REFERENCES

Adams, D. D., & Shrum, J. W. (1988, April). The effects of microcomputer-based laboratory exercises on the acquisition of line graph construction and interpretation skills by high school biology students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Lake of the Ozarks, MO.

Adams, T. L. (1997). Addressing students’ difficulties with the concept of function: Applying graphing calculators and a model of conceptual change. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 19, (2), 43-57.

Adda, J. (1982). Difficulties with mathematical symbolism: Synonymy and homonymy. Visible language, 16, (3), 205-214.

Angel, A. R. (2000). Intermediate algebra for College Students. Fifth Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Artigue, M. (1992). Functions from an algebraic and graphic point of view: Cognitive difficulties and teaching practices. In G. Harel & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), The concept of function: Aspects of epistemology and pedagogy: MAA Notes Vol. 25 (pp. 109-132). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.

Beckmann, C. E. (1988). Effect of computer graphics use on student understanding of calculus concepts (Doctoral dissertation, Western Michigan University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50, 1974B.

Berg, C. A., & Phillips, D. G. (1994). An investigation of the relationship between logical thinking structures and the ability to construct and interpret line graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, (4), 323-344.

Bertin, J. (1967). Sémiologie graphique: les diagrammes, les réseaux, les cartes [Graphic semiology: diagrams, networks, cards]. Paris: Mouton.

Bezuidenhout, J. (1998). First-year university students’ understanding of rate of change. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science & Technology, 29, (3), 389-399.

Borba, M. C., & Confrey, J. (1996). A student’s construction of transformation of functions in a multiple representational environment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 31, (3), 319-397.

Bosch, W. W., & Strickland, J. (1998). Systems of linear equations on a spreadsheet. Mathematics & Computer Education, 32, (1), 11-16.

Bowen, G. M., & Roth, W. M. (1998). Lecturing graphing: What features of lectures contribute to student difficulties in learning to interpret graphs? Research in Science Education, 28, (1), 77-90.

Breidenbach, D., Dubinsky, E., Hawks, J., & Nichols, D. (1992). Development of the process conception of function. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23, (3), 247-285.

Brenner, M. E., et al. (1995, October). The role of multiple representations in learning algebra. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the International Study Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Columbus, OH.

Brenner, M. E., et al. (1997). Learning by understanding: The role of multiple representations in learning algebra. American Educational Research Journal, 34, (4), 663-689.

Browning, C. A. (1991). Level of graphical understanding: Comparisons between high school and college precalculus students. In F. Demana & B. K. Waits (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second Annual Conference on Technology in Collegiate Mathematics (pp. 129-132). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Bruner, J. S. (1964). The course of cognitive growth. American Psychologist, 19, 1-15.

Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. New York: WW Norton & Company, Inc.

Burrill, G. F., & Hopfensperger, P. (1998). Exploring linear relations: Data-driven mathematics. Dale Seymour Publications.

Calculus Consortium at Harvard. (2001). About the Calculus Consortium based at Harvard University [On-line]. Available: http://www.wiley.com/college/cch/aboutconsortium.html.

Caldwell, F. (1997, October). Bring functions and graphs to the life with the CBL. A presentation at the 1997 Carolinas Mathematics Conference, Charlotte, NC.

Carlson, M. P. (1997). Obstacles for college algebra students in understanding functions: What do high-performing students really know? Amatyc Review, 19, (1), 48-59.

Confrey, J., et al. (1991). The use of contextual problems and multi-representational software to teach the concept of functions. Final Report Project. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.

Cooney, T. J., & Wilson, M. R. (1993). Teachers’ thinking about functions: Historical and research perspectives. In T. A. Romberg, E. Fennema, T. P. Carpenter (Eds.), Integrating research on the graphical representation of functions (pp. 131-158). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Crocker, D. A. (1991). A qualitative study of interactions, concept development and problem solving in a calculus class immersed in the computer algebra system Mathematica^TM (Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52, 2448A.

Cuoco, A. A. (Ed.) (2001). The roles of representation in school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

De Jong, T., et al. (1998). Acquiring knowledge in science and mathematics: The use of multiple representations in technology-based learning environments. In N. Bennett, E. DeCorte, S. Vosniadou, & H. Mandl (Series Eds.) & M. W. Van Someren, P. Reimann, H. P. A. Boshuizen, & T. De Jong (Vol. Eds.), Learning with multiple representations (pp. 9-40). Oxford: Pergamon.

