Abu-Hilal, M. (2000). A structural model for predicting mathematics achievement: Its relation with anxiety and self-concept in mathematics.
Psychological Reports, 86, 835-847.
CrossRefAmes, C. (1992). Classrooms, goals, structures, and student motivation.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.
CrossRefBall, D. L. & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is - or might be - the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform. Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6-8.
Ball, D., Roskam, A., Morris, A., Hiebert, J., Suzuka, K., Lewis, J., et al. (2009). Improving mathematics teaching and teacher education through “specification”. Paper presented at the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Research Precession, Washington DC, April, 21, 2009.
Barab, S. & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground.
The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1-14.
CrossRefBarron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups.
The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 403-436.
CrossRefBell, P., Hoadley, C. M., & Linn, M. C. (2004). Design-based research in education. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 73-85). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Boaler, J. (2002). Experiencing school mathematics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cazden, C. B. & Beck, S. W. (2003). Classroom discourse. In A. C. Graesser, M. A. Gernsbacher & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), Handbook of discourse processes (pp. 165-197). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cobb, P., Yackel, E., & McClain, K. (eds). (2002). Communicating and symbolizing in mathematics: Perspectives on discourse, tools, and instructional design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (1999). Instruction, capacity, and improvement (No. CPRE Research Report No. RR-043). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Cohen, D. K., Raudenbush, S., & Ball, D. L. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 1-24.
CrossRefDavidson, A. (1999). Negotiating social differences: Youth’s assessments of educators’ strategies.
Urban Education, 34, 338-369.
CrossRefDavidson, A. & Phelan, P. (1999). Students’ multiple worlds: An anthropological approach to understanding students’ engagement with school. In T. C. Urdan (Ed.), Advances in motivation and achievement: Role of context (Vol. 2, pp. 233-283). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Dede, C. (2004). If design-based research is the answer, what is the question? A commentary on Collins, Joseph, and Bielaczyc; diSessa and Cobb; and Fishman, Marx, Blumenthal, Krajcik, and Soloway in the JLS special issue on design-based research.
The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 105-114.
CrossRefdiSessa, A. A. & Cobb, P. (2004). Ontological innovation and the role of theory in design experiments.
The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 77-103.
CrossRefEdelson, D. C. (2002). What we learn when we engage in design.
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105-121.
CrossRefFishman, B. (2006). It’s not about the technology [Electronic Version].
Teachers College Record. Retrieved July 6, 2006 from
http://www.tcrecord.org.
Geary, D.C., Berch, D.B., Boykin, A.W., Embretson, S., Reyna, V., Siegler, R., et al. (2008).
Report of the task group on learning processes. Retrived July 17, 2008 from
http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/report/learning-processes.pdf.
Goldenberg, P. (1995). Multiple representations: A vehicle for understanding understandings. In D. N. Perkins, J. L. Schwartz, M. M. West & M. S. Wiske (Eds.), Software goes to school (pp. 155-171). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Halverson, R., Shaffer, D., Squire, K., & Steinkuehler, C. (2006). Theorizing games in/and education. Bloomington, IN: Paper presented at the seventh International Conference on Learning Sciences.
Harter, S. (1992). The relationship between perceived competence, affect, and motivational orientation within the classroom: Process and patterns of change. In A. Boggiano & T. Pittman (Eds.), Achievement and motivation: A social-developmental perspective (pp. 77-114). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hegedus, S., Dalton, S., Moniz, R., & Roschelle, J. (2007). SimCalc classroom connectivity project 2: Understanding classroom interactions among diverse, connected classroom technologies (No. 1:1). North Dartmouth, MA: University of Massachusetts.
Hegedus, S., & Kaput, J. J. (2002). Exploring the phenomenon of classroom connectivity. Paper presented at the 24th Conference for the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Athens, GA.
Hegedus, S. J. & Kaput, J. (2003). The effect of a SimCalc connected classroom on students’ algebraic thinking. Honolulu, HI: Paper presented at the Psychology in Mathematics Education conference.
Hegedus, S. J. & Kaput, J. J. (2004). An introduction to the profound potential of connected algebra activities: Issues of representation, engagement and pedagogy. Bergen, Norway: Paper presented at the Eighth Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.
Hegedus, S., Moreno, L., & Dalton, S. (2007). Technology that mediates and participation in mathematical cognition. Paper presented at the 5th Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CERME), Larnaca, Cyprus.
Hegedus, S. J. & Penuel, W. R. (2008). Studying new forms of participation and identity in mathematics classrooms with integrated communication and representational infrastructures.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 68(2), 171-183.
CrossRefHicks, D. (1995). Discourse, learning, and teaching.
Review of Research in Education, 21(1), 49-95.
CrossRefHiebert, 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 Pub Inc.
Johnson, M. K., Crosnoe, R., & Elder, G., Jr. (2001). Students’ attachment and academic engagement: The role of race and ethnicity.
Sociology of Education, 74, 318-340.
CrossRefKaput, J. (1992). Technology and mathematics education. In D. Grouws (Ed.), A handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 515-556). New York: Macmillan.
