跳到主要內容

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表
研究生： 胡士鑫
Shih-shin Hu
論文名稱：
The Impact of Social Interaction of Learning on Geometry Problem Solving with Multiple Representations in Virtual Reality
指導教授： 黃武元
Wu-yuin Hwang
口試委員:
學位類別： 碩士
Master
系所名稱： 資訊電機學院 - 網路學習科技研究所
Graduate Institute of Network Learning Technology
畢業學年度： 99
語文別： 英文
論文頁數： 102
中文關鍵詞： 多重表徵 、幾何問題解決 、虛擬實境 、社會互動 、合作學習 、電子白板 、虛擬教具
外文關鍵詞： geometry problem solving, virtual reality, social interaction, multiple representations, virtual manipulative, whiteboard, collaborative learning
相關次數： 點閱：19  下載：0 
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報

    • 數學幾何的學習，強調讓學生去靈活運用數學的多重表徵(Multiple Representations)，從虛擬教具(Virtual Manipulative)的操弄、數字與符號的書寫到言語的溝通和討論，使學生在實作、實測與直覺中，從視覺上去建構幾何物件的概念與知識。社會互動(Social Interaction)在幾何學習過程中扮演關鍵的角色，包含學習者與教師、學習者與同儕、學習者與教材內容、及學習者與學習工具之間的互動，透過互相觀摩、辯證、分享與合作，學生便能從群體的多元觀點思考數學解題的推理歷程並發展豐富的解題策略。文獻指出，學生對三維幾何的探索尤其重要，是個人身處世界中感知空間關係與理解各式表徵的基礎能力。在台灣九年一貫國民教育的數學指標中，三維幾何知識的建立著重在立體物件之體積與表面積的計算上，藉由單位立方體的堆疊活動來達成。因此，本研究以近年來被廣泛應用於教育學習的虛擬實境(Virtual Reality)為平台，發展「Interactive Virtual Mathematics Classroom (IVMC)」的多人互動虛擬學習環境(Multi-user Virtual Reality Interactive Learning Environments)，整合虛擬教具(Virtual Manipulative)與白板，設計一系列三維幾何的體積與表面積問題解決的活動，透過社會互動與探索虛擬世界裡的豐富表徵，增進學生三維幾何的學習成效，並檢視虛擬教具與白板在虛擬世界的問題解決中所發揮的效益，進一步分析學生對於問題解決所產生的社會互動行為與類別，對幾何學習中問題解決造成的影響。
    本研究之實驗以兩個國小五年級班級為研究對象，分別為實驗組和控制組，以問卷調查方式與系統數據進行統計量的分析，並輔以錄音錄影與訪談進行質的分析。結果發現，使用IVMC進行幾何問題解決活動，實驗組的幾何學習成效優於控制組；實驗組在兩階段活動表現中，透過與同儕的社會互動，從虛擬教具的具體操作、白板的評論註記與言語的討論等面向思考解題過程與答案，發展出不同組合的幾何問題解決策略。

    Learning geometry emphasizes the importance of exploring different representations such as virtual manipulative, written math formulas and verbal explanation, which help students build their math concepts and develop their critical thinking abilities for geometric problems solving. Besides for helping individuals construct math knowledge, social interaction of learning also plays one of crucial roles for contributing the development of mathematics understanding and geometry problem learning and solving. Regarding to social constructivism for geometry learning, peer learning behaviors of collaboration in social contexts with negotiating and sharing ideas are keys to deepen students’ understanding of geometric properties from multiple viewpoints. In this research, a Collaborative Virtual Reality Learning Environment (CVRLE) called interactive virtual mathematics classroom (IVMC) was proposed and developed for 3-dimensional (3-D) geometry problem solving. In IVMC, each student try to solve geometry problems related volume and surface area on their own tables with two representational tools, virtual manipulative and the whiteboard in CVRLE. The virtual manipulative allows multiple users to build, move and stack various shapes of 3-D objects for calculating volume and surface area of geometric problems. Students could validate their ideas by examining their manipulation and learn geometric concepts by observing peers manipulation in CVRLE. Regarding the whiteboard mechanism, it not only allows users to share ideas by writing mathematic formulas and drawing figures on their own whiteboards, but also to gives comments to help peers on peers’ whiteboards. Therefore, IVMC can provide a highly motivational and engaging learning environment for students to manipulate 3-D virtual objects and solve geometric problems individually or collaboratively. Various kinds of peers learning behaviors such as actively assisting peers in demonstrating, manipulating and criticizing or passively taking observation to reflect and revise solutions are explored and their effects on learning were further investigated.
    One eight-week experiment was conducted with two classes of fifth-grade primary school students, one class as experimental group and the other as control group. Subjects engaged in two geometry problems solving: the calculation of volume and surface area of 3-D objects. Results showed that there was a statistically significant difference in learning achievement between the experimental group and control group. Further analysis showed that peers learning behaviors, virtual manipulative, mutual observation and comments on the whiteboard, significantly influenced learning achievement and their problem solving strategies as well. Interestingly, peer learning behaviors in the two kinds of geometric problems were different due to their different difficulty level of problems. In the easy geometric problem, volume calculation, subjects first worked out their solutions, afterwards actively helped peers to solve problems by manipulating the virtual objects or commenting on the whiteboard. The number of helping peers with the virtual manipulative was significantly related to the outcome of volume calculation. However, in the difficult problem, calculation of surface area, most subjects were found to observe peers’ solutions on the whiteboard, and then went back to try to solve their own. The subjects having good learning performance in math were observed frequently and also received many comments on their whiteboards from peers. It was found that the number of observation and comments from peers was significantly related to the outcome of surface area calculation.
    Therefore, peers behaviors of social interaction of learning in IVMC were found useful to facilitate geometry problem solving with sharing ideas and exploring multiple representations in CVRLE. The difficulty level of the geometry problems would lead to various peers learning behaviors, which in turn cause impacts on learning achievement.

    中文摘要..........i Abstract..........iii Table of Contents..........v List of Figures..........viii List of Tables..........x Chapter 1 Introduction..........1 1.1 Research Background and Motivation..........1 1.1.1 Constructivist Learning in Geometry Education..........1 1.1.2 Facilitating Geometry Learning with Multiple Representations in CVRLEs..........2 1.1.3 Geometry Learning with Social Interaction in CVRLEs..........2 1.2 Purposes of the Research..........3 Chapter 2 Literature Review..........5 2.1 Geometry Learning and Spatial Visualization in the ICT Supported Constructivist Learning Environment..........5 2.1.1 Geometry Learning and Constructivist Learning..........5 2.1.2 Spatial Visualization and ICT Supported Constructivist Learning Environment..........7 2.2 Multiple Representations with Virtual Manipulative and Multimedia Whiteboard in Mathematics Instruction and Geometry Learning..........8 2.2.1 Multiple Representations in Mathematics Instruction and Geometry Learning..........8 2.2.2 Virtual Manipulatives in Mathematics Instruction and Geometry Learning..........11 2.2.3 Multimedia Whiteboard in Geometry Learning 13 2.3 Social Interaction with Multiple Representations in CVRLEs for Geometry Learning..........15 2.3.1 Collaborative Virtual Reality Learning Environments for Education..........15 2.3.2 Social Interaction for Geometry Learning in CVRLEs..........16 2.3.3 Related Works..........18 2.4 Technology Acceptance Model..........20 Chapter 3 System Design and Implementation..........23 3.1 Overview of IVMC and Its Implementation..........23 3.1.1 Overview of IVMC..........23 3.1.2 Structure of the Module and Its Communication..........25 3.2 Functionalities of IVMC..........27 3.3 Concept Description..........35 3.4 Snapshots of IVMC..........36 Chapter 4 Method..........39 4.1 Research Structure and Variables..........39 4.2 Research Flow..........45 4.3 Research Subjects..........46 4.4 Research Tools..........47 4.5 Geometry Problem Solving Activity Design..........49 4.5.1 Warm up activity..........52 4.5.2 Two stages: Volume calculation and surface area calculation activity..........53 4.6 Data Collection..........54 4.7 Methods of Data Analysis..........55 4.8 The Criterion of Evaluating Geometry Problem Solving Activity..........55 Chapter 5 Results and Discussion..........58 5.1 Analyses of the Questionnaires..........58 5.1.1 Reliability of the Questionnaires..........58 5.1.2 Descriptive Statistics of the Research Variables..........59 5.1.2.1 Analysis of the participant’s background..........59 5.1.2.2 Perceived acceptances..........60 5.2 Analyses of the Relation Between the Usage of IVMC and Geometry Learning Achievement..........68 5.3 Analyses of Using IVMC for Geometry Learning..........69 5.3.1 Activity Stage 1: Geometry Volume Calculation..........69 5.3.2 Activity Stage 2: Geometry Surface Area Calculation..........73 5.3.3 Social Strategies for Geometry Problem Solving..........76 5.4 Results of In-depth Interview..........77 5.5 Suggestion and Pedagogical Implications..........79 Chapter 6 Conclusion..........80 6.1 Conclusion..........80 6.2 Limitations..........81 6.3 Future Works..........81 References..........84 Appendix : Questionnaire for the study..........98

    Accascina, G., & Rogora, E. (2006). Using Cabri3D Diagrams for Teaching Geometry. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 13(1), 12.
