Constructions of dynamic geometry: A study of the interpretative flexibility of educational software in classroom practice

Computers and Education

Volumn 51, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 297-317

  Ruthven, Kenneth ^a   Hennessy, Sara ^a   Deaney, Rosemary ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Applications in subject areas; Curriculum materials; Dynamic geometry; Educational software; Pedagogical issues; School mathematics; Secondary education; Teacher thinking; Teaching practices; Technology integration

Indexed keywords

CURRICULA; DYNAMIC PROGRAMMING; E-LEARNING; ITERATIVE METHODS; PERSONNEL TESTING;

CURRICULUM MATERIALS; DYNAMIC GEOMETRY; EDUCATIONAL SOFTWARE; PEDAGOGICAL ISSUES; SCHOOL MATHEMATICS; SECONDARY EDUCATION; TEACHER THINKING; TEACHING PRACTICES; TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION;

COMPUTER AIDED SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

EID: 43549124111     PISSN: 03601315     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2007.05.013     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Artigue M. Learning mathematics in a CAS environment: The genesis of a reflection about instrumentation and the dialectics between technical and conceptual work. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning 7 3 (2002) 245-274
2. Arzarello F., Olivero F., Paola D., and Robutti O. A cognitive analysis of dragging practises in Cabri environments. Zentralblatt fur Didaktik der Mathematik 34 3 (2002) 66-72
3. Assude T., and Gelis J.M. La dialectique ancien-nouveau dans l'intégration de Cabri-géomètre à l'école primaire. Educational Studies in Mathematics 50 3 (2002) 259-287
4. Balacheff N., and Kaput J. Computer-based learning environments in mathematics. In: Bishop A., et al. (Ed). International Handbook of Mathematics Education (1996), Kluwer, Dordrecht
5. Ball D.L., and Cohen D.K. Reform by the book: What is - or might be - the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform. Educational Researcher 25 9 (1996) 6-8 14
6. Becker, H., Ravitz, J. & Wong, Y., (1999). Teacher and Teacher-Directed Student Use of Computers, Teaching, Learning, and Computing: 1998 National Survey Report #3. Centre for Research on Information Technology and Organizations, University of California Irvine.
7. Bell A.W., Costello J., and Küchemann D. A Review of Research in Mathematical Education - Part A: Research on Learning and Teaching (1983), NFER-Nelson, Windsor
8. Carroll, J., Howard, S., Vetere, F., Peck, J., & Murphy, J. (2001). Just what do the youth of today want? Technology appropriation by young people. Working Paper 02/IDG/2001, Department of Information Systems University of Melbourne. http://www.dis.unimelb.edu.au/pdf/02-idg-2001.pdf.
9. Chazan D., and Yerushalmy M. Charting a course for secondary geometry. In: Chazan D., and Lehrer R. (Eds). New directions in the teaching and learning of geometry (1995), Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ
10. Cuban L. Neoprogressive visions and organizational realities. Harvard Educational Review 59 2 (1989) 217-222
11. Cuban L., Kirkpatrick H., and Peck C. High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal 38 4 (2001) 813-834
12. Deaney R., Ruthven K., and Hennessy S. Teachers' developing 'practical theories' of the contribution of information and communication technologies to subject teaching and learning: an analysis of cases from English secondary schools. British Educational Research Journal 32 3 (2006) 459-480
13. Department for Education and Employment [DfEE] (2001). Key Stage 3 National Strategy: Framework for teaching mathematics. London: DfEE.
14. Dörfler W. Computer use and views of the mind. In: Keitel C., and Ruthven K. (Eds). Learning from computers: Mathematics education and technology (1993), Springer-Verlag, Berlin
15. Engström, L. (2004). Examples from teachers' strategies using a dynamic geometry program in upper secondary school. Paper presented at ICME-10. http://www.icme-organisers.dk/tsg10/articulos/Lil_Engstrom.doc.
16. Fleck, J. (1988). Innofusion or diffusation? The nature of technological development in robotics. Edinburgh PICT Working Paper #7, University of Edinburgh.
17. Gawlick, T. (2004). Restructuring dynamic constructions: Activities to stimulate the development of higher-level geometric thinking. Paper presented at ICME-10. http://www.icme-organisers.dk/tsg10/articulos/Gawlick_48_revised_paper.doc.
18. Haggarty L., and Pepin B. An investigation of mathematics textbooks and their use in English, French and German classrooms: who gets an opportunity to learn what?. British Educational Research Journal 28 4 (2002) 567-590
19. Hölzl R. How does 'dragging' affect the learning of geometry. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning 1 2 (1996) 169-187
20. Hölzl R. Using dynamic geometry software to add contrast to geometric situations - a case study. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning 6 3 (2001) 63-86
21. Howson G. Mathematics textbooks: a comparative study of Grade 8 texts (1995), Pacific Educational Press, Vancouver
