Advertisement

Evaluating the Usefulness of the Visualization Tool SimReal+ for Learning Mathematics: A Case Study at the Undergraduate Level

  • Said HadjerrouitEmail author
  • Harald H. Gautestad
Chapter

Abstract

Research on visualization tools is a topic of current concern. SimReal+ is a new visualization tool that is used to teach a wide range of mathematical topics spanning from school to higher education. However, SimReal+ has not been fully evaluated with respect to its potentialities and constraints in educational settings. While technical issues are self-evident requirements, pedagogical and mathematical aspects are much less frequently explored. The aim of this chapter is to assess the usefulness of SimReal+ in an undergraduate mathematics course for engineering students. It uses a set of criteria that cover technical, pedagogical, and mathematical issues.

Keywords

Instrumental approach SimReal+ Usefulness Visualization 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our special appreciation and thanks to Associate Professor Per Henrik Hogstad, Department of Engineering Sciences, University of Agder (Norway), and his involvement and great support in the teaching of mathematics using SimReal+.

References

  1. Arbain, N., & Shukor, N. A. (2015). The effects of GeoGebra on students achievement. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 172, 208–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arcavi, A. (2003). The role of visual representations in the learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 52(3), 215–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Artigue, M., Cerulli, M., Haspekian, M., & Maracci, M. (2009). Connecting and integrating theoretical frames: The TELMA contribution. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 14, 217–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bokhove, C., & Drijvers, P. (2010). Digital tools for algebra education: Criteria and evaluation. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 15, 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brekke, M., & Hogstad, P. H. (2010). New teaching methods—Using computer technology in physics, mathematics, and computer science. International Journal of Digital Society (IJDS), 1(1), 17–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cobb, P. (2007). Putting philosophy to work: Coping with multiple theoretical perspectives. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 3–38). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar
  7. Diković, L. (2009). Applications GeoGebra into teaching some topics of mathematics at the college level. Computer Science and Information Systems, 6(2), 191–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Drijvers, P., Kieran, C., Mariotti, M.-A., Ainley, J., Andresen, M., Chan, Y., et al. (2010). Integrating technology into mathematics education: Theoretical perspectives. In C. Hoyles & J.-B. Lagrange (Eds.), Mathematics education and technology—Rethinking the terrain (Vol. 13, pp. 89–132). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fahlberg-Stojanovska, L., & Stojanovski, V. (2009). GeoGebra—Freedom to explore and learn. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications, 28, 69–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Forbes, S., et al. (2014). Use of data visualization in the teaching of statistics: A New Zealand perspective. Statistics Education Research Journal, 13(2), 187–201.Google Scholar
  11. Gautestad, H. H. (2015). Use of SimReal+ in mathematics at the university Level: A case study of teacher’s orchestrations in relation to the usefulness of the tool for students. Unpublished master thesis, University of Agder, Kristiansand, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  12. Haciomeroglu, E. S. (2011). Visualization through dynamic GeoGebra illustrations. In L. Bu & R. Schoen (Eds.), Model-centered learning: Pathways to mathematical understanding using GeoGebra (pp. 133–144). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hadjerrouit, S. (2010). A conceptual framework for using and evaluating web-based learning resources in school education. Journal of Information Technology Education, 9, 53–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hadjerrouit, S. (2015). Evaluating the interactive learning tool SimReal+ for visualizing and simulating mathematical concepts. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age (CELDA 2015) (pp. 101–108).Google Scholar
  15. Hadjerrouit, S. (2017). Assessing the affordances of SimReal+ and their applicability to support the learning of mathematics in teacher education. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 14, 121–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hadjerrouit, S., & Bronner, A. (2014). An instrument for assessing the educational value of Aplusix for learning school algebra. In M. Searson & M. Ochoa (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2014 (pp. 2241–2248). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Google Scholar
  17. Hadjerrouit, S., & Gautestad, H.H. (2016). Using the interactive visualization tool SimReal+ to teach mathematics at the university level: An instrumental approach. In Proceedings of the International Network for Didactic Research in University Mathematics (INDRUM 2016), Montpellier, France (pp. 429–430).Google Scholar
  18. Haspekian, M. (2005). An instrumental approach to study the integration of a computer tool into mathematics teaching: The case of spreadsheets. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 10(2), 109–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hoffkamp, A. (2011). The use of interactive visualizations to foster the understanding of concepts of calculus: Design principles and empirical results. ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 43, 359–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hogstad, P. H. (n.d.). SimReal+/Video lectures—Simulations [in Norwegian: SimReal+ Videoforelesninger—Simuleringer]. Retrieved from http://grimstad.uia.no/perhh/phh/video/video.htm
  21. Hogstad, N. M, Ghislain, M., & Vos, P. (2016). Engineering students’ use of visualizations to communicate about representations and applications in a technological environment. In Proceedings of the International Network for Didactic Research in University Mathematics (INDRUM 2016), Montpellier, France (pp. 211–220).Google Scholar
  22. Kay, R., & Kletskin, I. (2012). Evaluating the use of problem-based video podcasts to teach mathematics in higher education. Computers & Education, 59, 619–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leacock, T. L., & Nesbit, J. C. (2007). A framework for evaluating the quality of multimedia learning resources. Educational Technology & Society, 10, 44–59.Google Scholar
  24. Leng, N. W. (2011). Using an advanced graphing calculator in the teaching and learning of calculus. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 42(7), 925–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Liu, H. P. (2005). Mathematical Modeling and visualization: A preliminary course design for computational science curriculum. In Proceeding of Frontiers in Education Conference, 2005.Google Scholar
  26. Macnab, J. S., Phillips, L. M., & Norris, S. P. (2012). Visualizations and visualization in mathematics education. In S. P. Norris (Ed.), Reading for evidence and interpreting visualizations in mathematics and science education (pp. 103–122). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McKenzie, K., & Clements, A. (2014). Fifty years of thinking about visualization and visualizing in mathematics education: A historical overview. In M. N. Fried & T. Dreyfus (Eds.), Mathematics & mathematics education: Searching for common ground: Advances in mathematics education (pp. 177–192). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
  28. Natsheh, I., & Karsenty, R. (2014). Exploring the potential role of visual reasoning tasks among inexperienced solvers. ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 46(1), 109–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability Engineering. Boston, MA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  30. Nokelainen, P. (2006). An empirical assessment of pedagogical usability criteria for digital learning material with elementary school students. Educational Technology & Society, 9, 178–197.Google Scholar
  31. Pierce, R., & Stacey, K. (2010). Mapping pedagogical opportunities provided by mathematics analysis software. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 15(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Presmeg, N. (2014). Visualization and learning in mathematics education. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mathematics education (pp. 636–640). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
  33. Rittle-Johnson, B., Siegler, R. S., & Alibali, M. W. (2001). Developing conceptual understanding and procedural skill in mathematics: An iterative process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 346–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Souto-Rubio, B. (2015). Visualizing mathematics at university? Examples from theory and practice of a linear algebra course. In S. Cho (Ed.), Selected Regular Lectures from the 12th International Congress on Mathematical Education (pp. 731–753). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Takači, D., Stankov, G., & Milanovic, I. (2015). Efficiency of learning environment using GeoGebra when calculus contents are learned in collaborative groups. Computers and Education, 82, 421–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Trouche, L. (2004). Managing the complexity of human/machine interactions in computerized learning environments: Guiding students’ command process through instrumental orchestrations. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9, 281–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yağmur, S., & Çağıltay, K. (2013). A usability study of dynamic geometry software’s interfaces. Communications in Computer and Information Science, 373, 175–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zarzycki, P. (2004). From visualizing to proving. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications, 23(3), 108–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zulnaidi, H., & Zakaria, E. (2012). The effect of using GeoGebra on conceptual and procedural knowledge of high school mathematics students. Asian Social Science, 8(11), 202–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of AgderKristiansandNorway
  2. 2.Tangen Upper Secondary SchoolKristiansandNorway

Personalised recommendations