    Ai-Lim Lee, E., Wong, K.W., & Fung, C.C. (2010). How does desktop virtual reality enhance learning outcomes? A structural equation modeling approach. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1424-1442.
    Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33(2-3), 131-152.
    Ainsworth, S., & Th Loizou, A. (2003). The effects of self-explaining when learning with text or diagrams. Cognitive Science, 27(4), 669-681.
    Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183-198.
    Baki, A., Kosa, T., & Guven, B. A comparative study of the effects of using dynamic geometry software and physical manipulatives on the spatial visualisation skills of pre service mathematics teachers. British Journal of Educational Technology.
    Battista, M.T. (2007). The development of geometric and spatial thinking. Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning, 2, 843-908.
    Boggan, M., Harper, S., & Whitmire, A. (2010). Using manipulatives to teach elementary mathematics. Educational Research, 3, 1-6.
    Bruner, J.S., & Kenney, H.J. (1965). Representation and mathematics learning. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 30(1), 50-59.
    Cakir, M.P., Stahl, G., & Zemel, A. (2010). Interactional achievement of shared mathematical understanding in a virtual math team.
    Calder, N.S. (2008). Processing mathematical thinking through digital pedagogical media: the spreadsheet.
    Caprotti, O., & Seppala, M. Mathematics Education in Second Life.
    Chan, H., Tsai, P., & Huang, T.Y. (2006). Web-based learning in a geometry course. JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGYAND SOCIETY, 9(2), 133.
    Chittaro, L., & Ranon, R. (2007). Web3D technologies in learning, education and training: Motivations, issues, opportunities. Computers & Education, 49(1), 3-18.
    Christou, C., Jones, K., Mousoulides, N., & Pittalis, M. (2006). Developing the 3DMath dynamic geometry software: theoretical perspectives on design. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 13(4), 168-174.
    Clements, D.H. (1999). Concrete manipulatives, concrete ideas. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 1(1), 45-60.
    Crowley, M.L. (1987). The van Hiele model of the development of geometric thought. Learning and teaching geometry, K-12, 1-16.
    Dalgarno, B., & Lee, M.J.W. (2010). What are the learning affordances of 3 D virtual environments? British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 10-32.
    Davis, F.D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly, 319-340.
    Debellis, V.A., & Goldin, G.A. (2006). Affect and meta-affect in mathematical problem solving: A representational perspective. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63(2), 131-147.
    De Freitas, S. (2008). Serious virtual worlds: a scoping study.
    des Mathematiques, A. 3D Geometry and learning of mathematical reasoning. CERME 6VWORKING GROUP 5, 796.
    DeWindt-King, A.M., & Goldin, G.A. (2003). Children’s visual imagery: Aspects of cognitive representation in solving problems with fractions. Mediterranean Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 2(1), 1-42.
    Dickey, M.D. (2005). Brave new (interactive) worlds: A review of the design affordances and constraints of two 3D virtual worlds as interactive learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 13(1), 121-137.
    Douglas H. Clements and Michael T. Battista. (2009). Constructivist Learning and Teaching Retrieved from NCTM
    Durmus, S., & Karakirik, E. (2006). Virtual Manipulatives in Mathematics Education: A Theoretical Framework. Online Submission, 7.
    Duval, R. (1998). Section II. GEOMETRY FROM A COGNITIVE POINT OF VIEW. Perspectives on the Teaching of Geometry for the 21st Century, 5, 37.
    Duval, R. (1999). Representation, Vision and Visualization: Cognitive Functions in Mathematical Thinking. Basic Issues for Learning.
    Ernest, P. (1999). Is mathematics discovered or invented. Philosophy of Mathematics Education Journal, 12, 9-13.
    Feldkamp, J.K. (2008). The effectiveness of electronic whiteboards and PowerPoint lessons in the mathematics classroom. Senior Honors Theses, 144.
    Gagatsis, A., & Shiakalli, M. (2004). Ability to translate from one representation of the concept of function to another and mathematical problem solving. Educational Psychology, 24(5), 645-657.
    Gawlick, T. (2005). Connecting arguments to actions─Dynamic geometry as means for the attainment of higher van Hiele levels. ZDM, 37(5), 361-370.
    Girouard, A., Solovey, E.T., Hirshfield, L.M., Ecott, S., Shaer, O., & Jacob, R.J.K. (2007). Smart Blocks: a tangible mathematical manipulative.
    Goldin, G.A. (1998). Representational systems, learning, and problem solving in mathematics. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17(2), 137-165.
    Gutierrez, A. (1996). Visualization in 3-dimensional geometry: In search of a framework.
    Hall, I., & Higgins, S. (2005). Primary school students'' perceptions of interactive whiteboards. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(2), 102-117.
    Hancock, G., & Lane, C. (2010). Case study: the effectiveness of virtual manipulatives in the teaching of primary mathematics.
    Harnisch, DL. Importance of mathematical visualization: I can see what you mean now.
    Hauptman, H. (2010). Enhancement of spatial thinking with Virtual Spaces 1.0. Computers & Education, 54(1), 123-135.
    Heddens, J.W. Improving mathematics teaching by using manipulatives. Kent University. Retrieved from the World Wide Web at: www. fed. cuhk. edu. hk/~ fllee/mathfor/edumath/9706/13hedden. html.
    Hitt, F. (2002). Representations and mathematical visualization: PME-NA Working Group (1998-2002). Mexico City: Cinvestav-IPN.
    Hohenwarter, M., & Preiner, J. (2007). Dynamic mathematics with GeoGebra. Journal of Online Mathematics and its Applications, 7.
    Hollebrands, K.F. (2003). High school students'' understandings of geometric transformations in the context of a technological environment. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 22(1), 55-72.
    Hung, D.W.L. (2000). Some insights into the generalizing of mathematical meanings. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19(1), 63-82.
    Hwang, W.Y., Chen, N.S., & Hsu, R.L. (2006). Development and evaluation of multimedia whiteboard system for improving mathematical problem solving. Computers & Education, 46(2), 105-121.
    Hwang, W.Y., Chen, N., Dung, J., & Yang, Y. (2007). Multiple representation skills and creativity effects on mathematical problem solving using a multimedia whiteboard system. JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGYAND SOCIETY, 10(2), 191.
    Hwang, W.Y., Su, J.H., Huang, Y.M., & Dong, J.J. (2009). A Study of Multi-Representation of Geometry Problem Solving with Virtual Manipulatives and Whiteboard System. Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 229!V247.
    Hwang, W.Y., Hsu, J.L., Tretiakov, A., Chou, H.W., & Lee, C.Y. (2009). Intra-action, Interaction and Outeraction in blended learning environments. Educational Technology & Society, 12(2), 222-239.
    Hyo-Jeong SO. (2010). Towards Rigor of Online Interaction Research: Implication for Future Distance Learning Research. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology.
    Jonassen, D.H., & Carr, C.S. (2000). Mindtools: Affording multiple knowledge representations for learning. Computers as cognitive tools, volume two: no more walls: theory change, paradigm shifts, and their influence on the use of computers for instructional purposes, 165.
    Jones, K. (1998). Theoretical frameworks for the learning of geometrical reasoning. Proceedings of the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics, 18(1-2), 29-34.