22. Hoyles, C., Foxman, D., & Küchemann, D. (2001). A comparative study of geometry curricula. London: Institute of Education.
23. Hoyles C., and Noss R. What can digital technologies take from and bring to research in mathematics education?. In: Bishop A.J., Clements M.A., Keitel C., Kilpatrick J., and Leung F.K.S. (Eds). Second International Handbook of Mathematics Education (2003), Kluwer, Dordrecht
24. Kaiser G. Educational philosophies and their influence on mathematics education - an ethnographic study in English and German mathematics classrooms. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik 34 6 (2002) 241-257
25. Kendal M., and Stacey K. The impact of teacher privileging on learning differentiation with technology. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning 6 2 (2001) 143-165
26. Kline R., and Pinch T. The social construction of technology. In: MacKenzie D., and Wajcman J. (Eds). The Social Shaping of Technology (1999), Open University Press, Buckingham
27. Laborde C. Integration of technology in the design of geometry tasks with Cabri-Geometry. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning 6 3 (2001) 283-317
28. Lampert M. Teachers' thinking about students' thinking about geometry: The effects of new teaching tools. In: Schwartz J., Yerushalmy M., and Wilson B. (Eds). The Geometric Supposer: What is it a case of? (1993), Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale NJ
29. Latour, B. (1986). 'The Powers of Association'. Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge? Sociological Review monograph 32.
30. Lins, B. (2003). Actual meanings, possible uses: Secondary mathematics teachers and Cabri-géomètre. Paper presented at CERME-3. http://fibonacci.dm.unipi.it/~didattica/CERME3/proceedings/Groups/TG9/TG9_Lins_cerme3.pdf.
31. Math Forum (undated). Interactive geometry classroom resources. http://mathforum.org/dynamic.html.
32. Office for Standards in Education [OfStEd] (2002). ICT in Schools: Effect of government initiatives - Secondary Mathematics. London: OfStEd.
33. Office for Standards in Education [OfStEd] (2004). ICT in schools - the impact of government initiatives: Secondary mathematics. London: OfStEd.
34. Olive, J. (2002). Implications of using dynamic geometry technology for teaching and learning. In: M. Saraiva, J. Matos, I. Coelho, (Eds.) Ensino e Aprendizagem de Geometria. Lisbon: SPCE. http://www.spce.org.pt/sem/JO.pdf.
35. Pea R.D. Beyond amplification: Using the computer to reorganise mental functioning. Educational Psychologist 20 4 (1985) 167-182
36. Pereira, P. (2002). Dynamic geometry: Dilemmas of teaching. Paper presented at Technology & Education Conference, Laboratory for ICT and Learning NTNU. http://www.ntnu.no/labil/techedu/PeterPereira-Paper.pdf.
37. Rabardel, P. (2002). People And Technology: A cognitive approach to contemporary instruments. http://ergoserv.psy.univ-paris8.fr/.
38. Rabardel P., and Bourmaud G. From computer to instrument system: A developmental perspective. Interacting with Computers 15 (2003) 665-691
39. Rabardel P., and Waern Y. From artefact to instrument. Interacting with Computers 15 (2003) 641-645
40. Remillard J. Examining key concepts in research on teachers' use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research 75 2 (2005) 211-246
41. Royal Society/Joint Mathematical Council [RS/JMC] (2001). Teaching and learning geometry 11-19. London: Royal Society.
42. Ruthven K. Instrumenting mathematical activity: Reflections on key studies of the educational use of computer algebra systems. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning 7 3 (2002) 275-291
43. Scher D. Lifting the curtain: The evolution of the Geometer's Sketchpad. The Mathematics Educator 10 1 (2000) 42-48
44. Schwartz J. Intellectual mirrors: A step in the direction of making schools knowledge-making places. Harvard Educational Review 59 1 (1989) 51-61
45. In: Schwartz J., Yerushalmy M., and Wilson B. (Eds). The geometric supposer: What is it a case of? (1993), Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale NJ
46. Spillane J.P., Reiser B.J., and Reimer T. Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research 72 3 (2002) 387-431
47. Tatnall, A. & Gilding, A. (1999). Actor-network theory and information systems research. Paper presented at the 10th Australasian Conference on Information Systems. http://www2.vuw.ac.nz/acis99/Papers/PaperTatnall-069.pdf.
48. Williams R., and Edge D. The social shaping of information and communications technologies. Research Policy 25 6 (1996) 856-899
49. Wilson B. The geometric supposer in the classroom. In: Schwartz J., Yerushalmy M., and Wilson B. (Eds). The geometric supposer: What is it a case of? (1993), Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ
50. Wiske M.S., and Houde R. From recitation to construction: Teachers change with new technologies. In: Schwartz J., Yerushalmy M., and Wilson B. (Eds). The geometric supposer: What is it a case of? (1993), Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