연구동향 분석
박사

삼차방정식의 기하학적 해결을 위한 수학적 지식의 연결 과정 분석 = An Analysis on the Connecting Processes of Mathematical Knowledge for the Geometric Approaches to Cubic Equations

반은섭 2016년

논문상세정보
인용/피인용
' 삼차방정식의 기하학적 해결을 위한 수학적 지식의 연결 과정 분석 = An Analysis on the Connecting Processes of Mathematical Knowledge for the Geometric Approaches to Cubic Equations' 의 주제별 논문영향력
논문영향력 선정 방법
논문영향력 요약
주제
  • 512.9422
  • 개연적추론
  • 귀납
  • 동적기하환경
  • 방정식의 기하학적 해결
  • 삼차방정식
  • 수학적연결성
  • 유추
  • 일반화
  • 정당화
  • 해석기하학
동일주제 총논문수 논문피인용 총횟수 주제별 논문영향력의 평균
345 0

0.0%

' 삼차방정식의 기하학적 해결을 위한 수학적 지식의 연결 과정 분석 = An Analysis on the Connecting Processes of Mathematical Knowledge for the Geometric Approaches to Cubic Equations' 의 참고문헌

  • 학생들의 정당화 유형과 탐구형 소프트웨어의 활용에 관 한 연구
    류희찬 조완영 수학교육학연구, 9(1), 245-261 [1999]
  • 학교수학의 교육적 기초(증보판 2판)
    우정호 서울대학교출판부 [2007]
  • 학교수학에서의 유추와 은유
    우정호 이승우 수학교육학연구, 12(4), 523-542 [2002]
  • 학교수학에 제시된 분석적아이디어의 고찰
    김성준 교과교육학연구, 11(2), 499-515 [2007]
  • 학교 수학에서의 ‘증명’
    권성룡 조완영 수학교육학연구, 11(2), 385-402 [2001]
  • 탐구형 소프트웨어를 활용한 해석기하에서 학습부진학생 들의 개념형성에 관한 연구: 관계적 도구적 이해를 중심으로
    고상숙 윤인준 한국학교 수학회논문집, 15(4), 643-671 [2012]
  • 컴퓨터 대수 환경에서 매개변수 개념에 대한 고등학생의 이해에 관한 사례 연구. 한국수학교육학회 시리즈 E
    김경미 조영주 수학교육논문집, 24(4), 949-974 [2010]
  • 유추 조건에 따른 수학적 문제 해결 효과
    반은섭 신재홍 한국학교수학 회논문집, 15(3), 535-563 [2012]
  • 역사발생적 수학교육 원리에 대한 연구(2): 수학 사의 교육적 이용과 수학교사 교육
    민세영 우정호 정연준 학교수학, 5(4), 555-572 [2003]
  • 어떻게 문제를 풀 것인가? -수학적 사고와 방법-(우정호 역). 서울: 경문사
    (원저는 년에 출판) [1956]
  • 수학의 역사(이우영, 신항균 역). 서울: 경문사
    (원저는 년에 출판) [1953]
  • 수학과 교육과정
    교육부 교육부 고시 제 2015-74호 [별책 8] [2015]
  • 수학과 개연 추론 (Ⅱ권: 개연적 추론의 여러 가지 패턴)(이만 근, 전병기, 도종훈, 김지선 역). 서울: 교우사
    (원저는 년에 출판) [1968]
  • 수학과 개연 추론 (Ⅰ권: 수학에서의 귀납과 유추)(이만근, 최 영기, 전병기, 홍갑주, 김민정 역). 서울: 교우사
    Polya, G. (원저는 1968년에 출판) [2003]
  • 수학 학습-지도 원리와 방법(개정판)
    서울대학교출판부 [2009]
  • 수학 교과서의 정당화 도입 실태 분석
    김수철(Kim, Soo Cheol) 학교수학, 16(2), 201-218 [2014]
  • 분석법에 관한 고찰
    강문봉(Moon-Bong Kang) 대한수학교육학회 논문집, 2(2), 81-93 [1992]
  • 방정식의 판별식과 교육과정에서 활용방안
    최은미 한국수학사학회지, 24(4), 143-155 [2011]
  • 매개변수의 인식과 오류에 대한 연구
    유연주 지영명 학교수학, 16(4), 803-825 [2014]
  • 매개변수 개념의 교수-학습에 관한 연구
    김남희(Kim Nam hee) 수학교육학연구, 14(3), 305-325 [2004]
  • 동적기하가 원뿔곡선 문제 해결에 미치는 영향. 한국수학 교육학회 시리즈 A
    박철호 홍성관 수학교육, 46(3), 331-349 [2007]
  • 동일한 수학적 상황에서 문제해결 능력 분석 연구: 방정 식 부등식과 함수를 중심으로
    박정미 이중권 한국학교수학회논문집, 16(4), 883-898 [2013]
  • 대수의 사고 요소 분석 및 학습-지도 방향 탐색
    김성준 서울대학교 박 사학위 논문 [2004]
  • 기하 정리의 일반성 인식을 위한 동적기하환경의 활용
    강정기 장혜원 수학교육학연구, 23(4), 585-604 [2013]
  • 교육과학기술부 수학과 교육과정
    교육과학기술부 고시 제 2011-261호 [별책8] [2011]
  • 교수학적 변환 과정에서 은유와 유추의 활용
    이경화 수학교육학연구, 20(1), 57-71 [2010]
  • 교과지식으로서의 유클리드 기하와 벡터기하의 연결성
    이지현 홍갑주 학교수학, 10(4), 573-581 [2008]
  • 고등학교 수학Ⅰ
  • 고등학교 도형의 방정식 단원에서 논증기하의 활용에 대 한 연구. 한국수학교육학회 시리즈 E
    권영인 서보억 수학교육논문집, 21(3), 451-466 [2007]
  • Yilmaz, R., Arg n, Z., & Keskin, M. (2009). What is the role of visualization in generalization processes: The case of preservice secondary mathematics teachers. Humanity & Social Sciences Journal, 4(2), 130-137.
  • Yerushalmy, M., & Gilead, S. (1997). Solving equations in a technological environment. Mathematics Teacher, 90(2), 156-162.
  • Yerushalmy, M. (1999). Making exploration visible: On software design and school algebra curriculum. International Journal for Computers in Mathematical Learning, 4(2-3), 169-189.
  • Wilson, W. H., Halford, G. S., Gray, B., & Phillips, S. (2001). The STAR-2 model for mapping hierarchically structured analogs. In D. Gentner, K. J. Holyoak, & B. N. Kokinov (Eds.), The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science (pp. 125-157). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • White, P., & Mitchelmore, M. (1999). Learning mathematics: A new look at generalisation and abstraction. Referred paper at the combined conference of the Australian and New Zealand Associations for Research in Education, Australia.
  • Wagner, S., & Kieran, C. (Eds.). (1989). Research issues in the learning and teaching of algebra. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  • Wagner, R. (2013). A historically and philosophically informed approach to mathematical metaphors. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 27(2), 109-135.
  • Villarreal, M. (2000). Mathematical thinking and intellectual technologies: the visual and the algebraic. For the Learning of Mathematics, 20(2), 2-7.
  • Villanueva, J. (2013). The cubic and quartic equations: Intermediate algebra course. Electronic proceedings of ICTCM, Florida Memorial College. Retrieved from http://archives.math.utk.edu/ICTCM/VOL16/C037/paper.pdf.
  • Usiskin, Z. (1988). Conceptions of school algebra and uses of variable. In A. F. Coxford & A. P. Schulte (Eds.), The ideas of algebra, K-12 (pp. 8-19). Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  • Ursini, S., & Trigueros, M. (2004). How do high school students interpret parameters in algebra. Proceedings of the 28th PME Conference, vol 4, 361-368.
  • Type of generalization in instruction: Logical and psychological problems in the structuring of school curricula (translated by J. Teller). In J. Kilpatrick (Ed.), Soviet studies in mathematics education vol 2. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
    Davydov, V. V. (원저는 1972년에 출판) [1990]
  • Tran, T., Nguyen, N., Bui, M., Phan, A. (2014). Discovery learning with the help of the GeoGebra dynamic geometry software. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 7(1), 44-57.
  • Tossavainen, T. (2009). Who can solve 2x=1? -An analysis of cognitive load related to learning linear equation solving. The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, 6(3), 435-448.
  • Timmer, M., & Verhoef, N. (2012). Increasing insightful thinking in analytic geometry using frequent visualization and a synthetic approach. Nieuw Archief voor Wiskunde, 5/13(3), 217-219.
  • The Geometry. Translated by D. E. Smith & M. L. Latham. New York, NY: Dover
    Descartes, R. (원저는 1637년에 출판) [1954]
  • Tall, D. (2011). Looking for the bigger picture. For the Learning of Mathematics., 31(2), 17-18.
  • Sriraman, B. (2004). Reflective abstraction, uniframes and formulation of generalizations. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 23(2), 205-222.
  • Skemp, R. (1986). The psychology of learning mathematics (2nd ed). Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.
  • Simon, M. A., & Blume, G. W. (1996). Justification in the mathematics classroom: A study of prospective elementary teachers. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 15, 3-31.
  • Schoenfeld, A. H., & Arcavi, A. (1988). On the meaning of variable. Mathematics Teacher, 81(6), 420-427.
  • Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. New York: Academic Press.
  • Sangwin, C. (2007). A brief review of GeoGebra: dynamic mathematics. MSOR Connections, 7(2), 36-38.
  • Ruthven, K., Henneessy, S., & Brindley, S. (2004). Teacher representations of the successful use of computer-based tools and resources in secondary-school English, Mathematics and Science. Teaching & teacher education, 20(3). 259-275.
  • Ruthven, K. (2003). Linking algebraic and geometric reasoning with dynamic geometry software. Final report to the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
  • Rubin, A. (1999). Technology meets math education: Envisioning a practical future forum on the future of technology in education. Paper presented at the forum on technology in education: Envisioning the future. Retrieved from http://courses.edtechleaders. org/documents/math/Rubin.pdf.
  • Ross, B. H., & Kilbane, M. C. (1997). Effects of principle explanation and superficial similarity on analogical mapping in problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(2), 427-440.
  • Qualification and Curriculum Authority(QCA). (2004). Interpreting the mathematics curriculum: Developing reasoning through algebra and geometry. London: QCA.
  • Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. 류희찬, 조완영, 이경화, 나귀수, 김남균, 방정숙 공역 학교수학을 위한 원 리와 규준
    서울: 경문사 [2007]
  • Neovius, S. (2013). Ren Descartes' Foundations of Analytic Geometry and Classification of Curves. U.U.D.M. Project Report 2013:18.
  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics(NCTM). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. 구광조, 오병승, 류희찬 공역(1992). 수학교육과정과 평가의 새 로운 방향
    서울: 경문사 [1989]
  • Mousoulides, N., & Gagatsis, A. (2004). Algebraic and geometric approach in function problem solving. Proceedings of the 28th PME Conference, vol 3, 385-392.
  • Moschkovich, J., Schoenfeld, A. H., & Arcavi, A. (1993). Aspects of understanding: On multiple perspectives and representations of linear relations and connections among them. In T. A. Romberg, E. Fennema, & T. P. Carpenter (Eds.), Integrating research on the graphical representation of functions (pp. 69-100). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Mitchelmore, M. C. (2002). The role of abstraction and generalisation in the development of mathematical knowledge. In D. Edge, & B. H. Yeap (Eds.), Mathematics education for knowledge-based era (Proceedings of the 2nd East Asia Regional Conference on Mathematics Education and the 9th Southeast Asian Conference on Mathematics Education) (pp. 157-167). Singapore: Association of Mathematics Educators.
  • Miller, D. A. (2011). Investigating zeros of cubics with GeoGebra. Mathematics Teacher, 105(2), 146-149.
  • Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  • Mena, R. (2009). First course in the history of mathematics (pp.123-125). Unpublished paper, California State University. Retrieved from http://web.csulb.edu/~rmena/History/Complete%20Notes%20303%20 with%20exercises.pdf.
  • Mason, J., & Pimm, D. (1984). Generic examples: Seeing the general in the particular. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 15, 277-289.
  • Mason, J. (2002). Generalization and algebra: Exploiting children's powers. In L. Haggerty (Ed.), Aspects of teaching secondary mathematics: Perspectives on practice (pp. 105-120). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
  • Maryland Department of Education(MDE). (2013). Maryland Common Core State Curriculum Unit Plan for Geometry. Geometry Unit 4: Connecting Algebra and Geometry through Coordinates. U.S.A.