DiBiase, J., & Eisenberg, M. (1995, June). Mental imagery in the teaching of functions. Paper presented at the Annual National Educational Computing Conference, Baltimore, MD

Dienes, Z. P. (1963). An experimental study of mathematics. London: Hutchinson Educational LTD.

Dienes, Z. P. (1963). Building up mathematics. London: Hutchinson Educational LTD.

Dienes, Z. P. (1964). The power of mathematics. London, Hutchinson Educational LTD.

Dienes, Z. P. (1973). The six stages in the process of learning mathematics. NFER Publishing Company Ltd., Windsor, Berks.

Dienes, Z. P., & Golding, E. W. (1971). Approach to modern mathematics. New York: Herder & Herder.

Donnelly, I. R. (1995). Mathematics and technology: A case study of the teaching of functions using multiple representation software. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Manitoba.

Douglas, R. G. (Ed.). (1986). Toward a lean and lively calculus: Report of the conference/workshop to develop curriculum and teaching methods for calculus at the college level [MAA Notes Number 6]. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.

Dreyfus, T. (1991). Advanced mathematical thinking process. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 25-41). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Dreyfus, T., & Eisenberg, T. (1982). Intuitive functional concepts: A baseline study on intuitions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 13, 360-380.

Dreyfus, T., & Eisenberg, T. (1988). On visualizing function transformations. Unpublished manuscript.

Dubinsky, E., & Harel, G. (1992). The nature of the process conception of function. In G. Harel & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), The concept of function: Aspects of epistemology and pedagogy: MAA Notes Vol. 25 (pp. 85-106). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.

Dufour- Janvier, B., Bednarz, N., & Belanger, M. (1987). Pedagogical considerations concerning the problem of representation. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 109-122). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Dugdale, S. (1986). Pathfinder: A microcomputer experience in interpreting graphs. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 15, (3), 259-280.

Dugdale, S. (1993). Functions and graphs – Perspectives on student thinking. In T. A. Romberg, E. Fennema, & T. P. Carpenter (Eds.), Integrating research on the graphical representation of functions (pp. 101-130). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Eisenberg, T. (1991). Functions and associated learning difficulties. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 140-152). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Eisenberg, T., & Dreyfus, T. (1991). One the reluctance to visualize in mathematics. In W. Zimmerman & S. Cunningham (Eds.), Visualization in teaching and learning mathematics (pp. 25-37). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.

English, L. D., & Halford, G. S. (1995). Mathematics education: Models and processes. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mahwah, NJ.

Even, R. (1990). Subject matter knowledge for teaching and the case of functions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 21, (6), 521-544.

Ferrini-Mundy, J., & Graham, K. (1991, January). Research in calculus learning: Understanding of limits, derivatives, and integrals. Paper presented at the Joint Mathematics Meetings, Special Session on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, San Francisco, CA.

Fey, J. T. (1989). School algebra for the year 2000. In S. Wagner & C. Kieran (Eds.), Research issues in the learning and teaching of algebra. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Fey, J. T. (1989). Technology and mathematics education: A survey of recent developments and important problems. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 20, (3), 237-272.

Friedler, Y., & Mc Farlane, A. E. (1997). Data logging with portable computers: A study of the impact on graphing skills in secondary pupils. Journal of Computers in Mathematics & Science Teaching, 16, (4), 527-550.

Garofalo, J., & Durant, K. (1991). Applied functions and graphs: A necessary topic for developmental mathematics. Research & Teaching in Developmental Education, 8, (1), 51-55.

George, M. D., et al. (1996). Shaping the future: New expectations for undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology (National Science Foundation Rep. No. 96139. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.

Gningue, S. M. (2000). The use of manipulatives in middle school algebra: An application of Dienes’ variability principles. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(12), 4356A. (University Microfilms No. AAT 9956352).

Goldenberg, E. P. (1987). Believing is seeing: How preconceptions influence the perception of graphs. In J. Bergeron, N. Herscovits, & C. Kieran (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 1, 197-203.

Goldenberg, E. P. (1988). Mathematics, metaphors, and human factors: Mathematical, technical, and pedagogical challenges in the educational use of graphical representation of function. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 7, (2), 135-173.

