Abstract
We explored transformations that teachers made to modify geometry proof problems into investigation problems and analyzed how these transformations differ in teachers who use a dynamic geometry environment (DGE) in their classes and those who do not. We devised a framework for the analysis of problem transformations and types of teacher-generated problems. We introduce distinctions between static and dynamic transformations of geometry problems. By observing differences in the transformations the teachers made and the types of problems they produced, we suggest that teachers who use DGE in their classes develop a better understanding of geometry investigation tasks and have no difficulty in transforming proof problems into investigation discovery problems through teaching. Furthermore, we suggest that working with DGE leads to more changes in the givens of the problems and to more dynamic transformations of a problem. From the differences we found in relation to the various problems used in this study, we conclude that problem transformations are problem dependent. Finally, we argue that problem transformation is teachable but requires special training.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Borba, M. C., & Villarreal, M. E. (2005). Humans-with-media and the reorganization of mathematical thinking: Information and communication technologies, modeling, visualization, and experimentation. New York: Springer.
Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Brown, S., & Walter, M. (1993). Problem posing: Reflections and applications. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brown, S., & Walter, M. (2005). The art of problem posing (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Christou, Mousoulides, Pitta-Pantazi, Pittalis, & Sriraman. (2005). An empirical taxonomy of problem posing processes. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 37, 149–158.
Da Ponte, J. P. (2007). Investigations and explorations in the mathematics classroom. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 39, 419–430.
Duncker, K. (1945). On problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 58 (5, Whole No. 270).
Fennema, E., & Romberg, T. A. (Eds.). (1999). Classrooms that promote mathematical understanding. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Friedlander, A., & Dreyfus, T. (1993). Is the graph of y = kx straight? In S. Brown & M. Walter (Eds.), Problem posing: Reflections and applications (pp. 204–219). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hanna, G., & De Villiers, M. (Eds.). (2012). Proofs and proving in mathematics education. The 19th ICMI Study. New York: Springer.
Healy, D., & Hoyles, O. (2001). Software tools for geometrical potentials and pitfalls. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6, 63–86.
Healy, L., & Lagrange, J.-B. (2010). Introduction to section 3. In C. Hoyles & J.-B. Lagrange (Eds.), Mathematics education and technology. Rethinking the terrain. The 17th ICMI Study (pp. 287–292). New York: Springer.
Hoehn, L. (1993). Problem posing in geometry. In S. Brown & M. Walter (Eds.), Problem posing: Reflections and applications (pp. 281–288). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hölzl, R. (1996). How does ‘dragging’ affect the learning of geometry? International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 1, 169–187.
Hoyles, C., & Lagrange, J.-B. (Eds.). (2010). Mathematics education and technology. Rethinking the terrain. The 17th ICMI Study. New York: Springer.
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, 55–85.
Jones, D. L. and Shaw, K. L. (1988). Reopening the equilateral triangle problem: What happens if… Mathematics Teacher, 81, 634–638.
Laborde, C. (1992). Solving problems in computer based geometry environments: the influence of the features of the software. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 92(4), 128–135.
Leikin, R. (2004). Towards high quality geometrical tasks: Reformulation of a proof problem. In M. J. Hoines & A. B. Fuglestad (Eds.). Proceedings of the 28th International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Vol. 3, 209–216
Leung, S. S., & Silver, E. A. (1997). The role of task format, mathematics knowledge, and creative thinking on the arithmetic problem posing of prospective elementary school teachers. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 9(1), 5–24. Australia.
Mamona-Downs, J. (1993). On analyzing problem posing. In I. Hirabayashi, N. Nohda, K. Shigematsu & F. L. Lin (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. III, pp. 41–47). Tsukuba (Japan): International Group for the Psychology in Mathematics Education.
Mariotti, M. A. (2002). The influence of technological advances on students’ mathematics learning. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 695–723). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Marrades, R., & Gutierrez, A. (2000). Proofs produced by secondary school students learning geometry in a dynamic computer environment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44(n1–2), 87–125.
Pehkonen, E. (1995). Using open-ended problem in mathematics. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 27(2), 67–71.
Schwartz, J. L., Yerushalmy, M., & Wilson, B. (Eds.). (1993). The geometric supposer: What is it a case of? Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Silver, E. A. (1994). On mathematical problem posing. For the Learning of Mathematics, 14, 19–28.
Silver, E. A., Mamona-Downs, J., Leung, S. S., & Kenny, P. A. (1996). Posing mathematical problems in a complex environment: An exploratory study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 293–309.
Stoyanova, E. (1998). Problem posing in mathematics classrooms. In A. McIntosh & N. Ellerton (Eds.), Research in mathematics education: A contemporary perspective (pp. 164–185). Perth: MASTEC Publication.
Talmon, V., & Yerushalmy, M. (2004). Understanding dynamic behavior: parent–child relations in dynamic geometry environments. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 57, 91–119.
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wells, G. (2001). Action, talk, and text: The case for dialogic inquiry. Retrieved on August 31, 2011 from: http://people.ucsc.edu/~gwells/Files/Papers_Folder/ATT.theory.pdf
Yerushalmy, M., Chazan, D., & Gordon, M. (1990). Mathematical problem posing: Implications for facilitating student inquiry in classrooms. Instructional Science, 19, 219–245.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Leikin, R., Grossman, D. Teachers modify geometry problems: from proof to investigation. Educ Stud Math 82, 515–531 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9460-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9460-4