  • Mariotti, M. A. (2000). Introduction to proof: The mediation of a dynamic software environment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44, 25-53.
  • Mardia, K. V. (1999). Omar Khayyam, Rene Descartes and solutions to algebraic equations. Presented to Omar Khayyam Club, London. Retrieved from http://www1.maths.leeds.ac.uk/~sta6kvm/omar.pdf.
  • Lumpkin, B. (1978). A mathematics club project from Omar Khayyam. Mathematics Teacher, 71(9), 740-744.
  • Looka, H. A. (2014). Polynomial equations from ancient to modern times: A review. University Bulletin, 16(2), 89-110.
  • Ljajko, E. (2013). Development of ideas in a geogebra: aided mathematics instruction. Mevlana International Journal of Education, 3(3), 1-7.
  • Lins, R. C. (2001). The production of meaning for algebra: A perspective based on theoretical model of semantic fields. In R. Lins (ed.), Perspectives on school algebra (pp. 37-60). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
  • Leung, F. (2006). The impact of information and communication technology on our understanding of the nature of mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 26(1), 29-35.
  • Lee, K. H., & Sriraman, B. (2011). Conjecturing via reconceived classical analogy. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 76, 123-140.
  • Law, H. L. (2003). The comparison between the methods of solution for cubic equations in Shushu Jiuzhang and Risalah fil-barahin a'la masail ala-Jabr wa'l-Muqabalah. Mathematical Modley, 30(2), 91-101.
  • Lapp, D, A., Ermete, M., Brackett, N., & Powell, K. (2013). Linked representations in algebra: Developing symbolic meaning. Mathematics Teacher, 107(4), 306-312.
  • Lannin, J. K. (2005). Generalization and justification: The challenge of introducing algebraic reasoning through patterning activities. Mathematical Teaching and Learning, 7(3), 321-258.
  • Lakoff, G., & N ez, R. (2000). Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. New York, NY: Basic Books.
  • Laborde, C. (1998). Relationship between the spatial and theoretical in geometry: The role of computer dynamic representations in problem solving. In J. D. Tinsley & D. C. Johnson (Eds.), Information and communications technologies in school mathematics (pp. 183-195). London, UK: Chapman & Hall.
  • Kurz, T. L., Middleton, J. A., & Yanik, H. B. (2005). A taxonomy of software for mathematics instruction. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 5(2), 123-137.
  • Krantz, S. G. (2010). An episodic history of mathematics: Mathematical culture through problem solving. The Mathematical Association of America.
  • Kondratieval, M. F., & Radu, O. G. (2009). Fostering connections between the verbal, algebraic, and geometric representations of basic planar curves for student's success in the study of mathematics. The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, 6(1&2), 213-238.
  • Knuth, E. J. (2000). Understanding connections between equations and graphs. Mathematics Teacher, 93(1), 48-53.
  • Khayyam, O. (2008). An essay by the uniquely wise 'ABEL FATH BIN AL-KHAYYAM on algebra and equations. Translated by R. Khalil & Reviewed by W. Deeb. UK: RG1 4QS.
  • Katz, V. J. (1997). Algebra and its teaching: An historical survey. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 16(1), 25-38.
  • Kasir, D. S. (1931). The Algebra of Omar Khayyam. Columbia University, NY.
  • Karnasih, I., & Sinaga, M. (2014). Enhancing mathematical problem solving and mathematical connection through the use of dynamic software autograph in cooperative learning think-pair-share. SAINSAB, 17, 51-71.
  • Kaput, J. J., Blanton, M. L., & Moreno, L. (2008). Algebra from a symbolization point of view. In J. J. Kaput, D. W. Carraher, & M. L. Blanton (Eds.), Algebra in the early grades (pp. 19-55). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Jones, K. (2000). Providing a foundation for deductive reasoning: Students' interpretations when using dynamic geometry software and their evolving mathematical explanations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44, 55-85.
  • Ito-Hino, K. (1995). Students' reasoning and mathematical connections in the Japanese classroom. In P. A. House & A. F. Coxford (Eds.), Connecting mathematics across the curriculum (pp. 233-245). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  • Hoyles, C., Noss, R., & Pozzi, S. (1999). Mathematizing in practice. In C. Hoyles, C. Morgan, & G. Woodhouse (Eds.), Rethinking the mathematics curriculum. (pp. 48-62). London: Falmer Press.
  • Hoyles, C., & Jones, K. (1998). Proof in dynamic geometry contexts. In C. Mammana & V. Villani (Eds.), Perspectives on the Teaching of Geometry for the 21st Century(ICME Study 8) (pp. 121-128). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  • Hoyles, C., & Healy, L. (1999). Linking informal argumentation with formal proof through computer-integrated teaching experiment. Proceedings of the 23th PME Conference, vol 3, 105-112.
  • Holzl, R. (2001). Using dynamic geometry software to add contrast to geometric situations: A case study. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6, 63-86.
  • Holyoak, K. J., & Thagard, P. (1995). Mental leap: Analogy in creative thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Holyoak, K. J., & Koh, K. 1987. Surface and structural similarity in analogical transfer. Memory & Cognition, 15(4), 332-340.
  • Hohenwarter, M., & Jones, K. (2007). Ways of linking geometry and Algebra: the case of GeoGebra. In D. K chemann (Ed.), Proceedings of the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics, 27(3), 126-131.
  • Hohenwarter, M. (2002). GeoGebra-Ein Software system f r dynamische Geometrie und Algebra der Ebene. Unpublished master's dissertation, University of Salzburg, Austria.
  • Hockman, M. (2005). Dynamic geometry: An agent for the reunification of algebra and geometry, Pythagoras 61, 31-41.
  • Hershkowitz, R., Schwarz, B. B., & Dreyfus, T. (2001). Abstraction in context: Epistemic actions. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 32(2), 195-222.
  • Henning, H. B. (1972). Geometric solutions to quadratic and cubic equations. Mathematics Teacher, 65. 113-119.
  • Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (2001). Software tools for geometrical problem solving: Potentials and pitfalls. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6(3), 235-256.
  • Harrison, P. (2003). Quadratic and cubic equations using geometric models, GSP4 Summit. Kingston, Ontario, Retrieved from http://www.oame.on.ca/sketchmad/profiles/conics.html.
  • Harel, G., & Sowder, L. (1998). Students' proof schemes: Results from exploratory studies. Issues in Mathematics Education, 7, 234-283.
  • Hanna, G. (2000). Proof, explanation and exploration: An overview. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44, 5-23.
  • Hadamard, J. (1945). The psychology of invention in the mathematical field. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Guilbeau, L. (1930). The History of the Solution of the Cubic Equation. Mathematics News Letter, 5(4), 8-12.
  • Grabiner, J. (1995). Descartes and problem-solving. Mathematics Magazine, 68(2), 83-97.
  • Goldin, G. A. (2002). Representation in mathematical problem solving and learning. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 197-218). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Gillis, J. M. (2005). An investigation of student conjectures in static and dynamic geometry environments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Auburn University, Alabama.
  • Georgia Department of Education(GDE). (2014). Common Core Georgia Performance Standards Frameworks of Mathematics, CCGPS Coordinate Algebra Unit 6: Connecting Algebra and Geometry through Coordinates. U.S.A.
  • Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52(1), 45-56.
  • Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155-170.
  • GSP를 활용한 역동적 기하 환경에서 기하적 성질의 추측
    손홍찬(Son Hong Chan) 학교 수학, 13(1), 107-125 [2011]
  • GSP를 사용한 기하수업에서 수준별 학생의 논증기하와 해석기하의 연결에 관한 연구
    도정철 손홍찬 한국학교수학회논문집, 18(4), 411-429 [2015]
  • Eves, H. (1958). Omar Khayyam's Solution of Cubic Equation. Mathematics Teacher 51, 285-286.
  • Evans, W. (1996a). Omar Khayyam's insight into cubic equation. Micromath, 12(8), 28-29.
  • Ertekin, E. (2014). Is cabri 3D effective for the teaching of special planes in analytic geometry?. International Journal of Educational Studies in Mathematics, 1(1), 27-36.
  • Erez, M. 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 Mathematics Learning, 11(3), 271-299.
