In this article, the authors first indicate the range of purposes and the variety of settings in which design experiments have been conducted and then delineate five crosscutting features that collectively differentiate design experiments from other methodologies. Design experiments have both a pragmatic bent—“engineering” particular forms of learning—and a theoretical orientation—developing domain-specific theories by systematically studying those forms of learning and the means of supporting them. The authors clarify what is involved in preparing for and carrying out a design experiment, and in conducting a retrospective analysis of the extensive, longitudinal data sets generated during an experiment. Logistical issues, issues of measure, the importance of working through the data systematically, and the need to be explicit about the criteria for making inferences are discussed.

The interplay of teacher and student actions in the teaching and learning of geometric proof. Educational Studies in Matematics, 60, 95 -124. Planas, N. (2002). Enseñar matemáticas dando menos cosas por supuestas. UNO-Revista de Didáctica de las Matemáticas, 30, 114-124. Sáenz-Ludlow, A., & 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). The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract