) Handbook
of research on mathematics education (pp. 687–709). New
York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Sabra, H., & Trouche, L. (2011). Collective design of an
online math textbook: when individual and collective
documentation works meet. In M. Pytlak, T. Rowland, & E.
Swoboda (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh European
Conference on Research on Mathematics Education (pp.
2356–2366). February 9–13, Rzesów, Poland.

Schmidt, W. H. (2012). Measuring content through textbooks:

The cumulative effect of middle-school tracking. In G.
Gueudet, B. Pepin, & L. Trouche (Eds.) From text to
‘lived’ resources: Mathematics curriculum material and
teacher development (pp. 143–160). New York: Springer.

Schmidt, W. H., & Huang, R. T. (2012). Curricular coherence

and the Common Core State Standar ds for Mathematics.
Educational Researcher, 41, 294–308.

Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., Valverde, G., Houang, R.

T., & Wiley, D. E. (1997). Many visions, many aims: A
cross-national investigation of curricular intentions in
school mathematics. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Schubring, G. (1987). On the methodology of analysing

historical textbooks: Lacroix as textbook author. For the
Learning of Mathematics, 7(3), 41–51.

Shield, M., & Dole, S. (2013). Assessing the potential of

mathematics textbooks to promote deep learning. ZDM—The
International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(5),
183–199.

Stevenson, H. W., & Bartsch, K. (1992). An analysis of

Japanese and American textbooks in mathematics. In R.
Leetsma, & H. Walberg (Eds.) Japanese educational
productivity (pp. 103–133). Ann Arbor: Center for Japanese
Studies, University of Michigan.

Stigler, J., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap. New

York: Free Press.

Taizan, Y., Bhang, S., Kurokami, H., & Kwon, S. (2012). A

comparison of functions and the effect of digital textbook
in Japan and Korea. International Journal for Educational
Media and Technology, 6(1), 85–93.

Tall, D. (2002). Continuities and discontinuities in

long-term learning schemas. In D. Tall & M. Thomas
(Eds.), Intelligence, learning and understanding—A tribute
to Richard Skemp (pp. 151–177). Flaxton, Australia:
PostPressed.
Tall, D., & Vinner, S. (1981). Concept image and concept
definition in mathematics with particular reference to
limits and continuity . Educational Studies in Mathematics,
12(2), 151–169.

Trgalovà, J., & Jahn, A. P. (2013). Quality issue in the

design and use of resources by mathematics teachers.
ZDM—The Inter national Journal on Mathematics
Education,45(7), 973–986.

Trgalovà, J., Jahn, A. P. , & Soury-Lavergne, S. (2009).

Quality process for dynamic geometry resources: The
Intergeo project. In V. Durand-Guerrier, S. Soury-Lavergne,
& F. Arzarello (Eds.), Pr oceedings of the Sixth European
Conference on Research on Mathematics Education (pp.
1161–1170). Lyon: INRP. Retrieved from www.inrp.
fr/editions/cerme6.

Trouche, L., Drijvers, P., Gueudet, G., & Sacristan, A. I.

(2013). Technology-driven developments and policy
implications for mathematics education. In A. J. Bishop, M.
A. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & F.K.S. Leung
(Eds.), Third international handbook of mathematics
education (pp. 753–790). New York: Springer.

Valverde, G. A., Bianchi, L. J., Wolfe, R. G., Schmidt, W.

H., & Houang, R. T. (2002). According to the book—Using
TIMSS to investigate the translation of policy into
practice through the world of textbooks. Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Vergnaud, G. (1996). The theory of conceptual fields. In L.

P. Steffe, P. Nesher, P. Cobb, G. A. Goldin, & B. Greer
(Eds.), Theories of mathematical learning (pp. 219–239).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Vieillard-Baron, E. (2009). Sesamath, un modèle de

mutualisation et de diffusion gratuite de ressources
mathématiques. In Séminaire international thématique ePrep,
Institut Henri Poincaré, Paris. Retrieved from

Watson, A., & Shipman, S. (2008). Using learner-generated

examples to introduce new concepts. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 69 (2), 97–109.

Westbury, I. (1990). Textbooks, textbook publishers, and

the quality of schooling. In D. Elliott & A. Woodward
(Eds.), Textbooks and schooling in the United States: 89th
yearbook of the National Society for the Study of
Education (Part 1, pp. 1–22). Chicago: University of
Chicago.

