Antunović-Piton, B., & Baranović, N. (2023). Discovering some difficulties of pre-service primary teachers in a problemsolving process by use of geometric figures. PROBLEM SOLVING & PROBLEM POSING: PERSPECTIVES AND POTENTIALITIES IN RESEARCH AND PRACTICE, 37.
apprehension: cognitive structure and levels of geometrical ability. Educ Stud Math (2024).
Cannizzaro, L., & Menghini, M. (2006). From geometrical figures to definitional rigour: teachers’ analysis of teaching units mediated through van Hiele’s theory. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 6(4), 369-386.Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches (4th Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
De Villiers, M. (2010). Some Reflections on the Van Hiele Theory, Invited plenary from the 4th Congress of mathematics teachers, Zagreb.
di scuola secondaria: la loro capacità di costruire dimostrazioni geometriche e di prevedere le difficoltà degli studenti. Didattica Della Matematica. Dalla Ricerca Alle Pratiche d’aula, (14), 59 - 84. https://doi.org/10.33683/ddm.23.14.3
Dreyfus, T., & Eisenberg, T. (1990, July). On difficulties with diagrams: Theoretical issues. In Proceedings of the 14th annual conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 27-36).
Duval, R. (1995). Geometrical Pictures: Kinds of Representation and Specific Processings. In R. Sutherland and J. Mason (Eds.)
Exploiting Mental Imagery with Computers in Mathematics Education: NATO ASI Series (Vol. 138, pp. 142-157). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-57771-0.
Duval, R. (1998). Geometry from a cognitive point of view. Perspectives on the Teaching of Geometry for the 21^< st> century. Kluwer Academic Publishers
Duval, R. (1999). Representation, Vision and Visualization: Cognitive Functions in Mathematical Thinking. In In F. Hitt and M. Santos (Eds.), Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol 1, pp. 3-27). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
Duval, R. (2006). A cognitive analysis of problems of comprehension in a learning of mathematics. Educational studies in mathematics, 61(1-2), 103-131.
Duval, R. (2011). Why figures cannot help students to see and understand geometry? Analysis of the role and the cognitive functioning of visualization. In Symposium Mathematics Education Research at the University of Cyprus and Tel Aviv University (pp. 22-23).
Fischbein, E. (1993). The theory of figural concepts. Educational studies in mathematics, 24(2), 139-162.
Fujita, T., & Jones, K. (2007). Learners' understanding of quadrilaterals' definitions and hierarchical classification: Towards a theoretical framing. Research in Mathematics Education, 9(1), 3–20.
Gagatsis, A., Geitona, Z., Panaoura, R., & Elia, I. (2023). La comprensione delle figure geometriche da parte degli insegnanti
Gal, H. (2019). When the use of cognitive conflict is ineffective-problematic learning situations in geometry. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 102(2), 239-256.
Gogou, V., Gagatsis, A., Gridos, P., Elia, I., & Deliyianni, E. (2020). The double nature of the geometrical figure: Insights from empirical data. Mediterranean Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 17, 7-23.
Gridos, P., Avgerinos, E., Mamona-Downs, J., & Vlachou, R. (2021). Geometrical Figure Apprehension, Construction of Auxiliary Lines, and Multiple Solutions in Problem Solving: Aspects of Mathematical Creativity in School Geometry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1-18.
Jones, K. (2000). Critical issues in the design of the school geometry curriculum.
Karpuz, Y., & Atasoy, E. (2019). Investigation of 9th Grade Students' Geometrical Figure Apprehension. European Journal of Educational Research, 8(1), 285-300.
Karpuz, Y., & Güven, B. (2022). Are 9th Grade Students Ready to Engage in the Theoretical Discursive Process in Geometry? REDIMAT-Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 11(1), 86-112.
Laborde, C. (2005). The hidden role of diagrams in students’ construction of meaning in geometry. In J. Kilpatrick, C. Hoyles, and O. Skovsmose (Eds.),
Meaning in mathematics education (pp. 159–179). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-24040-3_11
Mariotti M. A. (1995). Images and Concepts in Geometrical Reasoning. In R. Sutherland and J. Mason (Eds.)
Exploiting Mental Imagery with Computers in Mathematics Education: NATO ASI Series (Vol. 138, pp. 97-116). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-57771-0_7.
Mesquita, A. L. (1998). On conceptual obstacles linked with external representation in geometry. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17(2), 183-195.
Michael– Chrysanthou, P., & Gagatsis, A. (2013). Geometrical figures in geometrical task solving: an obstacle or a heuristic tool. Acta Didactica Universitatis Comenianae–Mathematics, 13, 17-30.
Michael, P. M. (2013). Geometrical figure apprehension: cognitive processes and structure.
Michael-Chrysanthou, P., & Gagatsis, A. (2014). Ambiguity in the way of looking at geometrical figures. Revista Latinoamericana de Investigación en Matemática Educativa, 17(4), 165-179.
Michael-Chrysanthou, P., & Gagatsis, A. (2015). The influence of the nature of geometrical figures on geometric proofs and the role of geometrical figure apprehension.
VIII Colloque International VIII International Conference A.S.I. Analyse Statistique Implicative Statistical Implicative Analysis Radès (Tunisie). http://sites.univ-lyon2.fr/ASI8
Michael–Chrysanthou, P., Panaoura, A., Gagatsis, A. et al. Exploring secondary school students’ geometrical figure
Selling, S. K. (2015). Learning to represent, representing to learn. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 41(2016) 191-209.
Zangeneh, Bijan Z. (2005). Geometry of Line and Plane in school Mathematics. (In farsi) Roshd Mathematics Teacher Education Journal Organization for Research and Curriculum Planning, Ministry of Education, no. 80, pp. 4-11.
)