    Kaufmann, H. (2011). Virtual Environments for Mathematics and Geometry Education. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 2(1-2), pp. 131-152.
    Kaufmann, H., Steinbugl, K., Dunser, A., & Gluck, J. (2005). General training of spatial abilities by geometry education in augmented reality. Annual Review of CyberTherapy and Telemedicine: A Decade of VR, 3, 65-76.
    Koedinger, K.R., & Nathan, M.J. (2004). The real story behind story problems: Effects of representations on quantitative reasoning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(2), 129-164.
    Kurtulus, A., & Uygan, C. (2010). The effects of Google Sketchup based geometry activities and projects on spatial visualization ability of student mathematics teachers. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 384-389.
    Kwon, O.N., Kim, S.H., & Kim, Y. (2002). Enhancing spatial visualization through Virtual Reality (VR) on the web: Software design and impact analysis. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 21(1), 17-32.
    Laborde, C. (1995). Designing tasks for learning geometry in a computer-based environment. Technology in mathematics teaching, 35-67.
    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.
    Lane, S. (1993). The conceptual framework for the development of a mathematics assessment instrument for QUASAR. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 12(2), 16-23.
    Lane, S., Silver, E.A., Ankenmann, R.D., Cai, J., Finseth, C., Liu, M., . . . Parke, C.S. (1995). QUASAR Cognitive Assessment Instrument (QCAI). University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research and Development Center, Pittsburgh, PA.
    Lesh, R., Post, T., & Behr, M. (1987). Representations and translations among representations in mathematics learning and problem solving. Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics, 33-40.
    Maragos, C. (2004). Building educational scenarios with “Sketchpad”. [Online]. http://hermes.di.uoa.gr/edugames/sketchpad/ScetchPad.pdf. [2008, July 21].
    McGee, M.G. (1979). Human spatial abilities: Psychometric studies and environmental, genetic, hormonal, and neurological influences. Psychological Bulletin, 86(5), 889.
    McLeay, H. (2006). Imagery, Spatial Ability and Problem Solving. Mathematics Teaching Incorporating Micromath, 195, 3.
    Mehdiyev, R. (2009). Exploring students’ learning experiences when using a Dynamic Geometry Software (DGS) tool in a geometry class at a secondary school in Azerbaijan.
    Moon, J.W., & Kim, Y.G. (2001). Extending the TAM for a World-Wide-Web context. Information & Management, 38(4), 217-230.
    Moyer, P.S., Bolyard, J.J., & Spikell, M.A. (2002). What are virtual manipulatives? Teaching Children Mathematics, 8(6), 372-377.
    Moyer-Packenham, P.S., Salkind, G., & Bolyard, J.J. (2008). Virtual manipulatives used by K-8 teachers for mathematics instruction: Considering mathematical, cognitive, and pedagogical fidelity. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8(3), 202-218.
    Muhlpfordt, M., & Stahl, G. (2007). The integration of synchronous communication across dual interaction spaces.
    Munger, D. (2007).Children learn and retain math better using manipulatives [Msg.1]. Message posted to http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2007/10/children_learn_and_retain_math.php
    Najjar, L. J. (2001). Principles of educational multimedia user interface design. In R. W. Swezey, & D. H. Andrews (Eds.), Readings in training and simulation: A 30-year perspective (pp. 146–158). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factorsand Ergonomics Society.
    Nakahara, Tadao. (2008). “Cultivating Mathematical Thinking through Representation-Utilizing the Representational System-”, APEC-TSUKUBA International Congress, Japan.
    NCTM (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
    NCTM (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics, Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
    NCTM (2006).Curriculum Focal Points for Prekindergarten through Grade 8 Mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
    Nickell, J. (2007). Useful online and teacher production tools of the Geometer’s Sketchpad. Mathematics Teacher, 100(8), 565V567.
    Olkun, S. (2003). Making connections: Improving spatial abilities with engineering drawing activities. International Journal of Mathematics, 1.
    Olkun, S., Altun, A., & Smith, G. (2005). Computers and 2D geometric learning of Turkish fourth and fifth graders. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2), 317-326.
    Owens, K., & Outhred, L. (2006). The complexity of learning geometry and measurement. Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education. Past, present and future, 83-115.
