Designing a Microworld for Topological Equivalence

Article

Abstract

In order to facilitate the development of a model of two children’s topological ideas, I required a tool that could support fundamental topological representations and transformations so that their reasoning could be made visible and further developed. In this article I document the theoretically and conceptually oriented design process through which I developed a microworld for topological equivalence that I used in my teaching experiments. Emphasis is given to key design decisions I arrived at as I aimed to design an exploratory environment that could be used to engage and advance children’s reasoning about topological ideas.

Keywords

Microworld Dynamic geometry environment Topological reasoning Geometric reasoning 

Supplementary material

40751_2017_35_MOESM1_ESM.docx (255 kb)
ESM 1(DOCX 255 kb)
40751_2017_35_MOESM2_ESM.docx (54 kb)
ESM 2(DOCX 54 kb)

References

  1. Ares, N., Stroup, W., & Schademan, A. (2009). The power of mediating artifacts in group-level development of mathematical discourses. Cognition and Instruction, 27(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balacheff, N., & Kaput, J. (1996). Computer-based learning environments in mathematics. In A. Bishop, K. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & C. Laborde (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics education (pp. 469–504). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Baulac, Y., Bellemain, F., & Laborde, J.-M. (1994). Cabri II [computer software]. Dallas: Texas Instruments.Google Scholar
  4. Bringuier, J.-C. (1980). Conversations with Jean Piaget. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Clements, D. (2004). Geometric and spatial thinking in early childhood education. In D. Clements & J. Sarama (Eds.), Engaging young children in mathematics (pp. 267–297). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  6. Clements, D., Swaminathan, S., Hannibal, M., & Sarama, J. (1999). Young children’s concepts of shape. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(2), 192–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cuoco, A., & Goldenberg, P. (1997). Dynamic geometry as a bridge from Euclidean geometry to analysis. In J. King & D. Schattschneider (Eds.), Geometry turned on: Dynamic software in learning, teaching, and research (pp. 33–44). Washington, DC: The Mathematical Association of America.Google Scholar
  9. Esty, E. (1971). An investigation of children’s concepts of certain aspects of topology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Cambridge: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  10. Flavell, J. (1963). The developmental psychology of Jean Piaget. Princeton: D. van Nostrand Company, Inc..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gamwell, L. (2015). Mathematics and art: A cultural history. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Goldenberg, P., & Cuoco, A. (1998). What is dynamic geometry? In R. Lehrer & D. Chazan (Eds.), Designing learning environments for developing understanding of geometry and space (pp. 351–367). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  13. Gravemeijer, K. (1998). Developmental research as a research method. In A. Sierpinska & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), Mathematics education as a research domain: A search for identity, Part 1 (pp. 277–296). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  14. Greenstein, S. (2011). ReConfiguring the teaching experiment: Developing a software environment to expand the methodological possibilities. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  15. Greenstein, S. (2014). Making sense of qualitative geometry: The case of Amanda. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 36, 73–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Greenstein, S., & Remmler, C. (2009). Configure [computer software]. (Configure is a dynamic geometry environment that supports qualitative transformations of plane figures).Google Scholar
  17. Greenstein, S., & Remmler, C. (2016). Configure 2.0 [computer software].Google Scholar
  18. Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (1987). Children working in a structured logo environment: From doing to understanding. Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques, 8(1/2), 131–174.Google Scholar
  19. Jackiw, N. (2012). The Geometer’s Sketchpad [computer software]. (5.05 edn). Emeryville: Key Curriculum Press.Google Scholar
  20. Kamii, C., & Housman, L. (2000). Young children reinvent arithmetic: Implications of Piaget’s theory. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kranich, S. (2015). Continuity in dynamic geometry: An algorithmic approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Munich: Technical University of Munich.Google Scholar
  22. Laborde, C. (2001). Integration of technology in the design of geometry tasks with cabri-geometry. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6, 283–317. Google Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Laborde, C., & Laborde, J.-M. (1995). The case of Cabri-géomètre: Learning geometry in a computer-based environment. In D. Watson & D. Tinsley (Eds.), Integrating information technology into education (pp. 95–106). Boston: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Laborde, C., & Laborde, J.-M. (2011). Interactivity in dynamic mathematics environments: What does that mean? http://actm.mathandtech.org/EP2011/invited_papers/3272011_19113.pdf.
  26. Laurendeau, M., & Pinard, A. (1970). The development of the concept of space in the child. New York: International University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Lehrer, R., & Chazan, D. (Eds.). (1998). Designing learning environments for developing understanding of geometry and space. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  28. Lehrer, R., Jenkins, M., & Osana, H. (1998). Longitudinal study of children's reasoning about space and geometry. In R. Lehrer & D. Chazan (Eds.), Designing learning environments for developing understanding of geometry and space (pp. 137–168). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  29. Lovell, K. (1959). A follow-up study of some aspects of the work of Piaget and Inhelder on the child's conception of space. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 29(2), 104–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Martin, J. (1976a). An analysis of some of Piaget’s topological tasks from a mathematical point of view. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 7(1), 8–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Martin, J. (1976b). A test with selected topological properties of Piaget’s hypothesis concerning the spatial representation of the young child. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 7(1), 26–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (1996). Windows on mathematical meanings: Learning cultures and computers. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Papert, S. (1980/1993). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  34. Piaget, J. (1970a). Genetic epistemology. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Piaget, J. (1970b). Structuralism (C. Maschler, trans.). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  36. Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1956). The child’s conception of space. New York: The Humanities Press.Google Scholar
  37. Poncelet, J.-V. (1822). Traité des propriétés projectives des figures [Treatise on the projective properties of figures]. Paris: Gauthier-Villars.Google Scholar
  38. Richter-Gebert, J., & Kortenkamp, U. (1999). The interactive geometry software Cinderella. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  39. Schwartz, J. (1995). The right size byte: Reflections of an educational software designer. In D. Perkins, J. Schwartz, M. Weat, & M. Wiske (Eds.), Software goes to school: Teaching for understanding with new technologies (pp. 172–181). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Schwartz, J., & Yerushalmy, M. (1992). The Geometric superSupposer [computer software]. Pleasantville: Sunburst Communications.Google Scholar
  41. Schwartz, J., & Yerushalmy, M. (2003). Getting students to function in algebra. Unpublished manuscript. Haifa: The Institute for Alternatives in Education, University of Haifa.Google Scholar
  42. diSessa, A. (2000). Changing minds: Computers, language, and literacy. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  43. Shapiro, S. (Ed.). (2005). The Oxford handbook of philosophy of mathematics and logic. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Sinclair, N., & Yurita, V. (2005). Characteristic features of discourse in a Sketchpad classroom. In G. Lloyd, M. Wilson, J. Wilkins, & S. Behm (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th annual meeting of the north American chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of mathematics education (pp. 977–981). Roanoke: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.Google Scholar
  45. Steffe, L., & Thompson, P. (2000). Teaching experiment methodology: Underlying principles and essential elements. In A. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 267–306). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  46. Thompson, P. (1982). Were lions to speak, we wouldn’t understand. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 3(2), 147–165.Google Scholar
  47. Thompson, P. (1996). Imagery and the development of mathematical reasoning. In L. Steffe, P. Nesher, P. Cobb, G. Goldin, & B. Greer (Eds.), Theories of mathematical learning (pp. 267–284). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  48. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematical SciencesMontclair State UniversityMontclairUSA

Personalised recommendations