Abstract
This paper presents a small group computing environment in which four students each control a different point in a geometric space, such that as a group they collectively manipulate the vertices of a quadrilateral. Prior research has revealed that students have considerable difficulty in learning about the interrelationships among quadrilaterals shapes. In this study, we investigated how a designed environment can help support students’ learning in this area. In particular, in a case study of two student groups, we used the notions of appropriation and objectification to explain how students learned from one another different ways of using the technology and of explaining geometric concepts to progress in their geometric reasoning. When the students did not attain a shared focus of attention, they were not able to appropriate others’ approaches to using the technology or explaining geometric concepts. In one group, although some individuals demonstrated learning gains, when the coordination among the group members fell apart, not all the members were able to benefit. On the other hand, another group which demonstrated more group-oriented behavior—listening to one another, sharing the same focus of attention, engaging in coordinated actions—was able to benefit as a whole and did better overall on individual assessments.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arzarello, F., Paola, D., Robutti, O., & Sabena, C. (2009). Gestures as semiotic resources in the mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70, 97–109.
Barron, B. J. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 403–436.
Barron, B. J. (2003). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 307–359.
Battista, M. T. (1998). Shape makers: Developing geometric reasoning with the geometer’s sketchpad (p. 1998). Berkeley: Key Curriculum Press.
Battista, M. T. (2007). The development of geometric and spatial thinking. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 843–908). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Battista, M. T. (2009). Highlights of research on learning school geometry. In T. V. Craine (Ed.), Understanding geometry for a changing world, seventy-first yearbook of the national council of teachers of mathematics (NCTM) (pp. 91–108). Reston, VA: NCTM.
Beatty, R., & Geiger, V. (2010). Technology, communication, and collaboration: Re-thinking communities of inquiry, learning and practice. In C. Hoyles & J. B. Lagrange (Eds.), Mathematics education and technology-rethinking the terrain: The 17th ICMI study (pp. 251–284). New York: Springer.
Carlsen, M. (2010). Appropriating geometric series as a cultural tool: A study of student collaborative learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 74, 95–116.
Cohen, E. (1986). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cohen, E. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1–35.
Erez, M. M., & Yerushalmy, M. (2006). “If you can turn a rectangle into a square, you can turn a square into a rectangle…” young students experience the dragging tool. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 11, 271–299.
Hollenbrands, K. F., Conner, A., & Smith, R. C. (2010). The nature and arguments provided by college geometry students with access to technology while solving problems. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41, 324–350.
Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (1987). Seeing what matters: Developing an understanding of the concept parallelogram through a Logo microworld. In J. Bergeron et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 2, 17–23.
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(1–2), 55–85.
Laborde, C., Kynigos, C., Hollebrands, K., & Strasser, R. (2006). Teaching and learning geometry with technology. In A. Gutiérrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education: Past, present and future (pp. 275–304). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Lai, K., & White, T. (2012). Exploring quadrilaterals in a small group computing environment. Computers and Education, 59(3), 963–973.
Liu, C. C., Chung, C. W., Chen, N.-S., & Liu, B.-J. (2009). Analysis of peer interaction in learning activities with personal handhelds and shared displays. Educational Technology and Society, 12(3), 127–142.
Radford, L. (2000). Signs and meanings in students’ emergent algebraic thinking: A semiotic analysis. Educational Studies of Mathematics, 42, 237–268.
Radford, L. (2003). Gestures, speech, and the sprouting of signs: A semiotic-cultural approach to students’ types of generalization. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 5, 37–70.
Radford, L. (2006). Elements of a cultural theory of objectification. Revista Latino americana de Investigación en Matemática Educativa, 9, 103–129 (Special issue on semiotics, culture and mathematical thinking. Retrieved June 1, 2010, from http://laurentian.ca/educ/lradford/).
Radford, L. (2009). Why do gestures matter? Sensuous cognition and the palpability of mathematical meanings. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70, 111–126.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking. Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: Participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. In J. V. Wertsch, P. del Río, & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 139–164). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. E. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–97). Heidelberg: Springer.
Unterman, J., & Wilensky, U. (2006). PANDA BEAR: Perimeter and area by embodied agent reasoning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Unterman, J., & Wilensky, U. (2007). NetLogo HubNet PANDA BEAR model. Center for connected learning and computer-based modeling, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. Retrieved April 1, 2008, from http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/models/HubNetPANDABEAR.
Usiskin, Z. (1982). Van Hiele levels and achievement in secondary school geometry. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 220 288).
Van Hiele, P. M. (1959/1985). The child’s thought and geometry. In D. Fuys, D. Geddes, & R. Tischler (Eds.), English translation of selected writings of Dina van Hiele-Geldof and Pierre M. van Hiele (pp. 243–252). Brooklyn, NY: Brooklyn College, School of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 289 697).
White, T. (2006). Code talk: Student discourse and participation with networked handhelds. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(3), 359–382.
White, T., & Pea, R. (2011). Distributed by design: On the promises and pitfalls of collaborative learning with multiple representations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3), 489–547.
White, T., Wallace, M., & Lai, K. (2012). Graphing in groups: Learning about lines in a collaborative classroom network environment. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 14(2), 149–172.
Wilensky, U., & Stroup, W. (1999). HubNet. Center for connected learning and computer-based modeling. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University. Retrieved April 1, 2008, from http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/hubnet.html.
Yu, P., Barrett, J., & Presmeg, N. (2009). Prototypes and categorical reasoning. In T. V. Craine (Ed.), Understanding geometry for a changing world, seventy-first yearbook of the national council of teachers of mathematics (NCTM) (pp. 91–108). Reston, VA: NCTM.
Acknowledgments
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DRL-0747536, awarded to the second author.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lai, K., White, T. How groups cooperate in a networked geometry learning environment. Instr Sci 42, 615–637 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9303-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9303-4