Advertisement

Development of mathematical connection skills in a dynamic learning environment

  • Yılmaz ZenginEmail author
Article
  • 71 Downloads

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of GeoGebra software on pre-service teachers’ mathematical connection skills. The participants of the study comprised 22 pre-service mathematics teachers. A mathematical connection self-efficacy scale and an open-ended questionnaire regarding mathematical connection skills were used as data collection tools. The implementations undertaken with the participants lasted 13 weeks in the dynamic learning environment. After GeoGebra implementations, the quantitative data were analyzed using a dependent t-test and the qualitative data obtained with the open-ended questionnaire were analyzed using descriptive analysis. Based on the results, it was determined that GeoGebra software could be used as an important tool for the development of mathematical connection skills.

Keywords

Mathematical connection Dynamic learning environment GeoGebra Pre-service teachers 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Albaladejo, I. R. M., García, M. D. M., & Codina, A. (2015). Developing mathematical competencies in secondary students by introducing dynamic geometry systems in the classroom. Education and Science, 40(177), 43–58.Google Scholar
  2. Anthony, G., & Walshaw, M. (2009). Effective pedagogy in mathematics. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Educational practices series-19 (pp. 15–16). Belgium: International Academy of Education (IAE).Google Scholar
  3. Baki, A. (2008). Kuramdan uygulamaya matematik eğitimi [Mathematics education from theory into practice]. Ankara: Harf Education Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71–81). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bosse, M. J. (2007). Beautiful mathematics and beautiful ınstruction: Aesthetics within the NCTM standards. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 1–15 Retrieved from http://www.cimt.org.uk/journal/bosse2.pdf. Accessed 21 July 2017.
  6. Bu, L., & Hohenwarter, M. (2015). Modeling for dynamic mathematics toward technology-integrated aesthetic experiences in school mathematics. In X. Ge, D. Ifenthaler, & J. M. Spector (Eds.), Emerging technologies for STEAM education. Educational communications and technology: Issues and innovations (pp. 355–379). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bu, L., Spector, J. M., & Haciomeroglu, E. S. (2011). Toward model-centered mathematics learning and instruction using GeoGebra: A theoretical framework for learning mathematics with understanding. In L. Bu & R. Schoen (Eds.), Model-Centered Learning: Pathways to Mathematical Understanding Using GeoGebra (pp. 13–40). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chapman, O. (2012). Challenges in mathematics teacher education. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 15(4), 263–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clark-Wilson, A., & Hoyles, C. (2017). Dynamic digital Technologies for Dynamic Mathematics: Implications for teachers’ knowledge and practice. London: UCL Institute of Education Press.Google Scholar
  10. Collings, P. B. (2001). Fathom: Dynamic systems software. The American Statistician, 55(3), 258–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dikovic, L. (2009). Implementing dynamic mathematics resources with GeoGebra at the college level. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 4(3), 51–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eli, J. A., Mohr-Schroeder, M. J., & Lee, C. W. (2013). Mathematical connections and their relationship to mathematics knowledge for teaching geometry. School Science and Mathematics, 113(3), 120–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Furner, J. M., & Marinas, C. A. (2012). Connecting geometry, measurement, and algebra using GeoGebra for the elementary grades. In P. Bogacki (Ed.), Twenty-fourth Annual International Conference on Technology in Collegiate Mathematics (pp. 63–72). Orlando: Pearson Education Inc..Google Scholar
  15. Furner, J. M., & Marinas, C. A. (2013). Learning math concepts in your environment using photography and GeoGebra. In P. Bogacki (Ed.), Twenty-fifth Annual International Conference on Technology in Collegiate Mathematics (pp. 209–218). Boston: Pearson Education Inc..Google Scholar
  16. García-García, J., & Dolores-Flores, C. (2018). Intra-mathematical connections made by high school students in performing Calculus tasks. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 49(2), 227–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Garofalo, J., Drier, H., Harper, S., Timmerman, M. A., & Shockey, T. (2000). Promoting appropriate uses of technology in mathematics teacher preparation. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 1(1), 66–88.Google Scholar
  18. Gómez-Chacón, I. M. (2011). Mathematics attitudes in computerized environments: A proposal using GeoGebra. In L. Bu & R. Schoen (Eds.), Model-centered learning: Pathways to mathematical understanding using GeoGebra (pp. 145–168). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hansen, H. B. (2004). The effects of the use of dynamic geometry software on student achievement and interest. Unpublished master’s thesis. Bemidji State Universıty, Bemidji, Minnesota, USA.Google Scholar
  20. Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 65–97). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  21. Hohenwarter, M. (2011). Mirrors and dragonflies--dynamic investigations with GeoGebra. New England Mathematics Journal, 43, 36–46.Google Scholar
  22. Hohenwarter, M., & Hohenwarter, J. (2013). Introduction to GeoGebra version 4.4. Retrieved from www.geogebra.org
  23. Hohenwarter, M., & Jones, K. (2007). Ways of linking geometry and algebra: The case of GeoGebra. Proceedings of the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics, 27(3), 126–131.Google Scholar
  24. Hohenwarter, M., & Lavicza, Z. (2009). The strength of the community: How GeoGebra can inspire technology integration in mathematics teaching. MSOR Connections, 9(2), 3–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hoyles, C., & Jones, K. (1998). Proof in dynamic geometry contexts. In C. Mammana & V. Villani (Eds.), Perspectives on the teaching of geometry for the 21st century (pp. 121–128). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  26. Jones, K. (2000). Providing a foundation for deductive reasoning: students' interpretations when using dynamic geometry software and their evolving mathematical explanations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44(1–2), 55–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jones, K. (2002). Research on the use of dynamic geometry software: Implications for the classroom. MicroMath, 18(3), 18–20.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  28. Lavy, I., & Shriki, A. (2010). Engaging in problem posing activities in a dynamic geometry setting and the development of prospective teachers’ mathematical knowledge. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 29(1), 11–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lee, J. E. (2012). Prospective elementary teachers’ perceptions of real-life connections reflected in posing and evaluating story problems. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 15(6), 429–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Leikin, R., & Levav-Waynberg, A. (2007). Exploring mathematics teacher knowledge to explain the gap between theory-based recommendations and school practice in the use of connecting tasks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66(3), 349–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Leong, K. E. (2013). Impact of Geometer's sketchpad on students’ achievement in graph functions. The Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology, 1(2), 19–33.Google Scholar
  32. Livy, S., & Vale, C. (2011). First year pre-service teachers' mathematical content knowledge: Methods of solution to a ratio question. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 13(2), 22–43.Google Scholar
  33. McMillan, J., & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry (7th ed.). Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
  34. Mousoulides, N. G. (2011). GeoGebra as a conceptual tool for modelling real world problems. In L. Bu & R. Schoen (Eds.), Model-centered learning: Pathways to mathematical understanding using GeoGebra (pp. 105–118). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2005). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  36. Nicol, C. (2002). Where’s the math? Prospective teachers visit the workplace. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 50(3), 289–309.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. O’Donnell, A. (2011). Using Geometer’s Sketchpad to improve student attitudes in the mathematics classroom. Unpublished Master thesis. Minot State University, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Minot, North Dakota.Google Scholar
  38. Özgen. (2013a). An investigation of primary mathematics preservice teachers’ views and skills towards mathematical connection. Turkish Studies, 8(8), 2001–2020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Özgen, K. (2013b). Mathematical connection skill in the context of problem solving: The case of pre-service teachers. E–Journal of New World Sciences Academy, 8(3), 323–345.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Özgen, K. (2016). A theoretical study on the mathematical connection. In W. Wu, M. T. Hebebci, & O. T. Öztürk (Eds.), International Conference on Research in Education and Science (pp. 220–230). Bodrum: ICRES Publishing.Google Scholar
  41. Özgen, K., & Bindak, R. (2018). Development of mathematical connection self-efficacy scale. Kastamonu Education Journal, 26(3), 913–924.Google Scholar
  42. Piaget, J. (1977). The language and thought of the child (2nd ed.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul (Original work published 1926).Google Scholar
  43. Schwalbach, E. M., & Dosemagen, D. M. (2000). Developing student understanding: Contextualizing calculus concepts. School Science and Mathematics, 100(2), 90–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Shamatha, J. H., Peressini, D., & Meymaris, K. (2004). Technology-supported mathematics activities situated within an effective learning environment theoretical framework. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 3(4), 362–381.Google Scholar
  45. Shockey, T. L., Zhang, P., & Brosnan, P. (2016). An alternative triangle area strategy. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4(3), 346–352.Google Scholar
  46. Sinclair, M. (2004). Working with accurate representations: The case of preconstructed dynamic geometry sketches. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 23(2), 191–208.Google Scholar
  47. Tran, T., Nguyen, N. G., Bui, M. D., & Phan, A. H. (2014). Discovery learning with the help of the geogebra dynamic geometry software. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 7(1), 44–57.Google Scholar
  48. Turkish Ministry of National Education [TMoNE]. (2013). Mathematics curriculum for secondary schools Grades 9–12. Retrieved from http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/www/guncellenen-ogretim-programlari/icerik/151
  49. Velichová, D. (2011). Interactive maths with GeoGebra. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 6(1), 31–35.Google Scholar
  50. Yavuz-Mumcu, H. (2018). A theoretical examination of the mathematical connection skill: The case of the concept of derivative. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 9(2), 211–248.Google Scholar
  51. Yiğit-Koyunkaya, M., Uğurel, I., & Tataroğlu-Taşdan, B. (2018). Reflection of preservice teachers’ thoughts about connecting mathematics and real life situations on their mathematics learning activities. Journal of Uludag University of Faculty of Education, 31(1), 177–206.Google Scholar
  52. Zengin, Y. (2018a). Examination of the constructed dynamic bridge between the concepts of differential and derivative with the integration of GeoGebra and the ACODESA method. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 99(3), 311–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zengin, Y. (2018b). Incorporating the dynamic mathematics software GeoGebra into a history of mathematics course. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 49(7), 1083–1098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Ziya Gökalp Education FacultyDicle UniversityDiyarbakırTurkey

Personalised recommendations