Handling Signs in Inequalities by Exploiting Multiple Dynamic Representations – the Case of ALNuSet

Abramovich, S. (2006). Spreadsheet modelling as a didactical framework for inequality-based reduction. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 37(5), 527–541. Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33(2), 131–152. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: a conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183–198. Ainsworth, S. (2008). The educational value of multiple representations when learning complex scientific concepts. In J. Gilbert, M. Reiner, & M. Nakhleh (Eds.), Visualization: theory and practice in science education (pp. 191–208). Dordrecht: Springer. Almog, N., & Ilany, B. (2012). Absolute value inequalities: high school students’ solutions and misconceptions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 81(3), 347–364. Artigue, M. (2002). Learning mathematics in a CAS environment: the genesis of a reflection about instrumentation and the dialectics between technical and conceptual work. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 7(3), 245–274. Ashlock, R. (2001). Error patterns in computation: using error patterns to improve instruction. Upper Saddle River: Merrill Prentice Hall. Bagni, G. (2005). Inequalities and equations: history and didactics. In M. Bosch (Ed.), Proceedings of CERME–4 (pp. 652–661). Sant Feliu de Guíxols: European Society for Research in Mathematics Education. Balomenou, A., & Kordaki, M. (2009). Multiple solution tasks within dynamic geometry systems. Educatia, 21(54), 71–78. Bartolini Bussi, M., & Mariotti, M. (1999). Semiotic mediation: from history to the mathematics classroom. For the Learning of Mathematics, 19(2), 27–35. Bicer, A., Capraro, R. & Capraro, M. (2014) Pre-service teachers’ linear and quadratic inequalities understandings. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 5(3), (http://www.cimt.org.uk/journal/bicer.pdf). Blanco, L., & Garrote, M. (2007). Difficulties in learning inequalities in students of the first year of pre-university education in Spain. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 3(3), 221–229. Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics: didactique des mathématiques, 1970–1990. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Chakrabarti, A., & Hamsapriye. (1996). On corrected summation of alternating series. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 27(4), 565–582. Cheng, P. (1999). Unlocking conceptual learning in mathematics and science with effective representational systems. Computers & Education, 33(2), 109–130. Chiappini, G., & Pedemonte, B. (2010). The design of new digital artefacts as key factor to innovate the teaching and learning of algebra: the case of AlNuSet. In V. Durand-Guerrier, S. Soury-Lavergne, & F. Arzarello (Eds.), Proceedings of CERME 6 (pp. 1389–1398). Lyon: European Society for Research in Mathematics Education. Chiappini, G., Robotti, E., & Trgalova, J. (2009). Role of an artefact of dynamic algebra in the conceptualisation of the algebraic equality. In V. Durand-Guerrier, S. Soury-Lavergne, & F. Arzarello (Eds.), Proceedings of CERME 6 (pp. 619–628). Lyon: European Society for Research in Mathematics Education. Chiappini, G., Pedemonte, B., & Robotti, E. (2010). Using AlNuSet to construct the notions of equivalence and equality in algebra. In M. Kendall & B. Samways (Eds.), Learning to Live in the Knowledge Society (pp. 345–348). New York: Springer. Cobb, P., Yackel, E., & Wood, T. (1992). A constructivist alternative to the representational view of mind in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23(1), 2–33. Dimitracopoulou, A., & Komis, V. (2005). Design principles for the support of modelling and collaboration in a technology-based learning environment. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Lifelong Learning, 15(1/2), 30–55. Dreyfus, T., & Eisenberg, T. (1985). A graphical approach to solving inequalities. School Science and Mathematics, 85(8), 651–662. Drijvers, P., & Barzel, B. (2012). Equations with technology: different tools, different views. Mathematics Teaching, 228, 14–19. Drijvers, P., & Gravemeijer, K. (2005). Computer algebra as an instrument: examples of algebraic schemes. In D. Guin, K. Ruthven, & L. Trouche (Eds.), The didactical challenge of symbolic calculators: turning a computational device into a mathematical instrument (pp. 163–196). New York: Springer. Drijvers, P., Boon, P., & van Reeuwijk, M. (2010). Algebra and technology. In P. Drijvers (Ed.), Secondary algebra education. Revisiting topics and themes and exploring the unknown (pp. 179–202). Rotterdam: Sense. Duval, R. (2002). The cognitive analysis of problems of comprehension in the learning of mathematics. Mediterranean Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 1(2), 1–16. Duval, R. (2006). Keynote Address at EARLI SIG 2 (Comprehension of Text and Graphics) Biennial meeting. Nottingham: European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction. From one kind of representation to another kind: break or continuity in the comprehension process. Goldman, S. (2003). Learning in complex domains: when and why do multiple representations help? Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 239–244. Guin, D., & Trouche, L. (2002). Mastering by the teacher of the instrumental genesis in CAS environments: necessity of instrumental orchestrations. ZDM: the International Journal on Mathematics Education, 34(5), 204–211. Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (2002). Software tools for geometrical problem solving: potentials and pitfalls. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6(3), 235–256. Jonassen, D. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85. Jupri, A., Drijvers, P., & van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2015). Improving grade 7 students’ achievement in initial algebra through a technology-based intervention. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 1(1), 28–58. Kaput, J. (1989). Linking representations in the symbol systems of algebra. In S. Wagner & C. Kieran (Eds.), Research Issues in the Learning and Teaching of Algebra (pp. 167–194). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Kaput, J. (1992). Technology and mathematics education. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 515–556). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. Kieran, C. (2004). The equation/inequality connection in constructing meaning for inequality situations. In M. Høines & A. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th PME Conference (Vol. 1, pp. 143–147). Bergen: International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Kieran, C., & Drijvers, P. (2006). The co-emergence of machine techniques, paper-and-pencil techniques, and theoretical reflection: a study of CAS use in secondary school algebra. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 11(2), 205–263. Komis, V., Ergazaki, M., & Zogza, V. (2007). Comparing computer-supported dynamic modeling and ‘paper & pencil’ concept mapping technique in students' collaborative activity. Computers and Education, 49(4), 991–1017. Laborde, C. (2002). Integration of technology in the design of geometry tasks with Cabri-Geometry. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6(3), 283–317. Laborde, C., Kynigos, C., Hollebrands, K., & Strässer, R. (2006). Teaching and learning geometry with technology. In A. Gutiérrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education: past, present and future (pp. 275–304). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Lagrange, J.-B. (1999). Techniques and concepts in pre-calculus using CAS: a two-year classroom experiment with the TI–92. The International Journal of Computer Algebra in Mathematics Education, 6(2), 143–165. Lagrange, J.-B., Artigue, M., Laborde, C., & Trouche, L. (2003). Technology and mathematics education: a multidimensional study of the evolution of research and innovation. In A. Bishop, M. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & F. Leung (Eds.), Second international handbook of mathematics education (Vol. 1, pp. 237–269). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Linchevski, L., & Sfard, A. (1991). Rules without reasons as processes without objects: the case of equations and inequalities. In F. Furinghetti (Ed.), Proceeding of the 15th PME Conference (Vol. 2, pp. 317–324). Assisi: International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Nardi, B. (1996). Studying context: a comparison of activity theory, situated action models, and distributed cognition. In B. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: activity theory and human–computer interaction (pp. 69–102). Cambridge: MIT Press. Norman, D. (1999). Affordance, conventions, and design. Interactions, 6(3), 38–43. Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (1996). Windows on mathematical meanings: learning cultures and computers. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Nunes, T., Light, P., & Mason, J. (1993). Tools for thought: the measurement of length and area. Learning and Instruction, 3(1), 39–54. Pimm, D. (2015). Digital keywords: a vocabulary of technology and education. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 1(1), 101–105. Rabardel, P. (1995). Les hommes et les technologies: approche cognitive des instruments contemporains. Paris: Armand Colin. Robotti, E. (2013). Dynamic representations for algebraic objects available in AlNuSet: how develop meanings of the notions involved in the equation solution. In C. Margolinas (Ed.), Proceedings of the ICME 22 Study Task Design in Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 101–110). Oxford: International Commission on Mathematical Instruction. Trouche, L. (2000). La parabole du gaucher et de la casserole à bec verseur: etude des processus d’apprentissage dans un environnement de calculatrices. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 41(3), 239–264. Trouche, L. (2004). Managing the complexity of human/machine interactions in computerized learning environments: guiding students’ command process through instrumental orchestrations. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9(3), 281–307. Tsamir, P., & Almog, N. (1999). “No Answer” as a problematic response: the case of inequalities. In O. Zaslavsky (Ed.), Proceedings of the 23rd PME Conference of the International Group (Vol. 1, pp. 328–335). Haifa: International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Tsamir, P., & Bazzini, L. (2001). Can x = 3 be the solution of an inequality? A study of Italian and Israeli students. In M. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 25 th PME Conference (Vol. 4, pp. 303–310). Utrecht: International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Tsamir, P., & Bazzini, L. (2002). Algorithmic models: italian and Israeli students’ solutions to algebraic inequalities. In A. Cockburn & E. Nardi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th PME Conference (Vol. 4, pp. 289–296). Norwich: International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Tsamir, P., & Bazzini, L. (2004). Consistencies and inconsistencies in students’ solutions to algebraic ‘single-value’ inequalities. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 35(6), 793–812. Tsamir, P., Tirosh, D., & Almog, N. (1998). Students’ solutions of inequalities. In A. Olivier & K. Newstead (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd Conference (Vol. 6, pp. 129–136). Stellenbosch: International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Tsamir, P., Tirosh, D., & Tiano, S. (2004). “New errors” and “old errors”: the case of quadratic inequalities. In M. Høines & A. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th PME Conference (Vol. 1, pp. 155–158). Bergen: International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Vaiyavutjamai, P., & Clements, M. (2006). Effects of classroom instruction on student performance on, and understanding of, linear equations and linear inequalities. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 8(2), 113–147. Verikios, P., & Farmaki, V. (2006). Introducing algebraic thinking to 13-year-old students: the case of the inequality. In J. Novotná, H. Moraová, M. Krátká, & N. Stehlíková (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th PME conference (Vol. 5, pp. 321–328). Prague: International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Verikios, P., & Farmaki, V. (2010). From equation to inequality using a function-based approach. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 41(4), 515–530. Vérillon, P. (2000). Revisiting Piaget and Vygotsky: in search of a learning model for technology education. The Journal of Technology Studies, 26(1), 3–10. Vérillon, P., & Rabardel, P. (1995). Cognition and artefacts: a contribution to the study of though in relation to instrumented activity. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10(1), 77–101. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher mental processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Zacharos, K. (2006). Prevailing educational practices for area measurement and students’ failure in measuring areas. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 25(3), 224–239. Bερύκιος, Π. (2010). Συναρτησιακή προσέγγιση βασικών μαθηματικών εννοιών στο Γυμνάσιο. Aδημοσίευτη Διδακτορική διατριβή. Eθνικό και Kαποδιστριακό Πανεπιστήμιο Aθήνας. Aθήνα. (http://www.didaktorika.gr/eadd/handle/10442/20668?locale=en).