, Volume 47, Issue 3, pp 421–434 | Cite as

Young children reasoning about symmetry in a dynamic geometry environment

Original Article


In this paper, we investigate children’s learning of reflectional symmetry in a dynamic geometry environment. Through a classroom-based intervention involving two 1-h lessons, we analyse the changes in the children’s thinking about reflectional symmetry: first, they developed dynamic and embodied ways of thinking about symmetry after working with a pre-constructed sketch called the “symmetry machine”. Secondly, they moved from distinguishing symmetrical and asymmetrical figures statically to generalising about properties of symmetry. This was evident in the way children expressed symmetric movement through words, gestures and diagrams during the computer-based lessons as well as in the follow-up paper-and-pencil tasks. We highlight the specific roles of the teacher and of the digital technology in supporting the process of semiotic mediation through which the children learned symmetry.


Digital technologies Dynamic geometry environments Young children’s geometry Discourse Semiotic mediation Classroom-based interventions 


  1. Arzarello, F. (2006). Semiosis as a multimodal process (pp. 267–299). Numero Especial: Relime.Google Scholar
  2. Arzarello, F., & Robutti, O. (2008). Framing the embodied mind approach within a multimodal paradigm, In English, L., Bartolini Bussi, M., Jones, G., Lesh, R., & Tirosh D. (Eds.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education, 2nd revised edition (pp. 720–749). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Bartolini Bussi, M. G., & Baccaglini-Frank, A. (2015) Geometry in early years: sowing seeds for a mathematical definition of squares and rectangles. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(3) (this issue). doi: 10.1007/s11858-014-0636-5.
  4. Bartolini Bussi, M. G., & Mariotti, M.A. (2008). Semiotic mediation in the mathematics classroom: artifacts and signs after a Vygotskian perspective. In English, L., Bartolini Bussi, M., Jones, G., Lesh, R., & Tirosh D. (Eds.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education, 2nd revised edition (pp. 746–805). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. 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: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  6. Battista, M. T. (2008). Development of the shape makers geometry microworld: design principles and research. In G. 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
  7. Baulac, Y., Bellemain, F., & Laborde, J.M. (1988). Cabri-Géomètre, un logiciel d’aide à l’apprentissage de la géomètrie. Logiciel et manuel d’utilisation, Paris: Cedic-Nathan.Google Scholar
  8. Bornstein, M. H., & Stiles-Davis, J. (1984). Discrimination and memory for symmetry in young children. Developmental Psychology, 20(4), 637–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bryant, P. (2008). Paper 5: Understanding spaces and its representation in mathematics. In Nunez, T., Bryant, P., & Watson A. (Eds.), Key understanding in mathematics learning: a report to the Nuffield Foundation. Accessed 18 December 2014.
  10. Chen, C. L., & Herbst, P. (2012). The interplay among gestures, discourse, and diagrams in students’ geometrical reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83, 285–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clements, D.H., Battista, M.T., Sarama, J. (2001). Logo and geometry. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education Monograph Series, 10 Google Scholar
  12. Clements, D., & Sarama, J. (2004). Engaging young children in mathematics: standards for early childhood mathematics education. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Edwards, L., & Zazkis, R. (1993). Transformation geometry: naive ideas and formal embodiments. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 12(2), 121–145.Google Scholar
  14. Falcade, R., Laborde, C., & Mariotti, M. A. (2007). Approaching functions: the trace tool as an instrument of semiotic mediation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66, 317–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goldin-Meadow, S. (2003). Hearing gesture: How our hands help us think. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Goldin-Meadow, S., Nusbaum, H., Kelly, S. D., & Wagner, S. (2001). Explaining math: gesture lightens the load. Psychological Science, 12, 516–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Greaves, M. (2002). The philosophical status of diagrams. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  18. Hollebrands, K. (2003). High school students’ understandings of geometric transformations in the context of a technological environment. Journal of Mathematics Behavior, 22, 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hoyles, C., & Healy, L. (1997). Unfolding meanings for reflective symmetry. International Journal of Computers in Mathematical Learning, Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 2(1), 27–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jackiw, N. (2001). The geometer’s sketchpad [Computer program]. Emeryville: Key Curriculum Press.Google Scholar
  21. Jackiw, N., & Sinclair, N. (2009). Sounds and pictures: dynamism and dualism in dynamic geometry. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 41, 413–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jagoda, E., & Swoboda, E. (2011). Static and dynamic approach to forming the concept of rotation. In M. Pytlak, E. Swoboda, & T. Rowland (Eds.), Proceedings of CERME 7 (pp. 558–567). Poland: Rzeszów.Google Scholar
  23. Kaur, H. (2015). Two aspects of young children’s thinking about different types of dynamic triangles: prototypicality and inclusion. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(3) (this issue).Google Scholar
  24. Kendon, A. (2000). Language and gestures: unity or duality? In D. McNeill (Ed.), Language and gesture (pp. 47–63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Laborde, C., Kynigos, C., Hollebrands, K., & Strasser, R. (2006). Teaching and learning geometry with technology. In A. Gutierrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education: past, present, and future (pp. 275–304). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  26. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mariotti, M.A. (2009) Artifacts and signs after a Vygotskian perspective: the role of the teacher, ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 41, 427–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mariotti, M.A., & Bartolini Bussi, M.G. (1998). From drawing to construction: teachers mediation within the Cabri environment. In Olivier, A., & Newstead, K., (Eds), Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference of PME (Vol. 3, pp. 247–254). Stellenbosch, South Africa.Google Scholar
  29. McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind. What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  30. Ng, O., & Sinclair, N. (2013). Gestures and temporality: children’s use of gestures on spatial transformation tasks. In Lindmeier, A. M., & Heinze, A., (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th International Conference of PME (Vol. 3, pp. 361–369). Kiel, Germany.Google Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Perrin-Glorian, M.-J., Mathé, A.-C., & Leclercq, R. (2013). Comment peut-on penser la continuité de l’enseignement de la géométrie de 6 a 15 ans? Repères-IREM, 90, 5–41.Google Scholar
  33. Schattschneider, D. (2006). Coxeter and the artists: two-way inspiration. In H. S. M. Coxeter, C. Davis, & E. W. Ellers (Eds.), The Coxeter legacy: reflections and projections (pp. 268–270). Providence: American Mathematics Society.Google Scholar
  34. Schuler, J. (2001). Symmetry and young children. Montessori Life, 13(2), 42–48.Google Scholar
  35. Seo, K-H., & Ginsburg, H. (2004). What is developmentally appropriate in early childhood mathematics education? In Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., & Dibias, A-M., (Eds.) Engaging young children in mathematics: standards for early childhood mathematics education (pp. 91–104). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  36. Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: Human development, the growth of discourses, and mathematizing. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sinclair, N., & Gol Tabaghi, S. (2010). Drawing space: mathematicians’ kinetic conceptions of eigenvectors. Education Studies in Mathematics, 74(3), 223–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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
  39. Stylianides, A. J., & Stylianides, G. J. (2013). Seeking research-grounded solutions to problems of practice: classroom-based interventions in mathematics education. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(3), 333–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Wertsch, J. V., & Stone, C. A. (1985). The concept of internalization in Vygotsky’s account of the genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Weyl, H. (1952). Symmetry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationSimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada

Personalised recommendations