Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-558cb97cc8-fpk9s Total loading time: 0.943 Render date: 2022-10-06T12:00:43.343Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": true, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Bibliography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 November 2015

Gerry Stahl
Affiliation:
Drexel University, Philadelphia
Get access

Summary

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Constructing Dynamic Triangles Together
The Development of Mathematical Group Cognition
, pp. 251 - 260
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adorno, T. W., & Horkheimer, M. (1945). The dialectic of enlightenment (Cumming, J., Trans.). New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Arzarello, F., Olivero, F., Paola, D., & Robutti, O. (2002). A cognitive analysis of dragging practises in Cabri environments. International Reviews on Mathematical Education (ZDM), 34(3), 6672.Google Scholar
Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 403436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boaler, J. (2008). What’s math got to do with it? Helping children learn to love their most hated subject: And why it is important for America. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1972/1995). Outline of a theory of practice (Nice, R., Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bruner, J. (1990). Entry into meaning. In J. Bruner (Ed.), Acts of meaning (pp. 6797). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Çakir, M. P., & Stahl, G. (2013). The integration of mathematics discourse, graphical reasoning and symbolic expression by a virtual math team. In Martinovic, D., Freiman, V., & Karadag, Z. (Eds.), Visual mathematics and cyberlearning (pp. 49–96). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Çakir, M. P., (2015). Dragging as a referential resource for mathematical meaning making in a collaborative dynamic-geometry environment In the proceedings of the CSCL 2015. Gothenburg, Sweden. Web: http://GerryStahl.net/pub/cscl2015cakir.pdf.
Çakir, M. P., Zemel, A., & Stahl, G. (2009). The joint organization of interaction within a multimodal CSCL medium. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(2), 115149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carreira, S., Jones, K., Amado, N., Jacinto, H., & Nobre, S. (2015). Youngsters solving mathematical problems with technology: The results and implications of the problem@Web project. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Charles, E. S., & Shumar, W. (2009). Student and team agency in VMT. In Stahl, G. (Ed.), Studying virtual math teams (pp. 207224). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H., & Brennan, S. (1991). Grounding in communication. In Resnick, L., Levine, J., & Teasley, S. (Eds.), Perspectives on socially-shared cognition (pp. 127149). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobb, P. (1995). Mathematical learning and small-group interaction: Four case studies. In Cobb, P. & Bauersfeld, H. (Eds.), The emergence of mathematical meaning (pp. 25130). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2011). High school – geometry. In Common Core State Standards Initiative (Ed.), Common core state standards for mathematics (pp. 74–78).
Confrey, J., Maloney, A., Nguyen, K., Mojica, G., & Myers, M. (2009). Equipartitioning/splitting as a foundation of rational number reasoning using learning trajectories. Proceedings of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Thessaloniki, Greece (pp. 345–352).
Damsa, C. I. (2014). The multi-layered nature of small-group learning: Productive interactions in object-oriented collaboration. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 9(3), 247281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DBR Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 58.CrossRef
Descartes, R. (1633 [1999]). Discourse on method and meditations on first philosophy. New York: Hackett.Google Scholar
deVilliers, M. (2003). Rethinking proof with the Geometer’s Sketchpad. Emeryville, CA: Key Curriculum Press.Google Scholar
deVilliers, M. (2004). Using dynamic geometry to expand mathematics teachers’ understanding of proof. International Journal of Mathematics Education in Science & Technology, 35(4), 703724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In Reimann, P. & Spada, H. (Eds.), Learning in humans and machines: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189211). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Donald, M. (2001). A mind so rare: The evolution of human consciousness. New York: W. W. Norton.book series.Google Scholar
Dreyfus, H. (1992). What computers still can’t do: A critique of artificial reason. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 9621023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamäki, R.-L. (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 1938). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Engeström, Y. (2008). From teams to knots. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Euclid, . (300 BCE/2002). Euclid’s elements (Heath, T. L., Trans.). Santa Fe, NM: Green Lion Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, F., Mandl, H., Haake, J., & Kollar, I. (Eds.). (2006). Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational and educational perspectives. Computer-supported collaborative learning series, Vol. 6. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Gadamer, H.-G. (1960/1988). Truth and method. New York: Crossroads.Google Scholar
Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G. (2005). The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 21(3–4), 455479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (2002). Ethnomethodology’s program: Working out Durkeim’s aphorism. Legacies of social thought series, Vol. 13. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Goldenberg, E. P., & Cuoco, A. A. (1998). What is dynamic geometry? In Lehrer, R. & Chazan, D. (Eds.), Designing learning environments for developing understanding of geometry and space (pp. 351368). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C., & Heritage, J. (1990). Conversation analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19, 283307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanks, W. (1992). The indexical ground of deictic reference. In Duranti, A. & Goodwin, C. (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 4376). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heath, T. (1921). A history of Greek mathematics (Vol. I: From Thales to Euclid). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M. (1927/1996). Being and time: A translation of Sein und Zeit (Stambaugh, J., Trans.). Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Hölzl, R. (1996). How does “dragging” affect the learning of geometry. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 1(2), 169187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoyles, C., & Jones, K. (1998). Proof in dynamic geometry contexts. In Villani, C. M. a. V. (Ed.), Perspectives on the teaching of geometry for the 21st century (pp. 121128). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (1992). A pedagogy for mathematical microworlds. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23(1), 3157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Husserl, E. (1936/1989). The origin of geometry (Carr, D., Trans.). In Derrida, J. (Ed.), Edmund Husserl’s origin of geometry: An introduction (pp. 157180). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Jones, K. (1997). Children learning to specify geometrical relationships using a dynamic geometry package. In the Proceedings of the 21st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. P. E. University of Helsinki, Finland, 3, 121–128.
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(1/2), 5585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, I. (1787/1999). Critique of pure reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Khoo, M., & Stahl, G. (2015). Constructing knowledge: A community of practice approach to evaluation in the VMT project. In the Proceedings of the CSCL 2015, Gothenburg, Sweden. Web: http://GerryStahl.net/pub/cscl2015khoo.pdf.
King, J., & Schattschneider, D. (1997). Making geometry dynamic. In King, J. & Schattschneider, D. (Eds.), Geometry turned on (pp. ixxiv). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.Google Scholar
Kobbe, L., Weinberger, A., Dillenbourg, P., Harrer, A., Hamalainen, R., Hakkinen, P., et al. (2007). Specifying computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2–3), 211224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koschmann, T., Kuutti, K., & Hickman, L. (1998). The concept of breakdown in Heidegger, Leont’ev, and Dewey and its implications for education. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 5(1), 2541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koschmann, T., Stahl, G., & Zemel, A. (2007). The video analyst’s manifesto (or the implications of Garfinkel’s policies for the development of a program of video analytic research within the learning sciences). In Goldman, R., Pea, R., Barron, B., & Derry, S. (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 133144). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Koschmann, T., & Zemel, A. (2006). Optical pulsars and black arrows: Discovery’s work in ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ science. In the Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2006), Bloomington, IN (pp. 356–362).
Laborde, C. (2004). The hidden role of diagrams in pupils’ construction of meaning in geometry. In Kilpatrick, C. H. J. & Skovsmose, O. (Ed.), Meaning in mathematics education (pp. 121). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Núñez, R. (2000). Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (2007). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (2008). The Netz-works of Greek deductions. Social Studies of Science, 38(3), 441459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latour, B. (2013). An inquiry into modes of existence: An anthropology of the modern (Porter, C., Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeBaron, C. (2002). Technology does not exist independent of its use. In Koschmann, T., Hall, R., & Miyake, N. (Eds.), CSCL 2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 433439). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2012). Seeding evolutionary thinking by engaging children in modeling its foundations. Science Education, 96, 701724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemke, J. L. (1993). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Lerner, G. (1993). Collectivities in action: Establishing the relevance of conjoined participation in conversation. Text, 13(2), 213245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, C., & Pettit, P. (2011). Group agency: The possibility, design, and status of corporate agents. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Livingston, E. (1986). The ethnomethodological foundations of mathematics. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Lockhart, P. (2009). A mathematician’s lament: How school cheats us out of our most fascinating and imaginative art forms. New York: Belevue Literary Press.Google Scholar
Lonchamp, J. (2012). An instrumental perspective on CSCL systems. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(2), 211237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Looi, C. K., So, H. J., Toh, Y., & Chen, W. L. (2011). The Singapore experience: Synergy of national policy, classroom practice and design research. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(1), 937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, J. (2004). Causal explanation, qualitative research, and scientific inquiry in education. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1945/2002). The phenomenology of perception (2nd ed., Smith, C., Trans.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Netz, R. (1999). The shaping of deduction in Greek mathematics: A study in cognitive history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Öner, D. (2008). Supporting students’ participation in authentic proof activities in computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environments. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(3), 343359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Öner, D., & Stahl, G. (2015a). Tracing the change in discourse in a collaborative dynamic-geometry environment: From visual to more mathematical. Web: http://GerryStahl.net/pub/esmoner.pdf.
