ZDM

, Volume 48, Issue 5, pp 691–719 | Cite as

Recent research on geometry education: an ICME-13 survey team report

  • Nathalie Sinclair
  • Maria G. Bartolini Bussi
  • Michael de Villiers
  • Keith Jones
  • Ulrich Kortenkamp
  • Allen Leung
  • Kay Owens
Survey Paper

Abstract

This survey on the theme of Geometry Education (including new technologies) focuses chiefly on the time span since 2008. Based on our review of the research literature published during this time span (in refereed journal articles, conference proceedings and edited books), we have jointly identified seven major threads of contributions that span from the early years of learning (pre-school and primary school) through to post-compulsory education and to the issue of mathematics teacher education for geometry. These threads are as follows: developments and trends in the use of theories; advances in the understanding of visuo spatial reasoning; the use and role of diagrams and gestures; advances in the understanding of the role of digital technologies; advances in the understanding of the teaching and learning of definitions; advances in the understanding of the teaching and learning of the proving process; and, moving beyond traditional Euclidean approaches. Within each theme, we identify relevant research and also offer commentary on future directions.

Keywords

Geometry Technology Diagrams Definitions Gestures Proving Digital technology Visuospatial reasoning 

References

  1. Abdelfatah, H. (2011). A story-based dynamic geometry approach to improve attitudes toward geometry and geometric proof. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 43(3), 441–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alsina, C., & Nelsen, R. B. (2006). Math Made Visual: Creating Images for Understanding Mathematics. Washington: The Mathematical Association of America.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ambrose, R., & Kenehan, G. (2009). Children’s evolving understanding of polyhedra in the classroom. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 11(3), 158–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arici, S., & Aslan-Tutak, F. (2015). The effect of origami-based instruction on spatial visualization, geometry achievement, and geometric reasoning. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(1), 179–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arzarello, F. (2006). Semiosis as a multimodal process. Revista Latinoamericana de Investigación en Matemática Educativa. Special Issue on Semiotics, Culture, and Mathematical Thinking, 9(1), 267–300.Google Scholar
  6. Arzarello, F., Bairral, M. A., & Danè, C. (2014). Moving from dragging to touchscreen: geometrical learning with geometric dynamic software. Teaching Mathematics and its Applications, 33(1), 39–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Arzarello, F., Bartolini Bussi, M. G., Leung, A., Mariotti, M. A., & Stevenson, I. (2012). Experimental approach to theoretical thinking: Artefacts and proofs. In G. Hanna & M. De Villers (Eds.), Proof and Proving in Mathematics Education: The 19th ICMI Study (New ICMI Study Series) (pp. 97–137). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Arzarello, F., Olivero, F., Paola, D., & Robutti, O. (2002). A cognitive analysis of dragging practices in Cabri environments. ZDM, 34(3), 66–72.Google Scholar
  9. Atebe, H. U., & Schäfer, M. (2008). “As soon as the four sides are all equal, then the angles must be 90°”. Children’s misconceptions in geometry. African Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 12(2), 47–66.Google Scholar
  10. Atebe, H. U., & Schäfer, M. (2011). The nature of geometry instruction and observed learning-outcomes opportunities in Nigerian and South African high schools. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(2), 191–204.Google Scholar
  11. Baccaglini-Frank, A. (2011). Abduction in generating conjectures in dynamic geometry through maintaining dragging. In M. Pytlak, T. Rowland, & E. Swoboda (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 110–119). Poland: Rzeszów.Google Scholar
  12. Baccaglini-Frank, A., Antonini, S., Leung, A., & Mariotti, M. A. (2013). Reasoning by contradiction in dynamic geometry. PNA, 7(2), 63–73.Google Scholar
  13. Baccaglini-Frank, A., & Mariotti, M. A. (2010). Generating conjectures in dynamic geometry: the maintaining dragging model. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 15(3), 225–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Balacheff, N. (2013). cK¢, a model to reason on learners’ conceptions. In M. V. Martinez & A. C. Superfine (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 2–15). IL, United States: Chicago.Google Scholar
  15. Balacheff, N., & Margolinas, C. (2005). cK¢ Modèle des connaissances pour le calcul de situation didactiques. In A. Mercier & C. Margolinas (Eds.), Balises pour la didactique des mathématiques (pp. 75–106). Grenoble: La Pensée Sauvage.Google Scholar
  16. Barany, M., & MacKenzie, D. (2014). Chalk: Materials and concepts in mathematics research. In C. Coopmans, J. Vertesi, M. Lynch, & S. Woolgar (Eds.), Representation in scientific practice revisited (pp. 107–130). Cambridge: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bartolini Bussi, M. G. (2007). Semiotic mediation: fragments from a classroom experiment on the coordination of spatial perspectives. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 39(1), 63–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bartolini Bussi, M. G. (2010). Historical artefacts, semiotic mediation and teaching proof. In G. Hanna, et al. (Eds.), Explanation and proof in mathematics: philosophical and educational perspectives (pp. 151–167). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bartolini Bussi, M. G., & Baccaglini-Frank, A. (2015). Geometry in early years: sowing the seeds towards a mathematical definition of squares and rectangles. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(3), 391–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bartolini Bussi, M. G., & Mariotti, M. A. (2008). Semiotic mediation in the mathematics classroom: artefacts 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 (pp. 720–749, 2nd éd.). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Bartolini Bussi, M. G., Taimina, D., & Isoda, M. (2010). Concrete models and dynamic instruments as early technology tools in classrooms at the dawn of ICMI: from Felix Klein to present applications in mathematics classrooms in different parts of the world. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 42(1), 19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Baulac, Y., Bellemain, F., & Laborde, J. M. (1988). Cabri-géomètre, un logiciel d'aide à l'enseignement de la géométrie, logiciel et manuel d'utilisation, Paris: Cedic-NathanGoogle Scholar
  23. Bautista, A., & Roth, W.-M. (2012). Conceptualizing sound as a form of incarnate mathematical consciousness. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Bonnard, Q., Verma, H., Kaplan, F., & Dillenbourg, P. (2012). Paper interfaces for learning geometry. In: A. Ravenscroft, S. Lindstaedt, C. Kloos, and D. Hernández-Leo (eds.) 21st Century Learning for 21st Century Skills; Lecture Notes in Computer Science (vol 7563; pp. 37–50). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Bryant, P. (2008). Paper 5: understanding spaces and its representation in mathematics. In: T. Nunez, P. Bryant, & A. Watson (Eds.), Key understanding in mathematics learning: a report to the nuffield foundation. Retrieved from http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/P5.pdf.
  26. Bu, L., & Haciomeroglu, E. S. (2010). Sliders in dynamic mathematics learning environments: their pedagogical roles. Mathematics and Computer Education, 44(3), 213–221.Google Scholar
  27. Burgmanis, Ģ., Krišjāne, Z., & Šķilters, J. (2014). Acquisition of spatial knowledge in different urban areas: evidence from a survey analysis of adolescents. International Quarterly of Cognitive Science, 15(3), 373–383.Google Scholar
  28. Camou, B.J. (2012). High school students’ learning of 3D geometry using iMAT (integrating Multitype-representations, Approximations and Technology) engineering. (Doctoral dissertation), University of Georgia.Google Scholar
  29. Camou, B., Olive, J., Colucci, M., & Garcia, G. (2013). Essential 3D geometry. San Diego: University Readers.Google Scholar
  30. 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 Instruction, 26(3), 269–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Chang, K. E., Wu, L. J., Lai, S. C., & Sung, Y. T. (2014). Using mobile devices to enhance the interactive learning for spatial geometry. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(1), 1–19.Google Scholar
  32. Chen, C.-L., & Herbst, P. (2013). The interplay among gestures, discourse, and diagrams in students’ geometrical reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83(2), 285–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Cheng, K., Huttenlocher, J., & Newcombe, N. (2013). 25 years of research on the use of geometry in spatial reorientation: a current theoretical perspective. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 20(6), 1033–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Cheng, Y.-L., & Mix, K. (2014). Spatial training improves children’s mathematics ability. Journal of Cognition and Development, 15(1), 2–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Choi, K., & Oh, S. Kyoung. (2008). Teachers’ conceptual errors related to the definitions in the area of geometry of elementary school mathematics. Journal of the Korean Society of Mathematical Education. Series A. The Mathematical Education, 47(2), 197–219.Google Scholar
  36. Choi, S. I., & Kim, S. J. (2013). A study on students’ understanding of figures through descriptive assessment. East Asian Mathematical Journal, 29(2), 207–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. CindyJS Project (2015). CindyJS: A JavaScript framework for interactive (mathematical) content, http://cindyjs.org. Accessed 20 June 2016.
  38. Clements, M. (2012). A historical overview of visualisation and visualising in mathematics education. Israel: Paper presented at the Retirement Symposium of Ted Eisenberg.Google Scholar
  39. 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.Google Scholar
  40. David, M., & Tomaz, V. (2012). The role of visual representations for structuring classroom mathematical activity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 80(3), 413–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Davis, B., & Spatial Reasoning Study Group. (2015). Spatial reasoning in the early years: Principles, assertions, and speculations. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. De Freitas, E., & Sinclair, N. (2012). Diagram, gesture, agency: theorizing embodiment in the mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 80(1), 133–152.Google Scholar
  43. De Villiers, M. (1994). The role and function of a hierarchical classification of quadrilaterals. For the Learning of Mathematics, 14(1), 11–18.Google Scholar
  44. De Villiers, M. (2007). A hexagon result and its generalization via proof. The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, 4(2), 188–192.Google Scholar
  45. De Villiers, M. (2004). Using dynamic geometry to expand mathematics teachers’ understanding of proof. The International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 35(5), 703–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. De Villiers, M. (2011). Simply symmetric. Learning and Teaching Mathematics, 11, 22–26.Google Scholar
  47. De Villiers, M. (2012). Generalizing a problem of Sylvester. The Mathematical Gazette, 96(535), 78–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. De Villiers, M., Govender, R., & Patterson, N. (2009). Defining in Geometry. In T. Craine & R. Rubinstein (Eds.), Seventy-first NCTM Yearbook: Understanding Geometry for a Changing World (pp. 189–203). Reston: NCTM.Google Scholar
  49. Ding, L., Jones, K., & Zhang, D. (2015). Teaching geometrical theorems in grade 8 using the ‘Shen Tou’ method: a case study in Shanghai. In: L. Fan, N-Y. Wong, J. Cai & S. Li (Eds.), How Chinese teach mathematics: perspectives from insiders (pp. 279–312). Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
  50. Doyle, R. A., Voyer, D., & Cherney, I. D. (2012). The relation between childhood spatial activities and spatial abilities in adulthood. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 33(2), 112–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Duatepe-Paksu, A., & Ubuz, B. (2009). Effects of drama-based geometry instruction on student achievement, attitudes, and thinking levels. The journal of Educational Research, 102(4), 272–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Duval, R. (1998). Geometry from a cognitive point of view. In C. Mammana & V. Villani (Eds.), Perspectives on the teaching of geometry for the 21st Century: an ICMI study (pp. 37–52). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  53. Duval, R. (2005). Les conditions cognitives de l’apparentissage de la géométrie: Développement de la visualisation, differenciation des raisonnement et coordination de leurs fonctionnements. Annales de didactique et sciences cognitives, 10, 5–53.Google Scholar
  54. Ehmann, M., Gerhauser, M., Miller, C., & Wassermann, A. (2013). Sketchometry and jsxgraph: dynamic geometry for mobile devices. South Bohemia Mathematical Letters, 21(1), 1–7.Google Scholar
  55. Erdogan, E. O., & Dur, Z. (2014). Preservice mathematics teachers’ personal figural concepts and classifications about quadrilaterals. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(6), 107–133.Google Scholar
