Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education

• Antonini, S., & Mariotti, M. A. (2010). Abduction and the explanation of anomalies: The case of proof by contradiction. In V. Durand-Guerrier, S. Soury-Lavergne, & F. Arzarello (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6^th Conference of European Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 322-331). PME.
• Anwar, L., Mali, A., & Goedhart, M. (2022). Formulating a conjecture through an identification of robust invariants with a dynamic geometry system. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2022.2144517
• Anwar, L., Mali, A., & Goedhart, M. J. (2021). The effect of proof format on reading comprehension of geometry proof: The case of Indonesian prospective mathematics teachers. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17(4), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.29333/EJMSTE/10782
• Baccaglini-Frank, A., & Mariotti, M. A. (2010). Generating conjectures in dynamic geometry: The maintaining dragging model. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 15(3), 225-253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-010-9169-3
• Bakker, A. (2018). Design research in education: A practical guide for early career researchers. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203701010
• Cirillo, M., & Herbst, P. G. (2012). Moving toward more authentic proof practices in geometry. The Mathematics Educator, 21(2), 11-33.
• Durand-Guerrier, V., Boero, P., Douek, N., Epp, S. S., & Tanguay, D. (2012). Examining the role of logic in teaching proof. In G. Hanna & M. de Villiers (Eds.), Proof and proving in mathematics education: New ICMI study series (pp. 369-389). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2129-6_16
• Heinze, A., Cheng, Y. H., Ufer, S., Lin, F. L., & Reiss, K. M. (2008). Strategies to foster students’ competencies in constructing multi-steps geometric proofs: Teaching experiments in Taiwan and Germany. ZDM-International Journal on Mathematics Education (A), 40(3), 443-453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-008-0092-1
• Inagaki, K., Hatano, G., & Morita, E. (1998). Construction of mathematical knowledge through whole-class discussion. Learning and Instruction, 8(6), 503-526. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(98)00032-2
• Ivars, P., Fernández, C., Llinares, S., & Choy, B. H. (2018). Enhancing noticing: Using a hypothetical learning trajectory to improve pre-service primary teachers’ professional discourse. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(11), em1599. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/93421
• Mchugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22(3), 276-282. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2012.031
• Mckee, K., Savic, M., Selden, J., & Selden, A. (2010). Making actions in the proving process explicit, visible, and “reflectable.” In S. Brown (Ed.), Proceedings of the 13^th Annual Conference on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education.
• Mckenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting educational design research. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203818183
• Mills, G. E. (2014). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher. Prentice Hall Columbus.
• Miyazaki, M., Fujita, T., & Jones, K. (2012). Introducing the structure of proof in lower secondary school geometry: A learning progression based on flow-chart proving. In S. J. Cho (Ed.), Proceedings of the 12^th International Congress on Mathematical Education (pp. 2858-2867). ICMI.
• Miyazaki, M., Fujita, T., & Jones, K. (2015). Flow-chart proofs with open problems as scaffolds for learning about geometrical proofs. ZDM-Mathematics Education, 47(7), 1211-1224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-015-0712-5
• Miyazaki, M., Fujita, T., & Jones, K. (2017). Students’ understanding of the structure of deductive proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 94(2), 223-239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-016-9720-9
• Plomp, T. (2013). Educational design research: An introduction. In T. Plomp & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (p. 204). SLO. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_11
• Prediger, S., Gravemeijer, K., & Confrey, J. (2015). Design research with a focus on learning processes: An overview on achievements and challenges. ZDM-Mathematics Education, 47(6), 877-891. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-015-0722-3
• Selden, A. (2012). Transitions and proof and proving at tertiary level. In G. Hanna & M. de Villiers (Eds.), Proof and proving in mathematics education: New ICMI study series (pp. 391-420). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2129-6_17
• Selden, A., & Selden, J. (2017). A comparison of proof comprehension, proof construction, proof validation and proof evaluation. In R. Göller, R. Biehler, R. Hochmuth, & H. G. Rück (Eds.), Proceedings of the Conference on Didactics of Mathematics in Higher Education as a Scientific Discipline (pp. 339-345). KHDM.
• Selden, A., Selden, J., & Benkhalti, A. (2018). Proof frameworks: A way to get started. PRIMUS, 28(1), 31-45. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2017.1355858
• Stavrou, G. S. (2014). Common errors and misconceptions in mathematical proving by education undergraduates. IUMPST: The Journal, 1, 1-8.
• Stylianides, G. J., Stylianides, A. J., & Weber, K. (2017). Research on the teaching and learning of proof: Taking stock and moving forward. In J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for research in mathematics education (pp. 237-266). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
• van Engen, H. (1970). Strategies of proof in secondary mathematics. The Mathematics Teacher, 63(8), 637-645. https://doi.org/10.5951/MT.63.8.0637
• Weber, K. (2001). Student difficulty in constructing proofs: The need for strategic knowledge. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 48(1), 101-119. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015535614355
• Weber, K. (2004). A framework for describing the processes that undergraduates use to construct proofs. In M. J. Hoines & A. B. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28^th Annual Meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 425-432). PME.
• Yang, K. L., & Lin, F. L. (2008). A model of reading comprehension of geometry proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67(1), 59-76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-007-9080-6

APA

Anwar, L., Goedhart, M. J., & Mali, A. (2023). Learning trajectory of geometry proof construction: Studying the emerging understanding of the structure of Euclidean proof. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19(5), em2266. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13160

Vancouver

Anwar L, Goedhart MJ, Mali A. Learning trajectory of geometry proof construction: Studying the emerging understanding of the structure of Euclidean proof. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2023;19(5):em2266. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13160

AMA

Anwar L, Goedhart MJ, Mali A. Learning trajectory of geometry proof construction: Studying the emerging understanding of the structure of Euclidean proof. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2023;19(5), em2266. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13160

Chicago

Anwar, Lathiful, Martin J. Goedhart, and Angeliki Mali. "Learning trajectory of geometry proof construction: Studying the emerging understanding of the structure of Euclidean proof". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2023 19 no. 5 (2023): em2266. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13160

Harvard

Anwar, L., Goedhart, M. J., and Mali, A. (2023). Learning trajectory of geometry proof construction: Studying the emerging understanding of the structure of Euclidean proof. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19(5), em2266. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13160

MLA

Anwar, Lathiful et al. "Learning trajectory of geometry proof construction: Studying the emerging understanding of the structure of Euclidean proof". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 19, no. 5, 2023, em2266. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13160