Goldenberg, P., Lewis, P., & O’Keefe, J. (1992). Dynamic representation and the development of a process understanding of function. In G. Harel & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), The concept of function: Aspects of epistemology and pedagogy: MAA Notes Vol. 25 (pp. 235-260). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.

Goldin, G. A. (1990). Epistemology, constructivism, and discovery learning in mathematics. In R. B. Davis, C. A. Maher, & N. Noddings (Eds.), Constructivist views on the teaching and learning mathematics (pp. 31-47). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Goldin, G., & Shteingold, N. (2001). Systems of representations and the development of mathematical concepts. In A. Cuoco (Ed.), The roles of representation in school mathematics (pp. 1-23). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Greeno, J. G., & Hall, R. P. (1997). Practicing representation: Learning with and about representational forms. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, (5), 361-367.

Hart, D. K. (1991). Building concept images: Supercalculators and students’ use of multiple representations in calculus. Dissertation Abstracts International, 52(12), 4254A. (University Microfilms No. AAI 9214776).

Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. P. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 65-97). New York: Macmillan.

Hughes-Hallet, D. (1991). Where is the mathematics? Another look at calculus reform. In F. D. Demana, B. K. Waits, & J. Harvey (Eds.), Proceedings of the second annual conference on technology in collegiate mathematics (pp. 31-33). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Iannone, M. A. (1975). A study of two approaches to the learning of the function concept: The tabular approach and the mapping diagram approach. Dissertation Abstracts International, 36(07), 4383A.

International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. (1995). Second Study of Mathematics. Technical Report IV, Instrument Book.

Janvier, C. (1987a). Representation and understanding: The notion of function as an example. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 67-71). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Janvier, C. (1987b). Conceptions and representations: The circle as an example. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 147-158). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Janvier, C., Girardon, C., & Morand, J. C. (1993). Mathematics symbols and representations. In P. S. Wilson (Ed.), Research ideas for the classroom: High school mathematics (pp. 79-102). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Johari, A. (1998). Effects of inductive multimedia programs including graphs on creation of linear function and variable conceptualization. Tucson, AZ: Arizona State University.

Kaput, J. J. (1985). Representation and problem solving: Methodological issues related to modeling. In E. A. Silver (Ed.), Teaching and learning mathematical problem solving: Multiple research perspectives (pp. 381-398). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kaput, J. J. (1987). Representation systems and mathematics. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 19-26). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Kaput, J. J. (1989a). Linking representations in the symbol systems of algebra. In S. Wagner & C. Kieran (Eds.), Research issues in the learning and teaching of algebra (pp. 167-194). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Kaput, J. J. (1989b). Information technologies and affect in mathematical experiences. In D. B. McLeod, & V. M. Adams (Eds.), Affect and mathematical problem solving (pp. 89-103). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Kaput, J. J. (1991). Notations and representations as mediators of constructive processes. In E. Von Glasersfeld (Ed.), Radical constructivism in mathematics education (pp. 53-74). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Kaput, J. J. (1992). Technology and mathematics education. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 515-556). New York: Macmillan.

Keller, B. A., & Hirsch, C. R. (1998). Student preferences for representations of functions. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science & Technology, 29, (1), 1-17.

Kieran, C. (1993). Functions, graphing, and technology: Integrating research on learning and instruction. In T. A. Romberg, E. Fennema, & T. P. Carpenter (Eds.), Integrating research on the graphical representation of functions (pp. 189-237). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

LaLomia, M. J., Coovert, M. D., & Salas, E. (1988). Problem solving performance and display preference or information displays depicting numerical functions. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 308862).

Lauten, A. D., et al. (1994). Student understanding of basic calculus concepts: Interaction with the graphics calculator. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 13, (2), 225-237.

Lay, L. C. (1982). Mental images and arithmetical symbols. Visible Language, 16, (3), 259-274.

Leinhardt, G., et al. (1990). Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning, and teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60, (1), 1-64.

Lesgold, A. (1988). Multiple representations and their implications for learning. In N. Bennett, E. DeCorte, S. Vosniadou, & H. Mandl (Series Eds.) & M. W. Van Someren, P. Reimann, H. P. A. Boshuizen, & T. De Jong (Vol. Eds.), Learning with multiple representations (pp. 307-319). Oxford: Pergamon.

Lesh, R. (1987). The evolution of problem representations in the presence of powerful conceptual amplifiers. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 197-206). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Lesh, R., Post, T., & Behr, M. (1987). Representation and translations among representation in mathematics learning and problem solving. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 33-40). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Lloyd, G. M. (1996). Change in teaching about functions: Content conceptions and curriculum reform. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

Lloyd, G. M., & Wilson, M. (1998). Supporting innovation: The impact of a teacher’s conceptions of functions on his implementation of a reform curriculum. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29, (3), 248-274.

Lloyd, G., & Wilson, M. R. (1995, October). The role of teacher’s mathematical conceptions in his implementation of a reform-oriented functions unit. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Columbus, OH.

Lovell, K. (1971). Some aspects of the growth of the concept of a function. In M. F. Rosskopf, & L. P. Steffe (Eds.), Piagetian cognitive-development research and mathematical education (pp. 12-33). Washington, DC: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Malik, M. A. (1980). Historical and pedagogical aspects of the definition of function. International Journal of Mathematics Education in Science and Technology, 11, (4), 489-492.

Markovits, Z., Eylon, B., & Bruckheimer, M. (1986). Functions today and yesterday. For the Learning of Mathematics, 6, (2) 18-24.

Martínez-Cruz, A. M. (1995, October). Graph, equation and unique correspondence: Three models of students’ thinking about functions in a technology-enhanced precalculus class. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Columbus, OH.

Mason, J. (1980). When is a symbol symbolic? For the learning of mathematics, 1, (2), 8-12.

Mason, J. H. (1987a). What do symbols represent? In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 73-81). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Mason, J. H. (1987b). Representing representing: Notes following the conference. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 207-214). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

McArthur, D., Burdorf, C., Ormseth, T., Robyn, A., & Stasz, C. (1988). Multiple representations of mathematical reasoning. A RAND Note: National Science Foundation.

McCoy, L. P., Baker, T. H., & Little, L. S. (1996). Using multiple representations to communicate: An algebra challenge. In P. C. Elliott (Ed.), Communication in mathematics, K-12 and beyond (pp. 40-44). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

McFarlane, A. E., Friedler, Y., Warwick, P., & Chaplain, R. (1995). Developing an understanding of the meaning of line graphs in primary science investigations, using portable computers and data logging software. Journal of Computer in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 14, (4), 461-480.

McKenzie, D. L., & Padilla, M. J. (1986). The construction and validation of the Test of Graphing Skills in Science. Journal of Research in Science Technology, 23, (7), 571-580.

Megginson, R. (1995). Harvard-Calculus Overview [On-line]. Available: http://archives.math.utk.edu/projnext/advice/harvardCalculus.html.

Mevarech, Z. R. & Kramarsky, B. (1997). From verbal description to graphic representations: Stability and change in students’ alternative conceptions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 32, (3), 229-263.

Monk, G. (1989, March). A framework for describing student understanding of functions. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Monk, G. S. (1994). Students’ understanding of functions in calculus courses. Humanistic Mathematics Network Journal, 9, 21-27.

Moschkovich, J. N. (1998). Resources for refining mathematical conceptions: Case studies in learning about linear functions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, (2), 209-237.

Moschkovich, J., Schoenfeld, A. H., & Arcavi, A. (1993). Aspects of understanding: On multiple perspectives and representations of linear relations and connections among them. In T. A. Romberg, E. Fennema, &. T. P. Carpenter (Eds.), Integrating research on the graphical representation of functions (pp. 69-100). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

Noddings, N. (1990). Constructivism in mathematics education. In R. B. Davis, C. A. Maher, & N. Noddings (Eds.), Constructivist views on the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 7-18). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Norman, A. (1992). Teachers’ mathematical knowledge of the concept of function. In G. Harel & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), The concept of function: Aspects of epistemology and pedagogy: MAA Notes Vol. 25 (pp. 215-232). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.

Norman, F. A. (1993). Integrating research on teachers’ knowledge of functions and their graphs. In T. A. Romberg, E. Fennema, & T. P. Carpenter (Eds.), Integrating research on the graphical representation of functions (pp. 159-187). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

O’Callaghan, B. R. (1998). Computer-intensive algebra and students’ conceptual knowledge of functions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29, (1), 21-40.

Olsen, J. R. (1995, October). The effect of the use of number lines representations on student understanding of basic function concepts. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Columbus, OH.

Orton, A. (1983a). Students’ understanding of integration. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 14, (1), 1-18.

Orton, A. (1983b). Students’ understanding of differentiation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 14, (3), 235-250.

Özgün-Koca, S. A. (1998, October-November). Students’ use of representations in mathematics education. Poster presentation at the Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Raleigh, NC.

Padilla, M. J., et al. (1986). An examination of the line graphing ability of students in grades seven through twelve. School Science and Mathematics, 86, (1), 20-26.

Phillip, R. A., Martin, W. O., & Richgels, G. W. (1993). Curricular implications of graphical representations of functions. In T. A. Romberg, E. Fennema, & T. P. Carpenter (Eds.), Integrating research on the graphical representation of functions (pp. 239-278). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Peirce, C. S. (1955). Logic as semiotic: The theory of signs. In J. Buchler (Ed.), Philosophical writings of Peirce (1893-1910) (pp. 98-119). New York: Dover.

Piez, C. M., & Voxman, M. H. (1997). Multiple Representations: Using Different Perspectives to Form a Clearer Picture. Mathematics Teacher, 90, (2), 164-166.

Pirie, S. E. B., & Martin, L. (1997). The equation, the whole equation, and nothing but the equation! One approach to the teaching of linear equations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 34, (2), 159-181.

Poppe, P. E. (1993). Representations of function and the roles of the variable. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54(12), 4383A. (University Microfilms No. AAI 9409911).

Porzio, D. T. (1994). The effects of differing technological approaches to calculus on students’ use and understanding of multiple representations when solving problems. Dissertation Abstracts International, 55(10), 3128A. (University Microfilms No. AAI 9505274).

Rodríguez- Ahumada, J. G., et al. (1997). Razonamiento matemático, fundamentos y aplicaciones [Mathematics reasoning, fundaments and applications]. Mexico: International Thompson Editors.

Romberg, T. A., Carpenter, T. P., & Fennema, E. (1993). Toward a common research perspective. In T. A Romberg, E. Fennema, & T. P. Carpenter (Eds.), Integrating research on the graphical representation of functions (pp. 1-9). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Resnick, L. B., & Ford, W. W. (1981). The psychology of mathematics for instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (1988). Uses of computers in mathematics instruction. In D. A. Smith, G. J. Porter, L. C. Leinbach, & R. H. Wenger (Eds.), Computers and mathematics: The use of computers in undergraduate instruction (pp. 1-11). Washington, DC: The Mathematical Association of America.

Schultz, J. E., & Waters, M. S. (2000). Why representations? Mathematics Teacher, 93, (6), 448-453.

Schwarz, B., Dreyfus, T., Bruckheimer, M. (1990). A model of the function concept in a three-fold representation. Computers and education, 14, 249-262.

Schwingendorf, K., Hawks, J., & Beineke, J. (1992). Horizontal and vertical growth of the students’ conception of function. In G. Harel & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), The concept of function: Aspects of epistemology and pedagogy: MAA Notes Vol. 25 (pp. 133-149). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.

Selden, A., & Selden, J. (1992). Research perspectives on conception of function summary and overview. In G. Harel & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), The concept of function: aspects of epistemology and pedagogy: MAA Notes Vol. 25 (pp. 1-21). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.

Sfard, A. (1987). Two conceptions of mathematical notions: Operational and structural. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference for Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 162-169). Montreal, Canada.

Sfard, A. (1991). On the dual nature of mathematical conceptions: Reflections on processes and objects as different sides of the same coin. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22, (1), 1-36.

Sfard, A. (1992). Operational origins of mathematical objects and the quandary of reification: The case of function. In E. Dubinsky & G. Harel (Eds.), The concept of function: Aspects of epistemology and pedagogy (pp. 59-84). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.

Shama, G., & Dreyfus, T. (1994). Visual, algebraic and mixed strategies in visually presented linear programming problems. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26, (1), 45-70.

Shumway, R. J. (1988). Symbolic computer systems and the calculus. Amatyc Review, 11 (1, Part 2), 56-60.