Yerushalmy, M. (2005). Function of interactive visual repr

esentations in interactive mathematical textbooks.
International Journal of Computers for Mathematical
learning, 10(3), 217–249.

Yerushalmy, M. (2013). Designing for inquiry in school

mathematics. Educational Designer, 2(6). Retrieved from
www.educationaldesigner.org/ed/volume2/issue6/article22/.

Yerushalmy, M., & Chazan, D. (2002). Flux in school

algebra: Curricular change, graphing technology, and
research on student lear ning and teacher knowledge. In L.
English (Ed.) Handbook of international research in
mathematics education (pp. 725–756). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Yerushalmy, M., & Chazan, D. (2008). Technology and

curriculum design: The ordering of discontinuities in
school algebra. In L. English (Ed.) Handbook of
international research in mathematics education (2nd ed.,
pp. 806–837). London: Routledge.

Yerushalmy, M., Katriel, H., & Shternberg, B. (2004).

VisualMath: Function. Interactive mathematics text.
Ramat-Aviv: The Centre of Educational Technology. Retrieved
from www.cet.ac.il/math/ function/english.
28 Digital Technologies in the Early
Primary School Classroom

Andres, M., Seron, X., & Oliver, E. (2007). Contribution of

hand motor circuits to counting. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience, 19, 563–576.

Artigue, M. (2002). Learning mathematics in a CAS

environment: The genesis of a r eflection about
instrumentation and the dialectics between technical and
conceptual work. International Journal of Computers for
Mathematical Learning, 7(3), 245–274.

Baccaglini-Frank, A., & Mariotti, M. A. (2010) Generating

conjectures in dynamic geometry: The maintaining dragging
model. Inter national Journal of Computers for Mathematical
Learning, 15(3), 225–253.

Baccaglini-Frank, A., Ramploud, A., & Bartolini Bussi, M.

G. (2012). Informatica Zero: Un percorso formativo per
insegnanti di scuola dell’infanzia e primaria. Fano, Italy:
EduTouch.

Bafalluy, M. G. & Noël, M. P. (2008). Does finger training

increase young children’s numerical performance? Cortex,
44(4), 368–375. Retrieved from
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0010945207000780.

Barendregt, W., Lindstrom, B., Rietz-Leppanen, E.,

Holgersson, I., & Ottosson, T. (2012). Development and
evaluation of Fingu: A mathematics iPad game using
multitouch interaction. IDC 2012 (pp. 1–4). June 12–15,
Bremen, Germany.

Bartolini Bussi, M. G. (2011). Ar tefacts and utilization

schemes in mathematics teacher education: place value in
early childhood education. Journal of Mathematics Teacher
Education, 14(2), 93–112.

Bartolini Bussi, M. G. & Baccaglini-Frank, A. (2015).

Geometry in early years: sowing the seeds towards a
mathematical definition of squares and rectangles. ZDM—The
International Journal on Mathematics Education.
doi:10.1007/s11858-014-0636-5

Bartolini, M. G., Baccaglini-Frank, A., & Ramploud, A.

(2014). Intercultural dialogue and the geography and
history of thought. For the Learning of Mathematics, 34(1),
31–33.
Bartolini Bussi, M. G., & Mariotti, M. A. (2008). 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 (2nd ed.).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Battista, M. T. (2007). The development of geometric and

spatial thinking. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of
research on mathematics teaching and lear ning (pp.
843–908). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics.

Berch, D. B. (2005). Making sense of number sense:

Implications for children with mathematical disabilities.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38 (4), 333–339.

Bolyard, J., & Moyer-Packenham, P. S. (2012). Making sense

of integer arithmetic: The effect of using virtual
manipulatives on students’ representational fluency.
Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching,
31(2), 93–113.

Brissiaud, R. (1992). A toll for number construction:

Finger symbol sets. In J. Bidaud, C. Meljac & J.-P.
Fischer (eds.). Pathways to number. Children’s Developing
Numerical Abilities. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Butterworth, B. (1999a). What counts—how every brain is

hardwired for math. New York: The Free Press.

Butterworth, B. (1999b). The mathematical brain. London:

Macmillan.

Butterworth, B. (2005). The development of arithmetical

abilities. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46,
3–18.

Butterworth, B. (2011). Dyscalculia: From brain to

education. Science, 332, 1049–1053.