Öner, D., (2015b). Tracing the change in discourse in a collaborative dynamic-geometry environment: From visual to more mathematical. In the Proceedings of the CSCL 2015, Gothenburg, Sweden. Web: http://GerryStahl.net/pub/cscl2015oner.pdf.
Ong, W. (1998). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the world. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Orr, J. (1990). Sharing knowledge, celebrating identity: War stories and community memory in a service culture. In Middleton, D. S. & Edwards, D. (Eds.), Collective remembering: Memory in society. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Overdijk, M., van Diggelen, W., Andriessen, J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2014). How to bring a technical artifact into use: A micro-developmental perspective. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 9(3), 283303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, D. C. (2014). Research in the hard sciences, and in very hard “softer” domains. Educational Researcher, 43(1), 911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plato, . (340 BCE/1941). The republic (Cornford, F., Trans.). London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Plato, (350 BCE/1961). Meno. In Hamilton, E. & Cairns, H. (Eds.), The collected dialogues of Plato (pp. 353384). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Polya, G. (1945/1973). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rabardel, P., & Beguin, P. (2005). Instrument mediated activity: From subject development to anthropocentric design. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 6(5), 429461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabardel, P., & Bourmaud, G. (2003). From computer to instrument system: A developmental perspective. Interacting with Computers, 15, 665691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5, 243263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renninger, K. A., & Shumar, W. (2002). Community building with and for teachers at the math forum. In Renninger, K. A. & Shumar, W. (Eds.), Building virtual communities (pp. 6095). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renninger, K. A., (2004). The centrality of culture and community to participant learning at and with the math forum. In Barab, S., Kling, R., & Gray, J. H. (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ritella, G., & Hakkarainen, K. (2012). Instrumental genesis in technology-mediated learning: From double stimulation to expansive knowledge practices. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(2), 239258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E. H. (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 328350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In O’Malley, C. (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 69197). Berlin: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, W.-M. (2003). Towards an anthropology of graphing: Semiotic and activity-theoretic perspectives. Leiden: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rousseau, J.-J. (1762). Of the social contract, or principles of political right (du contrat social ou principes du droit politique) Amsterdam: Marc Michael Rey.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1965/1995). Lectures on conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarmiento, J., & Stahl, G. (2008a). Extending the joint problem space: Time and sequence as essential features of knowledge building. In the Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2008), Utrecht, Netherlands. Web: http://GerryStahl.net/pub/icls2008johann.pdf.
Sarmiento, J., (2008b). Group creativity in inter-action: Referencing, remembering and bridging. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction (IJHCI), 492504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.). (2014). Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In Smith, B. (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2014). Knowledge building and knowledge creation: Theory, pedagogy and technology. In Sawyer, K. (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schatzki, T. R., Knorr Cetina, K., & Savigny, E. v. (Eds.). (2001). The practice turn in contemporary theory. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8, 289327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1990). On the organization of sequences as a source of ‘coherence’ in talk-in-interaction. In Dorval, B. (Ed.), Conversational organization and its development (pp. 5177). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scher, D. (2002). Students’ conceptions of geometry in a dynamic geometry software environment. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, School of Education, New York University. New York. Web: http://GerryStahl.net/pub/GSP_Scher_Dissertation.pdf.
Schmidt, K., & Bannon, L. (1992). Taking CSCW seriously: Supporting articulation work. CSCW, 1(1), 740.Google Scholar
Schön, D. A. (1992). Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation. Knowledge-Based Systems Journal, Special Issue on AI in Design 5(1), 314.CrossRef
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Seddon, C. (2014). Humans: From the beginning: From the first apes to the first cities. Kindle, ebook: Glanville Publications.Google Scholar
Sfard, A. (1994). Reification as the birth of metaphor. For the Learning of Mathematics, 14(1), 4455.Google Scholar
Sfard, A. (2002). There is more to discourse than meets the ears: Looking at thinking as communicating to learn more about mathematical learning. In Kieran, C., Forman, E., & Sfard, A. (Eds.), Learning discourse: Discursive approaches to research in mathematics education (pp. 1357). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Sfard, A. (2008a). Learning mathematics as developing a discourse. In the Proceedings of the ICME 11, Monterrey, Mexico.
Sfard, A. (2008b). Thinking as communicating: Human development, the growth of discourses and mathematizing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sfard, A., & Cobb, P. (2014). Research in mathematics education: What can it teach us about human learning? In Sawyer, K. (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. (2nd ed., pp. 545564). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sfard, A., Sfard, A., & Kieran, C. (2001). Cognition as communication: Rethinking learning-by-talking through multi-faceted analysis of students’ mathematical interactions. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 8(1), 4276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shannon, C., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Sinclair, N. (2008). The history of the geometry curriculum in the united states. Research in mathematics education series. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.Google Scholar
Stahl, G. (1993). Interpretation in design: The problem of tacit and explicit understanding in computer support of cooperative design. Unpublished Dissertation, Ph.D., Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado. Boulder, CO. Web: http://GerryStahl.net/publications/dissertations/computer.
Stahl, G. (2000). A model of collaborative knowledge-building. In B. Fischman & S. O’Conner-Divelbiss (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS ‘00), Ann Arbor, MI (pp. 70–77). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Stahl, G. (2005). Group cognition: The collaborative locus of agency in CSCL. In T. Koschmann, D. Suthers, & T.-W. Chan (Eds.), Proceedings of the international conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL ‘05), Taipei, Taiwan (pp. 632–640). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Acting with technology series. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stahl, G. (2009a). A chat about chat. In Stahl, G. (Ed.), Studying virtual math teams (pp. 716). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stahl, G. (2009b). Studying virtual math teams. Computer-supported collaborative learning book series. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stahl, G. (2011a). How a virtual math team structured its problem solving. In N. Miyake, H. Spada, & G. Stahl (Eds.), Proceedings of the connecting computer-supported collaborative learning to policy and practice. (pp. 256–263). Lulu: ISLS.
Stahl, G. (2011b). How I view learning and thinking in CSCL groups. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning (RPTEL), 6(3), 137159.Google Scholar
Stahl, G. (2011c). Social practices of group cognition in virtual math teams. In Ludvigsen, S., Lund, A., Rasmussen, I., & Säljö, R. (Eds.), Learning across sites: New tools, infrastructures and practices (pp. 190205). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stahl, G. (2011d). The structure of collaborative problem solving in a virtual math team. In the Proceedings of the iConference 2011, Seattle, WA. Web: http://GerryStahl.net/pub/iconf2011.pdf.
Stahl, G. (2011e). Theories of cognition in CSCW. In the Proceedings of the European Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Aarhus, Denmark. Web: http://GerryStahl.net/pub/ecscw2011.pdf.
Stahl, G. (2012a). Dynamic-geometry activities with GeoGebra for virtual math teams. Web: http://GerryStahl.net/elibrary/topics/activities.pdf.
Stahl, G. (2012b). Ethnomethodologically informed. International Journal of Computer- Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(1), 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stahl, G. (2013a). Seminar: Analyzing virtual math teams enacting geometric practices. Presented at the LinCS Seminars, University of Gothenburg, Sweden. Web: http://GerryStahl.net/pub/analyzing.pdf.
Stahl, G. (2013b). Topics in dynamic geometry for virtual math teams. Web: http://GerryStahl.net/elibrary/topics/topics.pdf.
Stahl, G. (2013c). Translating Euclid: Designing a human-centered mathematics. Synthesis lectures on human-centered informatics series. San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool Publishers.Google Scholar
Stahl, G. (2014a). Construct dynamic geometry together. Web: http://GerryStahl.net/elibrary/topics/construct.pdf; http://ggbtu.be/b140867.
Stahl, G. (2014b). The display of learning in groupwork. In the Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Supporting Groupwork (GROUP 2014), Sanibel Island, FL. Web: http://GerryStahl.net/pub/group2014.pdf.
