Abelson, H., & diSessa, A. A. (1986). *Turtle geometry*. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Google Scholar

Abrahamson, D. (2004). Embodied spatial articulation: A gesture perspective on student negotiation between kinesthetic schemas and epistemic forms in learning mathematics. In D. E. McDougall & J. A. Ross (Eds.), *Proceedings of the Twenty Sixth Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education* (Vol. 2, pp. 791–797). Toronto, ON: Preney.

Abrahamson, D. (2009). Orchestrating semiotic leaps from tacit to cultural quantitative reasoning—the case of anticipating experimental outcomes of a quasi-binomial random generator. *Cognition and Instruction, 27*(3), 175–224.

Article
Google Scholar

Abrahamson, D. (2014). Building educational activities for understanding: An elaboration on the embodied-design framework and its epistemic grounds. *International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 2*(1), 1–16. doi:10.1016/j.ijcci.2014.07.002

Article
Google Scholar

Abrahamson, D. (2015). The monster in the machine, or why educational technology needs embodied design. In V. R. Lee (Ed.), *Learning technologies and the body: Integration and implementation* (pp. 21–38). New York: Routledge.

Google Scholar

Abrahamson, D. (in press). Embodiment and mathematical learning. In K. Peppler (Ed.), *The SAGE encyclopedia of out-of-school learning*. New York: SAGE.

Abrahamson, D., Berland, M. W., Shapiro, R. B., Unterman, J. W., & Wilensky, U. (2006). Leveraging epistemological diversity through computer-based argumentation in the domain of probability. *For the Learning of Mathematics, 26*(3), 39–45.

Google Scholar

Abrahamson, D., Lee, R. G., Negrete, A. G., & Gutiérrez, J. F. (2014). Coordinating visualizations of polysemous action: Values added for grounding proportion. In F. Rivera, H. Steinbring, & A. Arcavi (Eds.), Visualization as an epistemological learning tool [Special issue]. *ZDM Mathematics Education, 46*(1), 79–93. doi:10.1007/s11858-013-0521-7

Article
Google Scholar

Abrahamson, D., & Sánchez-García, R. (2016). Learning is moving in new ways: The ecological dynamics of mathematics education. *Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25*(2), 203–239. doi:10.1080/10508406.2016.1143370

Article
Google Scholar

Abrahamson, D., Shayan, S., Bakker, A., & Van der Schaaf, M. F. (2016). Eye-tracking Piaget: Capturing the emergence of attentional anchors in the coordination of proportional motor action. *Human Development, 58*(4–5), 218–244.

Article
Google Scholar

Abrahamson, D., & Trninic, D. (2015). Bringing forth mathematical concepts: Signifying sensorimotor enactment in fields of promoted action. In D. Reid, L. Brown, A. Coles, & M.-D. Lozano (Eds.), Enactivist methodology in mathematics education research [Special issue]. *ZDM Mathematics Education, 47*(2), 295–306. doi:10.1007/s11858-014-0620-0

Article
Google Scholar

Alibali, M. W., Nathan, M. J., Wolfgram, M. S., Church, R. B., Jacobs, S. A., Johnson Martinez, C., & Knuth, E. J. (2013). How teachers link ideas in mathematics instruction using speech and gesture: A corpus analysis. *Cognition and Instruction, 32*(1), 65–100. doi:10.1080/07370008.2013.858161

Article
Google Scholar

Allen, J. W. P., & Bickhard, M. H. (2013). Stepping off the pendulum: Why only an action-based approach can transcend the nativist–empiricist debate. *Cognitive Development, 28*(2), 96–133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2013.01.002.

Article
Google Scholar

Anderson, M. L. (2003). Embodied cognition: A field guide. *Artificial Intelligence, 149*, 91–130.

Article
Google Scholar

Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2009). The role of argumentation and explanation in conceptual change: Indications from protocol analyses of peer-to-peer dialogue. *Cognitive Science, 33*, 373–399.

Article
Google Scholar

Bach-y-Rita, P., Collins, C. C., Saunders, F. A., White, B., & Scadden, L. (1969). Vision substitution by tactile image projection. *Nature, 221*, 963–964. doi:10.1038/221963a0

Article
PubMed
Google Scholar

Baird, D. (2004). *Thing knowledge: A philosophy of scientific instruments*. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Google Scholar

Bakker, A., & Hoffmann, M. H. G. (2005). Diagrammatic reasoning as the basis for developing concepts: A semiotic analysis of students’ learning about statistical distribution. *Educational Studies in Mathematics, 60*(3), 333–358.

Article
Google Scholar

Bakker, A., & Van Eerde, H. A. A. (2015). An introduction to design-based research with an example from statistics education. In A. Bikner-Ahsbahs, C. Knipping, & N. Presmeg (Eds.), *Doing qualitative research: Methodology and methods in mathematics education* (pp. 429–466). New York: Springer.

Google Scholar

Bamberger, J., & diSessa, A. A. (2003). Music as embodied mathematics: A study of a mutually informing affinity. *International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 8*(2), 123–160.

Article
Google Scholar

Barsalou, L. W. (2010). Grounded cognition: Past, present, and future. *Topics in Cognitive Science, 2*(4), 716–724.

Article
PubMed
Google Scholar

Bartolini Bussi, M. G., & Mariotti, M. A. (2008). Semiotic mediation in the mathematics classroom: Artefacts and signs after a Vygotskian perspective. In L. D. English, M. G. Bartolini Bussi, G. A. Jones, R. Lesh, & D. Tirosh (Eds.), *Handbook of international research in mathematics education, 2nd revised edition* (pp. 720–749). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Google Scholar

Becvar, L. A., Hollan, J. D., & Hutchins, E. (2005). Hands as molecules: Representational gestures used for developing theory in a scientific laboratory. *Semiotica, 156*, 89–112.

Google Scholar

Begg, A. (1999). Enactivism and mathematics education. In J. M. Truran & K. M. Truran (Eds.), *Making the difference: Proceedings of the twenty-second annual conference of The Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (MERGA-22)* (pp. 68–75). Adelaide: MERGA.

Google Scholar

Brooks, N., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2015). Moving to learn: How guiding the hands can set the stage for learning. *Cognitive Science, 38*(167), 1–19. doi:10.1111/cogs.12292

Google Scholar

Chase, K., & Abrahamson, D. (2015). Reverse-scaffolding algebra: Empirical evaluation of design architecture. In A. Bakker, J. Smit, & R. Wegerif (Eds.), Scaffolding and dialogic teaching in mathematics education [Special issue]. *ZDM Mathematics Education, 47*(7), 1195–1209.

Article
Google Scholar

Chemero, A. (2009). *Radical embodied cognitive science*. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Google Scholar

Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., Button, C., Shuttleworth, R., Renshaw, I., & Araújo, D. (2007). The role of nonlinear pedagogy in physical education. *Review of Educational Research, 77*(3), 251–278.

Article
Google Scholar

Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., Button, C., & Renshaw, I. (2016). *Nonlinear pedagogy in skill acquisition: An introduction*. New York, NY: Routledge.

Google Scholar

Cifarelli, V. V., & Cai, J. (2005). The evolution of mathematical explorations in open-ended problem-solving situations. *Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 24*, 302–324.

Article
Google Scholar

Clark, A. (1999). *Embodiment: From fish to fantasy*. St. Louis, MO: Washington University in St. Louis.

Google Scholar

Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. *Educational Researcher, 32*(1), 9–13.

Article
Google Scholar

Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2008). Complexity as a theory of education. *Transnational Curriculum Inquiry, 5*(2), 33–44.

Google Scholar

Dewey, J. (1916/1944). *Democracy and education*. New York, NY: The Free Press. (Originally published 1916)

Dourish, P. (2001). *Where the action is: The foundations of embodied interaction*. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Google Scholar

Easterday, M. W., Rees Lewis, D. G., & Gerber, E. M. (2016). The logic of the theoretical and practical products of design research. *Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 32*(4), 125–144.

Google Scholar

Fischer, U., Moeller, K., Bientzle, M., Cress, U., & Nuerk, H.-C. (2011). Sensori-motor spatial training of number magnitude representation. *Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18*(1), 177–183.

Article
Google Scholar

Flood, V. J., Harrer, B. W., & Abrahamson, D. (2016). The interactional work of configuring a mathematical object in a technology-enabled embodied learning environment. In C.-K. Looi, J. L. Polman, U. Cress, & P. Reimann (Eds.), *Transforming learning, empowering learners, Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2016)* (Vol. 1, “Full Papers”, pp. 122–129). Singapore: International Society of the Learning Sciences.

Forman, G. (1988). Making intuitive knowledge explicit through future technology. In G. Forman & P. B. Pufall (Eds.), *Constructivism in the computer age* (pp. 83–101). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Google Scholar

Foster, C. (2011). Productive ambiguity in the learning of mathematics. *For the Learning of Mathematics, 31*(2), 3–7.

Google Scholar

Gallagher, S. (2015). Invasion of the body snatchers: How embodied cognition is being disembodied. *The Philosophers’ Magazine, April*, 96–102.

Gallagher, S., & Lindgren, R. (2015). Enactive metaphors: Learning through full-body engagement. *Educational Psychology Review, 27*, 391. doi:10.1007/s10648-015-9327-1

Article
Google Scholar

Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G. (2005). The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. *Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22*(3–4), 455–479.

Article
PubMed
Google Scholar

Gangopadhyay, N., & Kiverstein, J. (2009). Enactivism and the unity of perception and action. *Topoi, 28*(1), 63–73.

Article
Google Scholar

Gillies, M., & Kleinsmith, A. (2014). Non-representational Interaction Design. In J. M. Bishop & A. O. Martin (Eds.). *Contemporary Sensorimotor Theory, 15*, 201–208.

Article
Google Scholar

Glenberg, A. M. (2006). Radical changes in cognitive process due to technology: A jaundiced view. In Harnad, S. & Dror, I. E. (Eds.), Distributed cognition [Special issue]. *Pragmatics & Cognition, 14*(2), 263–274.

Article
Google Scholar

Goldin-Meadow, S., Nusbaum, H., Kelly, S., & Wagner, S. (2001). Explaining math: Gesturing lightens the load. *Psychological Science, 12*, 516–522.

Article
PubMed
Google Scholar

Goldin-Meadow, S., Wagner Cook, S., & Mitchell, Z. A. (2009). Gesturing gives children new ideas about math. *Psychological Science, 20*(3), 267–272.

Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar

Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. *American Anthropologist, 96*(3), 603–633.

Article
Google Scholar

Greeno, J. G. (1994). Gibson’s affordances. *Psychological Review, 101*(2), 336–342.

Article
PubMed
Google Scholar

Hadamard, J. (1945). *The psychology of invention in the mathematical field*. New York: Dover.

Google Scholar

Hall, R. & Nemirovsky, R. (Eds.). (2012). Modalities of body engagement in mathematical activity and learning [Special issue]. *Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21*(2).

Howison, M., Trninic, D., Reinholz, D., & Abrahamson, D. (2011). The Mathematical Imagery Trainer: From embodied interaction to conceptual learning. In G. Fitzpatrick, C. Gutwin, B. Begole, W. A. Kellogg, & D. Tan (Eds.), *Proceedings of the annual meeting of The Association for Computer Machinery Special Interest Group on Computer Human Interaction: “Human Factors in Computing Systems” (CHI 2011)* (Vol. “Full Papers”, pp. 1989–1998). New York: ACM Press.

Hutchins, E. (2014). The cultural ecosystem of human cognition. *Philosophical Psychology, 27*(1), 34–49.

Article
Google Scholar

Hutto, D. D., Kirchhoff, M. D., & Abrahamson, D. (2015). The enactive roots of STEM: Rethinking educational design in mathematics. In P. Chandler & A. Tricot (Eds.), Human movement, physical and mental health, and learning [Special issue]. *Educational Psychology Review, 27*(3), 371–389.

Article
Google Scholar

Hutto, D. D., & Myin, E. (2013). *Radicalizing enactivism: Basic minds without content*. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Google Scholar

Hutto, D. D., & Sánchez-García, R. (2015). Choking RECtified: Embodied expertise beyond Dreyfus. *Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 14*(2), 309–331. doi:10.1007/s11097-014-9380-0

Article
Google Scholar

Ingold, T. (2000). *The perception of the environment: Essays on livelihood, dwelling, and skill* (2nd ed.). London and New York: Routledge.

Book
Google Scholar

Isaacs, E. A., & Clark, H. H. (1987). References in conversations between experts and novices. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116*, 26–37.

Article
Google Scholar

Kauffman, S. A. (1995). *At home in the universe: The search for the laws of self-organization and complexity*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Google Scholar

Kelso, J. A. S. (1995). *Dynamic patterns: The self-organization of brain and behavior*. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Google Scholar

Kelso, J. A. S. (2000). Principles of dynamic pattern formation and change for a science of human behavior. In L. Lars, R. Bergman, R. B. Cairns, L.-G. Nilsson, & L. Nystedt (Eds.), *Developmental science and the holistic approach (Proceedings of a conference at Wiks Castle and the Nobel Institute, Stockholm, Sweden)* (pp. 63–83). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Google Scholar

Kieren, T. E., Gordon Calvert, L., Reid, D. A., & Simmt, E. (1995). *An enactivist research approach to mathematical activity: Understanding, reasoning, and beliefs.* Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. *Educational Psychologist, 41*(2), 75–86.

Article
Google Scholar

Kirsh, D. (2013). Embodied cognition and the magical future of interaction design. In P. Marshall, A. N. Antle, E. v.d. Hoven, & Y. Rogers (Eds.), The theory and practice of embodied interaction in HCI and interaction design [Special issue]. *ACM Transactions on Human–Computer Interaction, 20*(1), 3:1–30. doi:10.1145/2442106.2442109.

Kiverstein, J. (2012). The meaning of embodiment. *Topics in Cognitive Science, 4*(4), 740–758. doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2012.01219.x

Article
PubMed
Google Scholar

Koschmann, T., Kuuti, K., & Hickman, L. (1998). The concept of breakdown in Heidegger, Leont’ev, and Dewey and its implications for education. *Mind, Culture, and Activity, 5*(1), 25–41.

Article
Google Scholar

Kostrubiec, V., Zanone, P.-G., Fuchs, A., & Kelso, J. A. S. (2012). Beyond the blank slate: Routes to learning new coordination patterns depend on the intrinsic dynamics of the learner -- experimental evidence and theoretical model. *Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6*. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2012.00222.

Lakoff, G., & Núñez, R. E. (2000). *Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being*. New York: Basic Books.

Google Scholar

Lee, V. R. (Ed.). (2015). *Learning technologies and the body: Integration and implementation*. New York: Routledge.

Google Scholar

Lemke, J. L. (2003). Mathematics in the middle: measure, picture, gesture, sign, and word. In M. Anderson, A. Sáenz-Ludlow, S. Zellweger, & V. V. Cifarelli (Eds.), *Educational perspectives on mathematics as semiosis: from thinking to interpreting to knowing* (pp. 215–234). Ottawa: Legas.

Google Scholar

Lindgren, R., & Johnson-Glenberg, M. (2013). Emboldened by embodiment: Six precepts for research on embodied learning and mixed reality. *Educational Researcher, 42*(8), 445–452. doi:10.3102/0013189x13511661

Article
Google Scholar

Lindgren, R., Tscholl, M., Wang, S., & Johnson, E. (2016). Enhancing learning and engagement through embodied interaction within a mixed reality simulation. *Computers & Education, 95*, 174–187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.01.001.

Article
Google Scholar

Lozada, M., & Carro, N. (2016). Embodied action improves cognition in children: Evidence from a study based on Piagetian conservation tasks. *Frontiers in Psychology, 7*, 393. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00393

Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar

Malafouris, L. (2013). *How things shape the mind*. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Google Scholar

Malinverni, L., Ackermann, E., & Pares, N. (2016). Experience as an object to think with: From sensing-in-action to making-sense of action in full-body interaction learning environments. In B. Hengeveld, D. Saakes, & L. Geurts (Eds.), *Tenth Anniversary Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction* (Vol. Demos and Posters, pp. 332–339). Eindhoven, The Netherlands: TEI.

Manches, A., & O’Malley, C. (2016). The effects of physical manipulatives on children’s numerical strategies. *Cognition and Instruction, 34*(1), 27–50. doi:10.1080/07370008.2015.1124882

Article
Google Scholar

Marshall, P. J. (2016). Embodiment and human development. *Child Development Perspectives, 10*(4), 245–250. doi:10.1111/cdep.12190

Article
PubMed
Google Scholar

Meira, L. (1998). Making sense of instructional devices: The emergence of transparency in mathematical activity. *Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29*(2), 129–142.

Article
Google Scholar

Melser, D. (2004). *The act of thinking*. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Google Scholar

Merleau-Ponty, M. (1964). *The primacy of perception, and other essays on phenomenological psychology, the philosophy of art, history and politics* (C. Smith, Trans.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

Morgan, C., & Kynigos, C. (2014). Digital artefacts as representations: Forging connections between a constructionist and a social semiotic perspective. *Educational Studies in Mathematics, 85*(3), 357–379. doi:10.1007/s10649-013-9523-1

Article
Google Scholar

Moschkovich, J. N. (2015). Scaffolding student participation in mathematical practices. *ZDM, 47*(7), 1067–1078. doi:10.1007/s11858-015-0730-3

Article
Google Scholar

Nathan, M. J. & Walkington, C. (2016). Design of a video game for promoting embodied mathematical reasoning. In the Proceedings of the 38th annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. xx-xx). Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona. In M. B. Wood, E. E. Turner, M. Civil, & J. A. Eli (Eds.), *Sin fronteras: Questioning borders with(in) mathematics education–Proceedings of the 38th annual meeting of the North-American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME-NA)* (Vol. 12, “Technology”). Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona.

Nemirovsky, R., & Borba, M. C. (2004). PME Special Issue: Bodily activity and imagination in mathematics learning. *Educational Studies in Mathematics, 57*, 303–321.

Article
Google Scholar

Nemirovsky, R., & Ferrara, F. (2009). Mathematical imagination and embodied cognition. In L. Radford, L. Edwards, & F. Arzarello (Eds.), Gestures and multimodality in the construction of mathematical meaning [Special issue]. *Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70*(2), 159–174.

Article
Google Scholar

Nemirovsky, R., Kelton, M. L., & Rhodehamel, B. (2012). Gesture and imagination: On the constitution and uses of phantasms. *Gesture, 2*, 130–165. doi:10.1075/gest.12.2.02nem

Article
Google Scholar

Newell, K. M. (1986). Constraints on the development of coordination. In M. G. Wade & H. T. A. Whiting (Eds.), *Motor development in children: Aspects of coordination and control* (pp. 341–361). Amsterdam: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

Chapter
Google Scholar

Newell, K. M. (1996). Change in movement and skill: Learning, retention, and transfer. In M. L. Latash & M. T. Turvey (Eds.), *Dexterity and its development* (pp. 393–429). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Google Scholar

Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989). *The construction zone: Working for cognitive change in school*. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Google Scholar

Noë, A. (2006). *Action in perception*. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Google Scholar

Núñez, R. E., & Freeman, W. J. (Eds.). (1999). *Reclaiming cognition: The primacy of action, intention, and emotion (Journal of Consciousness Studies 6, 11–12)*. Thorverton, UK: Imprint Academic.