Butterworth, B., & Laurillard, D. (2010). Low numeracy and

dyscaclulia: Identification and intervention. ZDM—The
International Journal on Mathematics Education, 42,
527–539.

Cantlon, J., Safford, K., & Brannon, E. (2010). Spontaneous

analog number representations in 3-yearold children.
Developmental Science, 13, 289–297.

Clements, D. H. (2002). Computers in Early Childhood

Mathematics. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 3(2),
160–181.

Clements, D. H., & Battista, M. T. (1989). Learning of

geometric concepts in a Logo environment. Journal of
Research in Mathematics Education, 20 , 450–467.

Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2004). Building Blocks for

early childhood mathematics. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 19, 181–189.

Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2007). Effects of a

preschool mathematics curriculum: Summary research on the
building blocks project. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 38, 136–163.

Drijvers, P. (2012). Teachers transforming resources into

orchestrations. In Gueudet, G., Pepin, B., & Trouche, L.
From textbooks to ‘lived’ resources: Mathematics curriculum
materials and teacher documentation (pp. 265–281), New
York: Springer.

English L. D., & Mulligan J. (2013). Advances in

Mathematics Education: Vol. 8. Reconceptualizing early
mathematics learning. New York: Springer.

Fayol, M., & Seron, X. (2005). About numerical

representations: Insights from neuropsychological,
experimental, and developmental studies. In J.I.D. Campbell
(Ed.), Handbook of mathematical cognition. New York:
Psychology Press.

Feigenson, L., Dehaene, S., & Spelke, E., (2004). Core

systems of number. Tr ends in Cognitive Science, 8(7),
307–314.

Gattegno, C. (1970). Gattegno mathematics textbook 1. New

York: Educational Solution Worldwide.

Giorgi, G., & Baccaglini-Frank, A. (2011). Mak-Trace. Free

application downloadable from Apple iTunes:
http://itunes.apple.com/it/app/maktrace/id467939313?m t=8.

Goldenberg, P. (2000). Thinking (and talking) about

technology in math classrooms. Educational Development
Center. Retrieved from www2.edc.org/mcc/pdf/iss_tech.pdf.
Goodwin, K. (2009). Impact and affordances of interactive
multimedia. Unpublished PhD thesis. Macquarie University,
Sydney.

Goodwin, K., & Highfield, K. (2013). A framework for

examining technologies and early mathematics learning. In
L. D. English and J. T. Mulligan (Eds.), Reconceptualizing
early mathematics learning (pp 205–226). New York:
Springer.

Gracia-Bafalluy, M., & Noel, M. (2008). Does finger

training increase young children’s numerical performance?
Cortex, 44(4), 368–375.

Groves, S., & Stacey, K. (1998). Calculators in primary

mathematics: Exploring number before teaching algorithms.
The Teaching and Learning of Algorithms in School
Mathematics: 1998 Yearbook of the National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 120–129, Reston, VA: National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Gueudet, G., Bueno-Ravel, L., & Poisard, C. (2013).

Teaching mathematics with technology at the kindergar ten
level: Resources and orchestrations. In A. Clark-Wilson, O.
Robutti, & N. Sinclair (Eds.), The mathematics teacher in
the digital era: An international perspective on technology
focused professional development. Dordrecht: Springer.

Gueudet, G., & Trouche, L. (2008). Towards new

documentation systems for mathematics teachers?
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 71(3), 199–218.

Highfield, K. (2009). Mapping, measurement and robotics.

Reflections, Journal of the Mathematical Association of New
South Wales, 34(1), 52–55.

Highfield, K. (2010). Robotic toys as a catalyst for

mathematical problem solving. Australian Primary
Mathematics Classroom, 15, 22–27.

Highfield, K., & Mulligan, J. (2007). The role of dynamic

interactive technological tools in preschoolers’
mathematical patterning. In J. Watson & K. Beswick (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the
Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp.
372–381). MERGA. Adelaide, Australia.

Highfield, K., & Mulligan, J. T. (2008). Young children’s

engagement with technological tools: The impact on
mathematics education. Paper presented to the International
Congress of Mathematical Education (ICME 11). Discussion
Group 27: How is technology challenging us to re-think the
fundamentals of mathematics education? Retrieved from
http://dg.icme11.org/tsg/show/28.

Highfield, K., & Mulligan, J. T. (2009). Young children’s

embodied action in problem-solving tasks using robotic
toys. In M. Tzekaki, M. Kaldrimidou, & H. Sakonidis (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 33rd conference of the International
Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2,
pp. 273–280). Thessaloniki, Greece: PME.

Hollebrands, K. (2003). High school students’

understandings of geometric transformations in the context
of a technological environment. Journal of Mathematical
Behavior, 22, 55–72.

Hoyles, C., Noss, R., & Adamson, R. (2002). Rethinking the

microworld idea. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 27 (1–2), 29–53.

Laborde, C. (2008). Technology as an instrument for

teachers. In Proceedings of the international commission
for mathematics instruction centennial symposium. Rome,
Italy. Retrieved from www.unige.ch/ math/EnsMath/
Rome2008/partWG4.html.

Laborde, C., Kynigos, C., Hollebrands, K., & Sträßer, R.

(2006). Teaching and learning geometry with technology. In
A. Gutiérrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of resear ch on
the psychology of mathematics education: Past, present and
future (pp. 275–304). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense
Publishers.

Laborde, C., & Marcheteau, A. (2009). L’incontro tra reale

e virtuale in Cabri Elem per attività matematiche nella
scuola primaria, La matematica e la sua didattica, 23(1),
19–34.

Ladel, S., & Kortenkamp, U. (2011). Implementation of a

multitouch-environment supporting finger symbol sets. In
Proceedings of the Seventh Congress of the European Society
for Research in Mathematics Education. Rzeszow, Poland:
CERME.

Ladel, S., & Kortenkamp, U. (2013). An activity-theoretic

approach to multi-touch tools in early maths learning.
The International Journal for Technology in Mathematics
Education, 20(1), 3–8.
Lakoff, G., & Núñez, R. (2000). Where mathematics comes
from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being.
New York: Basic Books.

Lyons, I., & Beilock, S. (2011). Numerical ordering

ability mediates the relation between number-sense and
arithmetic competence. Cognition , 121, 256–261.

Manches, A., O’Malley, C., & Benford, S. (2010). The role

of physical representations in solving number problems: A
comparison of young children’s use of physical and virtual
materials. Computers & Education, 54(3), 622–640.

Mariotti, M. A. (2006). Proof and proving in mathematics

education. In A. Guttiérrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of
research on the psychology of mathematics education: Past,
present and futur e (pp. 173–204). Rotterdam, The
Netherlands: Sense Publishing.

Maschietto, M., & Soury-Lavergne, S. (2013). The beginning

of the adventure with pascaline and e-pascaline. In E.
Faggiano & A. Montone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th
international conference on technology in mathematics
teaching (ICTMT 11; pp. 195–199). Bari: Università degli
Studi di Bari.

Moorthy, S., Dominguez, X., Llorente, C., Pinkerton, L.,

Christiano, E., & Lesk, H. (2013). Joint engagement with
media that supports early science learning. Paper presented
at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association (AERA). San Francisco, CA.

Moyer, P., Niezgoda, D., & Stanley, J. (2005). Young

children’s use of virtual manipulatives and other for ms
of mathematical representations. In W. Masalski & P. C.
Elliott (Eds.), Technology-supported mathematics learning
environments: 67th yearbook (pp. 17–34). Reston, VA:
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Moyer-Packenham, P., Salkind, G. W., Bolyard, J., & Suh, J.

M. (2013). Effective choices and practices: Knowledgeable
and experienced teachers’ uses of manipulatives to teach
mathematics. Online Journal of Education Research, 2(2),
18–33. Retrieved from www.onlineresearchjournals.org/IJER/
cont/2013/apr.htm.

Moyer-Packenham, P. S., & Suh, J. M. (2012). Learning

mathematics with technology: The influence of virtual
manipulatives on different achievement groups. Journal of
Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 31(1),
39–59.

Nemirovksy, R., Kelton, M. & Rhodehamel, B. (2013). Playing

mathematical instruments: Emerging perceptuomotor
integration with an interactive mathematics exhibit.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44(2),
372–415.

Ng, O., & Sinclair, N. (2015). “They are getting married!”

T owards a dynamic, functional understanding of symmetry
in primary school. ZDM—The International Journal on
Mathematics Education.

Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (1996). Windows on mathematical

meanings. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers and

powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.

Pekárová, J. (2008). Using a programmable toy at preschool

age: Why and how? In Proceedings of the international
conference on simulation, modeling and programming for
autonomous robots (pp. 112–121). Heidelberg: Springer.

Penner-Wilger , M., Fast, L., LeFevre, J. A., Smith-Chant,

B. L., Skwarchuk, S. L, Kamawar, D., & Bisanz, J. (2007).
The foundations of numeracy: Subitizing, finger gnosia, and
fine motor ability. In D. S. McNamara & J. G. Trafton
(Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th annual conference of the
cognitive science society (pp. 1385–1390). Austin, TX:
Cognitive Science Society.

Piazza, M. (2010). Neurocognitive start-up tools for

symbolic number representations. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 14(12), 542–551.

Public Health England. (2013). How healthy behaviour

supports children’s well-being. PHE Publications gateway
number: 2013146. Retrieved from
www.gov.uk/government/publications/
how-healthy-behaviour-supports-childrens-wellbeing.

Räsänen, P., Salminen, J., Wilson, A. J., Aunio, P., &

Dehaene, S. (2009). Computer-assisted intervention for
children with low numeracy skills. Cognitive Development
24(4), 450–472.

Riconscente, M. (2013). Mobile learning game improves 5th

graders’ knowledge and attitudes. Los Angeles: GameDesk
Institute. Retrieved from
www.gamedesk.org/projects/motion-math-in-class/.

Robutti, O. (2006). Motion, technology, gesture in

interpreting graphs. The International Journal for
Technology In Mathematics Education, 13(3), 117–126.

Resnick, L. B., Bill, V., Lesgold, S., & Leer, M. (1991).

Thinking in arithmetic class. In B. Means, C. Chelemer, &
M. S. Knapp (ed.). Teaching advanced skills to at-risk
students: Views from research and practice (pp. 27–53).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2002). Building blocks for

young children’s mathematical development. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 27(1–2), 93–110.

Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2009). “Concrete” computer

manipulatives in mathematics education. Child Development
Perspectives, 3(3), 145–150.

Sato, M., Cattaneo L., Rizzolatti, G., & Gallese, V.

(2007). Numbers within our hands: Modulation of
corticospinal excitability of hand muscles during
numerical judgment. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,
19(4), 684–693.

Sedig, K., & Sumner, M. (2006). Characterizing interaction

with visual mathematical representations. International
Jour nal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 11(1),
1–55.

Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: Human

development, the growth of discourses, and mathematizing.
New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sinclair, N. (2013). TouchCounts: An embodied, digital

approach to learning number. Proceedings of the
International Conference of Technology in Mathematics
Teaching 11. Bari, Italy: Università degli Studi di Bari.

Sinclair, N., & Crespo, S. (2006). Learning mathematics

with dynamic computer environments. T eaching Children
Mathematics 12(9), 436–444.

Sinclair, N., de Freitas, E., & Ferrara, F. (2013).

Virtual encounters: The murky and furtive world of
mathematical inventiveness. ZDM—The International Journal
on Mathematics Education, 45(2), 239–252.
Sinclair, N., & Heyd-Metzayunim, E. (2014). Learning number
with TouchCounts: The role of emotions and the body in
mathematical communication. Technology, Knowledge and
Learning.

Sinclair, N., & Jackiw, N. (2011). TouchCounts. Free

application downloadable on the App Store,

Sinclair , N., & Kaur, H. (2011). Young children’s

understanding of reflection symmetr y in a dynamic
geometry environment. Proceedings of the 35th conference of
the international group for the psychology of mathematics
education. Ankara, Turkey: PME.

Sinclair, N. & Moss, J. (2012). The more it changes, the

more it becomes the same: The development of the routine
of shape identification in dynamic geometry environments.
International Journal of Education Research, 51&52(3),
28–44.

Sinclair, N., & Robutti, O. (2013). Technology and the

role of proof: The case of dynamic geometry. In A. J.
Bishop, M. A. Clements, C. Keitel, & F. Leung (Eds.), Third
international handbook of mathematics education. Dordrecht,
The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Sinclair, N., & Yurita, V. (2008). To be or to become: How

dynamic geometry changes discourse. Research in
Mathematics Education, 10(2), 135–150.

Sowell, E. J. (1989). Effects of manipulative materials in

mathematics instruction. Journal of Research in
Mathematics Education, 20(5), 498–505.

