International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education

Declaration of Conflict of Interest: No conflict of interest is declared by author(s).

Data sharing statement: Data supporting the findings and conclusions are available upon request from the corresponding author(s).

• Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT-TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 52(1), 154-168.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.006
• Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2003). Toward a practice-based theory of mathematical knowledge for teaching. In B. Davis & E. Simmt (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2002 Annual Meeting of the Canadian Mathematics Education Study Group (pp. 3-14). CMESG/GCEDM.
• Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008) Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389-407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108324554
• Corbin, A., & Strauss, J. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd edition). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452230153
• Da Ponte, J. P. (2007). Investigations and explorations in the mathematics classroom. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 39, 419-430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-007-0054-z
• Da Ponte, J. P., & Henriques, A. C. (2013). Problem posing based on investigation activities by university students. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83, 145-156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9443-5
• De Villiers, M. (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. 369-394). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• De Villiers, M. (2004). The role and function of quasi-empirical methods in mathematics. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 4(3), 397-418. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926150409556621
• Ellerton, N. F. (2013). Engaging pre-service middle-school teacher-education students in mathematics problem posing: Development of an active learning framework. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83, 87-101 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9449-z
• Hill, H. C., Blunk, M. L., Charalambous, C. Y., Lewis, J. M., Phelps, G. C., Sleep, L., & Ball, D. L. (2008). Mathematical knowledge for teaching and the mathematical quality of instruction: An exploratory study. Cognition and Instruction, 26(4), 430-511. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000802177235
• Hölzl, R. (2001). Using dynamic geometry software to add contrast to geometric situation—a case study. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6(1), 63-86. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011464425023
• Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.
• Leikin, R. (2004). Towards high quality geometrical tasks: Reformulation of a proof problem. In M. J. Hoines & A. B. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 209-216). International Group for the Psychology in Mathematics Education.
• Leikin, R. (2012). What is given in the problem? Looking through the lens of constructions and dragging in DGE. Mediterranean Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 11(1-2), 103-116.
• Leung, A., & Lopez-Real, F. J. (2002). Theorem justification and acquisition in dynamic geometry: A case of proof by contradiction. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 7(2), 145-165. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021195015288
• Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teacher’s understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410602589
• Mariotti, M. A. (2002). The influence of technological advances on students’ mathematics learning. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 695-723). Erlbaum.
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. SAGE Publications.
• Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.‏ https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
• Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 509-523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.03.006
• Niess, M. L., & Gillow-Wiles, H. (2017). Expanding teachers’ technological pedagogical reasoning with a systems pedagogical approach. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(3). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3473
• Oxman, V., Stupel, M., & Segal, R. (2016). On teaching extrema triangle problems using dynamic investigation. The International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology (UK), 48(4), 603-619. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2016.1259514
• Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123-149.‏ https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2009.10782544
• Segal, R., Oxman, V., & Stupel, M. (2015). Dynamic investigation of loci with surprising outcomes and their mathematical explanations. The International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology (UK), 47(3), 443-462. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2015.1075613
• Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 5(2), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
• Stupel, M., & Ben-Chaim, D. (2013). One problem, multiple solutions: How multiple proofs can connect several areas of mathematics. The Far East Journal of Mathematical Education, 11(2), 129-161.
• Stupel, M., Sigler, A., & Oxman, V. (2017). Dynamic investigation of triangles inscribed in a circle, which tend to an equilateral triangle. The International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology (UK), 48(1), 149-161. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2016.1206978
• Yerushalmy, M., & Chazan, D. (1993). Overcoming visual obstacles with the aid of the supposer. In J. L. Schwartz, M. Yerushalmy, & B. Wilson (Eds.), The geometric supposer: What is it a case of? (pp. 25-56). Erlbaum.

APA

Segal, R., Oxman, V., & Stupel, M. (2021). Using Dynamic Geometry Software to Enhance Specialized Content Knowledge: Pre-Service Mathematics Teachers’ Perceptions. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 16(3), em0647. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/11065

Vancouver

Segal R, Oxman V, Stupel M. Using Dynamic Geometry Software to Enhance Specialized Content Knowledge: Pre-Service Mathematics Teachers’ Perceptions. INT ELECT J MATH ED. 2021;16(3):em0647. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/11065

AMA

Segal R, Oxman V, Stupel M. Using Dynamic Geometry Software to Enhance Specialized Content Knowledge: Pre-Service Mathematics Teachers’ Perceptions. INT ELECT J MATH ED. 2021;16(3), em0647. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/11065

Chicago

Segal, Ruti, Victor Oxman, and Moshe Stupel. "Using Dynamic Geometry Software to Enhance Specialized Content Knowledge: Pre-Service Mathematics Teachers’ Perceptions". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education 2021 16 no. 3 (2021): em0647. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/11065

Harvard

Segal, R., Oxman, V., and Stupel, M. (2021). Using Dynamic Geometry Software to Enhance Specialized Content Knowledge: Pre-Service Mathematics Teachers’ Perceptions. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 16(3), em0647. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/11065

MLA

Segal, Ruti et al. "Using Dynamic Geometry Software to Enhance Specialized Content Knowledge: Pre-Service Mathematics Teachers’ Perceptions". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, vol. 16, no. 3, 2021, em0647. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/11065