Using computer-assisted multiple representations in learning geometry proofs

Educational Technology and Society

Volumn 14, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 43-54

  Wong, Wing Kwong ^a   Yin, Sheng Kai ^a   Yang, Hsi Hsun ^b   Cheng, Ying Hao ^c  

^a NATIONAL YUNLIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Taiwan)

^b SHU TE UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TAIPEI   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Dynamic geometry; Geometry education; Multiple representations; Proof tree; Web based interaction system

Indexed keywords

EID: 80053540604     PISSN: 11763647     EISSN: 14364522     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Ainsworth, S. E. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers and Education, 33(2/3), 131-152.
2. Ainsworth, S. E. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183-198.
3. Ainsworth, S. & Van Labeke, N. (2004). Multiple forms of dynamic representation. Learning and Instruction, 14, 241-255.
4. Behr, M. J., Lesh, R., Post, T. R. & Silver, E. A. (1983). Rational number concepts. In R. Lesh & M. Landau (Eds.), Acquisition of mathematics concepts and processes (pp. 91-126), New York: Academic Press.
5. Brenner, M. E., Mayer, R. E., Moseley, B., Brar, T., Duran, R., Reed, B. S. & Webb, D. (1997). Learning by Understanding: The role of multiple representations in learning algebra. American Educational Research Journal, 34(4), 663-689.
6. Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7. Chazan, D. (1993). High school geometry students' justification for their views of empirical evidence and mathematical proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24(4), 359-387.
8. Chou S. C., Gao X. S. & Zhang J. Z. (1996). An introduction to geometry expert. In M. A. McRobbie, J. K. Slaney (Eds.), CADE- 13, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1104, 235-239.
9. Clements, D. H., & Battista, M. T. (1992). Geometry and spatial reasoning. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 420-464), New York: Macmillan.
10. de Jong, T., Ainsworth, S. E., Dobson, M., van der Hulst, A., Levonen, J., Reimann, P., Sime, J. -A., van Someren, M., Spada, H., & Swaak, J. (1998). Acquiring knowledge in science and mathematics: the use of multiple representations in technology based learning environments. In M. van Someren, P. Reimann, H. P. A. Boshuizen & T. de Jong (Eds.), Learning with multiple representations (pp. 9-40), Oxford: Pergamon.
11. Duval, R. (1998). Geometry from a cognitive point of view. In C. Mammana & V. Villani (Eds.), Perspectives on the Teaching of Geometry for the 21st Century: An ICMI study (pp. 37-52), Dordrecht: Kluwer.
12. Duval, R. (2000). Basic issues for research in mathematics education. In T. Nakahara & M. Koyama (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (vol. 1, pp. 55-69), Hiroshima: Nishiki.
13. Epstein, K., & Hillegeist, E. (1990). Intelligent Instructional Systems: Teachers and Computer-Based Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Educational Technology, 30(11), 13-19.
14. Healy, L. & Hoyles, C. (1998). Justifying and proving in school mathematics. Technical Report on the Nationwide Survey, London: Institute of Education, University of London.
15. Healy, L. & Hoyles, C. (2000). A study of proof conceptions in algebra. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(4), 396-428.
16. Hsu, Y. S. (2006). Lesson Rainbow: The use of multiple representations in an internet-based, discipline-integrated science lesson. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(4), 539-557.
17. Jackiw, N. (1998). JavaSketchpad (computer program for the web). Berkeley, CA: Key Curriculum Press.
18. Janvier, C. (1987a). Representation and understanding: The notion of function as an example. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of Representation in the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics (pp.67-72), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19. Janvier, C. (1987b). Translation processes in mathematics education. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of Representation in the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics (pp. 27-32), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
20. Kaput, J. J. (1987). Toward a theory of symbol use in mathematics. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of Representation in the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics (pp. 159-195), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21. Kieran, C. (1993). Function, graphing, and technology: Integrating research on learning and instruction. In T. A. Romberg, E. Fennema & T. P. Carpenter (Eds.), Integrating Research on the Graphical Representation of Functions (pp. 189-237), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22. Koedinger, K. R. & Anderson J. R. (1993a). Effective use of intelligent software in high school math classrooms. In P. Brna, S. Ohlsson & H. Pain (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 241-248), Charlottesville, VA: AACE.
23. Koedinger, K. R. & Anderson, J. R. (1993b). Reifying implicit planning in geometry: Guidelines for model-based intelligent tutoring system design. In S. P. Lajoie, & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Computers as Cognitive Tools (pp. 15-45). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
24. Kozma, R. B. (2003). Technology and classroom practices: An international study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(1), 1-14.
25. Lesh, R., Post, T. & Behr, M. (1987). Representations and translations among representations in mathematics learning and problem solving. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of Representation in the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics (pp. 33-40), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
26. Matsuda, N., & VanLehn, K. (2005). Advanced Geometry Tutor: An intelligent tutor that teaches proof-writing with construction. In C.-K. Looi, G. I. McCalla, B. Bredeweg & J. Breuker (Eds.), In Proceedings of The 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 443-450), Amsterdam: IOS Press.
27. Mayer, R. E. & Sims, V. K. (1994). For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(3), 389-401.
28. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principals and standards for school mathematics, Reston, VA: NCTM.
29. Raven, J. C. (2004). Standard Progressive Matrices Plus (SPM+). Taiwan: Chinese Behavioral Science Corporation (Chinese).
30. Schnotz, W. (2002). Towards an integrated view of learning from text and visual displays. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 101-120.
31. Seufert, T. (2003). Supporting coherence formation in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13, 227- 237.
32. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning, Cognitive Science, 12, 257-285.
33. van der Meij, J. & de Jong, T. (2006). Supporting students' learning with multiple representations in a dynamic simulation-based learning environment. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 199-212.
34. van Labeke, N. & Ainsworth, S. E. (2001). Applying the DeFT framework to the design of multi-representational instructional and simulations. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on AIED (pp. 314-321), San Antonio, Texas.
35. Wong, W. K., Hsu, S. C., Wu, S. H., Lee, C. W. & Hsu, W. L. (2007a). LIM-G: Learner-initiating instruction model based on cognitive knowledge for geometry word problem comprehension. Computers and Education, 48(4), 582-601.
36. Wong, W. K., Yang, H. H., Chan, B. Y. & Hsu, S. C. (2007b). From the visualization of proof tree to the reading and comprehension of proofs. WSEAS Transactions on Information Science & Applications, 4(4), 680-686.
37. Wood, D. J. & Wood, H. A. (1999). Help seeking, learning and contingent tutoring. Computers and Education, 33(2/3), 153-170.
38. Yang, K. L. & Lin, F. L. (2008). A model of reading comprehension of geometry proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67(1), 59-76.