Abstract
Digital technologies for mathematics education are continuously developing. Still, much remains unknown about how students use these tools and how this affects learning. For example, tablets nowadays come with multi-touch options that allow for a more embodied approach to geometry education, compared to mouse interactions. However, little is known about how students use these opportunities to develop bodily-based conceptualizations of geometric concepts in a touch-based dynamic geometry environment (DGE). The aim of this study was to investigate students’ dragging schemes from an embodied instrumentation perspective and to identify the types of embodied-dragging schemes that the students use, while transforming one type of parallelogram into another. Fifty-seven 11-year-old students worked on a task on transforming a given parallelogram into a rectangle and next into a square, using a tablet-enabled DGE. Results showed that students used three types of embodied dragging schemes: (a) action-perception dragging guided by perceived prototypical images of shapes, (b) sequentially-coordinated dragging based on initial perception and then utilizing the affordances of the artefacts, and (c) adaptive dragging, effectively integrating action-perception loops and geometrical properties. In schemes of types (b) and (c), geometric properties of the constructed shapes emerged and guided students’ action-perception loops. As a conclusion, this description informs teachers, textbook authors, and designers of digital assessment on how to design student activities. From a theoretical perspective, the embodied instrumentation lens provided a fruitful approach to study student–tool interactions in geometry that does justice to the bodily foundations of mathematical cognition.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abrahamson, D., & Bakker, A. (2016). Making sense of movement in embodied design for mathematics learning. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 1(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-016-0034-3
Abrahamson, D., & Sánchez-García, R. (2016). Learning is moving in new ways: The ecological dynamics of mathematics education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(2), 203–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2016.1143370
Alberto, R., Bakker, A., Walker-van Aalst, O., Boon, P., & Drijvers, P. (2019). Networking theories with design research: An embodied instrumentation case study in trigonometry. In U. T. Jankvist, M. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, & M. Veldhuis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 3088–3095). Freudenthal Group & Freudenthal Institute, Utrecht University and ERME. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02418076
Alibali, M. W., & Nathan, M. J. (2012). Embodiment in mathematics teaching and learning: Evidence from learners’ and teachers’ gestures. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(2), 247–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.611446
Artigue, M. (2002). Learning mathematics in a CAS environment: The genesis of a reflection about instrumentation and the dialectics between technical and conceptual work. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 7(3), 245–274. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022103903080
Arzarello, F., Bartolini Bussi, M. G., Leung, A. Y. L., Mariotti, M. A., & Stevenson, I. (2012). Experimental approaches to theoretical thinking: Artefacts and proofs. In G. Hanna & M. De Villiers (Eds.), Proof and proving in mathematics education (pp. 97–143). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2129-6_5
Arzarello, F., Olivero, F., Paola, D., & Robutti, O. (2002). A cognitive analysis of dragging practices in Cabri environments. ZDM-Mathematics Education, 34(3), 66–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02655708
Baccaglini-Frank, A. (2019). Dragging, instrumented abduction and evidence, in processes of conjecture generation in a dynamic geometry environment. ZDM-Mathematics Education, 51(5), 779–791. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01046-8
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-010-9169-3
Baggs, E., & Chemero, A. (2018). Radical embodiment in two directions. Synthese, 198, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-02020-9
Barsalou, L. W. (2010). Grounded cognition: Past, present, and future. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2(4), 716–724. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01115.x
Drijvers, P. (2019). Embodied instrumentation: Combining different views on using digital technology in mathematics education. In U. T. Jankvist, M. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, & M. Veldhuis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 8-28). Freudenthal Group & Freudenthal Institute, Utrecht University and ERME. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02436279v1
Dubé, A. K., & McEwen, R. N. (2015). Do gestures matter? The implications of using touchscreen devices in mathematics instruction. Learning and Instruction, 40, 89–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.09.002
Duijzer, C., Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., Veldhuis, M., Doorman, M., & Leseman, P. (2019). Embodied learning environments for graphing motion: A systematic literature review. Educational Psychology Review, 31(3), 597–629. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09471-7
Duval, R. (1995). Geometrical pictures: Kinds of representation and specific processings. In R. Sutherland & J. Mason (Eds.), Exploiting mental imagery with computers in mathematics education (pp. 142–157). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-57771-0_10
Duval, R. (2017). Understanding the mathematical way of thinking-The registers of semiotic representations. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56910-9
Flood, V. J., Shvarts, A., & Abrahamson, D. (2020). Teaching with embodied learning technologies for mathematics: Responsive teaching for embodied learning. ZDM-Mathematics Education, 52(7), 1307–1331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01165-7
Georgiou, Y., Ioannou, A., & Kosmas, P. (2021). Comparing a digital and a non-digital embodied learning intervention in geometry: Can technology facilitate. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 30(2), 345–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2021.1874501
Hershkowitz, R. (1989). Visualization in geometry--Two sides of the coin. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 11, 61–76.
