, Volume 51, Issue 5, pp 779–791 | Cite as

Dragging, instrumented abduction and evidence, in processes of conjecture generation in a dynamic geometry environment

  • Anna Baccaglini-FrankEmail author
Original Article


In a dynamic geometry environment (DGE) conjectures can be generated by manipulating figures with different dragging strategies. One strategy (maintaining dragging) that has been the focus of various studies, consists of inducing a specific geometric property and trying to maintain it. In this paper I focus on abduction and evidence within such processes of the generation of conjectures. I discuss the particular nature of the abductive process associated with the use of maintaining dragging (instrumented abduction). In respect of other forms of abduction reported in the literature, I highlight their key role in bridging phenomenological evidence and theoretical evidence. Results from analysis of a case study suggest that using maintaining dragging leads students to the generation of conjectures with solid phenomenological evidence. On the other hand, the process withholds a potential fragility with respect to proof of the conjectures generated, due to the scarce theoretical evidence stemming from it.


Abduction Conjecture generation Dynamic geometry environment (DGE) Instrumented abduction Maintaining dragging Phenomenological evidence Theoretical evidence 



I wish to thank Samuele Antonini, with whom I have discussed students’ excerpts from this study at length, as well as Maria Alessandra Mariotti for her precious guidance; discussions and exchanges with them have led to many ideas in this paper. This work was funded by the MIUR (PRIN 2007B2M4EK) and by the University of New Hampshire (Dissertation Fellowship).


  1. Abrahamson, D. (2012). Rethinking intensive quantities via guided mediated abduction. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(4), 626–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antonini, S., & Baccaglini-Frank, A. (2016). Maintaining dragging and the pivot invariant in processes of conjecture generation. In C. Csíkos, A. Rausch & J. Szitányi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 40th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 2, (pp. 19–26). Szeged: PME.Google Scholar
  3. Arzarello, F., Olivero, F., Paola, D., & Robutti, O. (2002). A cognitive analysis of dragging practises in Cabri environments. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 34(3), 66–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baccaglini-Frank, A. (2010a). The maintaining dragging scheme and the notion of instrumented abduction. In P. Brosnan, D. Erchick, & L. Flevares (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th Conference of PME-NA, Vol. 6 (pp. 607–615). Columbus, PME-NA.Google Scholar
  5. Baccaglini-Frank, A. (2010b). Conjecturing in dynamic geometry: A model for conjecture-generation through maintaining dragging. Doctoral dissertation, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH. Published by ProQuest ISBN: 9781124301969.Google Scholar
  6. Baccaglini-Frank, A., & Antonini, S. (2016). In Csíkos, C., Rausch, A., & Szitányi, J. (Ed.), From conjecture generation by maintining dragging toproof, Vol. 2 (pp. 43–50). Szeged, Hungary: PME.Google Scholar
  7. Baccaglini-Frank, A., Antonini, S., Leung, A., & Mariotti, M. A. (2018). From pseudo-objects in dynamic explorations to proof by contradiction. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education. Scholar
  8. Baccaglini-Frank, A., & Mariotti, M. A. (2010). Generating conjectures in dynamic geometry: The maintaining dragging model. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 15(3), 225–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baccaglini-Frank, A., & Mariotti, M. A. (2011). Conjecture-generation through dragging and abduction in dynamic geometry. In A. Méndez-Vilas (Ed.), Education in a technological world: Communicating current and emerging research and technological efforts (pp. 100–107). Spain: Formatex.Google Scholar
  10. Baccaglini-Frank, A., Mariotti, M. A., & Antonini, S. (2009). Different perceptions of invariants and generality of proof in dynamic geometry. In M. Tzekaki, & H. Sakonidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 2 (pp. 89–96). Thessaloniki: PME.Google Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Eco, U. (1986). Semiotics and the philosophy of language. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Goldenberg, E. P., & Cuoco, A. A. (1998). What is dynamic geometry? In R. Lehrer & D. Chazan (Eds.), Designing learning environments for developing understanding of geometry and space (pp. 351–368). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  14. Healy, L. (2000). In T. Nakahara & M. Koyama (Eds.), Identifying and explaining geometric relationship: interactions with robust and soft Cabriconstructions, Vol. 1 (pp. 103–117). Hiroshima: Hiroshima: University.Google Scholar
  15. Hölzl, R. (1996). How does dragging affect the learning of geometry? International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 1(2), 169–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hölzl, R. (2001). Using dynamic geometry software to add contrast to geometric situations—A case study. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6(1), 63–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Laborde, J. M., & Sträßer, R. (1990). Cabri-Géomètre: A microworld of geometry for guided discovery learning. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 22(5), 171–177.Google Scholar
  18. Leung, A., Baccaglini-Frank, A., & Mariotti, M. A. (2013).). Discernment in dynamic geometry environments. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 84(3), 439–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lopez-Real, F., & Leung, A. (2006). Dragging as a conceptual tool in dynamic geometry. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 37(6), 665–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Magnani, L. (2004). Creative abduction as active shaping of knowledge: Epistemic and ethical mediators. In K. Forbus, D, Gentner & T. Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 879–884). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  21. Mariotti, M. A. (2015). Transforming Images in a DGS: The semiotic potential of the dragging tool for introducing the notion of conditional statement. In S. Rezat, M. Sebastian, A. Hattermann & Peter-Koop (Eds.), Transformation—A fundamental idea of mathematics education (pp. 155–172). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Mariotti, M. A., & Baccaglini-Frank (2011). Making conjectures in dynamic geometry: The potential of a particular way of dragging. New England Mathematics Journal, XLIII, 22–33.Google Scholar
  23. Peirce, C. S. (1960). Collected papers II, Elements of logic. Boston: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Sinclair, N., & Robutti, O. (2013). Technology and the role of proof: The case of dynamic geometry. In M.A.K. Clements, A. Bishop, C. Keitel-Kreidt, J. Kilpatrick, F.K.-S Leung (Eds.), Third international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 571–596). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Sträßer, R. (2001). Cabri-Géomètre: Does dynamic geometry software (DGS) change geometry and its teaching and learning? International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6, 319–333.Google Scholar
  26. Vergnaud, G. (2009). The theory of conceptual fields. Human Development, 52(2), 83–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MathematicsUniversity of PisaPisaItaly

Personalised recommendations