Google Scholar

Ochs, E., Gonzales, P., & Jacoby, S. (1996). “When I come down I’m in the domain state”: Grammar and graphic representation in the interpretive activity of physicists. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), *Interaction and Grammar* (pp. 328–369). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Chapter
Google Scholar

Papert, S. (1980). *Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas*. New York: Basic Books.

Google Scholar

Piaget, J. (1968). *Genetic epistemology* (E. Duckworth, Trans.). New York: Columbia University Press.

Piaget, J. (1970). *Structuralism* (C. Maschler, Trans.). New York: Basic Books.

Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. (1969). *The psychology of the child* (H. Weaver, Trans.). New York: Basic Books (Original work published 1966).

Ping, R. M., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2008). Hands in the air: Using ungrounded iconic gestures to teach children conservation of quantity. *Developmental Psychology, 44*(5), 1277–1287.

Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar

Pouw, W. T. J. L., van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2014). An embedded and embodied cognition review of instructional manipulatives. *Educational Psychological Review, 26*(1), 51–72.

Article
Google Scholar

Pratt, D., & Noss, R. (2010). Designing for mathematical abstraction. *International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 15*(2), 81–97.

Article
Google Scholar

Presmeg, N. C. (1998). Metaphoric and metonymic signification in mathematics. *Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17*(1), 25–32.

Article
Google Scholar

Radford, L. (2003). Gestures, speech, and the sprouting of signs: A semiotic-cultural approach to students’ types of generalization. *Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 5*(1), 37–70.

Article
Google Scholar

Radford, L. (2014). Towards an embodied, cultural, and material conception of mathematics cognition. *ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 46*(3), 349–361. doi:10.1007/s11858-014-0591-1

Article
Google Scholar

Rosenbaum, L. F. & Abrahamson, D. (2016). Back to the drawing board: On studying interaction with mechanical design. In M. B. Wood, E. E. Turner, M. Civil, & J. A. Eli (Eds.), *Sin fronteras: Questioning borders with(in) mathematics education–Proceedings of the 38th annual meeting of the North-American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME-NA)* (Vol. 13, “Theory and research methods”, pp. 1612–1615). Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona.

Sawyer, R. K. (2007). *Group genius: The creative power of collaboration*. New York: Perseus Books Group.

Google Scholar

Saxe, G. B. (2012). *Cultural development of mathematical ideas: Papua New Guinea studies*. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Book
Google Scholar

Schwarz, B. B., & Prusak, N. (2016). The importance of multi-modality in mathematical argumentation. In F. Paglieri (Ed.), *The psychology of argument* (pp. 387–406). London: College Publications.

Google Scholar

Sfard, A. (2002). The interplay of intimations and implementations: Generating new discourse with new symbolic tools. *Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11*(2&3), 319–357.

Article
Google Scholar

Sharma, K., Caballero, D., Verma, H., Jermann, P., & Dillenbourg, P. (2015). Looking AT versus looking THROUGH: A dual eye-tracking study in MOOC context. In O. Lindwall, P. Häkkinen, T. Koschmann, P. Tchounikine, & S. Ludvigsen (Eds.), *“Exploring the material conditions of learning: opportunities and challenges for CSCL,” the Proceedings of the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Conference* (Vol. 1, pp. 260–267). Gothenburg, Sweden.

Shayan, S., Abrahamson, D., Bakker, A., Duijzer, A. C. G., & Van der Schaaf, M. F. (2017). Eye-tracking the emergence of attentional anchors in a mathematics learning tablet activity. In C. A. Was, F. J. Sansosti, & B. J. Morris (Eds.), *Eye-tracking technology applications in educational research* (pp. 166–194). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Chapter
Google Scholar

Sheets-Johnstone, M. (1981). Thinking in movement. *Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 39*(4), 339–407.

Google Scholar

Sheets-Johnstone, M. (1999). *The primacy of movement*. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Book
Google Scholar

Shvarts, A. & Krichevets, A. (2016). Dual eye-tracking as a method to investigate the acquiring of theoretical perception of visual representations. In L. Radford & N. Presmeg [Co-Chair], Topic Study Group 54: Semiotics in mathematics education. *Proceedings of the 13th International Congress on Mathematical Education*. Hamburg: University of Hamburg.

Siu, Y.-T. (2016). Designing for all learners with technology: Two design approaches from an accessibility and practitioner’s perspective. *Educational Designer, 3*(9), article 34.

Smith, C. P., King, B., & Hoyte, J. (2014). Learning angles through movement: Critical actions for developing understanding in an embodied activity. *The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 36*, 95–108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2014.09.001.

Article
Google Scholar

Steffe, L. P., & Thompson, P. W. (2000). Teaching experiment methodology: Underlying principles and essential elements. In A. E. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), *Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education* (pp. 267–306). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Google Scholar

Stetsenko, A. (2002). Commentary: Sociocultural activity as a unit of analysis: How Vygotsky and Piaget converge in empirical research on collaborative cognition. In D. J. Bearison & B. Dorval (Eds.), *Collaborative cognition: Children negotiating ways of knowing* (pp. 123–135). Westport, CN: Alex.

Google Scholar

Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B. (1994). *A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action*. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Google Scholar

Trninic, D., Reinholz, D., Howison, M., & Abrahamson, D. (2010). Design as an object-to-think-with: Semiotic potential emerges through collaborative reflective conversation with material. In P. Brosnan, D. Erchick, & L. Flevares (Eds.), *Proceedings of the Thirty-Second Annual Meeting of the North-American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME-NA 32)* (Vol. VI, Ch. 18: Technology, pp. 1523–1530). Columbus, OH: PME-NA.

Turvey, M. T. (1992). Ecological foundations of cognition: Invariants of perception and action. In P. J. Herbert L, P. W. P. van den Broek, & D. C. Knill (Eds.), *Cognition: Conceptual and Methodological Issues* (pp. 85–117). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

van Gelder, T. J. (1998). The dynamical hypothesis in cognitive science. *Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21*(5), 615–628.

PubMed
Google Scholar

Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). *The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience*. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Google Scholar

Vérillon, P., & Rabardel, P. (1995). Cognition and artifacts: A contribution to the study of thought in relation to instrumented activity. *European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10*(1), 77–101.

Article
Google Scholar

von Glasersfeld, E. (1983). Learning as constructive activity. In J. C. Bergeron & N. Herscovics (Eds.), *Proceedings of the 5th Annual Meeting of the North American Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education* (Vol. 1, pp. 41–69). Montreal: PME-NA.

Google Scholar

von Glasersfeld, E. (1992). *Aspects of radical constructivism and its educational recommendations (Working Group #4).* Paper presented at the Seventh International Congress on Mathematics Education (ICME7), Quebec.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1926/1997). *Educational psychology* (R. H. Silverman, Trans.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press LLC.

Wertsch, J. V. (1979). From social interaction to higher psychological processes: A clarification and application of Vygotsky’s theory. *Human Development, 22*(1), 1–22.

Article
Google Scholar

White, B. (1984). Designing computer activities to help physics students understand Newton’s laws of motion. *Cognition and Instruction, 1*(1), 69–108.

Article
Google Scholar

Wilensky, U. & Papert, S. (2010). Restructurations: Reformulations of knowledge disciplines through new representational forms. In J. Clayson & I. Kallas (Eds.), *Proceedings of the Constructionism 2010 Conference*. Paris.

Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. *Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9*(4), 625–636.

Article
Google Scholar

Witt, J. K. & Riley, M. A. (2014). Discovering your inner Gibson: Reconciling action-specific and ecological approaches to perception–action. *Psychonomic Bulletin & Review*, 1–18. doi:10.3758/s13423-014-0623-4.

Yanchar, S. C., Spackman, J. S., & Faulconer, J. E. (2013). Learning as embodied familiarization. *Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 33*(4), 216–232. doi:10.1037/a0031012

Article
Google Scholar

Zeki, S., Romaya, J. P., Benincasa, D. M. T., & Atiyah, M. F. (2014). The experience of mathematical beauty and its neural correlates. *Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8*. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00068.