Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The mathematical and technological nature of tasks containing the use of dynamic geometry software in middle and secondary school mathematics textbooks

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study investigates the quality of tasks containing the use of dynamic geometry software (DGS) in the middle (5th–8th grade) and secondary school (9th–12th grade) mathematics textbooks in terms of mathematical and technological aspects. The DGS-related tasks in twenty-seven Turkish mathematics textbooks, approved by the Ministry of National Education, were analyzed according to the Dynamic Geometry Task Analysis Framework (Trocki & Hollebrands, Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 4(2), 110-138, 2018). Data analyses were conducted by using both qualitative and quantitative (descriptive statistics, independent samples t-test, and ANOVA) methods. The findings showed that DGS-related tasks were more common in the secondary school mathematics textbooks than in middle school mathematics textbooks. The mathematical depth level of DGS-related tasks in the middle school textbooks was significantly different from the mathematical depth level of DGS-related tasks in the secondary school textbooks. The mathematical depth levels of DGS-related tasks are quite low in middle school mathematics textbooks, and these tasks mostly cannot go beyond the practice of “drawing a shape according to the given steps”. In terms of technological actions, most of the DGS-related tasks often required only drawing. Sliding and dragging, which are required to see invariant relationships within geometrical obje cts, were uncommon in textbook DGS-related tasks. The quantitative results also showed that DGS-related tasks with a high level of mathematical depth have a high number of technological actions. Based on the results of this study, recommendations are given for improving the use of DGSs in textbooks as well as for further research on this topic.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aguilar, M. S., & Castaneda, A. (2020). A Foucauldian Analysis of Representations of Mathematicians in Lower Secondary Mexican Mathematics Textbooks. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18(4), 753–770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arzarello, F., Olivero, F., Paola, D., & Robutti, O. (2002). A cognitive analysis of dragging practices in Cabri environments. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 34(3), 66–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baccaglini-Frank, A., & Mariotti, M. (2010). Generating conjectures in dynamic geometry: The maintaining dragging model. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 15(3), 225–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayazit, I. (2013). Quality of the tasks in the new Turkish elementary mathematics textbooks: The case of proportional reasoning. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(3), 651–682.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Burger, W. F., & Shaughnessy, J. M. (1986). Characterizing the van Hiele levels of development in geometry. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 17(1), 31–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cayton, C. (2012). Examining the cognitive demand of tasks in three technology intensive high school Algebra 1 classrooms. In L. R. Van Zoest, J.-J. Lo, & J. L. Kratky (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 865–868). Western Michigan University.

  • CCSSM. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: National Governors’ Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers.

  • Chan, K. K., & Leung, S. W. (2014). Dynamic geometry software improves mathematical achievement: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 51(3), 311–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christou, C., Mousoulides, N., Pittalis, M., & Pitta-Pantazi, D. (2004). Proofs through exploration in dynamic geometry environments. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(3), 339–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Villiers, M. (1998). An alternative approach to proof in dynamic geometry. In R. Lehrer & D. Chazan (Eds.), New directions in teaching and learning geometry (pp. 369–393). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erbas, A. K., Alacaci, C., & Bulut, M. (2012). A comparison of mathematics textbooks from Turkey, Singapore, and the United States of America. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 12(3), 2324–2329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erbas, A. K., & Yenmez, A. A. (2011). The effect of inquiry-based explorations in a dynamic geometry environment on sixth grade students’ achievements in polygons. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2462–2475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fan, L. (2013). Textbook research as scientifc research: Towards a common ground on issues and methods of research on mathematics textbooks. ZDM-International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(5), 765–777. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0530-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grouws, D. A., Smith, M. S., & Sztajn, P. (2004). The preparation and teaching practices of United States mathematics teachers: Grades 4 and 8. In P. Kloosterman & F. K. Lester (Eds.), Results and Interpretations of the 1990 through 2000 Mathematics Assessment of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (pp. 221–267). NCTM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grouws, D. A., Tarr, J. E., Chávez, Ó., Sears, R., Soria, V. M., & Taylan, R. D. (2013). Curriculum and implementation effects on high school students’ mathematics learning from curricula representing subject-specific and integrated content organizations. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44(2), 416–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heid, M. K., & Blume, G. W. (Eds.). (2008). Research on technology and the teaching and learning of mathematics: Syntheses, cases, and perspectives. Vol. 1: Research syntheses. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

  • Hollebrands, K. (2007). The role of a dynamic software program for geometry in the strategies high school mathematics students employ. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(2), 164–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollebrands, K. F., & Dove, A. (2011). Technology as a tool for creating and reasoning about geometry tasks. In T. P. Dick & K. F. Hollebrands (Eds.), Focus in high school mathematics: Technology to support reasoning and sense making (pp. 33–52). Reston, VA: NCTM.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, D., Hollas, V., & Klespis, M. (2016). The presentation of technology for teaching and learning mathematics in textbooks: Content courses for elementary teachers. Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher Education, 17(1), 53–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ju, M. K., Moon, J. E., & Song, R. J. (2016). History of mathematics in Korean mathematics textbooks: Implication for using ethnomathematics in culturally diverse school. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(7), 1321–1338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kajander, A., & Lovric, M. (2009). Mathematics textbooks and their potential role in supporting misconceptions. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 40(2), 173–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (3rd ed.). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laborde, C. (2001). Integration of technology in the design of geometry tasks with CabriGeometry. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6(3), 283–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lew, H. C., & Jeong, S. Y. (2014). Key factors for successful integration of technology into the classroom: Textbooks and teachers. Electronic Journal of Mathematics & Technology, 8(5), 336–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mariotti, M. (2012). Proof and proving in the classroom: Dynamic geometry systems as tools of semiotic mediation. Research in Mathematics Education, 14(2), 163–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mersin, N., & Karabörk, M. A. (2021). The comparison of math textbooks in turkey and singapore in terms of technology ıntegration. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 13(1), 552–573.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education Textbooks and Education Tools Regulation. (2012). T.C. Resmi Gazete (28409, 12 Eylül 2012). Retrieved fromhttps://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2012/09/20120912-2.htm. Accessed 27 April 2022.

  • Ministry of National Education [MoNE] (2018a). Mathematics teaching program (Primary and Middle School Grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8) MEB: Ankara.

  • Ministry of National Education [MoNE] (2018b). Mathematics teaching program (Secondary School Grades 9, 10, 11, and 12), MEB: Ankara.

  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM]. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

  • Otten, S., Gilbertson, N. J., Males, L. M., & Clark, D. L. (2014). The mathematical nature of reasoning-and-proving opportunities in geometry textbooks. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 16(1), 51–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2014.857802

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pea, R. D. (1987). Cognitive technologies for mathematics education. In A. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Cognitive science and mathematics education (pp. 89–122). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pepin, B., & Haggarty, L. (2001). Mathematics textbooks and their use in English, French and German classrooms. ZDM, 33(5), 158–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reys, B. J., Reys, R. E., & Chavez, O. (2004). Why Mathematics Textbooks Matter. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 61–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, K., & Givvin, K. B. (2008). Implications for math and science ınstruction from the TIMSS 1999 Video Study. Principal Leadership, 8(9), 22–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sevimli, E., & Kul, Ü. (2015). Evaluation of the contents of mathematics textbooks in terms of compliance to technology: Case of secondary school. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science & Mathematics Education, 9(1), 308–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, M. (2014). The role of technology in supporting students’ mathematical thinking: Extending the metaphors of amplifier and reorganizer. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 220–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, M. F., Cayton, C., Walkington, C., & Funsch, A. (2020). An analysis of secondary mathematics textbooks with regard to technology integration. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 51(3), 361–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, M. F., Walkington, C., & Howell, E. (2016). A comparison of symbol-precedence view in investigative and conventional textbooks used in algebra courses. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 47(2), 134–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair, M. (2003). Some implications of the results of a case study for the design of pre-constructed, dynamic geometry sketches and accompanying materials. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 52(3), 289–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair, M. (2004). Working with accurate representations: The case of pre-constructed dynamic geometry sketches. The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 23(2), 191–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. S., & Stein, M. K. (1998). Reflections on practice: Selecting and creating mathematical tasks: From research to practice. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 3(5), 344–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein, M. K., & Lane, S. (1996). Instructional tasks and the development of student capacity to think and reason: An analysis of the relationship between teaching and learning in a reform mathematics project. Educational Research and Evaluation, 2(1), 50–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein, M., Grover, B., & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 455–488

  • Stein, M., Remillard, J., & Smith, M. (2007). How curriculum influences student learning. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (Vol. 1, pp. 319–369). Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein, M., & Smith, M. (2010). The influence of curriculum on students’ learning. In B. J. Reys, R. E. Reys & R. Rubenstein (Eds.), Mathematics curriculum. Issues, trends, and future directions (pp. 351362). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

  • Stein, M. K., & Smith, M. S. (1998). Mathematical tasks as a framework for reflection: From research to practice. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 3(4), 268–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stylianides, G. (2008). An analytic framework of reasoning-and-proving. For the Learning of Mathematics, 28(1), 9–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tarr, J. E., Grouws, D. A., Chávez, Ó., & Soria, V. M. (2013). The effects of content organization and curriculum implementation on students’ mathematics learning in second-year high school courses. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44(4), 683–729. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.44.4.0683

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, D. R., Senk, S. L., & Johnson, G. J. (2012). Opportunities to learn reasoning and proof in high school mathematics textbooks. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 43(3), 253–295. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.43.3.0253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trocki, A., & Hollebrands, K. (2018). The development of a framework for assessing dynamic geometry task quality. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 4(2), 110–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ubuz, B., Erbas, A. K., Çetinkaya, B., & Özgeldi, M. (2010). Exploring the quality of the mathematical tasks in the new Turkish elementary school mathematics curriculum guidebook: The case of algebra. ZDM Mathematics Education, 42(5), 483–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulusoy, F. (2019). Prospective mathematics teachers’ geometric constructions using compass-straightedge and dynamic geometry software. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education,10(2), 336–372.

  • Ulusoy, F. & İncikabı, L. (2020). Middle school teachers’ use of textbooks in instruction of mathematics. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 21(1), 1–18.

  • Ulusoy, F. & İncikabı, L. (2021). Preservice mathematics teachers’ selection of curriculum resources in individual and group lesson planning processes, International Journal of Mathematics Education in Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2021.1958944.

  • Van Zanten, M., & van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2018). Opportunity to learn problem solving in Dutch primary school mathematics textbooks. ZDM Mathematics Education, 50(5), 827–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weninger, C. (2018). Textbook analysis. In Chapelle, C.A. (Ed.), The Encylopedia of Applied Linguistics. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal1489

  • Zbiek, R., Heid, K., Blume, G., & Dick, T. (2007). Research on technology in mathematics education. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 1169–1207). Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mathematics and Science Education Department, Kastamonu University, Kastamonu, Turkey

    Fadime Ulusoy & İsmail Batuhan Turuş

Authors
  1. Fadime Ulusoy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. İsmail Batuhan Turuş
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fadime Ulusoy.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

None.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ulusoy, F., Turuş, İ.B. The mathematical and technological nature of tasks containing the use of dynamic geometry software in middle and secondary school mathematics textbooks. Educ Inf Technol 27, 11089–11113 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11070-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11070-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation