International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education

• Anderson, K. A. (2015). Introduction to optimal resource theory: A framework for enhancing student achievement. The Journal of Negro Education, 84(1), 25-39. https://doi.org/10.7709/jnegroeducation.84.1.0025
• Arzarello, F., Bairral, M., Danie, C., & Yasuyuki, I. (2013). Ways of manipulation touchscreen in one geometrical dynamic software. In E. Faggiano, & A. Montone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching (pp. 59-64). Bari: University of Bari.
• Bertram, C., & Hugo, W. (2008). Social justice through epistemological access: A tale of two classrooms. In A. Muthukrishna (Ed.), Educating for social justice and inclusion in an African context: Pathways and transitions (pp. 133-143). New York: Nova.
• Bloch, G. (2009). The toxic mix. What’s wrong with South Africa’s schools and how to fix it. Cape Town: Tafelberg. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tox.2009.04.005
• Brodie, K. (2006). Teaching mathematics for equity: Learner contributions and lesson structure. African Journal of Research in SMT Education, 10(1), 13-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10288457.2006.10740590
• Burtless, G. (Ed.). (1996). Does money matter? The effect of school resources on student achievement and adult success. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
• CadwalladerOlsker, T. (2011). What do we mean by mathematical proof? Journal of Humanistic Mathematics, 1(1), 33-60. https://doi.org/10.5642/jhummath.201101.04
• Chazan, D. (1993). High school geometry students’ justification for their views of empirical evidence and mathematical proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24(4), 359-387. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01273371
• Christou, C., Mousoulides, N., Pittalis, M., & Pitta-Pantazi, D. (2004). Proofs through exploration in dynamic geometry environments. Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 2, 215-222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-004-6785-1
• Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
• de Villiers, M. D. (1990). The role and function of proof in mathematics. Pythagoras, 24, 17-24.
• de Villiers, M. D. (1997). The role of proof in investigative, computer-based geometry: Some personal relections. In J. R. King, & D. Schattschneider (Eds.), Geometry turned on! (pp. 15-24). Washington: MAA. Retrieved from http://frink.michighway.com/~dynamicm/joint-AMS-MAA.pdf
• de Villiers, M. D. (1998). An alternative approach to proof in dynamic geometry. In R. Lehrer, & D. Chazan (Eds.), Designing learning environments for developing understanding of geometry and space (pp. 369-393). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• de Villiers, M. D. (2004). Using dynamic geometry to expand mathematics teachers’ understanding of proof. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 35(5), 703-724. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739042000232556
• de Villiers, M. D. (2012). Rethinking proof with the Geometer’s Sketchpad (Vol. 5). Emeryville, CA: Key Curriculum Press.
• de Villiers, M. D., & Heideman, N. (2014). Conjecturing, refuting and proving within the context of dynamic geometry. Learning and Teaching Mathematics, 17, 20-26.
• Denton, J. (2017). Transforming mathematics: Using dynamic geometry software to strengthen understanding of enlargement and similarity. Warwick Journal of Education, 1, 69-84.
• Douek, N. (2009). Approaching proof in school: From guided conjecturing and proving to a story of proof construction. In F.-L. Lin, F.-J. Hsieh, G. Hanna, & M. de Villiers (Eds.), Proceedings of the ICMI Study 19 Conference: Proof and proving in Mathematics Education (pp. 142-147). Taipei, Taiwan: National Taiwan Normal University.
• Dreyfus, T., & Hadas, N. (1987). Euclid may stay—and even be taught. In M. M. Lindquist, & A. P. Shulte (Eds.), Learning and teaching geometry, K-12 (pp. 47-58). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
• Easdown, D. (2012). The role of proof in mathematics teaching and the Plateau Principle. Proceedings of The Australian Conference on Science and Mathematics Education (formerly UniServe Science Conference), (pp. 28-33).
• Geary, D. C. (1998). Male, female: The evolution of human sex differences. Washington, DC: American Psychology Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10370-000
• Geary, D. C. (1999). Sex differences in mathematical abilities: Commentary on the math-fact retrieval hypothesis. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 267-274. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1007
• Grant, C. C. (2014). Leading for social justice in South African schools: Where have all the activists gone? In I. Bogotch, & C. M. Shields (Eds.), International handbook of educational leadership and social (in)justice (pp. 521-541). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6555-9_29
• Greenwald, R., Hedges, L. V., & Laine, R. D. (1996). The effect of school resources on student achievement. Review of Educational Research, 66(3), 361-396. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543066003361
• Gustafsson, J.-E. (2003). What do we know about effects of school resources on educational results? Swedish Economic Policy Review, 10, 77-110.
• Hanna, G. (2000). Proof, explanation and exploration: An overview. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44, 5-23. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012737223465
• Hanna, G. (2007). The ongoing value of proof. In P. Boero (Ed.), Theorems in school: From history, epistemology and cognition to classroom practice (pp. 3-18). Rotterdam: Sense. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789087901691_002
• Hanna, G., de Villiers, M. D., Arzare, F., Dreyfus, T., Durand-Guerrier, V., Jahnke, H. N., . . . Yevdokimov, O. (2009). Proof and proving in mathematics education: Discussion document. In F.-L. Lin, F.-J. Hsieh, & M. de Villiers (Eds.), Proceedings of the ICMI Study 19 Conference: Proof and proving in mathematics education. National Taiwan Normal University in Taipei, Taiwan, May 10 to May 15 (pp. xix-xxx).
• Hanushek, E. A. (1986). The economics of schooling: Production and efficiency in public schools. Journal of Economic Literature, 24, 1141-1117.
• Hanushek, E. A. (1997). Assessing the effects of school resources on student performance: An update. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 141-164. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737019002141
• Harel, G. (2013). Intellectual need. In K. R. Leatham (Ed.), Vital directions for mathematics education research (pp. 119-151). New York, NY: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6977-3_6
• Harel, G., & Sowder, L. (1998). Students’ proof schemes: Results from exploratory studies. Issues in Mathematics Education, 7, 234-283. https://doi.org/10.1090/cbmath/007/07
• Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (2000). A study of proof conceptions in algebra. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(4), 396-428. https://doi.org/10.2307/749651
• Herbst, P. G., & Miyakawa, T. (2008). When, how, and why prove theorems? A methodology for studying the perspective of geometry teachers. ZDM Mathematics Education, 40, 469-486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-008-0082-3
• Hofstede, G. (1986). Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 301-320. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(86)90015-5
• IBM Corp. (Released 2016). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 24.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
• Inglis, M., Mejia-Ramos, J. P., Weber, K., & Alcock, L. (2013). On mathematicians’ different standards when evaluating elementary proofs. Topics in Cognitive Science, 5, 270-282. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12019
• Jones, K. (2011). The value of learning geometry with ICT: Lessons from innovative educational research. In A. Oldknow, & C. Knights (Eds.), Mathematics education with digital technology (pp. 39-45). London: Continuum.
• Kane-Berman, J. (2017). Achievement and enterprise in school education. Johannesburg, South Africa: South African Institute of Race Relations.
• Knuth, E. J. (2002). Teachers’ conceptions of proof in the context of secondary school mathematics. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 61-88. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013838713648
• Lee, V. E., & Zuze, T. L. (2011). School resources and academic performance in Sub-Saharan Africa. Comparative Education Review, 55(3), 369-397. https://doi.org/10.1086/660157
• Lubben, F., Sadeck, M., Scholtz, Z., & Braund, M. (2010). Gauging students’ untutored ability in argumentation about experimental data: A South African case study. International Journal of Science Education, 32(16), 2143-2166. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903331886
• Martin, T. S. (1997). Calculus students abilities to solve geometric related rate problems and their understanding of related geometric growth factors (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Boston University, Boston, MA.
• McCrone, S. M., & Martin, T. S. (2004). Assessing high school students’ understanding of geometric proof. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 4(2), 223-242. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926150409556607
• Mogodi, T. K. (2013). The use of ICT for learning at a Dinaledi school in the Limpopo province (Unpublished masters dissertation), University of Johannseburg, South Africa.
• Pandiscio, E. A. (2002). Exploring the link between preservice teachers’ conception of proof and the use of dynamic geometry software. School Science and Mathematics, 102(5), 216-221. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2002.tb18144.x
• Reddy, V., Prinsloo, C., Visser, M., Arends, F., Winnaar, L., Rogers, S., . . . Mthethwa, M. (2012). Mathematics and science achievement of South African schools in TIMSS 2011. South Africa: HSRC Press.
• Ruthven, K. (2012). The didactical tetrahedron as a heuristic for analysing the incorporation of digital technologies into classroom practice in support of investigative approaches to teaching mathematics. ZDM, 44(5), 627-640. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-011-0376-8
• Sarracco, L. (2005). The effects of using dynamic geometry software in the middle school classroom. EDT 896 Research Report, Iona College, NY. Retrieved May 21, 2019
• Sedibe, M. (2011). Inequality of access to resources in previously disadvantaged South African high schools. Journal of Social Sciences, 28(2), 129-135. https://doi.org/10.1080/09718923.2011.11892937
• Smith, K. (2014). How teacher beliefs about mathematics affect student beliefs about mathematics. Honors Theses and Capstones, University of New Hampshire.
• Soudien, C. (2007). The “A” factor: Coming to terms with the question of legacy in South African education. International Journal of Educational Development, 27, 182-193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2006.07.006
• South African Government News Agency. (2016). Motshekga moots scrapping of quintile system. Pretoria: South African Government News Agency. Retrieved on January 23, 2017, from http://www.sanews.gov.za/south-africa/motshekga-moots-scrapping-quintile-system
• Thompson, D. R., Senk, S. L., & Johnson, G. J. (2012). Opportunities to learn reasoning and proof in high school mathematics textbooks. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 3, 253-295. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.43.3.0253
• Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument (Updated Edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005
• Uploaders. (2013). Siyavula: Mathematics (Grade 11). Retrieved on January 23, 2016, from http://www.everythingmaths.co.za/maths/grade-11/siyavula-mathematics-grade-11-caps
• Willingham, W. W., & Cole, N. S. (1997). Gender and fair assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Wilson, S., & MacLean, R. (2011). Research methods and data analysis for psychology. Berkshire: McGaw-Hill.

APA

Shongwe, B. (2020). Grade 11 Students’ Proof Construction Ability in Relation to Classroom Resources. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 15(2), em0571. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/6278

Vancouver

Shongwe B. Grade 11 Students’ Proof Construction Ability in Relation to Classroom Resources. INT ELECT J MATH ED. 2020;15(2):em0571. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/6278

AMA

Shongwe B. Grade 11 Students’ Proof Construction Ability in Relation to Classroom Resources. INT ELECT J MATH ED. 2020;15(2), em0571. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/6278

Chicago

Shongwe, Benjamin. "Grade 11 Students’ Proof Construction Ability in Relation to Classroom Resources". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education 2020 15 no. 2 (2020): em0571. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/6278

Harvard

Shongwe, B. (2020). Grade 11 Students’ Proof Construction Ability in Relation to Classroom Resources. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 15(2), em0571. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/6278

MLA

Shongwe, Benjamin "Grade 11 Students’ Proof Construction Ability in Relation to Classroom Resources". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, vol. 15, no. 2, 2020, em0571. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/6278