Arzarello, F. (1998). The role of natural language in prealgebraic and algebraic thinking. In H. Steinbring, M. Bussi, & A. Sierpinska (Eds.), *Language and communication in the mathematics classroom* (pp. 249–261). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Bennett, A. (1988). Visual thinking and number relationships. *Mathematics Teacher, 81*(4), 267–272.

Blanton, M., & Kaput, J. (2004). Elementary grades students’ capacity for functional thinking. In M. J. Hoynes & A. B. Fuglestad (Eds.), *Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education* (vol. 2, pp. 135–142). Oslo.

Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., & Levi, L. W. (2003). *Thinking mathematically: Integrating arithmetic and algebra in elementary school.* Portsmouth: Heinemann.

Cobb, P. (2000). Conducting teaching experiments in collaboration with teachers. In A. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), *Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education* (pp. 307–333). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research.

*Educational Researcher, 32*(1), 9–13.

CrossRefConfrey, J., & Lachance, A. (2000). Transformative teaching experiments through conjecture-drive research design. In A. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), *Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education* (pp. 231–265). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

Ernest, P. (2002). *A semiotic perspective of mathematical activity*. Paper presented at PME 26 2002, Norwich.

Johnassen, D. H., Beissner, K., & Yacci, M. (1993). *Structural knowledge: Techniques for representing, conveying, and acquiring structural knowledge*. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

Harel, G. (2001). The development of mathematical induction as a proof scheme: A model for DRN based instruction. In S. Campbell & R. Zaskis (Eds.), *Learning and teaching number theory, journal of mathematical behavior* (pp. 185–212). New Jersey: Albex.

Kaput, J., & Blanton, M. (2001). Algebrafying the elementary mathematics experience. 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. 344–352). Melbourne: ICMI.

MacGregor, M., & Stacey, K. (1996). Origins of students’ interpretation of algebraic notation. In L. Puig & A. Gutierrez (Eds.), *Proceedings of the 20th International Conference for Psychology of Mathematics Education* (vol. 3, pp. 289–296). Valencia.

Malara, N., & Navarra, G. (2003). *ArAl Project: Arithmetic pathways towards favouring pre-algebraic thinking*. Bologna: Pitagora Editrice.

Otte, M. (2001). *Mathematical expistemology from a semiotic point of view*. Paper presented in the Discussion Group for Semiotics in Mathematics Education at PME 25, Utrecht.

Otte, M. (2006). Mathematical epistemology from a Peircean semiotic point of view.

*Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61*, 11–38.

CrossRefPeirce, C. S. (1960). *Collected papers*. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Piaget, J. (1970). *Genetic epistemology*. New York: Columbia University Press.

Presmeg, N. (1997). *A semiotic framework for linking cultural practice and classroom mathematics*. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. Ed 425 257.

Radford, L. (2001). *On the relevance of semiotics in mathematics education*. Paper presented in the Discussion Group for Semiotics in Mathematics Education at PME 25*,* Utrecht.

Redden, T. (1996). “Wouldn’t it be good if we had a symbol to stand for any number”: The relationship between natural language and symbolic notation in pattern description. In L. Puig & A. Gutierrez (Eds.), *Proceedings of the 20th International Conference, Psychology of Mathematics Education* (vol. 4, pp. 195–202). Valencia.

Saenz-Ludlow, A. (2001). *Classroom mathematics discourse as an evolving interpreting game*. Paper presented in the Discussion Group for Semiotics in Mathematics Education at PME 25, Utrecht.

Saenz-Ludlow, A. (2006). Classroom interpreting games with an illustration.

*Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61*(2), 183–218.

CrossRefSfard, A. (1991). On the dual nature of mathematical concepts: Reflections on processes and objects as different sides of the same coin.

*Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22*(1), 191–228.

CrossRefStacey, K., & MacGregor, M. (1995). The effect of different approaches to algebra on students’ perceptions of functional relationships. *Mathematics Education Research Journal, 7*, 69–85.

Steffe, L. P., & Thompson, P. W. (2000). Teaching experiment methodology: Underlying principles and essential elements. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), *Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education* (pp. 267–306). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

Vygotsky, L. (1934/1986). *Thought and language*. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Warren, E. (1996). *Interaction between instructional approaches, students’ reasoning processes, and their understanding of elementary algebra*. Dissertation, Queensland University of Technology.

Warren, E. (2000). Visualisation and the development of early understanding in algebra. In T. Nakahara & M. Koyama (Ed.), *Proceedings of the 24th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education* (vol. 4, pp. 273–280). Hiroshima.

Warren, E. (2006). Learning comparative mathematical language in the elementary school: A longitudinal study.

*Educational Studies in Mathematics, 62*(2), 169–189.

CrossRef