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

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

## 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.
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.
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.
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:. Retrieved June 6, 2009.
11. Gravemeijer, K. P. E. (1994). Educational development and developmental research in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(5), 443–471.
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.
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.
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.
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.
24. Mariotti, M. A. & Fischbein, E. (1997). Defining in classroom activities. Educational Studies in Mathematic, 34, 219–248.
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.
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 