References
Adorno, T. W., & Horkheimer, M. (1945). The dialectic of enlightenment (Cumming, J., Trans.). New York: Continuum.
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.
Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 403–436.
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.
Bourdieu, P. (1972/1995). Outline of a theory of practice (Nice, R., Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bruner, J. (1990). Entry into meaning. In J. Bruner (Ed.), Acts of meaning (pp. 67–97). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
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.
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), 115–149.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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), 247–281.
DBR Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.
Descartes, R. (1633 [1999]). Discourse on method and meditations on first philosophy. New York: Hackett.
deVilliers, M. (2003). Rethinking proof with the Geometer’s Sketchpad. Emeryville, CA: Key Curriculum Press.
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.
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.
Donald, M. (2001). A mind so rare: The evolution of human consciousness. New York: W. W. Norton.book series.
Dreyfus, H. (1992). What computers still can’t do: A critique of artificial reason. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1023.
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.
Engeström, Y. (2008). From teams to knots. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Euclid, . (300 BCE/2002). Euclid’s elements (Heath, T. L., Trans.). Santa Fe, NM: Green Lion Press.
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.
Gadamer, H.-G. (1960/1988). Truth and method. New York: Crossroads.
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.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Garfinkel, H. (2002). Ethnomethodology’s program: Working out Durkeim’s aphorism. Legacies of social thought series, Vol. 13. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
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.
Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606–633.
Goodwin, C., & Heritage, J. (1990). Conversation analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19, 283–307.
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.
Heath, T. (1921). A history of Greek mathematics (Vol. I: From Thales to Euclid). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Heidegger, M. (1927/1996). Being and time: A translation of Sein und Zeit (Stambaugh, J., Trans.). Albany: SUNY Press.
Hölzl, R. (1996). How does “dragging” affect the learning of geometry. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 1(2), 169–187.
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.
Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (1992). A pedagogy for mathematical microworlds. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23(1), 31–57.
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.
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), 55–85.
Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103.
Kant, I. (1787/1999). Critique of pure reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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. ix–xiv). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
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.
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.
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.
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. 1–21). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Núñez, R. (2000). Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. New York: Basic Books.
Latour, B. (2007). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Latour, B. (2008). The Netz-works of Greek deductions. Social Studies of Science, 38(3), 441–459.
Latour, B. (2013). An inquiry into modes of existence: An anthropology of the modern (Porter, C., Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2012). Seeding evolutionary thinking by engaging children in modeling its foundations. Science Education, 96, 701–724.
Lemke, J. L. (1993). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Lerner, G. (1993). Collectivities in action: Establishing the relevance of conjoined participation in conversation. Text, 13(2), 213–245.
List, C., & Pettit, P. (2011). Group agency: The possibility, design, and status of corporate agents. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Livingston, E. (1986). The ethnomethodological foundations of mathematics. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
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.
Lonchamp, J. (2012). An instrumental perspective on CSCL systems. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(2), 211–237.
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.
Maxwell, J. (2004). Causal explanation, qualitative research, and scientific inquiry in education. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 3–11.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1945/2002). The phenomenology of perception (2nd ed., Smith, C., Trans.). New York: Routledge.
Netz, R. (1999). The shaping of deduction in Greek mathematics: A study in cognitive history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Phillips, D. C. (2014). Research in the hard sciences, and in very hard “softer” domains. Educational Researcher, 43(1), 9–11.
Plato, . (340 BCE/1941). The republic (Cornford, F., Trans.). London: Oxford University Press.
Plato, (350 BCE/1961). Meno. In Hamilton, E. & Cairns, H. (Eds.), The collected dialogues of Plato (pp. 353–384). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Polya, G. (1945/1973). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rabardel, P., & Beguin, P. (2005). Instrument mediated activity: From subject development to anthropocentric design. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 6(5), 429–461.
Rabardel, P., & Bourmaud, G. (2003). From computer to instrument system: A developmental perspective. Interacting with Computers, 15, 665–691.
Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5, 243–263.
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.
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.
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.
Rosch, E. H. (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 328–350.
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.
Roth, W.-M. (2003). Towards an anthropology of graphing: Semiotic and activity-theoretic perspectives. Leiden: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
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.
Sacks, H. (1965/1995). Lectures on conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.
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), 492–504.
Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.). (2014). Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In Smith, B. (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society. Chicago: Open Court.
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.
Schatzki, T. R., Knorr Cetina, K., & Savigny, E. v. (Eds.). (2001). The practice turn in contemporary theory. New York: Routledge.
Schegloff, E., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8, 289–327.
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.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmidt, K., & Bannon, L. (1992). Taking CSCW seriously: Supporting articulation work. CSCW, 1(1), 7–40.
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.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
Seddon, C. (2014). Humans: From the beginning: From the first apes to the first cities. Kindle, ebook: Glanville Publications.
Sfard, A. (1994). Reification as the birth of metaphor. For the Learning of Mathematics, 14(1), 44–55.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Shannon, C., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Sinclair, N. (2008). The history of the geometry curriculum in the united states. Research in mathematics education series. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
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.
Stahl, G. (2009a). A chat about chat. In Stahl, G. (Ed.), Studying virtual math teams (pp. 7–16). New York: Springer.
Stahl, G. (2009b). Studying virtual math teams. Computer-supported collaborative learning book series. New York: Springer.
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), 137–159.
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.
Stahl, G. (2012b). Ethnomethodologically informed. International Journal of Computer- Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(1), 1–10.
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. (2013c). Translating Euclid: Designing a human-centered mathematics. Synthesis lectures on human-centered informatics series. San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool Publishers.
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. (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. (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.
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.
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.
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.
Suchman, L. A., & Jordan, B. (1990). Interactional troubles in face-to-face survey interviews. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 85, 232–244.
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.
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.
Thorndike, E. L. (1914). Educational psychology (Vol. I–III). New York: Teachers College.
Tomasello, M. (2014). A natural history of human thinking. Cambridge: MA: Harvard University Press.
Turner, S. (1994). The social theory of practices: Tradition, tacit knowledge, and presuppositions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
van Hiele, P. (1986). Structure and insight: A theory of mathematics education. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
van Hiele, P. (1999). Developing geometric thinking through activities that begin with play. Teaching Children Mathematics, 310–316.
Vygotsky, L. (1930/1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1934/1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
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.
Wegerif, R. (2007). Dialogic, education and technology: Expanding the space of learning. New York: Kluwer-Springer.
Weick, K. E. (1988). Enacted sensemaking in crisis situations. Journal of Management Studies, 25(4), 305–317.
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. New York: Macmillan.
Yin, R. K. (2004). Case study methods. In Complementary methods for research in education (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research. Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
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.
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), 65–87.
Zhou, N. (2009). Question co-construction in VMT chats. In Stahl, G. (Ed.), Studying virtual math teams (pp. 141–159). New York: Springer.
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. 
