<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.4 20241031//EN"
        "https://jats.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/1.4/JATS-journalpublishing1-4.dtd">
<article  article-type="research-article"        dtd-version="1.4">
            <front>

                <journal-meta>
                                                                <journal-id>inujfe</journal-id>
            <journal-title-group>
                                                                                    <journal-title>İnönü University Journal of the Faculty of Education</journal-title>
            </journal-title-group>
                            <issn pub-type="ppub">1300-2899</issn>
                                        <issn pub-type="epub">2149-9683</issn>
                                                                                            <publisher>
                    <publisher-name>İnönü Üniversitesi</publisher-name>
                </publisher>
                    </journal-meta>
                <article-meta>
                                        <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.17679/inuefd.527243</article-id>
                                                                                                                                                                                            <title-group>
                                                                                                                        <trans-title-group xml:lang="en">
                                    <trans-title>Opportunities to Learn Reasoning and Proof in Eighth-Grade Mathematics Textbook</trans-title>
                                </trans-title-group>
                                                                                                                                                                                                <article-title>Sekizinci Sınıf Matematik Ders Kitabındaki Matematiksel Akıl Yürütme ve İspatı Öğrenme Olanakları</article-title>
                                                                                                    </title-group>
            
                                                    <contrib-group content-type="authors">
                                                                        <contrib contrib-type="author">
                                                                    <contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">
                                        https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5301-9034</contrib-id>
                                                                <name>
                                    <surname>Dogan</surname>
                                    <given-names>Muhammed Fatih</given-names>
                                </name>
                                                                    <aff>ADIYAMAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ</aff>
                                                            </contrib>
                                                                                </contrib-group>
                        
                                        <pub-date pub-type="pub" iso-8601-date="20190831">
                    <day>08</day>
                    <month>31</month>
                    <year>2019</year>
                </pub-date>
                                        <volume>20</volume>
                                        <issue>2</issue>
                                        <fpage>601</fpage>
                                        <lpage>618</lpage>
                        
                        <history>
                                    <date date-type="received" iso-8601-date="20190214">
                        <day>02</day>
                        <month>14</month>
                        <year>2019</year>
                    </date>
                                                    <date date-type="accepted" iso-8601-date="20190803">
                        <day>08</day>
                        <month>03</month>
                        <year>2019</year>
                    </date>
                            </history>
                                        <permissions>
                    <copyright-statement>Copyright © 2002, İnönü University Journal of the Faculty of Education</copyright-statement>
                    <copyright-year>2002</copyright-year>
                    <copyright-holder>İnönü University Journal of the Faculty of Education</copyright-holder>
                </permissions>
            
                                                                                                <trans-abstract xml:lang="en">
                            <p>In this study, reasoning and proof activities in the eighth-grade mathematics textbook were investigated. The reasoning and proof activities of the entire textbook were evaluated separately based on the different learning areas, sections of the book, and purpose of the activities. According to the results, these activities constituted 7.7% of all activities in the book. The proportion of the reasoning and proof activities differed by learning area, with 11.8% of the total activities in Numbers and Operations, 7.8% in Probability, 7.4% in Geometry and Measurement, and 5.3% in Algebra. In the learning area of Statistics, no such content was found. When the sections of the book were evaluated, most of the proof-related activities were observed in the Warning section (55%); followed by 38% in the Information and Activity sections and 29% in the Warming-up section. This ratio was only 2.9% in the Examples section, and there was no proof related content found in the Exercises section. In examining the purpose of proof activities, it was mostly used for investigating claims/conjectures (49 tasks), and making claims/conjectures (20 tasks). There were only 8 activities for evaluating an argument, but none for producing arguments. The results conclude that reasoning and proof were not sufficiently evident in the textbook; therefore, the engagement of students with such activities may be limited.</p></trans-abstract>
                                                                                                                                    <abstract><p>Bu çalışmada 8. Sınıf matematik ders kitabında matematiksel akıl yürütme ve ispat etkinliklerinin ne oranda ve nasıl yer aldığı araştırılmıştır. Bunun için okullarda yaygın olarak okutulan bir ders kitabının tüm içeriği incelenmiştir. Bu incelemede akıl yürütme ve ispat etkinlikleri öğrenme alanlarına, kitabın bölümlerine ve etkinliklerin amacına göre ayrı ayrı değerlendirilmiştir. Elde edilen sonuçlara göre bu etkinlikler kitapta yer alan tüm etkinliklerin % 7,7’sini oluşturmaktadır. İspat ile ilgili etkinliklerin öğrenme alanlarına göre oranlarının Sayılar ve İşlemlerde % 11,8; Olasılıkta %7,8; Geometri ve Ölçmede % 7,4 ve Cebirde % 5,3 olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Veri İşleme öğrenme alanında ise ispat ile ilgili bir içerik bulunamamıştır. Kitabın bölümlerine göre değerlendirildiğinde ispat etkinliklerinin en çok Uyarı kısmında (% 55) yer aldığı; Bilgi ve Etkinlik kısımlarında % 38, Hazırlık Çalışması kısmında ise % 29 oranında ispata değinildiği görülmüştür. Kitabın Örnekler kısmında ispat etkinliklerine % 2,9 oranında yer verilirken Alıştırmalar kısmında ispatla ilgili herhangi bir kavrama ulaşılamamıştır. İspat etkinlikleri amacına göre incelendiğinde ise çoğunlukla varsayımları araştırma amacıyla (49 etkinlik) sunulabileceği görülmüş; kitapta varsayımda bulunma amacıyla sunulabilecek 20 etkinlik; bir argümanı değerlendirmeye yönelik de 8 etkinlik mevcut olduğu belirlenmiştir. Öte yandan, kitapta argüman oluşturma amacına uygun herhangi bir etkinliğe rastlanmamıştır. Bu araştırma ders kitabında akıl yürütme ve ispata yeterli düzeyde yer verilmediğini; dolayısıyla öğrencilerin bu tür etkinliklerle etkileşimlerinin sınırlı kalabileceğini göstermektedir.</p></abstract>
                                                            
            
                                                                                        <kwd-group>
                                                    <kwd>Akıl Yürütme Ve İspat</kwd>
                                                    <kwd>  Ders Kitabı Analizi</kwd>
                                                    <kwd>  Öğretim Programı</kwd>
                                            </kwd-group>
                            
                                                <kwd-group xml:lang="en">
                                                    <kwd>Reasoning and Proof</kwd>
                                                    <kwd>  Textbook Analysis</kwd>
                                                    <kwd>  Curriculum</kwd>
                                            </kwd-group>
                                                                                                                                        </article-meta>
    </front>
    <back>
                            <ref-list>
                                    <ref id="ref1">
                        <label>1</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Alibert, D. (1988). Toward new customs in the classrooms. For the Learning of Mathematics, 8(2), 31-43.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref2">
                        <label>2</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Alibert, D., &amp; Thomas, M. (1991). Research on mathematical proof. In D. Tall (Ed.) Advanced Mathematical Thinking (pp. 215-230). Kluwer: The Netherlands.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref3">
                        <label>3</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Altun, M., Arslan, Ç., &amp; Yazgan, Y. (2004). Lise matematik ders kitaplarının kullanım şekli ve sıklığı üzerine bir çalışma. Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(2), 131-147.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref4">
                        <label>4</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Balacheff, N. (1991). The benefits and limits of social interaction: The case of mathematical proof. In Mathematical knowledge: Its growth through teaching (pp. 173-192). Springer, Dordrecht.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref5">
                        <label>5</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Begle, E. (1973). Some lessons learned by SMSG. Mathematics Teacher, 66, 207–214. Bell, A. (1976). A study of pupils’ proof – explanations in mathematical situations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 7, 23-40.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref6">
                        <label>6</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Bieda (2010). Enacting proof-related tasks in middle school mathematics: challenges and opportunities. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(4), 351-382.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref7">
                        <label>7</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Bieda, K. N., Ji, X., Drwencke, J., &amp; Picard, A. (2014). Reasoning-and-proving opportunities in elementary mathematics textbooks. International Journal of Educational Research, 64, 71–80.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref8">
                        <label>8</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Cai, J., &amp; Cirillo, M. (2014). What do we know about reasoning and proving? Opportunities and missing opportunities from curriculum analyses. International Journal of Educational Research, 64, 132–140.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref9">
                        <label>9</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Cai, J., Ni, Y., &amp; Lester, F. K. (2011). Curricular effect on the teaching and learning of mathematics: Findings from two longitudinal studies in China and the United States. International Journal of Educational Research, 50, 63–64.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref10">
                        <label>10</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Chazan, D., &amp; Lueke, H. M. (2009). Exploring tensions between disciplinary knowledge and school mathematics: Implications for reasoning and proof in school mathematics. Teaching and learning mathematics proof across the grades, 21-39.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref11">
                        <label>11</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref12">
                        <label>12</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Dede, Y.&amp; Karakuş, F. (2014). Matematiksel ispat kavramına pedagojik bir bakış: Kuramsal bir çalışma. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 4(2), 47-71.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref13">
                        <label>13</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Department for Education. (2013). Mathematics: Programmes of study: Key Stages 1-2 (National Curriculum in England). Retrieved, 2018, from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/239129/PRIMARY_nati onal_curriculum_-_Mathematics.pdf</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref14">
                        <label>14</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Dole, S., &amp; Shield, M. J. (2008). The capacity of two Australian eighth-grade textbooks for promoting proportional reasoning. Research in Mathematics Education, 10(1), 19–35.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref15">
                        <label>15</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Epp, S. S. (1998). A unified framework for proof and disproof. Mathematics Teacher, 91, 708–713. http:// www.nctm.org/publications/mt.aspx</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref16">
                        <label>16</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Eisenmann, T., &amp; Even, R. (2011). Enacted types of algebraic activity in different classes taught by the same teacher. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(4), 867–891.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref17">
                        <label>17</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Fan, L., &amp; Kaeley, G. S. (2000). The influence of textbooks on teaching strategies: An empirical study. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 13(4), 2–9.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref18">
                        <label>18</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Fan, L., Zhu, Y., &amp; Miao, Z. (2013). Textbook research in mathematics education: development status and directions. ZDM, 45(5), 633-646.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref19">
                        <label>19</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., &amp; Hyun, H. H. (2011). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref20">
                        <label>20</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Fujita, T., &amp; Jones, K. (2014). Reasoning-and-proving in geometry in school mathematics textbooks in Japan. International Journal of Educational Research, 64, 81–91.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref21">
                        <label>21</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Grouws, D. A., Smith, M. S., &amp; Sztajn, P. (2004). The preparation and teaching practices of United States mathematics teachers: Grades 4 and 8. In P. Kloosterman &amp; F. K. Lester Jr. (Eds.), Results and interpretations of the 1990–2000 mathematics assessments of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (pp. 221–267). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Hanna, G. (1990). Some pedagogical aspects of proof. Interchange, 21(1), 6-13.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref22">
                        <label>22</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Hanna, G. (2000). Proof, explanation and exploration: An overview. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44, 5-23.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref23">
                        <label>23</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Hanna, G. (2018). Reflections on proof as explanation. In Advances in Mathematics Education Research on Proof and Proving (pp. 3-18). Springer, Cham.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref24">
                        <label>24</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Hanna, G., &amp; de Bruyn, Y. (1999). Opportunity to learn proof in Ontario grade twelve mathematics texts. Ontario Mathematics Gazette, 37(4), 23–29.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref25">
                        <label>25</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Harel, G., &amp; Sowder, L. (1998). Students’ proof schemes: Results from exploratory studies. In A. Schoenfeld, J. Kaput, &amp; E. Dubinsky (Eds.), Research in collegiate mathematics education, III (pp. 234-283). Washington DC: Mathematical Association of America.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref26">
                        <label>26</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Harel, G., &amp; Sowder, L. (2007). Toward comprehensive perspectives on the learning and teaching of proof. Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning, 2, 805-842.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref27">
                        <label>27</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Healy L. &amp; Hoyles C., (2000). A study of proof conceptions in algebra. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(4), 396-428.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref28">
                        <label>28</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Herbst, P., &amp; Brach, C. (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.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref29">
                        <label>29</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Hersh, R. (1993). Proving is convincing and explaining. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24(4), 389–399.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref30">
                        <label>30</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Isler, I. (2015). An Investigation of Elementary Teachers’ Proving Eyes and Ears (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, The University of Wisconsin-Madison).</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref31">
                        <label>31</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Jones, D. L., &amp; Tarr, J. E. (2007). An examination of the levels of cognitive demand required by probability tasks in middle grades mathematics textbooks. Statistics Education Research Journal, 6(2), 4–27. doi:10.1.1.154.6160</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref32">
                        <label>32</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Knuth, E. (2002). Teachers conceptions of proof in the context of secondary school mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 5(1), 61-88.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref33">
                        <label>33</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Knuth, E., Choppin, J., &amp; Bieda, K. (2009). Middle school students’ production of mathematical justifications. In D. Stylianou, M. Blanton, &amp; E. Knuth (Eds.), Teaching and learning proof across the grades: A K-16 perspective (pp. 153-170). New York, NY: Routledge.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref34">
                        <label>34</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Levin, S. W. (1998). Fractions and division: Research conceptualizations, textbook presentations, and student performances (Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, 1998). Dissertation Abstracts International, 59, 1089A.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref35">
                        <label>35</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Li, Y. (2000). A comparison of problems that follow selected content presentations in American and Chinese mathematics textbooks. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31, 234–241. doi:10.2307/749754</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref36">
                        <label>36</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Mariotti, M. A. (2006). Proof and proving in mathematics education. In A. Gutiérrez &amp; P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of Research on the Psychology of Mathematics Education: Past, present and future (pp. 173-204). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref37">
                        <label>37</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB) (2018). Matematik Dersi Öğretim Programı (İlkokul ve Ortaokul 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar). Ankara.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref38">
                        <label>38</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Miyakawa, T. (2012). Proof in geometry: A comparative analysis of French and Japanese textbooks. Proceedings of PME 36, 3, 225-232.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref39">
                        <label>39</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Moore, R.C. (1994). Making the transition to formal proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27, 249-266.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref40">
                        <label>40</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref41">
                        <label>41</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">National Research Council. (2004). On evaluating curricular effectiveness: Judging the quality of K–12 mathematics evaluations. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref42">
                        <label>42</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Newton, D. P., &amp; Newton, L. D. (2007). Could elementary mathematics textbooks help give attention to reasons in the classroom? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 64, 69–84. doi:10.1007/ s10649-005-9015-z</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref43">
                        <label>43</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Otten, S., Gilbertson, N. J., Males, L. M., &amp; Clark, D. L. (2014). The mathematical nature of reasoning-and-proving opportunities in geometry textbooks. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 16(1), 51–79.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref44">
                        <label>44</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Ozgur, Z. (2017) Relationships Between Students&#039; Conceptions of Proof and Classroom Factors (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, The University of Wisconsin-Madison).</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref45">
                        <label>45</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Pickle, M. C. C. (2012), Statistical content in middle grades mathematics textbooks. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida, USA.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref46">
                        <label>46</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Reid, D. (2005). The meaning of proof in mathematics education. In M. Bosch (Ed.), Proceedings of the 4th Conference of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 458-468). Sant Feliu de Guixols, Spain.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref47">
                        <label>47</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211–246.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref48">
                        <label>48</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Reys, B. J., Reys, R. E., &amp; Chávez, O. (2004). Why mathematics textbooks matter. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 61–66. http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership.aspx</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref49">
                        <label>49</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Seah, W. T., &amp; Bishop, A. J. (2000). Values in mathematics textbooks: A view through two Australasian regions. Paper presented at the 81st annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref50">
                        <label>50</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Schoenfeld, A.H. (1994). What do we know about mathematics curricula? Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 13(1), 55-80.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref51">
                        <label>51</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Stacey, K., &amp; Vincent, J. (2009). Modes of reasoning in explanations in Australian eighth-grade mathematics textbooks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72(3), 271–288.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref52">
                        <label>52</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Stein, M. K., Remillard, J. T., &amp; Smith, M. S. (2007). How curriculum influences student learning. In F. K. Lester, Jr., (Ed.). Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 319–369). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref53">
                        <label>53</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Stylianides, A. J. (2007). Proof and proving in school mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(3), 289–321.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref54">
                        <label>54</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Stylianides, A. J., Bieda, K. N., &amp; Morselli, F. (2016). Proof and argumentation in mathematics education. In A. Gutiérrez, G. C. Leder, &amp; P. Boero (Eds.), The second handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education (pp. 315–351). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref55">
                        <label>55</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Stylianides, G. J. (2009). Reasoning-and-proving in school mathematics textbooks. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 11(4), 258–288.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref56">
                        <label>56</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Stylianides, G. J. (2014). Textbook analyses on reasoning-and-proving: Significance and methodological challenges. International Journal of Educational Research, 64, 63–70.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref57">
                        <label>57</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Stylianides, G. J., Stylianides, A. J., &amp; Weber, K. (2017). Research on the teaching and learning of proof: Taking stock and moving forward. In J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for research in mathematics education (pp. 237–266). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref58">
                        <label>58</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Stylianou, D. A., Blanton, M. L., Knuth, E. J. (Eds.). (2010). Teaching and learning proof across the grades: A K-16 perspective. Routledge &amp; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref59">
                        <label>59</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Thompson, D. R., Senk, S. L., &amp; Johnson, G. J. (2012). Opportunities to learn reasoning and proof in high school mathematics textbooks. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 43, 253–295.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref60">
                        <label>60</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Uğurel, I.; Moralı, S. (2010). Bir Ortaöğretim Matematik Dersindeki Ispat Yapma Etkinliğine Yönelik Sınıf içi Tartışma Sürecine Öğrenci Söylemleri Çerçevesinde Yakından Bakış, Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 28, 135 – 154.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref61">
                        <label>61</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Vincent, J., &amp; Stacey, K. (2008). Do mathematics textbooks cultivate shallow teaching? Applying the TIMSS video study criteria to Australian eighth-grade mathematics textbooks. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 20(1), 82–107.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref62">
                        <label>62</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Valverde, G. A., Bianchi, L. J., Wolfe, R. G., Schmidt, W. H., &amp; Houang, R. T. (2002). According to the book: Using TIMSS to investigate the translation of policy into practice through the world of textbooks. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                            </ref-list>
                    </back>
    </article>
