Advertisement

MODELLING OF AND CONJECTURING ON A SOCCER BALL IN A KOREAN EIGHTH GRADE MATHEMATICS CLASSROOM

  • Kyeong-Hwa LeeEmail author
Article

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this article was to describe the task design and implementation of cultural artefacts in a mathematics lesson based on the integration of modelling and conjecturing perspectives. The conceived process of integrating a soccer ball into mathematics lessons via modelling- and conjecturing-based instruction was first detailed. Next, the paper analysed six students’ participation behaviours as they created mathematical problems, definitions, terms, representations and arguments during modelling and conjecturing activities. Findings suggested students effectively engaged in the search for soccer ball models and solutions to posed questions, especially the reason manufacturers prefer soccer balls constructed from regular pentagons and regular hexagons to other types of regular polygons.

KEY WORDS

buckyball model conjecturing-based instruction convex spherical solid cultural artefact semi-regular polyhedron soccer ball modelling 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Battista, M. T. (2007). The development of geometric and spatial thinking. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 843–908). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  2. Bonotto, C. (2005). How informal out-of-school mathematics can help students make sense of formal in-school mathematics: The case of multiplying by decimal numbers. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 7(4), 313–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bonotto, C. (2007). How to replace the word problems with activities of realistic mathematical modeling. In W. Blum, P. Galbraith, H. W. Henn & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education. New ICMI studies series no. 10 (pp. 185–192). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Byers, W. (2007). How mathematicians think: Using ambiguity, contradiction, and paradox to create mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Cobb, P. (1999). Individual and collective mathematical development: The case of statistical mathematical analysis. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 1(1), 5–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cobb, P. (2002). Modeling, symbolizing, and tool use in statistical data analysis. In K. Gravemeijer, R. Lehrer, B. van Oers & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Symbolizing, modeling and tool use in mathematics education (pp. 171–195). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  7. Confrey, J. & Lachance, A. (2000). Transformative teaching experiments through conjecture-driven research design. In A. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 231–266). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. English, L. D. & Lesh, R. A. (2003). Ends-in-view problems. In R. A. Lesh & H. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: A models and modeling perspective on teaching, learning, and problem solving in mathematics education (pp. 297–316). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Freudenthal, H. (1983). Didactical phenomenology of mathematical structures. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.Google Scholar
  10. Gonzalez Szwacki, N., Sadrzadeh, A. & Yakobson, B. (2007). B80 fullerene: An Ab initio prediction of geometry, stability, and electronic structure. Physical Review Letters, 98, 166804. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.166804. Retrieved June 6, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gravemeijer, K. P. E. (1994). Educational development and developmental research in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(5), 443–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gravemeijer, K. P. E. (1997). Instructional design for reform mathematics education. In M. Beishuizen, K. P. E. Gravemeijer & E. C. D. M. van Lieshout (Eds.), The role of contexts and models in the development of mathematical strategies and procedures (pp. 13–34). Utrecht, The Netherlands: Technipress, Culemborg.Google Scholar
  13. Gravemeijer, K. P. E. & Stephan, M. (2002). Emergent models as an instructional design heuristic. In K. P. E. Gravemeijer, R. Lehrer, B. van Oers & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Symbolizing, modeling, and tool use in mathematics education (pp. 145–169). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  14. Kaiser, G. & Sriraman, B. (2006). A global survey of international perspectives on modelling in mathematics education. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 38(3), 302–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Laborde, C. (1995). Designing tasks for learning geometry in a computer-based environment, the case of Cabri-g6ometre’. In L. Burton & B. Jaworski (Eds.), Technology in mathematics teaching—a bridge between teaching and learning (pp. 35–68). London: Chartwell-Bratt.Google Scholar
  16. Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and refutations: The logic of mathematical discovery. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Lehrer, R. & Chazan, D. (Eds.). (1998). Designing learning environments for developing understanding of geometry and space. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  18. Lesh, R. & Doerr, H. M. (Eds.). (2003a). Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics teaching, learning, and problem solving. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  19. Lesh, R. & Doerr, H. M. (2003b). Foundations of a models and modeling perspective on mathematics teaching, learning, and problem solving. In R. Lesh & H. M. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics teaching, learning, and problem solving (pp. 3–33). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  20. Lesh, R. & Doerr, H. M. (2003c). In what ways does a models and modeling perspective move beyond constructivism? In R. Lesh & H. M. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics teaching, learning, and problem solving (pp. 519–582). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  21. Lesh, R. & Harel, G. (2003). Problem solving, modeling, and local conceptual development. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 5(2/3), 157–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lesh, R. & Yoon, C. (2004). Evolving communities of mind—in which development involves several interacting and simultaneously development strands. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(2), 205–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lobato, J., Ellis, A. B. & Muñoz, R. (2003). How “focusing phenomena” in the instructional environment afford students’ generalizations. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 5(1), 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mariotti, M. A. & Fischbein, E. (1997). Defining in classroom activities. Educational Studies in Mathematic, 34, 219–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mason, J. & Johnston-Wilder, S. (2004). Fundamental constructs in mathematics education. London: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  26. Meira, L. (1998). Making sense of instructional devices: The emergence of transparency in mathematical activity. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(2), 121–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pea, R. D. (1987). Cognitive technologies for mathematics education. In A. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Cognitive science and mathematics education (pp. 89–122). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  28. Polya, G. (1954). Mathematics and plausible reasoning: Volume I. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Steffe, L. P. & Thompson, P. W. (2000). Teaching experiment methodology: Underlying principles and essential elements. In R. Lesh & A. E. Kelly (Eds.), Research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 267–307). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. Thompson, P. W. (2002). Didactic objects and didactic models in radical constructivism. In K. Gravemeijer, R. Lehrer, B. van Oers & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Symbolizing and modeling in mathematics education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  31. van Oers, B. (2002). The mathematization of young children’s language. In K. Gravemeijer, R. Lehrer, B. van Oers & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Symbolizing and modeling in mathematics education (pp. 29–57). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematics EducationSeoul National UniversitySeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations