Advertisement

Technology, Knowledge and Learning

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 287–315 | Cite as

A Model for Task Design with Focus on Exploration, Explanation, and Generalization in a Dynamic Geometry Environment

  • Maria Fahlgren
  • Mats Brunström
Article
First Online:

Abstract

The increasing availability of new technologies in schools provides new possibilities for the integration of technology in mathematics education. However, research has shown that there is a need for new kinds of task that utilize the affordances provided by new technology. Numerous studies have demonstrated that dynamic geometry environments provide opportunities for students to engage in mathematical activities such as exploration, conjecturing, explanation, and generalization. This paper presents a model for design of tasks that promote these kinds of mathematical activity, especially tasks that foster students to make generalizations. This model has been primarily developed to suit the use of dynamic environments in tackling geometrical locus problems. The model was initially constructed in the light of previous literature. This initial model was used to design a concrete example of such a task situation which was tested in action through a case study with two doctoral students. Findings from this case study were used to guide revision of the initial model.

Keywords

Mathematics education Task design Dynamic geometry Technology 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Alcock, L., & Inglis, M. (2008). Doctoral students’ use of examples in evaluating and proving conjectures. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 69(2), 111–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arzarello, F., Olivero, F., Paola, D., & Robutti, O. (2002). A cognitive analysis of dragging practises in cabri environments. ZDM the International Journal on Mathematics Education, 34(3), 66–72.Google Scholar
  3. Baccaglini-Frank, A., & Mariotti, M. A. (2010). Generating conjectures in dynamic geometry: The maintaining dragging model. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 15(3), 225–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chazan, D. (1990a). Quasi-empirical views of mathematics and mathematics teaching. Interchange, 21(1), 14–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chazan, D. (1990b). Students’ microcomputer-aided exploration in geometry. Mathematics Teacher, 83(8), 628–635.Google Scholar
  6. De Villiers, M. (1990). The role and function of proof in mathematics. Pythagoras, 24, 17–24.Google Scholar
  7. De Villiers, M. (2004). Using dynamic geometry to expand mathematics teachers’ understanding of proof. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 35(5), 703–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Doorman, M., Drijvers, P., Dekker, T., van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., de Lange, J., & Wijers, M. (2007). Problem solving as a challenge for mathematics education in the Netherlands. ZDM the International Journal on Mathematics Education, 39(5), 405–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Drijvers, P., Doorman, M., Boon, P., Reed, H., & Gravemeijer, K. (2010). The teacher and the tool: Instrumental orchestrations in the technology-rich mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 75(2), 213–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Edwards, L. D. (1997). Exploring the territory before proof: Student‘s generalizations in a computer microworld for transformation geometry. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 2(3), 187–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Furinghetti, F., & Paola, D. (2003). To produce conjectures and to prove them within a dynamic geometry environment: A case study. Proceedings of the Twenty Seventh Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 2, 404.Google Scholar
  12. Guven, B. (2008). Using dynamic geometry software to gain insight into a proof. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 13(3), 251–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hadas, N., Hershkowitz, R., & Schwarz, B. B. (2000). The role of contradiction and uncertainty in promoting the need to prove in dynamic geometry environments. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44(1), 127–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hanna, G. (2000). Proof, explanation and exploration: An overview. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44(1), 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hanna, G., & Jahnke, H. N. (1996). Proof and proving. In A. J. Bishop, M. A. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & C. Laborde (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics education (pp. 877–908). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  16. Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (2002). Software tools for geometrical problem solving: Potentials and pitfalls. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6(3), 235–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hitt, F., & Kieran, C. (2009). Constructing knowledge via a peer interaction in a CAS environment with tasks designed from a task—technique—theory perspective. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 14(2), 121–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hölzl, R. (2001). Using dynamic geometry software to add contrast to geometric situations—a case study. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6(1), 63–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Kieran, C., & Saldanha, L. (2008). Designing tasks for the codevelopment of conceptual and technical knowledge in CAS activity: An example from factoring. In G. W. Blume & K. M. Heid (Eds.), Research on technology and the teaching and learning of mathematics: Vol. 2, cases and perspectives (pp. 393–414). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  21. Laborde, C. (2002). Integration of technology in the design of geometry tasks with cabri-geometry. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6(3), 283–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leung, A. (2011). An epistemic model of task design in dynamic geometry environment. ZDM the International Journal on Mathematics Education, 43(3), 325–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leung, A., & Lopez-Real, F. (2002). Theorem justification and acquisition in dynamic geometry: A case of proof by contradiction. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 7(2), 145–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lin, F. L., Yang, K. L., Lee, K. H., Tabach, M., & Stylianides, G. (2012). Principles of task design for conjecturing and proving. In G. Hanna & M. de Villiers (Eds.), Proof and proving in mathematics education. the 19th ICMI study (pp. 305–325). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Lopez-Real, F., & Leung, A. (2006). Dragging as a conceptual tool in dynamic geometry environments. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 37(6), 665–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Marrades, R., & Gutierrez, A. (2000). Proofs produced by secondary school students learning geometry in a dynamic computer environment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44(1), 87–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mason, J., Burton, L., & Stacey, K. (2010). Thinking mathematically (2nd ed.). Dorchester: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  28. Mogetta, C., Olivero, F., & Jones, K. (1999). Providing the motivation to prove in a dynamic geometry environment. Proceedings of the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics, 19(2), 96.Google Scholar
  29. Olivero, F., & Robutti, O. (2007). Measuring in dynamic geometry environments as a tool for conjecturing and proving. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 12(2), 135–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Öner, D. (2008). Supporting students’ participation in authentic proof activities in computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environments. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(3), 343–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pierce, R., & Ball, L. (2009). Perceptions that may affect teachers’ intention to use technology in secondary mathematics classes. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 71(3), 299–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pólya, G. (1945). How to solve it. Princton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Raman, M. (2003). Key ideas: What are they and how can they help us understand how people view proof? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 52(3), 319–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ruthven, K. (2009). Towards a naturalistic conceptualisation of technology integration in classroom practice: The example of school mathematics. Education & Didactique, 3(1), 131–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ruthven, K., Hennessy, S., & Deaney, R. (2008). Constructions of dynamic geometry: A study of the interpretative flexibility of educational software in classroom practice. Computers & Education, 51(1), 297–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Santos-Trigo, M., & Espinosa-Perez, H. (2002). Searching and exploring properties of geometric configurations using dynamic software. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 33(1), 37–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sinclair, M. P. (2003). Some implications of the results of a case study for the design of pre-constructed, dynamic geometry sketches and accompanying materials. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 52(3), 289–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stylianides, A. J., & Ball, D. L. (2008). Understanding and describing mathematical knowledge for teaching: Knowledge about proof for engaging students in the activity of proving. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(4), 307–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Weber, K. (2005). Problem-solving, proving, and learning: The relationship between problem-solving processes and learning opportunities in the activity of proof construction. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 24(3–4), 351–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Weber, K., & Alcock, L. (2004). Semantic and syntactic proof productions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 56(2), 209–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yerushalmy, M. (1993). Generalization in geometry. In J. L. Schwartz, M. J. Yerushalmy, & B. Wilson (Eds.), The geometric supposer: What is it a case of? (pp. 57–84). USA: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  42. Zehavi, N., & Mann, G. (2011). Development process of a praxeology for supporting the teaching of proofs in a CAS environment based on teachers’ experience in a professional development course. Technology Knowledge and Learning, 16(2), 153–181.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and Computer ScienceKarlstad UniversityKarlstadSweden

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options