Kaput, J. (1994). Democratizing access to calculus: New routes using old roots. In A. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Mathematical thinking and problem solving (pp. 77-155). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kaput, J., & Hegedus, S. J. (2002). Exploiting classroom connectivity by aggregating student constructions to create new learning opportunities. Paper presented at the 26th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Norwich, UK.
Kaput, J. & Hegedus, S. (2007). Technology becoming infrastructural in mathematics education. In R. Lesh, E. Hamilton & J. Kaput (Eds.), Foundations for the Future in Mathematics Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kaput, J., Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (2002). Developing new notations for a learnable mathematics in the computational era. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 51-75). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kaput, J. & Roschelle, J. (1998). The mathematics of change and variation from a millennial perspective: New content, new context. In C. Hoyles, C. Morgan & G. Woodhouse (Eds.), Rethinking the mathematics curriculum. London, UK: Falmer Press.
Kaput, J. & Schorr, R. (2008). Changing representational infrastructures changes most everything: The case of SimCalc, Algebra, and Calculus. In K. Heid & G. W. Blume (Eds.), Research on the impact of technology on the teaching and learning of mathematics: Volume 2, cases and perspectives (pp. 211-253). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Kaput, J. J. & Thompson, P. W. (1994). Technology in mathematics education research: The first 25 years in the JRME.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(6), 676-684.
CrossRefLadson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465.
Meece, J. (1991). The classroom context and student’s motivational goals. In M. Maehr & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 7, pp. 261-285). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Mitchell, M. (1993). Situational interest: Its multifaceted structure in the secondary school mathematics classroom.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 424-436.
CrossRefNewman, R. & Goldin, L. (1990). Children’s reluctance to seek help with school work.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 92-100.
CrossRefPapert, S. (2004). Will going digital improve or transform education? [Electronic Version].
New futures for learning in the digital age. Retrieved July 30, 2008 from
http://fundamentalchange.carolstrohecker.info/documents/ImproveOrTransform.pdf.
Phelan, P., Davidson, A., & Yu, H. (1998). Adolescents’ worlds: Negotiating family, peers, and school. New York: Teachers College Press.
Piaget, J. (1970). The child’s conception of movement and speed. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Roschelle, J. & Jackiw, N. (2000). Technology design as educational research: Interweaving imagination, inquiry & impact. In A. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Research design in mathematics & science education (pp. 777-797). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Roschelle, J. & Kaput, J. (1996). SimCalc MathWorlds for the mathematics of change.
Communications of the ACM, 39(8), 97-99.
CrossRefRoschelle, J., Kaput, J., & Stroup, W. (2000). SimCalc: Accelerating student engagement with the mathematics of change. In M. J. Jacobsen & R. B. Kozma (Eds.), Learning the sciences of the 21st century: Research, design, and implementing advanced technology learning environments (pp. 47-75). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Roschelle, J., Penuel, W. R., & Abrahamson, L. (2004). The networked classroom. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 4.
Roschelle, J., Tatar, D., Shechtman, N., Hegedus, S., Hopkins, B., Knudsen, J., et al. (2008). Extending the SimCalc approach to grade 8 mathematics (SimCalc Technical Report 02). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Roschelle, J., Tatar, D., Shechtman, N., Hegedus, S., Hopkins, B., Knudsen, J., et al. (2007). Can a technology-enhanced curriculum improve student learning of important mathematics? (SimCalc Technical Report 01). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Roschelle, J., Tatar, D., Shechtman, N., & Knudsen, J. (2008). The role of scaling up research in designing for and evaluating robustness.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 68(2), 149-170.
CrossRefRyan, A. & Pintrich, P. (1997). “Should I ask for help?” The role of motivation and attitudes in adolescents’ help seeking in math class.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 329-341.
CrossRefSkinner, E. & Belmont, M. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 571-581.
CrossRefStroup, W. M., Ares, N. M., & Hurford, A. C. (2005). A Dialectic analysis of generativity: Issues of network-supported design in mathematics and science.
Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 7(3), 181-206.
CrossRefStroup, W. M., Kaput, J., Ares, N., Wilensky, U., Hegedus, S. J., Roschelle, J., et al. (2002). The nature and future of classroom connectivity: The dialectics of mathematics in the social space. Paper presented at the Psychology and Mathematics Education North America conference, Athens, GA.
Tatar, D., Roschelle, J., Knudsen, J., Shechtman, N., Kaput, J., & Hopkins, B. (2008). Scaling up innovative technology-based mathematics.
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(2), 248-286.
CrossRefTreisman, U. & Fullilove, R. (1990). Mathematics achievement among African-American undergraduates at the University of California, Berkeley: An evaluation of the mathematics workshop program. Journal of Negro Education, 59(3), 463-478.
Turner, J., Thorpe, P., & Meyer, D. (1998). Students’ reports of motivation and negative affect: A theoretical and empirical analysis.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 758-771.
CrossRefVahey, P., Roschelle, J., & Tatar, D. (2007). Using handheld technology to move between private and public interactions in the classroom. In M. van ‘t Hooft & K. Swan (Eds.), Ubiquitous computing in education: Invisible technology, visible impact. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.