Comparison of Traditional Instruction on Reflection and Rotation in a Nepalese High School with an ICT-Rich, Student-Centered, Investigative Approach

Article

Abstract

A teacher-centered, examination-driven instructional approach emphasizing knowledge of facts and standard methods through drill-and-practice without use of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) is still dominant in Nepalese high schools. In this article, we present a classroom study in which the traditional instructional approach has been replaced by an ICT-rich, student-centered, investigative approach in the context of teaching and learning basic concepts of reflection and rotation. Here, ICT refers to dynamic geometry software. Through a pretest-posttest control and experimental group research design, we compared the effects of both approaches on students’ understanding. A test was designed and used for investigating students’ alternative conceptions of reflection and rotation. The results showed that the experimental group outperformed the control group and there were indications of a lasting effect. Qualitative analysis indicated that all distinctive aspects of the experimental approach had positive effects on the students’ performance and learning experience. This study can also be considered as an evidence-based example of how one can, with limited ICT facilities, still achieve improvements in teaching and learning at a public high school in a developing country.

Keywords

Alternative conceptions Didactic engineering Dynamic geometry Geometric transformation Student-centeredness 

References

  1. Artigue, M. (2015). Perspectives on design research: The case of didactical engineering. In A. Bikner-Ahsbahs, C. Knipping & N. Presmeg (Eds.), Approaches to qualitative research in mathematics education (pp. 467–496). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  2. Battista, M. (2002). Learning geometry in a dynamic computer environment. Teaching Children Mathematics, 8(6), 333–338.Google Scholar
  3. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L. & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (Expandedth ed.). Washington, DC: National Academic Press.Google Scholar
  4. Burke, M. & Kennedy, P. (2011). GeoGebra: From simulation to formalization in teacher preparation and in-service programs. In L. Bu & R. Schoen (Eds.), Model-centered learning, pathways to mathematical understanding using GeoGebra (pp. 57–72). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.Google Scholar
  5. Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., Yelland, N. J. & Glass, B. (2008). Learning and teaching geometry with computers in the elementary and middle school. In M. K. Heid & G. W. Blume (Eds.), Research on technology and the teaching and learning of mathematics (Vol. 1): Research syntheses (pp. 109–154). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  6. Donovan, S. & Bransford, J. D. (2005). How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. Drijvers, P., Doorman, M., Boon, P., Reed, H. & Gravemeijer, K. (2010). The teacher and the tool: instrumental orchestrations in the technology-rich classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 75(2), 213–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Edwards, L. & Zazkis, R. (1993). Transformation geometry: Naïve ideas and formal embodiment. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 12(2), 121–145.Google Scholar
  9. Fallstrom, S. & Walter, M. I. (2009). Using geometry sketchpad to explore, conjecture, and enjoy. International Journal of Computers for Mathematics Learning, 14(2), 183–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Freudenthal, H. (1983). Didactical phenomenology of mathematics structures. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  11. Gery, F. W. (1972). Does mathematics matter? In A. Welsh (Ed.), Research papers in economic education (pp. 142–157). New York, NY: Joint Council on Economic Education.Google Scholar
  12. Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Boston, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar
  13. Gonzalez, G. & Herbst, P. G. (2009). Students’ conception of congruency through the use of dynamic geometry software. International Journal of Computers for Mathematics Learning, 14(2), 153–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Graner, E. (2006). Education in Nepal: Meeting or missing the millennium development goals. Contributions to Nepalese Studies, 33(2), 153–175.Google Scholar
  15. Grenier, D. (1985). Middle school pupils’ conceptions about reflections according to a task of construction. In L. Streefland (Ed.), Proceedings of the 9th international conference for the psychology of mathematics education (pp. 183–188). Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands: PME.Google Scholar
  16. Grenier, D. (1988). Construction et étude d’un processus d’enseignement de la symmetrie orthogonale en sixième [Construction and study of a teaching process of the orthogonal symmetrie sixth] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Université Joseph Fourier, France.Google Scholar
  17. Hannafin, R. B., Burruss, J. D. & Little, C. (2001). Learning with dynamic geometry programs: Perspectives of teachers and learners. The Journal for Educational Research, 94, 132–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hart, K. M. (1985). Chelsea diagnostic mathematics tests. Windsor, England: NFER-Nelson. Retrieved from http://iccams-maths.org/CSMS/.Google Scholar