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. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011464425023
Leung, A. (2008). Dragging in a dynamic geometry environment through the lens of variation. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 13(2), 135–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-008-9130-x
Leung, A. (2015). Discernment and reasoning in dynamic geometry environments. In S. J. Cho (Ed.), Selected Regular Lectures from the Twelfth International Congress on Mathematical Education (pp. 451–469). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17187-6_26
Leung, A., Baccaglini-Frank, A., & Mariotti, M. A. (2013). Discernment of invariants in dynamic geometry environments. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 84(3), 439–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-013-9492-4
Little, D. Y. J., & Sommer, F. T. (2013). Learning and exploration in action-perception loops. Frontiers in Neural Circuits, 7, 37. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncir.2013.00037
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207390600712539
Mariotti, M. A. (2014). Transforming images in a DGS: The semiotic potential of the dragging tool for introducing the notion of conditional statement. In S. Rezat, M. Hattermann, & A. Peter-Koop (Eds.), Transformation-A Fundamental Idea of Mathematics Education (pp. 155–172). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3489-4_8
Mariotti, M. A., & Fischbein, E. (1997). Defining in classroom activities. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 34, 219–248. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1002985109323
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.
Mithalal, J., & Balacheff, N. (2019). The instrumental deconstruction as a link between drawing and geometrical figure. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 100(2), 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-018-9862-z
Ng, O. L. (2019). Examining technology-mediated communication using a commognitive lens: The case of touchscreen-dragging in dynamic geometry environments. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(6), 1173–1193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9910-2
Price, S., Yiannoutsou, N., & Vezzoli, Y. (2020). Making the body tangible: Elementary geometry learning through VR. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 6, 213–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-020-00071-7
Radford, L. (2009). Why do gestures matter? Sensuous cognition and the palpability of mathematical meanings. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(2), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-008-9127-3
Shvarts, A., Alberto, R., Bakker, A., Doorman, M., & Drijvers, P. (2021). Embodied instrumentation in learning mathematics as the genesis of a body-artifact functional system. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 107, 447–469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-021-10053-0
Sinclair, N., & Yurita, V. (2008). To be or to become: How dynamic geometry changes discourse. Research in Mathematics Education, 10(2), 135–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794800802233670
Tesch, R. (2013). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315067339
Triadafillidis, T. A. (1995). Circumventing visual limitations in teaching the geometry of shapes. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 29(3), 225–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01274092
Trouche, L. (2000). La parabole du gaucher et de la casserole à bec verseur: Étude des processus d’apprentissage dans un environnement de calculatrices symboliques. The parable of the left and the pot with a spout: A study of the learning process in an environment of symbolic calculators. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 41, 239–264.
Vergnaud, G. (2009). The theory of conceptual fields. Human Development, 52(2), 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1159/000202727
Xie, H., Peng, J., Qin, M., Huang, X., Tian, F., & Zhou, Z. (2018). Can touchscreen devices be used to facilitate young children’s learning? A meta-analysis of touchscreen learning effect. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2580. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02580
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
There authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Pittalis, M., Drijvers, P. Embodied instrumentation in a dynamic geometry environment: eleven-year-old students’ dragging schemes. Educ Stud Math 113, 181–205 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-023-10222-3
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-023-10222-3