La negación: Un aporte a la construcción de definiciones en el aula escolar de geometría

Referencias

Antonini, S. (2004). A statement, the contrapositive and the inverse: intuition and argumentation. In M. Hoines y A. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (vol. 2, pp. 47-54). Bergen, Norway: Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Antonini, S. y Mariotti, M.A. (2008). Indirect proof: what is specific to this way of proving? Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 40(3), 401-412. Antonini, S. y Mariotti, M. (2010). Abduction and the explanation of anomalies: the case of proof by contradiction. In V. Durand, S. Soury y F. Arzarello (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 322-331). Lyon, Francia: Institut National de Recherche Pédagogique. Boero, P. (1999). Argumentation and mathematical proof: A complex, productive, unavoidable relationship in mathematics and mathematics education. Recuperado de http://www.lettredelapreuve.org/OldPreuve/Newsletter/990708Theme/990708ThemeUK.html. Caicedo, X. (1990). Elementos de lógica y calculabilidad. Bogotá, Colombia: Una empresa docente. Douek, N. (2007). Some remarks about argumentation and proof. In P. Boero (Ed.), Theorems in school: From history, epistemology and cognition to classroom practice (pp. 163-181). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Douek, N. y Scali, E. (2000). About argumentation and conceptualisation. In Proceedings of the Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (vol. 2, pp. 249-256). Hiroshima: Nakahara, Tadao Koyama, Masataka. Epp, S. S. (2003). The role of logic in teaching proof. American Mathematical Monthly, 110(10), 886-899. Escudero, I., Gavilán, J. y Sánchez-Matamoros, G. (2014). Una aproximación a los cambios en el discurso matemático generados en el proceso de definir. Revista Latinoamericana de Investigación en Matemática Educativa, 17(1), 7-32. Furinghetti, F. y Paola, D. (2002). Defining within a dynamic geometry enviroment: notes from the classroom. In A. D. Cockburn y E. Nardi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th European Conference on Mathematical Education (pp. 392-399). Norwich, Inglaterra: School of Education and Professional Development, University of East Anglia. Govender, R. (2003). Constructive evaluation of definitions in a Sketchpad context. Learning and Teaching Mathematics, 9, 29-32. Grabiner, J. (2012). Why Proof? A Historian’s Perspective. In G. Hanna y M. de Villiers (Eds.), Proof and Proving in Mathematics Education: The 19th ICMI Study (vol. 15, pp. 174-167). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Herbst, P., Gonzalez, G. y Macke, M. (2005). How Can Geometry Students Understand What It Means to Define in Mathematics ? The Mathematics Educator, 15(2), 17-24. Inglis, M. y Simpson, A. (2008). Conditional inference and advanced mathematical study. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67, 187-204. Molina, Ó. y Samper, C. (2019). Tipos de problemas que provocan la generación de argumentos inductivos, abductivos y deductivos. Bolema, 33(63), 109-134. Perry, P., Samper, C., Camargo, L. y Molina, Ó. (2013). Innovación en un aula de geometría de nivel universitario. En C. Samper y Ó. Molina (Eds.), Geometría Plana: Un espacio de aprendizaje (pp. 13-36). Bogotá, Colombia: Fondo Editorial de la Universidad Pedagógica Nacional. Sáenz-Ludlow, A. y Athanasopoulou, A. (2008). The GSP, as a technical-symbolic tool, mediating both geometric conceptualizations and communication. In L. Radford, G. Schubring, & F. Seeger (Eds.), Semiotics in mathematics education. Epistemology, history, classroom and culture (pp. 195-214). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Selden, J. y Selden, A. (2009). Understanding the proof construction process. In F.L. Lin, F.J. Hsieh, G. Hanna y M. de Villiers (Eds.), Proceedings of the ICMI Study 19 Conference: Proof and Proving in Mathematics Education (vol. 2, pp. 196-201). Taipei, Taiwan: National Taiwan Normal University. Stake, R. (1998). Case studies. En N. Denzin y Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 86-109). California, EUA: Sage Publications. Stylianides, A., Stylianides, G. y Philippou, G. (2004). Undergraduate students’ understanding of the contraposition equivalence rule in symbolic and verbal contexts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 55, 133-162. Tall, D., Yevdokimov,O., Koichu, B., Whiteley, W., Kondratieva, M. y Cheng, Y. H. (2012). Cognitive Development of Proof. In G. Hanna y M. de Villiers (Eds.), Proof and Proving in Mathematics Education: The 19th ICMI Study (vol. 15, pp. 13-49). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.