Stahl, G. (2014c). Explore dynamic geometry together. Web: http://GerryStahl.net/elibrary/topics/explore.pdf.
Stahl, G. (2014d). Workshop: Interaction analysis of student teams enacting the practices of collaborative dynamic geometry. Presented at the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2014), Boulder, CO. Web: http://GerryStahl.net/pub/icls2014workshop.pdf.
Stahl, G. (2015a). The construction crew game. Web: http://GerryStahl.net/elibrary/topics/game.pdf; http://ggbtu.be/b154045.
Stahl, G. (2015b). From intersubjectivity to group cognition. Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Web: http://GerryStahl.net/pub/intersubjectivity.pdf.
Stahl, G. (2015c). The group as paradigmatic unit of analysis: The contested relationship of CSCL to the learning sciences. In Evans, M., Packer, M., & Sawyer, K. (Eds.), The learning sciences: Mapping the terrain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409426). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., (2014). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, revised version. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stahl, G., Zhou, N., Çakir, M. P., & Sarmiento-Klapper, J. W. (2011). Seeing what we mean: Co-experiencing a shared virtual world. In the Proceedings of the Connecting computer-supported collaborative learning to policy and practice (pp. 534–541). Lulu: ISLS.
Suchman, L. A. (2007). Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Suchman, L. A., & Jordan, B. (1990). Interactional troubles in face-to-face survey interviews. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 85, 232244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teasley, S. D., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Constructing a joint problem space: The computer as a tool for sharing knowledge. In Lajoie, S. P. & Derry, S. J. (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 229258). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Tee, M. Y., & Karney, D. (2010). Sharing and cultivating tacit knowledge in an online learning environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(4), 385413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorndike, E. L. (1914). Educational psychology (Vol. I–III). New York: Teachers College.Google ScholarPubMed
Tomasello, M. (2014). A natural history of human thinking. Cambridge: MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, S. (1994). The social theory of practices: Tradition, tacit knowledge, and presuppositions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
van Hiele, P. (1986). Structure and insight: A theory of mathematics education. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
van Hiele, P. (1999). Developing geometric thinking through activities that begin with play. Teaching Children Mathematics, 310316.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. (1930/1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. (1934/1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wee, J. D., & Looi, C.-K. (2009). A model for analyzing math knowledge building in VMT. In Stahl, G. (Ed.), Studying virtual math teams (pp. 475497). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wegerif, R. (2007). Dialogic, education and technology: Expanding the space of learning. New York: Kluwer-Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weick, K. E. (1988). Enacted sensemaking in crisis situations. Journal of Management Studies, 25(4), 305317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Yin, R. K. (2004). Case study methods. In Complementary methods for research in education (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research. Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Zemel, A., & Çakir, M. P. (2009). Reading’s work in VMT. In Stahl, G. (Ed.), Studying virtual math teams (pp. 261276). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zemel, A., Çakir, M. P., Stahl, G., & Zhou, N. (2009). Learning as a practical achievement: An interactional perspective. In the Proceedings of the international conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL 2009), Rhodes, Greece. Web: http://GerryStahl.net/pub/cscl2009zhou.pdf.
Zemel, A., & Koschmann, T. (2013). Recalibrating reference within a dual-space interaction environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8(1), 6587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, N. (2009). Question co-construction in VMT chats. In Stahl, G. (Ed.), Studying virtual math teams (pp. 141159). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, N., Zemel, A., & Stahl, G. (2008). Questioning and responding in online small groups engaged in collaborative math problem solving. In the Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2008), Utrecht, Netherlands. Web: http://GerryStahl.net/pub/icls2008nan.pdf.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Bibliography
  • Gerry Stahl, Drexel University, Philadelphia
  • Book: Constructing Dynamic Triangles Together
  • Online publication: 05 November 2015
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316422755.016
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Bibliography
  • Gerry Stahl, Drexel University, Philadelphia
  • Book: Constructing Dynamic Triangles Together
  • Online publication: 05 November 2015
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316422755.016
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Bibliography
  • Gerry Stahl, Drexel University, Philadelphia
  • Book: Constructing Dynamic Triangles Together
  • Online publication: 05 November 2015
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316422755.016
Available formats
×