    Pittalis, M., Mousoulides, N., & Christou, C. (2010). Students’ 3D geometry thinking profiles. Proceedings of CERME6, 816-825.
    Rico, L.(2000). On the notions of representation and comprehension in research in mathematics education.
    Rieber, L.P. (2005). Multimedia learning in games, simulations, and microworlds. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 549-567.
    Saads, S., & Davis, G. (1997). Spatial abilities, van Hiele levels & language use in three dimensional geometry.
    Selim, H.M. (2003). An empirical investigation of student acceptance of course websites. Computers & Education, 40(4), 343-360.
    Serow, P., & Callingham, R. (2008). The Introduction of Interactive Whiteboard Technology in the Primary Mathematics Classroom: Three Case Studies. MERGA Inc. from http://www. merga. net. au/documents/RP542008. pdf.
    Sheffield, L.J. (2000). Creating and Developing Promising Young Mathematicians. Teaching Children Mathematics, 6(6), 416-419,426.
    Spicer, J. (2000). Virtual manipulatives: A new tool for hands-on math. ENC Focus, 7(4), 14-15.
    Stahl, G., Zemel, A., Sarmiento, J., Cakir, M., Weimar, S., Wessner, M., & Muhlpfordt, M. (2006). Shared referencing of mathematical objects in online chat.
    Stahl, G., Wee, J.D., & Looi, CK. (2007). Using chat, whiteboard and wiki to support knowledge building.
    Stahl, G. (2010). Social practices of group cognition in virtual math teams. Learning Across Sites: New Tools, Infrastructures and Practices, 190.
    Strom, J. (2009). Manipulatives in mathematics instruction. Unpublished master!|s thesis, Bemidji State University, Bemidji, MN. Retrieved July, 2, 2010.
    Swan, K., Schenker, J., & Kratcoski, A. (2008). The effects of the use of interactive whiteboards on student achievement.
    Taylor, C.H. (2008). Promoting Mathematical Understanding Through Open-Ended Tasks; Experiences of an Eighth-Grade Gifted Geometry Class. Middle-Secondary Education and Instructional Technology Dissertations, 36.
    Taxen, G., & Naeve, A. (2002). A system for exploring open issues in VR-based education. Computers & Graphics, 26(4), 593-598.
    Tutak, T., Birgin, O. (2008). The Effects of Computer Assisted Instruction on the Students’ Achievement in Geometry.[Online]http://ietc2008.home.anadolu.edu.tr/ietc2008/208.doc [2008, September 09].
    Utah State University (2009). National Library of Virtual Manipulatives [online], available: http://nlvm.usu.edu/siteinfo.html [accessed 08 May 2010].
    Van de Walle, J. A. (2007). Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching developmentally (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
    Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., & Davis, F.D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly, 425-478.
    Villegas, J.L., Castro, E., & Gutierrez, J. (2009). Representations in problem solving: a case study with optimization problems. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 7(1), 30.
    Wessner, M., Shumar, W., Stahl, G., Sarmiento, J., Muhlpfordt, M., & Weimar, S. (2006). Designing an online service for a math community.
    Wilkins, J.L.M. (2008). The relationship among elementary teachers!| content knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and practices. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(2), 139-164.
    Winn, W. (2002). Research into practice: Current trends in educational technology research: The study of learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 14(3), 331-351.
    Wood, T., Williams, G., & McNeal, B. (2006). Children''s mathematical thinking in different classroom cultures. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37(3).
    Yeh, A., & Nason, R. (2004). VRMath: A 3D microworld for learning 3D geometry.
    Yeh, A., & Nason, R. (2004). Toward a semiotic framework for using technology in mathematics education: The case of learning 3D geometry.
    Yeh, A.J.C. (2007). Knowledge construction of 3D geometry in virtual reality microworlds.
    Yelland, N.J., & Glass, B. (2008). LEARNING AND TEACHING GEOMETRY WITH COMPUTERS IN THE ELEMENTARY AND MIDDLE SCHOOL. Research on technology and the teaching and learning of mathematics: Research syntheses, 1, 109.
    Zhang, J. (1991). The interaction of internal and external representations in a problem solving task.

    QR CODE
    :::