Advertisement

High School Teachers’ Use of a Dynamic Geometry System to Formulate Conjectures and to Transit from Empirical to Geometric and Algebraic Arguments in Problem-Solving Approaches

  • Manuel Santos-TrigoEmail author
  • Matías Camacho-Machín
  • Carmen Olvera-Martínez
Chapter
Part of the Research in Mathematics Education book series (RME)

Abstract

The aim of the study is to analyse and discuss ways of reasoning that high school teachers develop in a problem-solving environment that fosters the systematic use of digital technologies. Results indicate that they relied on a dynamic geometry system’s affordances to initially make sense of problem statements to formulate a set of conjectures or relationships that involve mathematical parameters’ behaviours. Initially these conjectures were empirically validated or through visual and quantitative arguments; but later the same arguments were a source to think with an algebraic support. Throughout the activities, the participants engaged in mathematical reflection to reconcile visual, geometric and algebraic or analytical approaches.

Keywords

Digital technologies Mathematical problem-solving Conjectures Dynamic geometry system (DGS) 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This report is part of a wider project that deals with teachers and students’ use of digital technologies in extending both mathematics and didactic knowledge. We acknowledge the support received from research projects with reference numbers Conacyt-168543 (México) and EDU2015-65270-R (National I+D+I Plan of MEC-Spain) during the development of this research.

References

  1. Churchill, D., Fox, B., & King, M. (2016). Framework for designing mobile learning environments. In D. Churchill, J. Lu, T. K. F. Chiu, & B. Fox (Eds.), Mobile learning design, lectures notes in educational technologies (pp. 22–52). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cooney, T., Beckmann, S., & Lloyd, G. (2010). Developing essential understanding of functions for teaching mathematics in Grades 9–12. Reston, VA: National Council of Teacher of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  3. Dick, T. P., & Hollebrands, K. F. (2011). Focus in high school mathematics: Technology to support reasoning and sense making. Reston, VA: National Council of Teacher of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  4. Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (2008). Next steps in implementing Kaput’s research programme. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 68, 85–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kereluik, K., Mishra, P., Fahnoe, C., & Terry, L. (2013). What knowledge is of most worth: Teacher knowledge for 21st century learning. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 29(4), 127–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Leung, A. (2011). An epistemic model of task design in dynamic geometry environment. ZDM Mathematics Education, 43, 325–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Liljedahl, P., Santos-Trigo, M., Malaspina, U., & Bruder, R. (2016). Problem solving in mathematics education, ICME-13 topical surveys. Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teacher College Record, 108(6), 1017–1024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. National Council of Teacher of Mathematics. (2009). Focus in high school mathematics: Reasoning and sense making. Reston, VA: National Council of Teacher of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  10. Sacristan, A. I., Calder, N., Rojano, T., Santos-Trigo, M., Friedlander, A., & Meissner, H. (2010). The influence and shaping of digital technologies on the learning -and learning trajectories- of mathematical concepts. In C. Hoyles & J. Lagrange (Eds.), Mathematics education and technology rethinking the terrain. The 17th ICMI study (pp. 179–226). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Santos-Trigo, M. (2014). Problem solving in mathematics education. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mathematics education (pp. 496–501). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Santos-Trigo, M., & Camacho-Machín, M. (2009). Towards the construction of a framework to deal with routine problems to foster mathematical inquiry. Primus, 19(3), 260–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Santos-Trigo, M., & Moreno-Armella, L. (2016). The use of digital technologies to frame and foster learners’ problem solvers’ experiences. In P. Felmer et al. (Eds.), Posing and solving mathematical problems, Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 189–207). Cham: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28023-3_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Santos-Trigo, M., Moreno-Armella, L., & Camacho-Machín, M. (2016). Problem solving and the use of digital technologies within the mathematical working space framework. ZDM Mathematics Education, 48, 827–842.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-016-0757-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Santos-Trigo, M., Reyes-Martínez, I., & Aguilar-Magallón, D. (2015). The use of digital technologies in extending mathematical problem solving reasoning. In L. Uden et al. (Eds.), Learning technologies for education in cloud, Communications in computer and information science (pp. 298–309). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Santos-Trigo, M., Reyes-Martinez, I., & Aguilar-Magallón, D. (2016). Digital technologies and a modeling approach to learn mathematics and develop problem solving competencies. In L. Uden et al. (Eds.), Learning technologies for education in cloud, Communications in computer and information science (pp. 193–206). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Santos-Trigo, M., & Reyes-Rodríguez, A. (2016). The use of digital technology in finding multiple paths to solve and extend an equilateral triangle task. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 47(1), 58–81.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2015.1049228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2009). An essay review of the NCTM high school curriculum project. Mathematics Teacher, 103(3), 168–171.Google Scholar
  19. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2011). How we think. A theory of goal-oriented decision making and its educational application. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2012). Toward professional development for teachers grounded in a theory of decision making. ZDM Mathematics Education, 43, 457–469.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s1158-011-0307-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2015). How we think: A theory of human decision-making, with a focus on teaching. In S. J. Cho (Ed.), The proceedings of the 12th international congress on mathematical education (pp. 229–243). New York: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12688-3_16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Trouche, L. (2016). Didactics of mathematics: Concepts, roots, interactions and dynamics from France. In J. Monaghan et al. (Eds.), Tools and mathematics, athematics education library (pp. 219–256). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manuel Santos-Trigo
    • 1
    Email author
  • Matías Camacho-Machín
    • 2
  • Carmen Olvera-Martínez
    • 3
  1. 1.Mathematics Education DepartmentCenter for Research and Advanced Studies, Cinvestav-IPNMexico CityMexico
  2. 2.Departamento de Análisis MatemáticoUniversidad de La LagunaSan Cristóbal de La LagunaSpain
  3. 3.Facultad de Ciencias ExactasUniversidad Juárez del Estado de DurangoDurangoMexico

Personalised recommendations