Advertisement

Technology, Knowledge and Learning

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 83–104 | Cite as

Intelligent Tutoring and the Development of Argumentative Competence

  • Juan J. Paneque
  • Pedro Cobo
  • Josep M. Fortuny
Original research
First Online:

Abstract

This ethnographical study aims to interpret how an intelligent tutorial system, geogebraTUTOR, mediates to the student’s argumentative processes. Data consisted of four geometrical problems proposed to a group of four students aged 16–17. Qualitative analysis of two selected cases led to the identification of the development of argumentative competences by the students, as well as the level of influence produced to them. As regards the influence of geogebraTUTOR on the students, the study revealed that the interactions of tutor–teacher–student produced a significant number of mathematical learning opportunities of ‘thinking strategically’ type; establishing figural inference conjectures and fostering the transition from empirical to deductive argumentations.

Keywords

Intelligent tutorial systems GeogebraTUTOR Mathematical learning opportunities Argumentative competence Geometry problem solving 

Abbreviations

DGS

Dynamic geometry software

MLO

Mathematical learning opportunities

ITS

Intelligent tutorial systems

ggbTUTOR

GeogebraTUTOR

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The work reported herein is part of the research project EDU2011-23240, funded by the Spanish Ministry of Education. The authors wish to thank the teachers and students of the Pius Font i Quer secondary school from Manresa for their collaboration and the anonymous reviewers for their useful comments on earlier versions of the manuscript.

References

  1. Boukafri, K., Ferrer, M., & Planas, N. (2015). Whole class discussion in the context of mathematics problem solving with manipulatives. In Proceedings of the 9th congress of European research in mathematics education. Prague.Google Scholar
  2. Brewer, D. J., & Stasz, C. (1996). Enhancing opportunity to learn measures in NCES data. RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
  3. Cobb, P., & Whitenack, J. (1996). A method for conducting longitudinal analyses of classroom videorecordings and transcripts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 30(3), 213–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cobo, P. (1998). Análisis de los procesos cognitivos y de las interacciones sociales entre alumnos (16-17) en la resolución de problemas que comparan áreas de superficies planas. Un estudio de casos. (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
  5. Cobo, P., & Fortuny, J. M. (2000). Social interactions and cognitive effects in contexts of area-comparison problem solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 42, 115–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cobo, P., & Fortuny, J. M. (2007). AgentGeom: un sistema tutorial para el desarrollo de competencias argumentativas de los alumnos a través de la resolución de problemas. Matematicalia: Revista Digital de Divulgación Matemática de La Real Sociedad Matemática Española, 3(3). Retrieved from http://www.matematicalia.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=407&Itemid=242
  7. Cobo, P., Fortuny, J. M., Puertas, E., & Richard, P. R. (2007). AgentGeom: A multiagent system for pedagogical support in geometric proof problems. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 12(1), 57–79. doi: 10.1007/s10758-007-9111-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Denzin, N. K. (1970). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  9. Doorman, M., Drijvers, P., & Gravemeijer, K. (2012). Tool use and the development of the function concept: from repeated calculations to functional thinking. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(6), 1243–1267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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. doi: 10.1007/s10649-010-9254-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duval, R. (1995). Sémiosis et pensée humaine: registres sémiotiques et apprentissages intellectuels. Berne: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  12. Eisenhart, M. A. (1988). The ethnographic research tradition and mathematics education research. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19(2), 99–114. doi: 10.2307/749405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ferrer, M., Fortuny, J. M., & Morera, L. (2014). Efectos de la actuación docente en la generación de oportunidades de aprendizaje matemático. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 32(3), 385–405. doi: 10.5565/rev/ensciencias.1231.Google Scholar
  14. Flecha, R. (2000). Sharing words: Theory and practice of dialogic learning. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  15. Gutiérrez, Á. (2005). Aspectos de la investigación sobre aprendizaje de la demostración mediante exploración con software de geometría dinámica. In A. Maz, B. Gómez, & M. Torralbo (Eds.), Proceedings of the Noveno Simposio de la Sociedad Española de Educación Matemática SEIEM (pp. 27–44). Córdoba.Google Scholar
  16. Hart, K., Brown, M., & Kuchemann, D. (1981). Children’s understanding of mathematics: 11–16. London: John Murray.Google 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. doi: 10.1007/s10758-009-9151-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kieran, C. (2001). The mathematical discourse of 13-year-old partnered problem solving and its relation to the mathematics that emerges. An International Journal, 46(1), 187–228. doi: 10.1023/A:1014040725558.Google Scholar
  19. Kuzniak, A., & Richard, P. R. (2014). Spaces for mathematical work: Viewpoints and perspectives. Revista Latinoamericana de Investigación En Matemática Educativa (RELIME), 17(4-I), 5–15. doi: 10.12802/relime.13.1741b.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leatham, K. R., Peterson, B. E., Stockero, S. L., & Van Zoest, L. R. (2015). Conceptualizing mathematically significant pedagogical opportunities to build on student thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 46(1), 88–124. doi: 10.5951/jresematheduc.46.1.0088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Marrades, R., & Gutiérrez, Á. (2000). Proofs produced by secondary school students learning geometry in a dynamic computer environment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44(1–2), 87–125. doi: 10.1023/A:1012785106627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Morera, L. (2013). Contribución al estudio de la enseñanza y del aprendizaje de las isometrías mediante discusiones en gran grupo con el uso de tecnología. (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
  23. Morera, L., Planas, N., & Fortuny, J. M. (2013). Design and validation of a tool for the analysis of whole group discussions in the mathematics classroom. In B. Uhuz (Ed.), Proceedings of the 8th congress of the European society for research in mathematics education. ERME: Antalya, Turkey.Google Scholar
  24. Moschkovich, J. N. (2004). Appropriating mathematical practices: A case study of learning to use and explore functions through interaction with a tutor. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 55, 49–80. doi: 10.1023/B:EDUC.0000017691.13428.b9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. NCTM. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  26. Planas, N. (Ed.). (2010). Pensar i comunicar matemàtiques. Barcelona: Fundació Propedagògic.Google Scholar
  27. Rabardel, P., & Bourmaud, G. (2003). From computer to instrument system: A developmental perspective. Interacting with Computers, 15(5), 665–691. doi: 10.1016/S0953-5438(03)00058-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Richard, P. R. (2004). Raisonnement et stratégies de preuve dans l’enseignement des mathématiques. Berne: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  29. Richard, P. R., Fortuny, J. M., Gagnon, M., Leduc, N., Puertas, E., & Tessier-Baillargeon, M. (2011). Didactic and theoretical-based perspectives in the experimental development of an intelligent tutorial system for the learning of geometry. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 43(3), 425–439. doi: 10.1007/s11858-011-0320-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Richard, P. R., Iranzo, N., Fortuny, J. M., & Puertas, E. (2009). Influence of dynamic geometry and problem solving strategies toward an interactive tutorial system. In World conference on e-learning in corporate, government, healthcare, and higher education (Vol. 2009, pp. 649–658).Google Scholar
  31. Rowland, T., & Turner, F. (2008). How shall we talk about “subject knowledge”for mathematics teaching? In M. Joubert (Ed.), Proceedings of the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics (BSRLM) (Vol. 28, pp. 91–96). Retrieved from http://www.bsrlm.org.uk/IPs/ip28-2/BSRLM-IP-28-2-16.pdf
  32. Sfard, A., & Kieran, C. (2001). Cognition as communication: Rethinking learning-by-talking through multi-faceted analysis of students’ mathematical interactions. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 8(1), 42–76. doi: 10.1207/S15327884MCA0801-04.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Smith, M. S., & Stein, M. K. (2011). 5 practices for orchestrating productive mathematics discussions. Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  34. Stein, M. K., & Smith, M. S. (1998). Mathematical tasks as a framework for reflection: From research to practice. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 3(4), 268–275.Google Scholar
  35. Yackel, E., Cobb, P., & Wood, T. (1991). Small-group interactions as a source of learning opportunities in second-grade mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(5), 390–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juan J. Paneque
    • 1
  • Pedro Cobo
    • 1
  • Josep M. Fortuny
    • 1
  1. 1.Departament de Didàctica de la Matemàtica i de les Ciències ExperimentalsUniversitat Autònoma de BarcelonaBellaterraSpain

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options