Steen, K., Brookes, D., & Lyon, T. (2006). The impact of

virtual manipulatives on first grade geometry instruction
and learning. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and
Science Teaching, 25(4), 373–391.

Stevens, R., & Penuel, W. R. (2010, October). Studying and

fostering learning through joint media engagement. Paper
presented at the Principal Investigators Meeting of the
National Science Foundation’s Science of Learning Centers,
Arlington, VA.

Stylianides, A. J., & Stylianides, G. J. (2013). Seeking

research-grounded solutions to problems of practice:
Classroom-based interventions in mathematics education.
ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education,
45(3), 333–340.
Sun, X. (2011). “Variation problems” and their roles in the
topic of fraction division in Chinese mathematics textbook
examples. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 76(1), 65–85.

Thompson J. C., Abbott, D. F., Wheaton, K. J., Syngeniotis,

A., & Puce. A. (2004). Digit representation is more than
just hand waving. Cognitive Brain Research, 21, 412–17.

Trouche, L. (2004). Managing 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.

Yelland, N. (2002). Creating microworlds for exploring

mathematical understandings in the early years of school.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 27(1–2), 77–92.

van Herwegen, J., Ansari, D., Xu, F., & Karmiloff-Smith, A.

(2008). Small and large number processing in infants and
toddlers with Williams syndrome. Developmental Science, 11,
637–643.

Wilson, A., Revkin, S., Cohen, D., Cohen, L., & Dehaene, S.
(2006). An open trial assessment of “The Number Race,” an
adaptive computer game for remediation of dyscalculia.
Behavioral and Brain Functions, 2(20).

Wilson, A. J., Dehaene, S., Pinel, P., Revkin, S. K.,

Cohen, L., & Cohen, D. (2006). Principles underlying the
design of “The Number Race,” an adaptive computer game for
remediation of dyscalculia. Behavioral and Brain Functions,
2(19). doi:10.1186/1744-9081-2-19

Wilson, A., & Dehaene, S. (2007). Number sense and

developmental dyscalculia. In D. Coch, G. Dawson, & K.
Fischer (Eds.), Human behavior, learning, and the
developing brain: Atypical development (pp. 212–238). New
York: Guilford Press.
29 Mathematics Education Research: A
Strategic View

Battista, M. T., & Clements, D. H. (2000). Mathematics

curriculum development as a scientific endeavor. In A.
Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in
mathematics and science education (pp. 737–760). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bell, A. (1993). Some experiments in diagnostic teaching.

Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24(1), 115–137.

Birks, D. (1987). Reflections: A diagnostic teaching

experiment. Nottingham, UK: University of Nottingham.

Black, P. J., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom

learning. Assessment in Education , 5, 7–74.

Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in

mathematics: Didactique des mathematiques, 1970–1990.
Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Brown, A. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and

methodological challenges in creating complex
interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.

Burkhardt, H. (1988). The roles of theory in a “systems”

approach to mathematical education, article in honor of
prof. Hans-Georg Steiner’s 60th birthday. International
Reviews on Mathematical Education, ZDM—The International
Journal on Mathematics Education, 5, 174–177.

Burkhardt, H. (2001). Where next? Some comments on

implementation. Concluding remarks at the ICMI Algebra
Study Conference, University of Melbourne.

Burkhardt, H. (2006). From design research to large-scale

impact: Engineering research in education. In J. Van den
Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.),
Educational design resear ch. London: Routledge.

Burkhardt, H. (2009). On strategic design. Educational

Designer, 1(3). Retrieved from http://www.
educationaldesigner.org/ed/volume1/issue3/article9.

Burkhardt, H. (2013). Methodological issues in research and

development. In Y. Li & J. N. Moschkovich (Eds.),
Proficiency and beliefs in learning and teaching
mathematics—Learning from Alan Schoenfeld and Günter
Törner . Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Burkhardt, H. (2014). Curriculum design and systemic

change. In Y. Li & G. Lappan (Eds.), Mathematics
curriculum in school education. Heidelberg: Springer.

Burkhardt, H., & Schoenfeld, A. H. (2003). Improving

educational research: Towards a mor e useful, more
influential and better funded enterprise. Educational
Researcher, 32, 3–14.

Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Chiang, C.

P., & Loef, M. (1989). Using knowledge of children’s
mathematics thinking in classroom teaching: An experimental
study American Educational Research Jour nal, 26, 499–531.

