An embodied design for grounding the mathematics of slope in middle school students' perceptions of steepness

References

• Abrahamson, D. (2009a). Embodied design: Constructing means for constructing meaning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(1), 27–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abrahamson, D. (2009b). Orchestrating semiotic leaps from tacit to cultural quantitative reasoning—the case of anticipating experimental outcomes of a quasi-binomial random generator. Cognition and Instruction, 27(3), 175–224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abrahamson, D. (2012). Rethinking intensive quantities via guided mediated abduction. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(4), 626–649.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abrahamson, D. (2014). Building educational activities for understanding: An elaboration on the embodied-design framework and its epistemic grounds. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 2(1), 1–16.
   Google Scholar
• Abrahamson, D., & Lindgren, R. (2014). Embodiment and embodied design. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 358–376). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.
   Google Scholar
• Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 13–20.
   Google Scholar
• Cobb, P., Confrey, J., DiSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.
   Google Scholar
• Cobb, P., & Fischbein, E. (1989). A double-edged sword. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(2), 213–218.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. New Directions in Educational Technology, 96, 15–22.
   Google Scholar
• Common Core Content Standards Initiative. (2012). Common Core State Standards initiative: Mathematics standards. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/Math/
   Google Scholar
• Confrey, J. (2005). The evolution of design studies as methodology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 135–151). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Confrey, J., Scarano, G. H., & Hotchkiss, G. (1995). Splitting reexamined: Results from a three-year longitudinal study of children in grades three to five. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.
   Google Scholar
• The Design Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.
   Google Scholar
• Diaz-Obando, E., Plasencia-Cruz, I., & Solano-Alvarado, A. (2003). The impact of beliefs in student's learning: An investigation with students of two different contexts. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 34(2), 161–173.
   Google Scholar
• DiSessa, A. A., & Cobb, P. (2004). Ontological innovation and the role of theory in design experiments. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 77–103.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fendel, D., Resek, D., Alper, L., & Fraser, S. (2009). Interactive mathematics program year 1 (2nd ed). Emeryville, CA: Key Curriculum Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fischbein, E. (1987). Intuition in science and mathematics. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: D. Reidel.
   Google Scholar
• Frank, M. L. (1988). Problem solving and mathematical beliefs. Arithmetic Teacher, 35, 32–34.
   Google Scholar
• Geary, D. C. (2012). Evolutionary educational psychology. In K. R. Harris, S. E. Graham, T. E. Urdan, C. B. McCormick, G. M. Sinatra, & J. E. Sweller (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook, Vol. 1: Theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 591–621). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Gelman, R., & Williams, E. M. (1998). Enabling constraints for cognitive development and learning: Domain specificity and epigenesis. Cognition, Perception and Language, 2, 575–630.
   Google Scholar
• Holliday, B., Luchin, B., Marks, D., Day, R., Cuevas, G. J., Carter, J. A., … Hayek, L. M. (2008). Algebra 1. New York, NY: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Hubel, D. H., & Wiesel, T. N. (1963). Shape and arrangement of columns in cat's striate cortex. The Journal of Physiology, 165(3), 559–568.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laborde, C. (1994). Working in small groups: A learning situation? In R. Biehler, R. Scholz, R. Strasser, & B. Winkelmann (Eds.), Didactics of mathematics as a scientific discipline (pp. 147–157). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Lamon, S. J. (2007). Rational numbers and proportional reasoning: Toward a theoretical framework for research. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 629–667). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
   Google Scholar
• Limón, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: A critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction, 11(4-5), 357–380.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lobato, J., & Thanheiser, E. (2002). Developing understanding of ratio as measure as a foundation for slope. In B. Litwiller (Ed.), Making sense of fractions, ratios, and proportions (pp. 162–175). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
   Google Scholar
• Mariotti, M. (2009). Artifacts and signs after a Vygotskian perspective: The role of the teacher. ZDM, 41(4), 427–440.
   Google Scholar
• Mason, J. (2002). Researching your own practice: The discipline of noticing. London: Routledge-Falmer.
   Google Scholar
• Muis, K. R. (2004). Personal epistemology and mathematics: A critical review and synthesis of research. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 317–377.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nagle, C., Moore-Russo, D., Viglietti, J., & Martin, K. (2013). Calculus students’ and instructors’ conceptualizations of slope: A comparison across academic levels. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11, 1491–1515.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piaget, J. (1952). The child’s conception of number. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul Limited.
   Google Scholar
• Piaget, J. (1975). To understand is to invent. The future of education. New York: Viking Press.
   Google Scholar
• Radford, L. (2003). Gestures, speech, and the sprouting of signs: A semiotic-cultural approach to students’ types of generalization. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 5(1), 37–70.
   Google Scholar
• Schultz, J. E., Kennedy, P. A., Ellis, W., & Hallowell, K. A. (2004). Holt algebra 1. Austin, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
   Google Scholar
• Schwartz, D. L., & Heiser, J. (2005). Spatial representations and imagery in learning. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 283–298). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Siegler, R. S., & Crowley, K. (1991). The microgenetic method: A direct means for studying cognitive development. American Psychologist, 46(6), 606–620.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stavy, R., & Tirosh, D. (1996). Intuitive rules in science and mathematics: The case of ‘more of A–more of B’. International Journal of Science Education, 18(6), 653–667.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens, R., & Hall, R. (1998). Disciplined perception: Learning to see in technoscience. In M. Lampert, & M. L. Blunk (Eds.), Talking mathematics in school: Studies of teaching and learning (pp. 107–150). New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Swan, M. (2001). Dealing with misconceptions in mathematics. In P. Gates (Ed.), Issues in mathematics teaching (pp. 147–165). London: Routledge Falmer.
   Google Scholar
• Trninic, D., & Abrahamson, D. (2012). Embodied artifacts and conceptual performances. In Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS): Future of learning, (pp. 283–290).
   Google Scholar
• Uttal, D. H., Scudder, K. V., & DeLoache, J. S. (1997). Manipulatives as symbols: A new perspective on the use of concrete objects to teach mathematics. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 18(1), 37–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilensky, U. (1997). What is normal anyway? Therapy for epistemological anxiety. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 33(2), 171–202.
   Google Scholar
• Zaslavsky, O. (2005). Seizing the opportunity to create uncertainty in learning mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 60(3), 297–321.
   Google Scholar
• Zaslavsky, O., Sela, H., & Leron, U. (2002). Being sloppy about slope: The effect of changing the scale. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49(1), 119–140.
   Google Scholar
• Zazkis, R., Dubinsky, E., & Dautermann, J. (1996). Coordinating visual and analytic strategies: A study of students’ understanding of the group D 4. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 435–457.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar