International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education

• Alfieri L., Brooks P. J., Aldrich N. J., & Tenenbaum H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021017
• Andrew L. (2007). Comparison of teacher educators’ instructional methods with the constructivist ideal. The Teacher Educator, 42(3), 157-184. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730709555401
• Artigue M., & Blomhøj M. (2013). Conceptualizing inquiry-based education in mathematics. ZDM Mathematics Education, 45, 797–810. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0506-6
• Batanero C., & Godino J. D. (2003). Estocástica y su didáctica para maestros [Stochastics and its didactics for teachers]. Departament of Mathematics Education, University of Granada: Granada. Retrieved from http://www.ugr.es/local/jgodino
• Bauersfeld H. (1988). Interaction, construction, and knowledge: Alternative perspectives for mathematics education. En T. Coony & D. Grows (Eds.), Effective Mathematics Teaching (p. 27-46). Reston, VA: NCTM/Erlbaum.
• Boghossian P. (2006). Behaviorism, constructivism, and Socratic pedagogy. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38(6), 713-722. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2006.00226.x
• Breda A., Font V., & Pino-Fan L. (2018) Criterios Valorativos y Normativos en Didáctica de las Matemáticas: el Caso del Constructo Idoneidad Didáctica. Bolema, 32(60), 255-278. https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-4415v32n60a13
• Ertmer P. A., & Newby T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-8327.1993.tb00605.x
• Font V., Godino J. D., & Gallardo J. (2013). The emergence of objects from mathematical practices. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 82, 97–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9411-0
• Fox R. (2001). Constructivism examined. Oxford Review of Education, 27(1), 23-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980125310
• Godino J. D. (2013). Indicadores de la idoneidad didáctica de procesos de enseñanza y aprendizaje de las matemáticas [Didactic suitability indicators of mathematics teaching and learning processes]. Cuadernos de Investigación y Formación en Educación Matemática, 11, 111-132.
• Godino J. D., Batanero C., & Font, V. (2007). The onto-semiotic approach to research in mathematics education. ZDM. The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 39(1-2), 127-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-006-0004-1
• Godino J. D., Batanero C., Cañadas G. R., & Contreras, J. M. (2015). Linking inquiry and transmission in teaching and learning mathematics. In K. Krainer & N. Vondrobá (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Conference of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CEME9, 4-8 February 2015) (pp. 2642-2648). Prague, Czech Republic: Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Education and ERME.
• Godino J. D., Contreras A., & Font, V. (2006). Análisis de procesos de instrucción basado en el enfoque ontológico-semiótico de la cognición matemática [Analysis of instructional processes base on the onto-semiotic approach of mathematics cognition]. Recherches en Didactiques des Mathematiques, 26(1), 39-88.
• Godino J. D., Font V., Wilhelmi M. R., & Lurduy O. (2011). Why is the learning of elementary arithmetic concepts difficult? Semiotic tools for understanding the nature of mathematical objects. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 77(2-3), 247-265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-010-9278-x
• Godino J. D., Rivas H., Arteaga P., Lasa A., & Wilhelmi M. R. (2014). Ingeniería didáctica basada en el enfoque ontológico - semiótico del conocimiento y la instrucción matemáticos [Didactic engineering based on the onto-semiotic approach to mathematical knowledge and instruction]. Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques, 34(2/3), 167-200.
• Hudson P., Miller S. P., & Butler F. (2006). Adapting and merging explicit instruction within reform based mathematics classrooms. American Secondary Education, 35(1), 19-32.
• Jonassen D. H. (1991). Objectivism vs. constructivism: do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educacional Technology Research & Development, 39(3), 5-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296434
• Kirschner P. A., Sweller J., & Clark R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
• Ku K.Y. I., Ho I. T., Hau K. T., & Lai, E. C. M. (2014). Integrating direct and inquiry-based instruction in the teaching of critical thinking: an intervention study. Instructional Science, 42, 251-269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9279-0
• Lobato J., Clarke D., & Ellis A. B. (2005). Initiating and eliciting in the aching: a reformulation of telling. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36(2), 101-136.
• Mayer R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14-19. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14
• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
• Pino-Fan L., Assis A., & Castro W. F. (2015). Towards a methodology for the characterization of teachers’ didactic-mathematical knowledge. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(6), 1429-1456.
• Radford L. (2012). Education and the illusions of emancipation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 80, 101-118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-011-9380-8
• Reigeluth C. M. (2000). ¿En qué consiste una teoría de diseño educativo y cómo se está transformando? En C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Diseño de la instrucción. Teorías y modelos. Un nuevo paradigma de la teoría de la instrucción (pp. 15-40). Madrid: Santillana.
• Simon M. A. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy form a constructivist perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26, 114-145. https://doi.org/10.2307/749205
• Simon M. A., & Tzur R. (2004). Explicating the role of mathematical tasks in conceptual learning: An elaboration of the Hypothetical Learning Trajectory. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(2), 91-104. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327833mtl0602_2
• Steele M. M. (2005). Teaching students with learning disabilities: Constructivism of behaviorism? Current Issues in Education, 8(10). Retrieved from http://cie.ed.asu.edu/coume8/number10
• Stephan M. (2014). Learner-Centered teaching in mathematics education. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Mathematics Education. Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4978-8_87
• Sweller J., Kirschner P. A., & Clark R. E. (2007). Why minimally guided teaching techniques do not work: A reply to commentaries. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 115-121. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263426
• Voigt J. (1985). Patterns and routines in classroom interaction. Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques, 6(1), 69-118.
• Vrasidas, C. (2000). Constructivism versus objectivism: Implications for interaction, course design, and evaluation in distance education. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 6(4), 339-362.
• Yackel E., & Cobb P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458-477. https://doi.org/10.2307/749877

APA

Godino, J. D., Rivas, H., Burgos, M., & Wilhelmi, M. R. (2019). Analysis of Didactical Trajectories in Teaching and Learning Mathematics: Overcoming Extreme Objectivist and Constructivist Positions. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 14(1), 147-161. https://doi.org/10.12973/iejme/3983

Vancouver

Godino JD, Rivas H, Burgos M, Wilhelmi MR. Analysis of Didactical Trajectories in Teaching and Learning Mathematics: Overcoming Extreme Objectivist and Constructivist Positions. INT ELECT J MATH ED. 2019;14(1):147-61. https://doi.org/10.12973/iejme/3983

AMA

Godino JD, Rivas H, Burgos M, Wilhelmi MR. Analysis of Didactical Trajectories in Teaching and Learning Mathematics: Overcoming Extreme Objectivist and Constructivist Positions. INT ELECT J MATH ED. 2019;14(1), 147-161. https://doi.org/10.12973/iejme/3983

Chicago

Godino, Juan D., Hernán Rivas, María Burgos, and Miguel R. Wilhelmi. "Analysis of Didactical Trajectories in Teaching and Learning Mathematics: Overcoming Extreme Objectivist and Constructivist Positions". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education 2019 14 no. 1 (2019): 147-161. https://doi.org/10.12973/iejme/3983

Harvard

Godino, J. D., Rivas, H., Burgos, M., and Wilhelmi, M. R. (2019). Analysis of Didactical Trajectories in Teaching and Learning Mathematics: Overcoming Extreme Objectivist and Constructivist Positions. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 14(1), pp. 147-161. https://doi.org/10.12973/iejme/3983

MLA

Godino, Juan D. et al. "Analysis of Didactical Trajectories in Teaching and Learning Mathematics: Overcoming Extreme Objectivist and Constructivist Positions". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, vol. 14, no. 1, 2019, pp. 147-161. https://doi.org/10.12973/iejme/3983