Dragging in a dynamic geometry environment through the lens of variation

International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning

Volumn 13, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 135-157

  Leung, Allen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

Author keywords

DGE; Dragging modalities; Functions of variation

Indexed keywords

KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITION; SEPARATION;

DGE; DRAGGING MODALITIES; DYNAMIC GEOMETRY; FUNCTIONS OF VARIATION;

OPTICAL INSTRUMENTS;

EID: 50949115803     PISSN: 13823892     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10758-008-9130-x     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Arzarello, F., Olivero, F., Paola, D., & Robutti, O. (2002). A cognitive analysis of dragging practices in Cabri environments. ZDM. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 34(3), 66-72. doi: 10.1007/BF02655708.
2. Davis, P. (1993). Visual Theorem. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24, 333-344. doi: 10.1007/BF01273369.
3. Falcade, R., Laborde, C., & Mariottie, M. A. (2007). Approaching functions: Cabri tools as instruments of semiotic mediation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66, 317-333. doi: 10.1007/s10649-006-9072-y.
4. Gärdenfors, P. (1988). Knowledge in flux: Modeling the dynamics of epistemic states. MIT Press: A Bradford Book.
5. Hegedus, S. (2005). Dynamic representations: a new perspective on instrumental genesis (Paper presented at CERME 2005, Sant Feliu de Guíxols, Spain)
6. Hölzl, R. (1996). How does 'dragging' affect the learning of geometry. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 1, 169-187. doi: 10.1007/BF00571077.
7. Ihde, D. (1986). Experimental Phenomenology: An Introduction. Albany: State University of New York Press.
8. Jackiw, N. (2001). The Geometer's Sketchpad 4 [Computer Program]. San Francisco: Key Curriculum Press.
9. Jackiw, N. (2006). Mechanism and magic in the psychology of dynamic geometry. In N. Sinclair, D. Pimm & W. Higginson (Eds.), Mathematics and the Aesthetics: New Approaches to an Ancient Affinity (pp. 145-159). CMS Books in Mathematics, Springer Science + Business Media, LLC.)
10. Laborde, C. (2005). Robust and soft constructions: Two sides of the use of dynamics geometry environments. In Proceedings of the Tenth Asian Technology Conference in Mathematics. Korea National University of Education, Cheong-Ju, South Korea, pp. 22-35.
11. Leung, A. (2003). Dynamic geometry and the theory of variation. In N. A. Pateman, B. J. Doughherty, & J. T. Zillox (Eds.), Proceedings of PME 27: Psychology of Mathematics Education 27th International Conference Volume 3 (pp. 197-204). Honolulu: University of Hawaii.
12. Leung, A., & Chan, Y. C. (2006). Exploring necessary and sufficient conditions in dynamic geometry environment. The International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 13(1), 37-43.
13. Leung, A., Chan, Y. C., & Lopez-Real, F. (2006). Instrumental genesis in dynamic geometry environments. In L. H. Son, N. Sinclair, J. B. Lagrange, & C. Hoyles (Eds.), Proceedings of the ICMI 17 Study Conference: Part 2 (pp. 346-353). Vietnam: Hanoi University of Technology.
14. Leung, A., & Lopez-Real, F. (2002). Theorem justification and acquisition in dynamic geometry: a case of proof by contradiction. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 7, 145-165. doi: 10.1023/A:1021195015288.
15. Lopez-Real, F., & Leung, A. (2006). Dragging as a conceptual tool in dynamic geometry environments. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 37(6), 665-679. doi: 10.1080/00207390600712539.
16. Mariotti, M. A. (2002). Influence of technologies advances on students' maths learning. In L. English, M. Bartolini Bussi, G. Jones, R. Lesh, & D. Tirosh (Eds.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 695-721). New Jersey: Lawrence Erbaum Associates.
17. Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, INC, Publishers.
18. Marton, F., Runesson, U., & Tsui, A. B. M. (2004). The space of learning. In F. Marton & A. B. M. Tsui (Eds.), Classroom discourse and the space of learning (pp. 3-40). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, INC Publishers.
19. Presmeg, N. (2006). Semiotics and the "connections" standard: significance of semiotics for teachers of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61, 163-182. doi: 10.1007/s10649-006-3365-z.
20. Schattschneider, D., & King, J. (Eds.). (1997). Geometry turned on: dynamic software in learning, teaching and research. Washington, DC: The Mathematical Assiciation of America.
21. Vérillon, P., & Rabardel, P. (1995). Cognition and artifacts: A contribution to the study of thought in relation to instrumented activity. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10(1), 77-101.