Sierpinska, A. (1992). On understanding the notion of function. In G. Harel & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), The concept of function: Aspects of epistemology and pedagogy MAA Notes Vol. 25 (pp. 25-84). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.

Skemp, R. R. (1982). Communicating mathematics: Surface structures and deep structures. Visible language, 16, (3), 281-288.

Skemp, R. R. (1987). The psychology of learning mathematics (Expanded American Edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Slavit, D. (1997). An alternate route to the reification of function. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 33, (3), 259-282.

Small, D., et al. (1986). Computer algebra systems in undergraduate instruction. College Mathematics Journal, 17, (5), 423-433.

Steen, L. A. (Ed.). (1987). Calculus for a new century: A pump, not a filter [MAA Notes No. 9]. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.

Tabachneck-Schiff, H. J. M., & Simon, H. S. (1996). Alternative representations of instructional material. In D. Peterson (Ed.), Forms of representation (pp. 28-46). Great Britain: Intellects Books.

Tall, D. (1985). Understanding the calculus. Mathematics Teaching, 110, 48-53.

Tall, D., & Vinner, S. (1981). Concept image and concept definition in mathematics with particular reference to limits and continuity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12, 151-169.

Thomas, H. L. (1975). The concept of function. In M. F. Rosskopf (Ed.), Children’s mathematical concepts: Six Piagetian studies in mathematics education (145-172). NY: Teachers’ College Press.

Thompson, P. W. (1994). Students, functions, and the undergraduate curriculum. In E. Dubinsky, A. H. Schoenfeld, & J. Kaput (Eds.), Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences Issues in Mathematics Education: Vol. 4. Research in collegiate mathematics education, I (pp. 21-44). Washington, DC: American Mathematical Society.

Thorpe, J. A. (1989). Algebra: what should we teach and how should we teach it? In S. Wagner, & C. Kieran (Eds.), Research issues in the learning and teaching of algebra (pp. 11-23). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Tucker, T. W. (1987). Calculus tomorrow. In L. A Steen (Ed.), Calculus for a new century: A pump not a filter (pp. 14-17). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.

Tucker, T. W. (Ed.). (1990). Priming the calculus pump: Innovations and resources [MAA Notes 17]. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.

Turner, K. V., & Wheatley, G. H. (1980). Mathematics learning styles of calculus students. Unpublished manuscript, Anderson College.

Van Someren, M. W., et al. (1998). Introduction. In N. Bennett, E. DeCorte, S. Vosniadou, & H. Mandl (Series Eds.) & M. W. Van Someren, P. Reimann, H. P. A. Boshuizen, & T. De Jong (Vol. Eds.), Learning with multiple representations (pp. 1-5). Oxford: Pergamon.

Vinner, S. (1983). Concept definition, concept image and the notion of function. International Journal of Mathematics Education in Science and Technology, 14, (3), 293-305.

Vinner, S. (1989). The avoidance of visual considerations in calculus students. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 11, (2), 149-156.

Vinner, S. (1992). The function concept as a prototype for problems in mathematics learning. In G. Harel & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), The concept of function: Aspects of epistemology and pedagogy: MAA Notes Vol. 25 (pp. 195-213). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.

Vinner, S., & Dreyfus, T. (1989). Images and definitions for the concept of function. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20, (4), 356-366.

Von Glasersfeld, E. (1987). Preliminaries to any theory of representation. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 215-225). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Von Glasersfeld, E. (1990). An exposition of constructivism: Why some like it radical. In R. B. Davis, C. A. Maher, & N. Noddings (Eds.), Constructivist views on the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 19-29). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Von Glasersfeld, E. (1996). Aspects of radical constructivism and its educational recommendations. In L. Steffe, et al. (Eds.), Theories of mathematical learning (pp. 307-314). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Wenger, R. H. (1987). Cognitive science and algebra learning. In A. H. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Cognitive science and mathematics education (pp. 217-251). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Williams, C. G. (1998). Using concept maps to assess conceptual knowledge of function. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29, (4), 414-421.

Yerushalmy, M. (1991). Student perceptions of aspects of algebraic functions using multiple representation software. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, (1), 42-57.

Yerushalmy, M. (1997). Designing representations: Reasoning about functions of two variables. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28, (4), 431-466.