  • English, L. D. (Ed.). (2004). Mathematical and analogical reasoning of young leaders. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Dunbar, K. (2001). The analogical paradox: Why analogy is so easy in naturalistic settings, yet so difficult in the psychology laboratory? In D. Gentner, K. J. Holyoak, & B. N. Kokinov (Eds.), The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science (pp. 313-334). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Dubinsky, E., & Harel, G. (1992). The nature of the process concept of function. In G. Harel & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), The concept of function: Aspects of epistemology and pedagogy (pp.85-106). Washington D.C.: Mathematical Association of America.
  • Dubinsky, E. (1991). Reflective abstraction in advanced mathematical thinking. In. D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced Mathematical Thinking (pp. 95-126). Boston: Kluwer.
  • Drijvers, P., Monaghan, J., Thomas, M., Trouche, L. (2015). Use of Technology in Secondary Mathematics. Final Report for the International Baccalaureate.
  • Drijvers, P. (2001). The concept of parameter in a computer algebra environment. Proceedings of 25th PME Conference, vol 2, 385-392. (2003). Learning algebra in a computer algebra environment.
  • Dreyfus, T. (1991). Advanced mathematical thinking processes. In. D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 25-41). Boston: Kluwer.
  • Donevska-Todorova, A. (2011). Developing concept in linear algebra and analytic geometry by the integration of DGE and CAS. Proceedings of the 16th Asian Technology Conference in Mathematics (ATCM).
  • Dindyal, J. (2004). Algebraic thinking in geometry at high school level: Students' use of variables and unknowns. In I. Putt, R. Faragher & M. McLean (Eds.), Mathematics education for the third millennium: Towards 2010 (Proceedings of the 27th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Townsville) (pp. 183-190). Sydney: MERGA, Inc.
  • Dikovic, L. (2009). Applications geogebra into teaching some topics of mathematics at the college level. Computer Science and Information Systems, 6(2), 191-203.
  • Diezmann, C. M., & English, L. D. (2001). Promoting the use of diagrams as tools for thinking. In A. A. Cuoco (Ed.), 2001 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Yearbook: The role of representation in school mathematics (pp. 77-89). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  • Dienes, Z. P. (1961). On abstraction and generalization. Harvard Educational Review, 3, 289-301.
  • Design research on the understanding of concept of parameter. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Freudenthal Institute, Utrecht, Netherlands.
  • Dennis, D. (1997). Rene Descartes' curve-drawing devices: Experiments in the relations between mechanical motion and symbolic language. Mathematics Magazine, 70(3). 163-174.
  • De Villiers, M., & Heideman, N. (2014). Conjecturing, refuting and proving within the context of dynamic geometry. Learning and Teaching Mathematics, 17, 20-26.
  • De Villiers, M. (1997). The role and function of proof in dynamic geometry: The role of proof in investigative, computer-based geometry: some personal reflections. Chapter in Schattschneider, D. & King, J. (1997). Geometry Turned on! (pp. 15-24). Washington: MAA.
  • De Giessen, C. (2002). The visualisation of parameters. In M. Borovcnik & H. Kautschitsch (Eds.), Technology in mathematics teaching (Proceedings of ICTMT5 in Klagenfurt 2001) (pp. 97-100). Vienna: bv&hpt Verlagsgesellschaft.
  • DGS 동적 기하에서의 새로운 함수적 관점의 정의. 한국 수학교육학회 시리즈 A
    김화경 조한혁 수학교육, 43(2), 177-186 [2004]
  • D rfler, W. (1991). Forms and means of generalization in mathematics. In A. J. Bishop (Ed.), Mathematical knowledge: Its growth through teaching (pp. 63-85). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
  • Cuoco, A., Goldenberg, E. P., & Mark, J. (1996). Habits of mind: An organizing principle for mathematics curricula. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 15, 375-402.
  • Coxford, A. F. (1995). The case for connections. In P. A. House & A. F. Coxford (Eds.), Connecting mathematics across the curriculum (pp. 3-12). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  • Connor, M. B. (1956). A historical survey of methods of solving cubic equations. Unpublished master's dissertation, University of Richmond, Virginia.
  • Common Core State Standards Initiative(CCSSI). (2010). Common Core State Standards For Mathematics. U.S.A.
  • Clairaut의 <대수학 원론>에 나타난 대수지도 원리에 대한 분 석
    장혜원 수학교육학연구, 17(3), 253-270 [2007]
  • Christou, C., Mousoulides, N., Pittalis, M., & Pitta-Pantazi, D. (2004). Proofs through exploration in dynamic geometry environments. Proceedings of 28th PME Conference, vol 2, 215-222.
