___

• Ada, T., & Kurtulus, A. (2010). Students’ misconceptions and errors in transformation geometry. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 41(7), 901– 909.
• Aguirre, J. M. (1988). Student preconceptions about vector kinematics. Physics Teacher, 26(4), 212– 216.
• Brown, T. (1994). Towards a hermeneutical understanding of mathematics and mathematical learning. In P. Ernest (Ed.), Studies in mathematics education (pp. 141–150). London: The Falmer Press.
• Calder, N., Brown, T., Hanley, U., & Darby, S. (2006). Forming conjectures within a spreadsheet environment. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 18(3), 100-116.
• Desmond, N. S. (1997). The geometric content knowledge of prospective elementary teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota.
• Edwards, L. (2003). The nature of mathematics as viewed from cognitive science. Paper presented at the Third Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics, Bellaria, Italy.
• Falcade, R., Laborde, C., & Mariotti M. A. (2007). Approaching functions: Cabri tools as instruments of semiotic mediation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66(3), 317-333.
• Flanagan, K. (2001). High school students’ understandings of geometric transformations in the context of a technological environment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University.
• Gawlick, Th. (2002). On dynamic geometry software in the regular classroom. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 34(3), 85-92.
• Gawlick, Th. (2005). Connecting arguments to actions - Dynamic geometry as means for the attainment of higher van hiele levels. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 37(5), 361- 370.
• Glass, B. J. (2001). Students’ reification of geometric transformations in the presence of multiple dynamically linked representations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Iowa.
• Hadas, N. & Hershkowitz, R. (1998). Proof in geometry as an explanatory and convincing tool.
• In A. Olivier & K. Newstead, (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd PME Conference (Vol, 3, pp. 25–32). Stellenbosch, South Africa.
• Harper, S. (2003). Enhancing elementary pre-service teachers’ knowledge of geometric transformations through the use of dynamic geometry computer software. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2909–2916). Chesapeake: AACE.
• Hollebrands, K. F. (2003). High school students’ understandings of geometric transformations in the context of a technological environment. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 22(1), 55-72.
• Hollebrands, K. F. (2007). The role of a dynamic software program for geometry in the strategies high school mathematics students employ. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(2), 164-192.
• Jung, I. (2002). Student representation and understanding of geometric transformations with technology experience. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Georgia.
• Kazu, İ. Y., & Yavuzalp, N. (2008). Teachers’ opinions about using instructional software. Education and Science, 33(150), 110-126.
• Laborde, C. (2001). Integration of technology in the design of geometry tasks with cabri-geometry. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6(3), 283-317.
• 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. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universiteit van Amsterdam.
• Miera. L (1995). The microevolution of mathematical representations in children’s activities. Cognition and Instruction, 13, 269-313.
• Molina, D. D. (1990). The applicability of the van Hiele theory to transformational geometry. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin.
• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
• Portnoy, N., Grundmeier, T., & Graham, K. J. (2006). Students’ understanding of mathematical objects in the context of transformational geometry: Implications for constructing and understanding proofs. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 25, 196–207.
• Ruthven, K., Hennessy, S., & Deaney, R. (2008). Constructions of dynamic geometry: A study of the interpretative flexibility of educational software in classroom practice. Computers and Education, 51(1), 297-317.
• Simon, M. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(2), 114–145.
• Steffe, L. P., & Thompson, P. W. (2000). Teaching experiment methodology: Underlying principles and essential elements. In A. E. Kelly, & R. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 267–306). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Thaqi, X., Gimenez, J., & Rosich, N. (2011). Geometrical transformations as viewed by prospective teachers. Seventh Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education. Retrieved January 5, 2011, from https://www.cerme7.univ.rzeszow.pl/WG/4/ WG4_Xhevdet.pdf
• Watson, A. Spyrou, P., & Tall, D. (2002). The relationship between physical embodiment and mathematical symbolism: The concept of vector. The Mediterranean Journal of Mathematics Education, 1(2), 73–97. Retrieved from http://www.warwick.ac.uk/staff/David.Tall/pdfs/ dot2003c-watsonspirou.pdf
• Williford, H. J. (1972). A Study of transformational geometry instruction in the primary grades. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 3(4), 260–271.
• Yanik, H.B., & Flores, A. (2009). Understanding rigid geometric transformations: Jeff’s learning path for translation. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 28(1), 41–57.
• Yanik, H. B. (2011). Prospective middle school mathematics teachers’ preconceptions of geometric translations. Educational Studies in Mathematics,78(2), 231-260.