City, E. A., Elmore, R. F. Fiarman, S. E., & Teitel, L.

(2009). Instructional rounds in education: A network
approach. Cambridge, MA: Harvar d Education Press.

EMS (2011–13). EMS Committee of Education (Eds.) “Solid

Findings” in mathematics education. EMS Newsletter Vol.
81, 46–49, Vol. 82, 46–50, Vol. 83, 46–50, Vol. 84, 53–55,
Vol. 87, 42–44.

Evans, S., & Swan, M. (2014). Developing students’

strategies for problem solving: The role of pre-designed
“Sample Student Work,” Educational Designer, 2(7).
Retrieved from

Flexner, A. (1910). Medical education in the United States

and Canada: A report to the Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching (Bulletin No. 4). New York:
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1986). Two courses of expertise.

In H. W. Stevenson, H. Azuma, & K. Hakuta (Eds.), Child
development and education in Japan (pp. 262–272). New York:
W H Freeman/Times Books/ Henry Holt & Co.

Kilpatrick, J. (1981). One point of view: Stop the

bandwagon I want off. Arithmetic Teacher, 28(8), 2.

Lappan, G., & Phillips, E. (2009). A designer speaks.

Educational Designer, 1(3). Retrieved from http:// www
.educationaldesigner.org/ed/volume1/issue3/article11.

Leung, F.K.S. (2001). In search of an East Asian identity

in mathematics education. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 47, 35–52.
Leung, F.K.S. (2006). Mathematics education in East Asia
and the West: Does culture matter? In F.K.S. Leung, K-D.
Graf, & F. J. Lopez-Real (Eds.), Mathematics education in
different cultural traditions: A comparative study of
East Asia and the West, the 13th ICMI study (pp. 21–46).
New York: Springer.

McDonald, M., Kazemi, E. Kavanagh, S. S. (2013). Core

Practices and Pedagogies of Teacher Education: A Call for
a Common Language and Collective Activity, Journal of
Teacher Education, 64 (5).

NCETM. (2012). Mathematics matters. Sheffield: National

Centre for Excellence in Teaching Mathematics. Retrieved
from

NCTM. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for

school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics.

Pierce, R. & Stacey, K. (2010). Mapping pedagogical

opportunities provided by mathematics analysis software.
International Journal of Computers for Mathematical
Learning, 15(1) 1–20. doi:10.1007/ s10758–010–9158–6.

Pierce, R., Stacey, K., Wander, R., & Ball, L. (2011).

Principles for design of lessons that use multiple
representations in mathematically able integrated document
systems. Technology , Pedagogy and Education, 20(1),
95–112.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (1980). On useful research reports. Jour

nal for Research in Mathematics Education, 11(5), 34–57.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving.

Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (1994). A discourse on methods. Journal

for Research in Mathematics Education, 25, 697–710.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (2002). Research methods in

(mathematics) education. In L. English (Ed.), Handbook of
international research in mathematics education (pp.
435–488). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (2010). How we think: A theory of

goal-oriented decision making and its educational
applications. London: Routledge.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2014). What makes for powerful
classrooms, and how can we suppor t teachers in creating
them? A story of research and practice, productively inter
twined. Educational Researcher, 43(8), 404–412.

Swan, M. (1980). The language of graphs. Nottingham: Shell

Centre for Mathematical Education.

Swan, M. (2006). Collaborative learning in mathematics: A

challenge to our beliefs and practices. London: National
Institute for Advanced and Continuing Education (NIACE) for
the National Research and Development Centre for Adult
Literacy and Numeracy (NRDC).

Swan, M., & Burkhardt, H. (2014). Lesson design for

formative assessment. Educational Designer, 2(7).
Retrieved from

Swan, M., Pitts, J., Fraser, R., & Burkhardt, H., and the
Shell Centre Team. (1984). Problems with patterns and
numbers. Manchester, UK: Joint Matriculation Board and
Shell Centre for Mathematical Education. Retrieved from

Swan, M., Pitts, J., Fraser, R., Burkhardt, H, and the

Shell Centre Team. (1985). The Language of Functions and
Graphs, Manchester, UK: Joint Matriculation Board and Shell
Centre for Mathematical Education. Retrieved from

van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (1998). Realistic mathematics

education. Retrieved from http://www. fi.uu.nl/en/rme/.
This page intentionally left blank