  56. Erez, M., & Yerushalmy, M. (2006). “If you can turn a rectangle into a square, you can turn a square into a rectangle”: young students’ experience the dragging tool. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 11(3), 271–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Fahlgren, M., & Brunström, M. A. (2014). A model for task design with focus on exploration, explanation, and generalization in a dynamic geometry environment. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 19(3), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Fischbein, E. (1993). The theory of figural concepts. Educational studies in mathematics, 24(2), 139–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Forsythe, S. K. (2015). Dragging maintaining symmetry: can it generate the concept of inclusivity as well as a family of shapes? Research in Mathematics Education, 17(3), 198–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Foster, C. (2014). Being inclusive. Mathematics in School, 43(3), 12–13.Google Scholar
  61. Freudenthal, H. (1973). Mathematics as an Educational Task. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  62. Fujita, T. (2012). Learners’ level of understanding of the inclusion relations of quadrilaterals and prototype phenomenon. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31(1), 60–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Fujita, T., & Jones, K. (2007). Learners’ understanding of the definitions and hierarchical classification of quadrilaterals: towards a theoretical framing. Research in Mathematics Education, 9(1&2), 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Fujita, T., Jones, K., & Kunimune, S. (2010). Student’s geometrical constructions and proving activities: a case of cognitive unity? In: Pinto, M. F., & Kawasaki, T. F., (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th International Conference of PME (Vol. 3, pp. 9–16). Belo Horizonte, Brazil.Google Scholar
  65. Fyhn, A. (2008). A climbing class’ reinvention of angles. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67(1), 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Gal, H., & Lew, H. C. (2008). Is a rectangle a parallelogram? Towards a bypass of Van Hiele Level 3 decision making. In H. N. Jahnke & H.-C. Lew (Eds.), The 11th International Congress on Mathematical Education. Mexico: Monterrey.Google Scholar
  67. Gal, H., & Linchevski, L. (2010). To see or not to see: analyzing difficulties in geometry from the perspective of visual perception. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 74(2), 163–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Gerhäuser, M., Valentin, B., & Wassermann, A. (2010). JSXGraph: dynamic Mathematics with JavaScript. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 17(4), 211–215.Google Scholar
  69. Giofrè, D., Mammarella, I. C., Ronconi, L., & Cornoldi, C. (2013). Visuospatial working memory in intuitive geometry, and in academic achievement in geometry. Learning and Individual Differences, 23, 114–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Gol Tabaghi, S., & Sinclair, N. (2013). Using dynamic geometry software to explore eigenvectors: the emergence of dynamic-synthetic-geometric thinking. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 18(3), 149–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Goldin-Meadow, S. (2003). Hearing gesture: How our hands help us think. Cambridge: Belknap, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Gómez-Chacón, I. M., & Kuzniak, A. (2015). Spaces for geometric work: figural, instrumental, and discursive geneses of reasoning in a technological environment. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(1), 201–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. González, G., & Herbst, P. (2009). Students’ conceptions of congruency through the use of dynamic geometry software. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 14(2), 153–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Govender, R., & De Villiers, M. (2004). A dynamic approach to quadrilateral definitions. Pythagoras, 58, 34–45.Google Scholar
  75. Gravina, M. A. (2008). Drawing in movement and insights for the proof process. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life-Long Learning, 18(5/6), 564–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Gray, J. (2005). Felix Klein’s Erlangen Program, ‘Comparative considerations of recent geometrical researches’ (1872). In I. Grattan-Guiness (Ed.), Landmark Writings in Western Mathematics, 1640–1940 (pp. 544–552). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Gu, L. (1992). The Qingpu experience. In: Paper presented at the 7th International Congress of Mathematical Education, Quebec.Google Scholar
  78. Gu, L., Huang, R., & Marton, F. (2004). Teaching with variation: An effective way of mathematics teaching in China. In L. Fan, N. Y. Wong, J. Cai, & S. Li (Eds.), How Chinese learn mathematics: perspectives from insiders (pp. 309–345). Singapore: World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 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 and cyberlearning (pp. 97–118). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Gutiérrez, A., Jaime, A., & Fortuny, J. M. (1991). An alternative paradigm to evaluate the acquisition of the van Hiele levels. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(3), 237–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Guven, B., & Baki, A. (2010). Characterizing student mathematics teachers’ levels of understanding in spherical geometry. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 41(8), 991–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Guven, B., & Karatas, I. (2009). Students discovering spherical geometry using dynamic geometry software. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 40(3), 331–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Hare, A. & Sinclair, N. (2015). Pointing in an undergraduate abstract algebra lecture: interface between speaking and writing. Proceedings of the 39th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education, Australia: Hobart.Google Scholar
  84. Haßler, B., Hennessy, S., Cross, A., Chileshe, E., & Machiko, B. (2014). School-based professional development in a developing context: lessons learnt from a case study in Zambia. Professional Development in Education, pp 1–20.Google Scholar
  85. Hatterman, M. (2010). A first application of new theoretical terms on observed dragging modalities in 3D Dynamic Geometry Environments. In: Pinto, M. F., & Kawasaki, T. F., (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 57–64), Brazil.Google Scholar
  86. Hawkins, A., & Sinclair, N. (2008). Explorations with Sketchpad in topogeometry. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 13(1), 71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 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(2), 157–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Healy, L., & Powell, A. (2013). Understanding and overcoming “disadvantage” in learning mathematics. In: M. Clements, A. Bishop, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & F. Leung (Eds.), Third international handbook of mathematics education. International Handbooks of Education. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  89. Hegedus, S. J., & Moreno-Armella, L. (2010). Accommodating the instrumental genesis framework within dynamic technological environments. For the Learning of Mathematics, 30(1), 26–31.Google Scholar
  90. Hershkowitz, R. (1990). Psychological aspects of learning geometry. In P. Nesher & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), Mathematics and cognition (pp. 70–95). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Hodge, A., & Frick, K. (2009). University preparation of pre-service secondary geometry teachers: a need for research. Journal of Mathematical Sciences and Mathematics Education, 4(1), 28–36.Google Scholar
  92. 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.Google Scholar
  93. Hollebrands, K. F., 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.Google Scholar
  94. Hung, P. H., Hwang, G. J., Lee, Y. H., & Su, I. (2012). A cognitive component analysis approach for developing game-based spatial learning tools. Computers & Education, 59(2), 762–773.Google Scholar
  95. Iijama, Y. (2012). GC/HTML5: dynamic geometry software which can be used with Ipad and PC—feature of software and some lessons with it. In: The proceedings of the 12th International Congress on Mathematical Education. COEX, Seoul, Korea.Google Scholar
  96. Ingraham, M. (2013). Incorporating iPad technology into the classroom: a geometry project. Ohio Journal of School Mathematics, 2013(67), 27–32.Google Scholar
  97. Isotani, S., Pedro, L. Z., Reis, H. M., Borges, S. S., Lopes, A. M., Souza, J., Brandão, A. F. & Brandão, L. O. (2014). Interactive geometry goes mobile with GeoTouch. In: 2014 IEEE 14th international conference on advanced learning technologies (ICALT) (pp. 181–185). Sao Paulo, Brazil.Google Scholar
  98. Jackiw, N. (1989). The Geometer’s Sketchpad (Computer Software). Berkeley: Key Curriculum Press.Google Scholar
  99. Jackiw, N. (2013). Touch and multitouch in dynamic geometry: Sketchpad explorer and “digital” mathematics. In E. Faggiano & A. Montone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching (pp. 149–155). Italy: Bari.Google Scholar
  100. Jackiw, N., & Sinclair, N. (2009). Sounds and pictures: dynamism and dualism in dynamic geometry. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 41(4), 413–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Jahnke, H. N., & Wamback, R. (2013). Understanding what a proof is: a classroom-approach. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(3), 469–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Jawahir, R. (2013). Effective learning and teaching strategies of two-dimensional geometry at the upper primary grades in Mauritius. (PhD), University of Technology, Mauritius.Google Scholar
  103. Jirout, J., & Newcombe, N. (2015). Building blocks for developing spatial skills: evidence from a large, representative U.S. sample. Psychological Science, 26(3), 302–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Jo, I., & Bednarz, S. (2014). Dispositions toward teaching spatial thinking through geography: conceptualization and an exemplar assessment. Journal of Geography, 113(5), 198–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Jones, K., & Fujita, T. (2013). Characterising triangle congruency in lower secondary school: the case of Japan. In B. Ubuz, Ç. Haser, & M. A. Mariotti (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 655–664). Turkey: Antalya.Google Scholar
  106. Jones, K., & Herbst, P. (2011). Proof, proving, and teacher-student interaction: theories and contexts. In G. Hanna & M. de Villiers (Eds.), Proof and proving in mathematics education: the 19th ICMI study (pp. 261–277). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Jones, K., Mackrell, K., & Stevenson, I. (2010). Designing digital technologies and learning activities for different geometries. In: C. Hoyles & J.-B. Lagrange (Eds.), Mathematics education and technology: rethinking the terrain. The 17th ICMI study (pp. 47–60). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  108. Junius, P. (2008). A case example of insect gymnastics: how is non-Euclidean geometry learned? International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 39(8), 987–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Kaur, H. (2015). Two aspects of young children’s thinking about different types of dynamic triangles: prototypicality and inclusion. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(3), 407–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Kim, D., & Ju, M. (2012). A changing trajectory of proof learning in the geometry inquiry classroom. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 44(2), 149–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Klein, F. (1872). Vergleichende Betrachtungen über neuere geometrische Forschungen (Das Erlanger Programm). Erlangen: A. Deichert.Google Scholar
  113. Kortenkamp, U., & Dohrmann, C. (2010). User interface design for dynamic geometry software. Acta Didactica Napocensia, 3(2), 59–66.Google Scholar
  114. Kuzniak, A. (2014). Understanding the nature of the geometric work through its development and its transformation. In: S. Rezat, M. Hattermann, & A. Peter–Koop (Eds.), Transformation: a fundamental idea of mathematics education (pp. 311–325). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  115. Laborde, C., & Laborde, J.-M. (2014). Dynamic and tangible representations in mathematics education. In S. Rezat, M. Hattermann, & A. Peter-Koop (Eds.), Transformation: A Fundamental Idea of Mathematics Education (pp. 187–202). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Lai, K., & White, T. (2014). How groups cooperate in a networked geometry learning environment. Instructional Science, 42(4), 615–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Lakoff, G., & Núñez, R. (2000). Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  118. Latsi, M., & Kynigos, C. (2012). Experiencing 3D simulated space through different perspectives. In A. Jimoyiannis (Ed.), Research on e-Learning and ICT in Education: Technological, Pedagogical and Instructional Issues (pp. 183–196). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Lord, N. (2008). Maths bite: Averaging polygons. The Mathematical Gazette, 92(523), 134.Google Scholar
  120. Lavicza, Z., Hohenwarter, M., Jones, K., Lu, A., & Dawes, M. (2010). Establishing a professional development network around dynamic mathematics software in England. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 17(4), 177–182.Google Scholar
  121. Lee, C. Y., & Chen, M. J. (2014). The impacts of virtual manipulatives and prior knowledge on geometry learning performance in junior high school. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 50(2), 179–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Lee, S. A., Sovrano, V. A., & Spelke, E. S. (2012). Navigation as a source of geometric knowledge: young children’s use of length, angle, distance, and direction in a reorientation task. Cognition, 123(1), 144–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Lehrer, R., Jenkins, M., & Osana, H. (1998). Longitudinal study of children’s reasoning about space and geometry. In R. Lehrer & D. Chazan (Eds.), Designing learning environments for developing understanding of geometry and space (pp. 137–167). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  124. Leikin, R., & Grossman, D. (2013). Teachers modify geometry problems: from poof to investigation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 82(3), 515–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Lénárt, I. (2003). Non-Euclidean adventures on the Lénárt sphere. Emeryville: Key Curriculum Press.Google Scholar
  126. Leung, A. (2008a). Dragging in a dynamic geometry environment through the lens of variation. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 13(2), 135–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Leung, I. K. C. (2008b). Teaching and learning of inclusive and transitive properties among quadrilaterals by deductive reasoning with the aid of SmartBoard. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 40(6), 1007–1021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Leung, A. (2009). Written proof in dynamic geometry environment: inspiration from a student’s work. In: Lin, F-L., Hsieh, F-J., Hanna, G., & De Viller, M. (Eds.). Proceedings of the ICMI 19 study conference: proof and proving in mathematics education (vol. 2, pp. 15–20). Taipei, Taiwan.Google Scholar
  129. Leung, A. (2011). An epistemic model of task design in dynamic geometry environment. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 43(3), 325–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Leung, A. (2012). Variation and mathematics pedagogy. 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 (Vol. 2, pp. 435–442). Singapore: MERGA Inc.Google Scholar
  131. Leung, A., Baccaglini-Frank, A., & Mariotti, M. A. (2013). Discernement in dynamic geometry environments. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 84(3), 439–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Leung, A., & Bolite-Frant, J. (2015). Designing mathematics tasks: the role of tools. In A. Watson & M. Ohtani (Eds.), Task Design in Mathematics Education: The 22nd ICMI Study (New ICMI Study Series) (pp. 191–225). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Leung, A., & Lee, A. M. S. (2013). Students’ geometrical perception on a task-based dynamic geometry platform. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 82(3), 361–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Levenson, E., Tirosh, D., & Tsamir, P. (2011). Preschool geometry. Theory, research, and practical perpectives. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  135. Lowrie, T., Logan, T., & Scriven, B. (2012). Perspectives on geometry and measurement in the Australian curriculum: mathematics. In: B. Atweh, M. Goos, R. Jorgensen, & D. Siemon (Eds.), Engaging the Australian National Curriculum: mathematicsperspectives from the field. Online Publication (pp. 71–88). Adelaide: Australia: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.Google Scholar
  136. Luitel, B. C. (2009). Culture, worldview and transformative philosophy of mathematics education in Nepal: a cultural-philosophical inquiry. Curtin, Perth.Google Scholar
  137. Luitel, B. C. (2013). Mathematics as an im/pure knowledge system, symbiosis, (w)holism and synergy in mathematics education., 11, 65–87. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11, 65–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Mackrell, K. (2011). Design decisions in interactive geometry software. ZDM The International Journal on Mathematics Education., 43(3), 373–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Mainali, B. R. (2008). Comparison of traditional teaching and learning of reflection and rotation in a Nepalese high school with an ICT-rich, student-centered, guided discovery approach. (Masters), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Retrieved from http://www.scriptiesonline.uba.uva.nl/. Accessed 17 June 2016.
  140. Mainali, B. R., & Key, M. B. (2012). Using dynamic geometry software GeoGebra in developing countries: A case study of impressions of mathematics teachers in Nepal. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 12, 1–21.Google Scholar
  141. Mammana, M. F., Micale, B., & Pennisi, M. (2009). Quadrilaterals and tetrahedra. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 40(6), 817–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Mammana, M. F., Micale, B., & Pennisi, M. (2012). Analogy and dynamic geometry system used to introduce three-dimensional geometry. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 43(6), 818–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Mammarella, I., Giofrè, D., Ferrara, R., & Cornoldi, C. (2013). Intuitive geometry and visuospatial working memory in children showing symptoms of nonverbal learning disabilities. Child Neuropsychology, 19(3), 235–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Mariotti, M. A. (2007). Geometrical proof: the mediation of a microworld. In P. Boero (Ed.), Theorems in School: From History, Epistemology, and Cognition to Classroom Practice (pp. 285–304). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  145. Mariotti, M. A. (2014). Transforming images in a DGS: The semiotic potential of the dragging tool for introducing the notion of conditional statement. In S. Rezat, M. Hattermann, & A. Peter-Koop (Eds.), Transformation—A Fundamental Idea of Mathematics Education (pp. 155–172). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Mariotti, M. A., & Fischbein, E. (1997). Defining in classroom activities. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 34, 219–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. Markovic, Z., & Romano, D. A. (2013). Gaining insight of how elementary school students conceptualize geometric shape of parallelogram. Open Mathematical Education Notes, 3, 31–41.Google Scholar
  148. 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: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  149. Maschietto, M., & Bartolini Bussi, M. G. (2009). Working with artefacts: gestures, drawings and speech in the construction of the mathematical meaning of the visual pyramid. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(2), 143–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Massarwe, K., Verner, I., & Bshouty, D. (2010). Pathways of creativity: Joyful learning of geometry through analysis and construction of ornaments. Mediterranean Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. Special Issue Intercultural Aspects of Creativity: Challenges and Barriers, 9(2), 93–105.Google Scholar
  151. Menz, P. (2015). Unfolding of Diagramming and Gesturing between Mathematics Graduate Student and Supervisor during Research Meetings. Ph.D dissertation, Department of Mathematics, Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar
  152. Miyazaki, M., Fujita, T., & Jones, K. (2015). Flow-chart proofs with open problems as scaffolds for learning about geometrical proof. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(7), 1211–1224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. Morgan, C., & Alshwaikh, J. (2012). Communicating experience of 3D space: mathematical and everyday discourse. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 14(3), 199–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. Moutsios-Rentzos, A., & Spyrou, P. (2013). The need for proof in geometry: a theoretical investigation through Husserl’s phenomenology. In: Lindmeier, A. M. & Heinze, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 329–336). Kiel, Germany.Google Scholar
  155. Neel-Romine, L. E., Paul, S., & Shafer, K. G. (2012). Get to know a circle. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 18(4), 222–227. doi:10.5951/mathteacmiddscho.18.4.0222
  156. Newcombe, N., & Stieff, M. (2012). Six myths about spatial thinking. International Journal of Science Education, 34(6), 955–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. Newton, J. (2010). An examination of K-8 geometry state standards through the lens of van Hiele levels of geometric thinking. In J. P. Smith (Ed.), Variability is the rule: a companion analysis of K-8 state mathematics standards (pp. 71–94). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  158. Ng, O., & Sinclair, N. (2015a). Young children reasoning about symmetry in a dynamic geometry environment. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(3), 421–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. Ng, O., & Sinclair, N. (2015b). “Area without numbers”: using touchscreen dynamic geometry to reason about shape. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 15(1), 84–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. Okazaki, M. (2009). Process and means of reinterpreting tacit properties in understanding the inclusion relations between quadrilaterals. In: Tzekaki, M., Kaldrimidou, M., & Sakonidis, C., (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 249–256). Thessaloniki, Greece.Google Scholar
  161. Okazaki, M. (2013). Identifying situations for fifth graders to construct definitions as conditions for determining geometric figures. In: Proceedings of the 37th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 3, pp. 409–416). Kiel, Germany.Google Scholar
  162. Okazaki, M., & Fujita, T. (2007). Prototype phenomena and common cognitive paths in the understanding of the inclusion relations between quadrilaterals in Japan and Scotland. In J. H. Woo, H. C. Lew, K. S. Park, & D. Y. Seo (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 41–48). Seoul: Seoul National University.Google Scholar
  163. Olivero, F., & Robutti, O. (2007). Measuring in dynamic geometry environments as a tool for conjecturing and proving. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 12(2), 135–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  164. Otten, S., Gilbertson, N. J., Males, L. M., & Clark, D. L. (2014). The mathematical nature of reasoning-and-proving opportunities in geometry textbooks. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 16(1), 51–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. Owens, K. (2004). Improving the teaching and learning of space mathematics. In B. Clarke, D. Clarke, G. Emanuelsson, B. Johansson, D. Lambdin, F. Lester, A. Wallby, & K. Wallby (Eds.), International perspectives on learning and teaching mathematics (pp. 569–584). Gothenburg: Göteborg University National Center for Mathematics Education.Google Scholar
  166. Owens, K. (2014). Diversifying our perspectives on mathematics about space and geometry: an ecocultural approach. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(4), 941–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  167. Owens, K. (2015). Visuospatial reasoning: An ecocultural perspective for space, geometry and measurement education. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  168. Owens, K., Cherinda, M., & Jawahir, R. (2015). The importance of an ecocultural perspective for Indigenous and transcultural education. In K. Owens (Ed.), Visuospatial reasoning: An ecocultural perspective for space, geometry and measurement education (pp. 245–273). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  169. Owens, K., & Highfield, K. (2015). Visuospatial reasoning in contexts with digital technology. In K. Owens (Ed.), Visuospatial reasoning (pp. 275–289). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  170. Owens, K., McPhail, D., & Reddacliff, C. (2003). Facilitating the teaching of space mathematics: An evaluation. In N. Pateman, B. Dougherty, & J. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of 27th annual conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 339–345). Hawaii: International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.Google Scholar
  171. Palha, S., Dekker, R., Gravemeijer, K., & Van Hout-Wolters, B. (2013). Developing shift problems to foster geometrical proof and understanding. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 32(2), 142–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  172. Papademetri-Kachrimani, C. (2012). Revisiting van Hiele. For the Learning of Mathematics, 32(3), 2–7.Google Scholar
  173. Perry, D. R., & Steck, A. K. (2015). Increasing student engagement, self-efficacy, and meta-cognitive self-regulation in the high school geometry classroom: do iPads help? Computers in the Schools, 32(2), 122–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  174. Perrin-Glorian, M. -J., Mathé, A. -C., & Leclercq, R. (2013). Comment peut-on penser la continuité de l’enseignement de la géométrie de 6 a 15 ans? Repères-IREM, 90, 5–41.Google Scholar
  175. Pimm, D. (1997). Symbols and meanings in school mathematics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  176. Pinxten, R., & François, K. (2011). Politics in an Indian canyon? Some thoughts on the implications of ethnomathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 78(2), 261–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  177. Pittalis, M., & Christou, C. (2010). Types of reasoning in 3D geometry thinking and their relation with spatial ability. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 75(2), 191–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  178. Popovic, G. (2012). Who is this trapezoid, anyway? Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 18(4), 196–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  179. Presmeg, N. (2006). Research on visualisation in learning and teaching mathematics. In A. Gutiérrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education (pp. 205–304). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  180. Psycharis, G., & Kynigos, C. (2009). Normalising geometrical figures: dynamic manipulation and construction of meanings for ratio and proportion. Research in Mathematics Education, 11(2), 149–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  181. Richard, P. R., Fortuny, J. M., Gagnon, M., Leduc, N., Puertas, E., & Tessier-Baillargeon, M. (2011). Didactic and theoretical-based perspectives in the experimental development of an intelligent tutorial system for the learning of geometry. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 43(3), 425–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  182. Richter-Gebert, J., & Kortenkamp, U. H. (2012). The Cinderella.2 manual. Working with the interactive geometry software. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  183. Rivera, F. (2011). Towards a visually-oriented school mathematics classrooms: Research, theory, practice, and issues. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  184. Rowlands, S. (2010). A pilot study of a cultural-historical approach to teaching geometry. Science and Education, 19(1), 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  185. Rybak, A., & Lénárt, I. (2012). Comparative geometry with geogebra, spherical easel and other didactic tools. GGIJRO, 2(2), 67–76.Google Scholar
  186. Sabena, C. (2008). On the semiotics of gestures. In: L. Radford, G. Schumbring, & F. Seeger (Eds.), Semiotics in mathematics education: epistemology, history, classroom, and culture (pp. 19–38). Rottenberg: Sense.Google Scholar
  187. Sáenz-Ludlow, A., & Athanasopoulou, A. (2007). Investigating properties of isosceles trapezoids with the GSP: the case of a pre-service teacher. In D. Pugalee, A. Rogerson, & A. Schinck (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference: Mathematics Education in a Global Community (pp. 577–582). NC: Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
  188. Salinas, T. M., Lynch-Davis, K., Mawhinney, K. J., & Crocker, D. A. (2014). Exploring quadrilaterals to reveal teachers’ use of definitions: results and implications. Australian Senior Mathematics Journal, 28(2), 50–59.Google Scholar
  189. Saltire Software (2016). Geometry Expressions (software package).Google Scholar
  190. Sarfaty, Y., & Patkin, D. (2013). The ability of second graders to identify solids in different positions and to justify their answer. Pythagoras, 34(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  191. Schellenberg, B. (2010). A proposal for a variation on the axioms of classical geometry. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 41(3), 311–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  192. Schimpf, F., & Spannagel, C. (2011). Reducing the graphical user interface of a dynamic geometry system. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 43(3), 389–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  193. Sears, R., & Chávez, O. (2014). Opportunities to engage with proof: the nature of proof tasks in two geometry textbooks and its influence on enacted lessons. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 46(5), 767–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  194. Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: Human development, the growth of discourses, and mathematizing. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  195. Shah, P., & Miyake, A. (2005). The Cambridge handbook of visuospatial thinking. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  196. Shein, P. P. (2012). Seeing with two eyes: a teacher’s use of gestures in revoicing to engage English language learners in the repair of mathematical errors. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 43(2), 182–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  197. Sinclair, N., & Bruce, C. (2015). New opportunities in geometry education at the primary school. ZDM Mathematics Education, 51(3), 319–329.Google Scholar
  198. Sinclair, N., & de Freitas, E. (2014). The haptic nature of gesture: rethinking gesture with multitouch digital technologies. Gesture, 14(3), 351–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  199. Sinclair, N., de Freitas, E., & Ferrara, F. (2012). Virtual encounters: the murky and furtive world of mathematical inventiveness. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(2), 239–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  200. Sinclair, M., Mamolo, A., & Whiteley, W. (2011). Designing spatial visual tasks for research: the case of the filling task. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 78, 135–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  201. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  202. Sinclair, N., & Robutti, O. (2013). Technology and the role of proof: the case of dynamic geometry. In Alan Bishop, Ken Clement, Christine Keitel, Jeremy Kilpatrick, & Frederick Leung (Eds.), Third international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 571–596). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  203. Smith, J. T. (2010). Definitions and nondefinability in geometry. American Mathematical Monthly, 117(6), 475–489. doi:10.4169/000298910X492781.
