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), 66–72.Google Scholar

Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 403–436.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. 67–97). 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.Google Scholar

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), 115–149.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. 207–224). 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. 127–149). 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. 25–130). 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).Google Scholar

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).Google Scholar

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), 247–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

DBR Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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), 703–724.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. 189–211). 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), 962–1023.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. 19–38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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), 455–479.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. 351–368). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goodwin, C., & Heritage, J. (1990). Conversation analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19, 283–307.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. 43–76). 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), 169–187.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. 121–128). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (1992). A pedagogy for mathematical microworlds. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23(1), 31–57.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. 157–180). 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.Google Scholar

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), 55–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103.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.Google Scholar

King, J., & Schattschneider, D. (1997). Making geometry dynamic. In King, J. & Schattschneider, D. (Eds.), Geometry turned on (pp. ix–xiv). 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), 211–224.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), 25–41.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. 133–144). 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).Google Scholar

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. 1–21). 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), 441–459.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. 433–439). 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, 701–724.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), 213–245.Google 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), 211–237.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), 9–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Maxwell, J. (2004). Causal explanation, qualitative research, and scientific inquiry in education. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 3–11.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), 343–359.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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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), 283–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Phillips, D. C. (2014). Research in the hard sciences, and in very hard “softer” domains. Educational Researcher, 43(1), 9–11.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. 353–384). 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rabardel, P., & Beguin, P. (2005). Instrument mediated activity: From subject development to anthropocentric design. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 6(5), 429–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rabardel, P., & Bourmaud, G. (2003). From computer to instrument system: A developmental perspective. Interacting with Computers, 15, 665–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5, 243–263.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. 60–95). 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), 239–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rosch, E. H. (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 328–350.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. 69–197). 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), 696–735.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.Google Scholar

Sarmiento, J., (2008b). Group creativity in inter-action: Referencing, remembering and bridging. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction (IJHCI), 492–504.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, 289–327.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. 51–77). 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.Google Scholar

Schmidt, K., & Bannon, L. (1992). Taking CSCW seriously: Supporting articulation work. CSCW, 1(1), 7–40.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), 3–14.Google Scholar

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), 44–55.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. 13–57). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Sfard, A. (2008a). Learning mathematics as developing a discourse. In the Proceedings of the ICME 11, Monterrey, Mexico.Google Scholar

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. 545–564). 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), 42–76.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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Acting with technology series. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stahl, G. (2009a). A chat about chat. In Stahl, G. (Ed.), Studying virtual math teams (pp. 7–16). 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.Google Scholar

Stahl, G. (2011b). How I view learning and thinking in CSCL groups. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning (RPTEL), 6(3), 137–159.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. 190–205). 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stahl, G. (2012a). Dynamic-geometry activities with GeoGebra for virtual math teams. Web: http://GerryStahl.net/elibrary/topics/activities.pdf.Google Scholar

Stahl, G. (2012b). Ethnomethodologically informed. International Journal of Computer- Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(1), 1–10.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.Google Scholar

Stahl, G. (2013b). Topics in dynamic geometry for virtual math teams. Web: http://GerryStahl.net/elibrary/topics/topics.pdf.Google Scholar

Stahl, G. (2013c). Translating Euclid: Designing a human-centered mathematics. Synthesis lectures on human-centered informatics series. San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stahl, G. (2014a). Construct dynamic geometry together. Web: http://GerryStahl.net/elibrary/topics/construct.pdf; http://ggbtu.be/b140867.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Stahl, G. (2014c). Explore dynamic geometry together. Web: http://GerryStahl.net/elibrary/topics/explore.pdf.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Stahl, G. (2015a). The construction crew game. Web: http://GerryStahl.net/elibrary/topics/game.pdf; http://ggbtu.be/b154045.Google Scholar

Stahl, G. (2015b). From intersubjectivity to group cognition. Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Web: http://GerryStahl.net/pub/intersubjectivity.pdf.Google Scholar

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. 409–426). 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.Google Scholar

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, 232–244.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. 229–258). 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), 385–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Thorndike, E. L. (1914). Educational psychology (Vol. I–III). New York: Teachers College.Google Scholar

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, 310–316.CrossRefGoogle 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. 475–497). 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), 305–317.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. 261–276). 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.Google Scholar

Zemel, A., & Koschmann, T. (2013). Recalibrating reference within a dual-space interaction environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8(1), 65–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zhou, N. (2009). Question co-construction in VMT chats. In Stahl, G. (Ed.), Studying virtual math teams (pp. 141–159). 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.Google Scholar