Lesson hiccups during the development of teaching schemes: a novice technology-using mathematics teacher’s professional instrumental genesis of dynamic geometry

ZDM ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 52 (7) ◽  
pp. 1349-1363 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gülay Bozkurt ◽  
Candas Uygan
2015 ◽  
pp. 383-405
Author(s):  
Milan Sherman

This chapter discusses how the use of Dynamic Geometry Software (DGS) can be used to support students' engagement with the Standards for Mathematical Practice as outlined in Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSS-M). In particular, the aim of this chapter is to (1) describe what students' strategic use of appropriate tools might entail in a DGS environment, and (2) argue that for students to engage in these practices in a DGS environment, they must construct meaning for and with these tools in the process of instrumental genesis. Illustrative examples are provided from three secondary mathematics classrooms, and the chapter concludes with recommendations for future research and teacher education in this area.


Author(s):  
Milan Sherman

This chapter discusses how the use of Dynamic Geometry Software (DGS) can be used to support students’ engagement with the Standards for Mathematical Practice as outlined in Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSS-M). In particular, the aim of this chapter is to (1) describe what students’ strategic use of appropriate tools might entail in a DGS environment, and (2) argue that for students to engage in these practices in a DGS environment, they must construct meaning for and with these tools in the process of instrumental genesis. Illustrative examples are provided from three secondary mathematics classrooms, and the chapter concludes with recommendations for future research and teacher education in this area.


Horizontes ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 172-183
Author(s):  
Muteb M. Alqahtani ◽  
Arthur B. Powell

We draw on the theory of instrumental genesis (RABARDEL; BEGUIN, 2005) and the notion of co-action (HEGEDUS; MORENO-ARMELLA, 2010) to understand how teachers’ instrumentation of dynamic geometry environment (DGE) and how this instrumentation shapes their geometric knowledge. In small groups, six middle and high school mathematics teachers engaged in solving open-ended geometric problems in an online dynamic geometry environment for 15 weeks. Our analysis of their interactions indicates that the co-action between the teachers and the environment helped them appropriate the dragging feature of DGE, which shaped their understanding of geometrical relations, particularly dependencies. Designing tasks that support teachers’ effective appropriation of DGEs requires special attention to the co-active nature of DGEs. This study provides insights into aspects of learners’ collaborative interaction with certain technologies.


Author(s):  
Moritz Lucius Sümmermann ◽  
Daniel Sommerhoff ◽  
Benjamin Rott

AbstractDigital transformation has made possible the implementation of environments in which mathematics can be experienced in interplay with the computer. Examples are dynamic geometry environments or interactive computational environments, for example GeoGebra or Jupyter Notebook, respectively. We argue that a new possibility to construct and experience proofs arises alongside this development, as it enables the construction of environments capable of not only showing predefined animations, but actually allowing user interaction with mathematical objects and in this way supporting the construction of proofs. We precisely define such environments and call them “mathematical simulations.” Following a theoretical dissection of possible user interaction with these mathematical simulations, we categorize them in relation to other environments supporting the construction of mathematical proofs along the dimensions of “interactivity” and “formality.” Furthermore, we give an analysis of the functions of proofs that can be satisfied by simulation-based proofs. Finally, we provide examples of simulation-based proofs in Ariadne, a mathematical simulation for topology. The results of the analysis show that simulation-based proofs can in theory yield most functions of traditional symbolic proofs, showing promise for the consideration of simulation-based proofs as an alternative form of proof, as well as their use in this regard in education as well as in research. While a theoretical analysis can provide arguments for the possible functions of proof, they can fulfil their actual use and, in particular, their acceptance is of course subject to the sociomathematical norms of the respective communities and will be decided in the future.


ZDM ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haim Elgrably ◽  
Roza Leikin

AbstractThis study was inspired by the following question: how is mathematical creativity connected to different kinds of expertise in mathematics? Basing our work on arguments about the domain-specific nature of expertise and creativity, we looked at how participants from two groups with two different types of expertise performed in problem-posing-through-investigations (PPI) in a dynamic geometry environment (DGE). The first type of expertise—MO—involved being a candidate or a member of the Israeli International Mathematical Olympiad team. The second type—MM—was comprised of mathematics majors who excelled in university mathematics. We conducted individual interviews with eight MO participants who were asked to perform PPI in geometry, without previous experience in performing a task of this kind. Eleven MMs tackled the same PPI task during a mathematics test at the end of a 52-h course that integrated PPI. To characterize connections between creativity and expertise, we analyzed participants’ performance on the PPI tasks according to proof skills (i.e., auxiliary constructions, the complexity of posed tasks, and correctness of their proofs) and creativity components (i.e., fluency, flexibility and originality of the discovered properties). Our findings demonstrate significant differences between PPI by MO participants and by MM participants as reflected in the more creative performance and more successful proving processes demonstrated by MO participants. We argue that problem posing and problem solving are inseparable when MO experts are engaged in PPI.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document