  204. Spelke, E. S., Gilmore, C. K., & McCarthy, S. (2011). Kindergarten children’s sensitivity to geometry in maps. Developmental Science, 14(4), 809–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  205. Steenpass, A., & Steinbring, H. (2014). Young students’ subjective interpretations of mathematical diagrams—elements of the theoretical construct ‘‘frame-based interpreting competence’’. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 46(1), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  206. Stols, G., & Kriek, J. (2011). Why don’t all maths teachers use dynamic geometry software in their classrooms? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(1), 137–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  207. Su, W., Wang, P. S., Cai, C., & Li, L. (2014). A touch-operation-based dynamic geometry system: design and implementation. In H. Hong & C. Yap (Eds.), Mathematical software: ICMS 2014 (pp. 235–239). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  208. Tanguay, D., & Grenier, D. (2010). Experimentation and proof in a solid geometry teaching situation. For the Learning of Mathematics, 30(3), 36–42.Google Scholar
  209. Tartre, L. (1990). Spatial orientation skill and mathematical problem solving. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21, 216–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  210. Taylor, H., & Hutton, A. (2013). Think 3d! Training spatial thinking fundamental to STEM education. Cognition and Instruction, 31(4), 434–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  211. Tessema, K. A. (2007). The teacher education reform process in Ethiopia: some consequences on educators and its implications. Teaching Education, 18(1), 29–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  212. Tepylo, D., Moss, J., & Stephenson, C. (2015). A developmental look at a rigosour block play program. Young Children, 70(1), 18-25.Google Scholar
  213. Thom, J., & McGarvey, L. (2015). The act and artifact of drawing(s): observing geometric thinking with, in, and through children’s drawings. Mathematics Education, 47(3), 465–481.Google Scholar
  214. Trgalova, J., Soury-Lavergne, S., & Jahn, A. P. (2011). Quality assessment process for dynamic geometry resources in Intergeo project. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 43(3), 337–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  215. Usiskin, Z., Griffin, J., Witonsky, D., & Willmore, E. (2008). The Classification of quadrilaterals: a study of definition. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  216. Uttal, D., Meadow, N. G., Tipton, E., Hand, L. L., Alden, A. R., Warren, C., & Newcombe, N. S. (2013a). The malleability of spatial skills: a meta-analysis of training studies. Psychological Bulletin, 2, 352–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  217. Uttal, D., Miller, D., & Newcombe, N. (2013b). Exploring and enhancing spatial thinking: links to achievement in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(5), 367–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  218. Van Hiele, P. M. (1986). Structure and insight: a theory of mathematics education. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  219. Van Putten, S. (2008). Levels of thought in geometry of pre-service mathematics educators according to the van Hiele Model. Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of Pretoria.Google Scholar
  220. Venturini, M. (2015). How teachers think about the role of digital technologies in student assessment in mathematics. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Simon Fraser University, Canada.Google Scholar
  221. Verillon, P., & Rabardel, P. (1995). Cognition and artifacts: a contribution to the study of though in relation to instrumented activity. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10(1), 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  222. Vosniadou, S., & Skopeliti, I. (2014). Conceptual change from the framework theory side of the fence. Science and Education, 23(7), 1427–1445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  223. Wakwinji, I. (2011). Exploring how a workshop approach helps mathematics teachers start to develop technological pedagogical content knowledge. (Masters), University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  224. Walcott, C., Mohr, D., & Kastberg, S. E. (2009). Making sense of shape: an analysis of children’s written responses. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 28(1), 30–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  225. Wang, S., & Kinzel, M. (2014). How do they know it is a parallelogram? Analysing geometric discourse at van Hiele Level 3. Research in Mathematics Education, 16(3), 288–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  226. Watson, A., Jones, K., & Pratt, D. (2013). Key ideas in teaching mathematics: research-based guidance for ages 9–19. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  227. Yang, J. C., & Chen, S. Y. (2010). Effects of gender differences and spatial abilities within a digital pentominoes game. Computers and Education, 55(3), 1220–1233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  228. Yang, K.-L., & Lin, F.-L. (2008). A model of reading comprehension of geometry proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67(1), 59–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  229. Yu, P., Barrett, J., & Presmeg, N. (2009). Prototypes and categorical reasoning. In T. V. Craine (Ed.), Understanding geometry for a changing world, seventy-first yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (pp. 91–108). Reston: NCTM.Google Scholar
  230. Zalamea, F. (2012). Synthetic philosophy of contemporary mathematics. New York: Sequence Press.Google Scholar
  231. Zandieh, M. & Rasmussen, C. (2010). Defining as a mathematical activity: a framework for characterizing progress from informal to more formal ways of reasoning, JMB, 29, 55–75.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nathalie Sinclair
    • 1
  • Maria G. Bartolini Bussi
    • 2
  • Michael de Villiers
    • 3
  • Keith Jones
    • 4
  • Ulrich Kortenkamp
    • 5
  • Allen Leung
    • 6
  • Kay Owens
    • 7
  1. 1.Simon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada
  2. 2.Università di Modena e Reggio EmiliaReggio EmiliaItaly
  3. 3.University of StellenboschStellenboschSouth Africa
  4. 4.University of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK
  5. 5.University of PotsdamPotsdamGermany
  6. 6.Hong Kong Baptist UniversityKowloon TongHong Kong SAR
  7. 7.Charles Sturt UniversityDubboAustralia

Personalised recommendations