  19. Healy, L. & Hoyles, C. (2001). Software tools for geometrical problem solving: Potentials and pitfalls. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6(3), 235–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heid, M. K. (2005). Technology in mathematics education: Tapping into visions of the future. In M. W. Masalski & P. C. Elliott (Eds.), Technology–supported mathematics learning environments, sixty–seventh year book (pp. 329–345). Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  21. Hollebrands, K. (2007). The role of a dynamic software program for geometry in the strategies high school mathematics students employ. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 38(2), 164–192.Google Scholar
  22. Hollebrands, K., Laborde, C. & Sträßer, R. (2008). Technology and the learning of geometry at the secondary level. In M. K. Heid & G. W. Blume (Eds.), Research on technology and the teaching and learning of mathematics (Vol. 1): Research syntheses (pp. 155–205). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  23. Iranzo, N. & Fortuny, J. M. (2011). Influence of GeoGebra on problem solving strategies. In L. Bu & R. Schoen (Eds.), Model-centered learning, pathways to mathematical understanding using GeoGebra (pp. 91–103). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.Google Scholar
  24. Jahn, A.P. (1998). Des transformations des figures aux transformations ponctuelles: étude d’une sequence d’enseignement avec Cabri-Géomètre [Transformations of figures to point transformations: study of a teaching sequence with Cabri Geometry] (unpublished doctoral thesis). Université Joseph Fourier, Grenoble.Google Scholar
  25. Kaput, J. J. & Thompson, P. (1994). Technology in mathematics education research: The first 25 years in the JRME. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(6), 676–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Küchemann, D. (1981). Reflections and Rotations. In K. M. Hart (Ed.), Children’s understanding of mathematics (pp. 137–157). London, England: Murray.Google Scholar
  27. Lawless, K. A. & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77, 575–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Luitel, B. C. (2013). Mathematics as an im/pure knowledge system, symbiosis, (w)holism and synergy in mathematics education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11, 65–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mainali, B. R. (2008). Comparison of traditional teaching and learning of reflection and rotation in a Nepalese high school with an ICT-rich, student-centered, guided discovery approach (Master thesis). Retrieved from http://dare.uva.nl/document/356034.
  30. Mainali, B. R., & Key, M. B. (2012). Using dynamic geometry software GeoGebra in developing countries: A case study of impressions of mathematics teachers in Nepal. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning, April 12th.Google Scholar
  31. Mega, E. (2001). Ensino/aprendizagem da rotação na 5 a série: um estudo comparativo em relação ao material utilizado [Teaching / learning of rotation in the 5th grade: a comparative study in relation to the material used] (Master thesis). Retrieved from https://oatd.org/oatd/record?record=oai\%3Abiblio.pucsp.br\%3A3996.
  32. MoE. (2009). School sector reform plan 2009–2015. Kathmandu, Nepal: Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  33. MoE. (2013). ICT in education master plan 2013–2017. Kathmandu, Nepal: Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  34. Mousoulides, N. G. (2011). GeoGebra as a conceptual tool for modeling real world problems. In L. Bu & R. Schoen (Eds.), Model-centered learning, pathways to mathematical understanding using GeoGebra (pp. 105–118). Rotterdam, The Netherland: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  35. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  36. Pangeni, K. P. (2014). Factors determining educational quality: student mathematics achievement in Nepal. International Journal of Educational Development, 34, 30–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shields, R. (2011). ICT or I see tea? Modernity, technology and education in Nepal. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9(1), 85–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sträßer, R. (2001). Cabri-Geometry: Does dynamic geometry software (DGS) change geometry and its teaching and learning. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6, 319–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Suh, J. M., Johnstan, C. J. & Douds, J. (2008). Enhancing mathematical learning in a technological-rich environment. Teaching Children Mathematics, 15, 235–241.Google Scholar
  40. Tessema, A.A. (2012). Teacher educators’ professional development towards educational research in student-centered instruction supported by dynamic mathematics software (Master thesis). Retrieved from http://dare.uva.nl/document/454610.
  41. Wakwinji, I. (2011). Exploring how a workshop approach helps math teachers start to develop technological pedagogical content knowledge (Master thesis). Retrieved from http://dare.uva.nl/document/333304.

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Wisconsin SuperiorSuperiorUSA
  2. 2.University of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations