This article introduces and contextualizes the four articles that constitute the thematic special series on geometry instruction for students with learning disabilities or difficulties. The four articles, each emphasizing one important aspect of geometry learning and instruction for students with learning difficulties or disabilities, are aimed to answer critical questions raised by special education/math education researchers and practitioners on how to teach geometry to students with learning disabilities or difficulties.
ArzaelloF. (2000). Inside and outside: Space, times, and language in proof production. In NakaharaT.KoyamaM. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th PME: International conference (pp. 23–38).
2.
AydınU.UbuzB. (2010). Structural model of metacognition and knowledge of geometry. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(5), 436–445.
3.
BaileyM.TaasoobshiraziG.CarrM. (2014). A multivariate model of achievement in geometry. Journal of Educational Research, 107(6), 440–461.
4.
BattistaM. T. (1990). Spatial visualization and gender differences in high school geometry. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21(1), 47–60.
5.
BattistaM. T.ClementsD. H. (1995). Geometry and proof. Mathematics Teacher, 88(1), 48–54.
6.
BergstromC.ZhangD. (2016). Geometry interventions for K-12 students with and without disabilities: A research synthesis. International Journal of Educational Research, 80, 134–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.04.004
7.
BokosmatyS.SwellerJ.KalyugaS. (2015). Learning geometry problem solving by studying worked examples: Effects of learner guidance and expertise. American Educational Research Journal, 52(2), 307–333.
8.
BoychevP. (1999). Elica [Computer program]. University of Sofia.
9.
China Department of Education. (2011). National mathematics education standards (ISBN 978-7-303-13310-9). Beijing Normal University Publisher.
10.
ClementsD. H.BattistaM. T. (1986). Geometry and geometric measurement. The Arithmetic Teacher, 33, 29–32.
11.
ClementsD. H.BattistaM. T.SaramaJ.SwaminathanS. (1997). Development of students’ spatial thinking in a unit on geometric motions and area. The Elementary School Journal, 98(2), 171–186. https://doi.org/10.1086/461890
12.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Common Core State Standards Initiative, National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. http://www.corestandards.org/wp-content/uploads/Math_Standards1.pdf
diSessaA.LayE. (1986). Boxer [Computer program]. University of Berkeley.
16.
ErdoğanA.BaloğluM.KesiciŞ. (2011). Gender differences in geometry and mathematics achievement and self-efficacy beliefs in geometry. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 43, 91–106.
17.
ErkekÖ.Işiksal-BostanM. (2015). The role of spatial anxiety, geometry self-efficacy and gender in predicting geometry achievement. Elementary Education Online, 14(1), 164–180.
18.
FengJ.SpenceI.PrattJ. (2007). Playing an action video game reduces gender differences in spatial cognition. Psychological Science, 18(10), 850–855. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01990.x
19.
GalH.LinchevskiL. (2010). To see or not to see: Analyzing difficulties in geometry from the perspective of visual perception. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 74(2), 163–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-010-9232-y
20.
GearyD. C. (1996). Sexual selection and sex differences in mathematical abilities. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19, 229–284. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00042400
21.
GiofrèD.MammarellaI. C.CornoldiC. (2014). The relationship among geometry, working memory, and intelligence in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 123, 112–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2014.01.002
22.
GiofrèD.MammarellaI. C.RonconiL.CornoldiC. (2013). Visuospatial working memory in intuitive geometry, and in academic achievement in geometry. Learning and Individual Differences, 23, 114–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.09.012
23.
HalatE.JakubowskiE.AydinN. (2008). Reform-based curriculum and motivation in geometry. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 4(3), 285–292. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75351
24.
HarveyB. (2005). USB logo [Computer program]. University of California at Berkeley.
25.
HealyL. (2000). Identifying and explaining geometrical relationship: Interactions with robust and soft Cabri constructions. In NakaharnT.KoyamaM. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th PME international conference (Vol. 1, pp. 103–117). University of Hiroshima.
26.
HegartyM. (2018). Ability and sex differences in spatial thinking: What does the mental rotation test really measure?Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(3), 1212–1219. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1347-z
27.
HerbstP.BrachC. (2006). Proving and doing proofs in high school geometry classes: What is it that is going on for students?Cognition and Instruction, 24(1), 73–122. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2401_2
28.
HollebrandsK. (2002). The role of a dynamic software program for geometry in high school students’ understandings of geometric transformations. In MewbornD.SztajnP.WhiteD. Y.WiegelH. G.BryantR. L.NooneyK. (Eds.), Proceedings of the PME-NA annual conference (pp. 695–705). ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
29.
HölzlR. (2001). Using dynamic geometry software to add contrast to geometric situations: A case study. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6(1), 63–86. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011464425023
30.
HsuH. Y.SilverE. A. (2014). Cognitive complexity of mathematics instructional tasks in a Taiwanese classroom: An examination of task sources. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 45(4), 460–496. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.45.4.0460
31.
HydeJ. S.FennemaE.LamonS. J. (1990). Gender differences in mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 139–155. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.139
32.
JeungH. J.ChandlerP.SwellerJ. (1997). The role of visual indicators in dual sensory mode instruction. Educational Psychology, 17(3), 329–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341970170307
33.
JonesK. (2002). Research on the use of dynamic geometry software: Implications for the classroom. MicroMath, 18(3), 18–20.
KuzniakA.RauscherJ. C. (2011). How do teachers’ approaches to geometric work relate to geometry students’ learning difficulties?Educational Studies in Mathematics, 77(1), 129–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-011-9304-7
37.
KynigosC. (2002). Generating cultures for mathematical microworld development in a multi-organizational context. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 27(1), 185–211. https://doi.org/10.2190/47TC-N8AR-JPCB-7LVT
38.
KyttäläM.LehtoJ. E. (2008). Some factors underlying mathematical performance: The role of visuospatial working memory and non-verbal intelligence. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 23(1), 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173141
39.
LabordeC.KynigosC.HollenbrandsK.StrasserR. (2006). Teaching and learning geometry with technology. In GutierrezB. (Ed.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education: Past, present and future (pp. 275–304). Sense Publisher.
40.
LavyI.BershadskyI. (2003). Problem posing via “what if not?” strategy in solid geometry—A case study. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 22(4), 369–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2003.09.007
41.
LawsonM. J.ChinnappanM. (1994). Generative activity during geometry problem solving: Comparison of performance of high-achieving and low-achieving high school students. Cognition and Instruction, 12(1), 61–93. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1201_3
42.
LeungA.Lopez-RealF. (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
43.
LouisR. A.MisteleJ. M. (2012). The differences in scores and self-efficacy by student gender in mathematics and science. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(5), 1163–1190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-011-9325-9
44.
MaL. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers’ understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Lawrence Erlbaum.
45.
NordvikH.AmponsahB. (1998). Gender differences in spatial abilities and spatial activity among university students in an egalitarian educational system. Sex Roles, 38(11–12), 1009–1023. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018878610405
OliveroF. (2002). The proving process within a dynamic geometry environment [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Graduate School of Education, University of Bristol.
48.
OnerD. (2008). A comparative analysis of high school geometry curricula: What do technology-intensive, standards-based, and traditional curricula have to offer in terms mathematical proof and reasoning?Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 27(4), 467–497. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/25297/
49.
PalhaS.DekkerR.GravemeijerK.van Hout-WoltersB. (2013). Developing shift problems to foster geometrical proof and understanding. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 32(2), 142–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2012.12.002
50.
PorterA.McMakenJ.HwangJ.YangR. (2011). Common core standards the new US intended curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40(3), 103–116.
51.
ProvasnikS.KastbergD.FerraroD.LemanskiN.RoeyS.JenkinsF. (2012). Highlights from TIMSS 2011: Mathematics and science achievement of US fourth-and eighth-grade students in an international context (NCES 2013-009). National Center for Education Statistics.
SchmidtW. H.WangH. C.McKnightC. C. (2005). Curriculum coherence: An examination of US mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(5), 525–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027042000294682
55.
SilvermanB. (1999). MicroworldsPro [Computer program]. Logo Computer Systems Inc.
56.
SinclairM. P. (2005). Peer interactions in a computer lab: Reflections on results of a case study involving web-based dynamic geometry sketches. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 24(1), 89–107. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/77248/
57.
SinclairN. (2008). The history of the geometry curriculum in the United States. Information Age Publishing.
SuperD. E.BachrachP. B. (1957). Scientific careers and vocational development theory: A review, a critique and some recommendations. Columbia University.
60.
TerleckiM. S.NewcombeN. S. (2005). How important is the digital divide? The relation of computer and videogame usage to gender differences in mental rotation ability. Sex Roles, 53(5–6), 433–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-6765-0
61.
VerstijnenI. M.van LeeuwenC.GoldschmidtG.HamelR.HennesseyJ. M. (1998). Sketching and creative discovery. Design Studies, 19(4), 519–546. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(98)00017-9
62.
WilenskyU. (1999). NetLogo. Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University.
63.
ZhangD.DingY.StegallJ.MoL. (2012). The effect of visual-chunking-representation accommodation on geometry testing for students with math disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 27(4), 167–177. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2012.00364.x
64.
ZhangD.WangQ.DingY.LiuJ. (2014). Testing accommodation or modification? The effects of integrated object representation on enhancing geometry performance in children with and without geometry difficulties. The Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(6), 569–583. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413507602
