Personal elaborated feedback design in support of students’ conjecturing processes

References

• Arzarello, F., Olivero, F., Paola, D., & Robutti, O. (2002). A cognitive analysis of dragging practises in Cabri environments. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 34(3), 66–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02655708
   Google Scholar
• Ayalon, M., Watson, A., & Lerman, S. (2017). Students’ conceptualizations of function revealed through definitions and examples. Research in Mathematics Education, 19(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2016.1249397
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belland, B. R., Kim, C. M., & Hannafin, M. J. (2013). A framework for designing scaffolds that improve motivation and cognition. Educational Psychologist, 48(4), 243–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.838920
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biza, I. (2017). Review of youngsters solving mathematical problems with technology: The results and implications of the Problem@Web project. Research in Mathematics Education, 19(3), 331–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2017.1365008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boero, P., Garuti, R., & Lemut, E. (2007). Approaching theorems in grade VIII: Some mental processes underlying producing and proving conjectures, and conditions suitable to enhance them. In P. Boero (Ed.), Theorems in schools: From history, epistemology and cognition to classroom practice (pp. 249–264). Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789087901691_015
   Google Scholar
• Butler, R. (1987). Task-involving and ego-involving properties of evaluation: Effects of different feedback conditions on motivational perceptions, interest, and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 474–482. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.79.4.474
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chazan, D. (1993). High school geometry students’ justification for their views of empirical evidence and mathematical proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24(4), 359–387. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01273371
   Google Scholar
• Chazan, D., & Ball, D. (1995). Beyond exhortations not to tell [microform]: The teacher's role in discussion-intensive mathematics classes (NCRTL Craft Paper 95-2). National Center for Research on Teacher Learning, Michigan State University.
   Google Scholar
• Chazan, D., & Yerushalmy, M. (1998). Charting a course for secondary geometry. In R. Lehrer & D. Chazan (Eds.), Designing learning environments for developing understanding of geometry and space (pp. 67–90). Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in education research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032001009
   Google Scholar
• Corbett, A. T., & Anderson, J. R. (2001). Locus of feedback control in computer-based tutoring: Impact on learning rate, achievement and attitudes. In Proceedings of ACM CHI 2001 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 245–252). New York: Association for Computing Machinery Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/365024.365111
   Google Scholar
• de Villiers, M. D. (2010). Experimentation and proof in mathematics. In G. Hanna, H. N. Jahnke, & H. Pulte (Eds.), Explanation and proof in mathematics: Philosophical and educational perspectives (pp. 205–221). Springer International. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0576-5_14
   Google Scholar
• 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). Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-334-1_8
   Google Scholar
• Hoyles, C. (2018). Transforming the mathematical practices of learners and teachers through digital technology. Research in Mathematics Education, 20(3), 209–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2018.1484799
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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 (pp. 121–128). Kluwer Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Jaehnig, W., & Miller, M. L. (2007). Feedback types in programmed instruction: A systematic review. The Psychological Record, 57(2), 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395573
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jeannotte, D., & Kieran, C. (2017). A conceptual model of mathematical reasoning for school mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 96(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-017-9761-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laborde, C. (1993). The computer as part of the learning environment: The case of geometry. In C. Keitel & K. Ruthven (Eds.), Learning from computers: Mathematics education and technology (pp. 48–67). Springer International. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-78542-9_3
   Google Scholar
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9433-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maier, U., Wolf, N., & Randler, C. (2016). Effects of a computer-assisted formative assessment intervention based on multiple-tier diagnostic items and different feedback types. Computers & Education, 95, 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.12.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mariotti, M. A. (2006). Proof and proving in mathematics education. In A. Gutiérrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education: Past, present and future (pp. 173–204). Sense Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Murata, A. (2008). Mathematics teaching and learning as a mediating process: The case of tape diagrams. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(4), 374–406. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986060802291642
   Google Scholar
• Naftaliev, E., & Yerushalmy, M. (2017). Engagement with interactive diagrams: The role played by resources and constraints. In A. Leung & A. Baccaglini-Frank (Eds.), Digital technologies in designing mathematics education tasks: Potential and pitfalls (pp. 153–173). Springer International.
   Google Scholar
• Narciss, S., & Huth, K. (2004). How to design informative tutoring feedback for multimedia learning. In H. M. Niegemann, D. Leutner, & R. Brunken (Eds.), Instructional design for multimedia learning (pp. 181–195). Waxmann.
   Google Scholar
• Olivero, F. (2008). Conjecturing in open geometric situations using dynamic geometry: An exploratory classroom experiment. Research in Mathematics Education, 3(1), 229–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794800008520095
   Google Scholar
• Olsher, S. (2019). Making good practice common using computer-aided formative assessment. In G. Aldon & J. Trgalová (Eds.), Technology in Mathematics Teaching. Mathematics Education in the Digital era (Vol. 13, pp. 31–47). Cham: Springer International. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19741-4_2
   Google Scholar
• Olsher, S., Yerushalmy, M., & Chazan, D. (2016). How might the use of technology in formative assessment support changes in mathematics teaching? For the Learning of Mathematics, 36(3), 11–18. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44382716
   Google Scholar
• Pedemonte, B. (2007). How can the relationship between argumentation and proof be analyzed? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66(1), 23–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-9057-x
   Google Scholar
• Sfard, A. (2007). When the rules of discourse change but nobody tells you: Making sense of mathematics learning from a commognitive standpoint. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(4), 565–613. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400701525253
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shute, V. J., & Rahimi, S. (2017). Review of computer-based assessment for learning in elementary and secondary education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12172
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sinclair, N., Watson, A., Zazkis, R., & Mason, J. (2011). The structuring of personal example spaces. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 30(4), 291–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2011.04.001
   Google Scholar
• Van der Kleij, F. M., Feskens, R. C. W., & Eggen, T. J. H. M. (2015). Effects of feedback in a computer-based learning environment on students’ learning outcomes: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 85(4), 475–511. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314564881
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watson, A., & Mason, J. (2005). Mathematics as a constructive activity: The role of learner generated examples. Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Yerushalmy, M., Gordon, M., & Chazan, D. (1990). Mathematical problem posing: Implications for facilitating student inquiry in the classroom. Instructional Science, 19(3), 219–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00120197
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yerushalmy, M., Nagari-Haddif, G., & Olsher, S. (2017). Design of tasks for online assessment that supports understanding of students’ conceptions. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 49(5), 701–716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0871-7
   Google Scholar
• Zaslavsky, O., & Zodik, I. (2007). Mathematics teachers’ choices of examples that potentially support or impede learning. Research in Mathematics Education, 9(1), 143–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794800008520176
   Google Scholar