  • Chinnappan, M. (1998). Schemas and mental models in geometry problem solving. Educational studies in mathematics. 36(3), 201-217.
  • Burns, S. (1996). Omar Khayyam and dynamic geometry. Micromath, 12(2), 29-30.
  • Boyer, C. B., & Merzbach, U. C. (1991). A history of mathematics (2nd ed). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Bills, L., & Rowland, T. (1999). Examples, generalisation and proof. In L. Brown (Ed.), Making meaning in mathematics. Advances in mathematics education (vol 1, pp. 103-116). York, UK: QED.
  • Berggren, J. L. (1986). Episodes in the mathematics of medieval Islam. New York: Springer-Verlag.
  • Bell, M. D. (1998). Impact of inductive conjecturing approach in a dynamic geometry enhanced environment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgia state university.
  • Becker, J. R., & Rivera, F. (2005). Generalization strategies of beginning high school algebra students. Proceedings of the 29th PME Conference, vol 4, 121-128.
  • Bayazit, I., & Aksoy, Y. (2010). Connecting representations and mathematical ideas with GeoGebra. GeoGebra International Journal of Romania, 1(1), 93-106.
  • Barbosa, A., Palhares, P., & Vale, I. (2007). Patterns and generalization: The influence of visual strategies. Proceedings of the 5th Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education, 844-851.
  • Balacheff, N. (1987). Proessus de preuve et situations de validation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 18, 147-176.
  • Baki, A., & Guven, B. (2009). Khayyam with Cabri: experiences of pre-service mathematics teachers with Khayyam's solution of cubic equations in dynamic geometry environment. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications, 28, 1-9.
  • Atiyah, M. (2001). Mathematics in the 20th Century: geometry versus algebra. Mathematics Today, 37(2), 46-53.
  • Arcavi, A. (2003). The role of visual representations in the learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 52, 215-241.
  • Amir-Moez, A. R. (1962). Khayyam's solution of cubic equations. Mathematics magazine, 35(5), 269-271.
  • Allaire, P. R., & Bradley, R. E. (2001). Geometric approaches to quadratic equations from other times and places. Mathematics Teacher, 94(4), 308-319.
  • Akg n, L., & zdemir, M. E. (2006). Students' understanding of the variable as general number and unknown: A case study. The Teaching of Mathematics, 9(1), 45-51.
  • Ainley, J., Barton, B., Jones, K., & Pfannkuch, M. (2002). Is what you see what you get? representations, metaphors and tools in mathematics didactics. European Research in Mathematics Education Ⅱ, 128-138.
  • . The value of learning geometry with ICT: lessons from innovative educational research. In A. Oldknow., & C. Knights (Eds.), Mathematics Education with Digital Technology (chapter 5, pp. 39-45). London: Continuum.
  • . The role and function of quasi-empirical methods in mathematics. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 4(3), 397-418.
  • . The need for an inclusive framework for students' thinking in school geometry. The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, 4(1), 73-83.
  • . The Role of Historical Studies in Mathematics and Science Educational Research. Published in Research Design in Mathematics and Science Education. Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. 2000. Retrieved from http://quadrivium.info/mathhistory/History.pdf.
  • . Research on the use of dynamic geometry software. MicroMath, 18(3), 18-20.
  • . Linking geometry and algebra through dynamic and interactive geometry. In Z. Usiskin, K. Andersen, & N. Zotto (Eds.), Future curricular trends in school algebra and geometry (pp. 217-230). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
  • . Function of interactive visual representations in interactive mathematical textbooks. International Journal of Computer for Mathematical learning, 10(3), 217-249.
  • . Dynamic geometry environment as a source of rich learning contexts for the complex activity of proving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44, 151-161.
  • . Building up mathematics (Fourth Edition). London: Hutchinson.
  • . An alternative approach to proof 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 Publishers.
  • (2003b). The value of experimentation in mathematics. Proceedings of 9th National Congress of AMESA, 174-185.
  • (2003a). Rethinking proof with Geometer's Sketchpad 4. Emeryville: Key Curriculum Press.
  • (1996b). Rene Descartes and dynamic geometry. Micromath, 12(1), 30-31.