ZDM

, Volume 47, Issue 3, pp 407–420 | Cite as

Two aspects of young children’s thinking about different types of dynamic triangles: prototypicality and inclusion

Original Article

Abstract

This paper illustrates how young children (ages 7–8, grade 2/3) can use the potential of dynamic geometry environments to develop an understanding of, and reasoning about, the properties and behaviours of different triangles (scalene, isosceles, equilateral). It provides a detailed description of a geometry unit, during which children worked both in a whole classroom setting in which they could interact directly with Sketchpad (through an interactive whiteboard) and individually at tables with paper-and-pencil. Using Sfard’s communicational approach, an attempt is made to extend the work of Battista to show how children developed a reified discourse on triangles, which involves inclusive descriptions of classes of triangles (in other words, they thought about equilateral triangles as special types of isosceles triangles). This discourse focused on the behaviour of pre-constructed triangles as the children dragged their sides and vertices, thus generating many non-prototypical examples. During the teacher-led explorations and discussions, the children’s routines moved from informal dynamic descriptions to formal geometric properties as well as from particular to more general discourse about different types of triangles.

Keywords

Dynamic geometry environment (DGE) Triangles Inclusion Prototypicality Primary school 

References

  1. Abdelfatah, H. (2011). A story-based dynamic geometry approach to improve attitudes toward geometry and geometric proof. ZDMThe International Journal on Mathematics Education, 43(3), 441–450.Google Scholar
  2. 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). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar
  3. Battista, M. T. (2008). Development of shapemakers geometry microworld. In G. W. Blume, M. K. Heid (Eds.), Research on technology and the teaching and learning of mathematics: cases and perspectives (vol. 2, pp. 131–156). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Clements, D. H., & Battista, M. T. (1992). Geometry and spatial reasoning. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 420–464). New York, NY: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  5. Cook, S., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2006). The role of gesture in learning: Do students use their hands to change their minds? Journal of Cognition and Development, 7(2), 211–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. De Villiers, M. (1994). The role and function of a hierarchical classification of quadrilaterals. For the Learning of Mathematics, 14(1), 11–18.Google Scholar
  7. Duval, R. (2005). Les conditions cognitives de l’apprentissage de la géométrie : développement de la visualisation, différenciation des raisonnements et coordination de leurs fonctionnements. Annales de didactique et de sciences cognitives, 10, 5–53.Google Scholar
  8. Fujita, T., & Jones, K. (2007). Learners’ understanding of the definitions and hierarchical classification of quadrilaterals: Towards a theoretical framing. Research in Mathematics Education, 9(1, 2), 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fulkerson, A. L., & Haaf, R. A. (2006). Does object naming aid 12-month-olds’ formation of novel object categories? First Language, 26(4), 347–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fuys, D., Geddes, D., & Tischer, R. (1988). The van Hiele Model of thinking in geometry among adolescents. Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  11. Gal, H., & Linchevski, L. (2010). To see or not to see: analyzing difficulties in geometry from the perspective of visual perception. Education Studies in Mathematics, 74(2), 163–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gueudet, G., & Trouche, L. (2011). Mathematics teacher education advanced methods: An example in dynamic geometry. ZDM – The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 43(3), 399–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hannibal, M. A. Z., & Clements, D. H. (2000). Young children’s understanding of basic geometric shapes. National Science Foundation, Grant No. ESI-8954644.Google Scholar
  14. Healy, L., & Sinclair, N. (2007). If this is your mathematics, what are your stories? International Journal of Computers for Mathematics Learning, 12(1), 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hershkowitz, R. (1989). Visualization in geometry: Two sides of the coin. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 11(1), 61–76.Google Scholar
  16. Jackiw, N. (1991/2009). The geometer’s sketchpad. Berkeley, CA: Key Curriculum Press.Google Scholar
  17. 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, 55–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kita, S. (2000). How representational gestures help speaking. In D. McNeill (Ed.), Language and gesture (pp. 162–185). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Leung, A. (2011). An epistemic model of task design in dynamic geometry environment. ZDM – The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 43(3), 325–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mariotti, M. A. (2013). Introducing students to geometric theorems: How the teacher can exploit the semiotic potential of a DGS. ZDM – The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(3), 441–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Markman, E., & Watchtel, G. (1988). Children’s use of mutual exclusivity to constrain the meaning of words. Cognitive Psychology, 20(2), 121–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Núñez, R. (2003). Do real numbers really move? Language, thought, and gesture: The embodied cognitive foundations of mathematics. In R. Hersh (Ed.), 18 Unconventional essays on the nature of mathematics (pp. 160–181). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: Human development, the growth of discourses and mathematizing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sinclair, N., & Gol Tabaghi, S. (2010). Drawing space: mathematicians’ kinetic conceptions of eigenvectors. Education Studies in Mathematics, 74(3), 223–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sinclair, N., & Moss, J. (2012). The more it changes, the more it becomes the same: The development of the routine of shape identification in dynamic geometry environments. International Journal of Education Research, 51&52, 28–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stylianides, A. J., & Stylianides, G. J. (2013). Seeking research-grounded solutions to problems of practice: Classroom-based interventions in mathematics education. ZDMThe International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(3), 333–342.Google Scholar
  27. Van Hiele, P. M. (1986). Structure and insight: A theory of mathematics education. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  28. Wang, S., & Kinzel, M. (2014). How do they know it is a parallelogram? Analysing geometric discourse at van Hiele Level 3. Research in Mathematics Education. doi:10.1080/14794802.2014.933711.Google Scholar
  29. Waxman, S. R. (1999). The dubbing ceremony revisited: Object naming and categorization in infancy and early childhood. In D. L. Medin & S. Atran (Eds.), Folkbiology (pp. 233–284). Cambridge, MA: Bradford.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Simon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada

Personalised recommendations