Advertisement

Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education

, Volume 4, Issue 2–3, pp 110–138 | Cite as

The Development of a Framework for Assessing Dynamic Geometry Task Quality

  • Aaron Trocki
  • Karen Hollebrands
Article

Abstract

This study documents the development of a Framework (the Dynamic Geometry Task Analysis Framework) to be used to indicate the relative quality of tasks produced for dynamic geometry software. Its purpose is to assist curriculum writers and teachers in evaluating and creating dynamic geometry tasks. To produce it, numerous tasks submitted by secondary mathematics teachers as part of a year-long professional development program were analyzed, before creating three dynamic geometry mathematics tasks that, according to the Framework, were ranked as low, medium and high in quality. Semi-structured interviews with twelve high school students were conducted and analyzed to examine relationships between the quality of tasks as specified by the Framework and the quality of student argumentation. Results showed the Framework effectively reflects task quality based on student mathematical activity and argumentation.

Keywords

Dynamic geometry Mathematical task Task quality Instructional technology Geometry Secondary mathematics Student argumentation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This material is based upon work partially supported by the US National Science Foundation, under Grant No. DRL-0929543.

References

  1. 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
  2. Baccaglini-Frank, A., & Mariotti, M. (2010). Generating conjectures in dynamic geometry: The maintaining dragging model. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 15(3), 225–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. CCSSM. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: National Governors’ Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers.Google Scholar
  4. Christou, C., Mousoulides, N., Pittalis, M., & Pitta-Pantazi, D. (2004). Proofs through exploration in dynamic geometry environments. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(3), 339–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cirillo, M., Kosko, K., Newton, J., Staples, M., & Weber, K. (2015). Conceptions and consequences of what we call argumentation, justification, and proof. In T. Bartell, K. Bieda, R. Putnam, K. Bradfield, & H. Dominguez (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37 th Conference of the North-American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 1343–1351). East Lansing, MI: PME-NA.Google Scholar
  6. Connor, J., Moss, L., & Grover, B. (2007). Student evaluation of mathematical statements using dynamic geometry software. International Journal of Mathematics Education in Science and Technology, 38(1), 55–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Doyle, W. (1988). Work in mathematics classes: The context of students’ thinking during instruction. Educational Psychologist, 23(2), 167–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Edwards, L. (1997). Exploring the territory before proof: Students’ generalizations in a computer microworld for transformation geometry. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 2(3), 187–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goldin, G. (2000). A scientific perspective on structured, task-based interviews in mathematics education research. In A. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 517–545). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  10. Goos, M., Soury-Lavergne, S., Assude, T., Brown, J., Kong, C., Glover, D., Grugeon, B., Laborde, C., Lavicza, Z., Miller, D., & Sinclair, M. (2010). Teachers and teaching: Theoretical perspectives and issues concerning classroom implementation. In C. Hoyles & J.-B. Lagrange (Eds.), Mathematics education and technology: Rethinking the terrain (pp. 311–328). Lisbon: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Hollebrands, K. (2007). The role of a dynamic software program for geometry in the strategies high school mathematics students employ. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(2), 164–192.Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Hoyles, C., & Jones, K. (1998). Proof in dynamic geometry contexts. In C. Mammana & V. Villani (Eds.), Perspectives on the teaching of geometry for the 21 st century (pp. 121–128). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  14. Kaput, J. (1992). Technology and mathematics education. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and Learning (pp. 515–556). New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  15. Laborde, C. (2001). 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
  16. Mariotti, M. (2000). Introduction to proof: The mediation of a dynamic software environment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44(1–3), 25–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mariotti, M. (2012). Proof and proving in the classroom: Dynamic geometry systems as tools of semiotic mediation. Research in Mathematics Education, 14(2), 163–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mueller, M., Yankelewitz, D., & Maher, C. (2012). A framework for analyzing the collaborative construction of arguments and its interplay with agency. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 80(3), 369–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. NCTM. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  20. Polya, G (1954). Mathematics and plausible reasoning. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
  21. Resnick, L. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  22. Sinclair, M. (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
  23. Sinclair, M. (2004). Working with accurate representations: The case of pre-constructed dynamic geometry sketches. The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 23(2), 191–208.Google Scholar
  24. Smith, M., & Stein, M. (1998). Selecting and creating mathematical tasks: From research to practice. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 3(5), 344–350.Google Scholar
  25. Staples, M., Bartlo, J., & Thanheiser, E. (2012). Justification as a teaching and learning practice: Its (potential) multifaceted role in middle grades mathematics classrooms. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31(4), 447–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Staples, M., Newton, J., Kosko, K., Conner, A., Cirillo, M., & Bieda, K. (2016). Conceptions and consequences of what we call argumentation, justification, and proof. In M. Wood, E. Turner, M. Civil, & J. Eli (Eds.), Proceedings of the 38 th Conference of the North-American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 1704–1712). Tucson: PME-NA.Google Scholar
  27. Stylianides, A. (2007). Proof and proving in school mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(3), 289–321.Google Scholar
  28. Stylianides, G. (2008). An analytic framework of reasoning-and-proving. For the Learning of Mathematics, 28(1), 9–16.Google Scholar
  29. Toulmin, S. (1958/2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Trocki, A. (2014). Evaluating and writing dynamic geometry tasks. Mathematics Teacher, 107(9), 701–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Trocki, A. (2015). Designing and examining the effects of a dynamic geometry task analysis framework on teachers’ written Geometer’s Sketchpad tasks. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Raleigh: North Carolina State University. (http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/resolver/1840.16/10437).
  32. de Villiers, M. (1998). An alternative approach to proof in dynamic geometry. In R. Lehrer & D. Chazan (Eds.), New directions in teaching and learning geometry (pp. 369–393). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  33. Zbiek, R., Heid, K., Blume, G., & Dick, T. (2007). Research on technology in mathematics education. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 1169–1207). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Elon UniversityElonUSA
  2. 2.North Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations