Proof and proving in the classroom: Dynamic Geometry Systems as tools of semiotic mediation

Research in Mathematics Education

Volumn 14, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 163-185

  Mariotti, Maria Alessandra ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SIENA   (Italy)

Author keywords

conditional statement; dragging; Dynamic Geometry System (DGS); semiotic potential; Theory of Semiotic Mediation (TMS)

Indexed keywords

EID: 84863579194     PISSN: 14794802     EISSN: 17540178     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14794802.2012.694282     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. Antonini, S. and Mariotti, M.A. 2008. Indirect Proof:What is specific to this way of proving?. ZDM. The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 40(3): 341-4.
2. Arsac, G. 1992. Initiation au raisonnement au college, Presse Universitaire de Lyon.
3. Arsac, G. and Mante, M. 1983. Des "problèmes ouverts" dans nos classes du premier cycle. Petit x, 2: 5-33.
4. Arzarello, F. 2006. Semiosis as a multimodal process. Relime (Revista Latinoamericana de Investigación en Matemática Educativa), special issue: 267-99.
5. nd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education A. Olivier and K. Newstead, 2 24-31. Stellenbosch, South Africa: PME.
6. Arzarello, F., Olivero, F., Paola, D. and Robutti, O. 2002. A cognitive analysis of dragging practices in Cabri environments. ZDM. The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 34(3): 66-72.
7. Baccaglini-Frank, A. 2010 Conjecturing in dynamic geometry: A model for conjecture-generation through maintaining dragging. PhD diss., Durham, NH: University of New Hampshire, Published by ProQuest.
8. Baccaglini-Frank, A., and M.A. Mariotti. 2009. Conjecturing and proving in dynamic geometry: The elaboration of some research hypotheses. In Proceedings of CERME 6, V. Durand-Guerrier, S. Soury-Lavergne and F. Arzarello., Lyon, France. www.inrp.fr/editions/editions-electroniques/cerme6/
9. Baccaglini-Frank, A. and Mariotti, M.A. 2010. Generating conjectures in dynamic geometry: the maintaining dragging model. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 15(3): 225-53.
10. rd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education M. Tzekaki and H. Sakonidis, 2 89-96, Thessaloniki, Greece: PME.
11. Balacheff, N. 2008. The role of the researcher's epistemology in mathematics education: An essay on the case of proof. ZDM. The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 40: 501-12.
12. Bartolini Bussi, M.G. 1996. Mathematical discussion and perspective drawings in primary school. Education Studies in Mathematics, 31: 11-41.
13. Bartolini Bussi, M.G. 1998. "Verbal interaction in mathematics classroom: a Vygotskian analysis". In Language and communication in mathematics classroom, Edited by: Steinbring, H., Bartolini Bussi, M.G. and Sierpinska, A. 65-84. Reston, Virginia: NCTM.
14. Bartolini Bussi, M.G., Boni, M., Ferri, F. and Garuti, R. 1999. Early approach to theoretical thinking: Gears in primary school. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 39(1-3): 67-87.
15. Bartolini Bussi, M.G. and Mariotti, M.A. 2008. "Semiotic mediation in the mathematics classroom: Artifacts and signs after a Vygotskian perspective". In Handbook of International Research in Mathematics Education, second revised edition, Edited by: English, L., Bartolini Bussi, M., Jones, G., Lesh, R. and Tirosh, D. 746-805. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16. Boero, P. 2007. Theorems in school: From history, epistemology and cognition to classroom practice. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
17. th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education J.P. Da Ponte and J.P. Matos, 2 96-103. Lisbon, Portugal: PME.
18. Boero, P., Garuti, R. and Lemut, E. 2007. "Approaching theorems in grade VIII: Some mental processes underlying producing and proving conjectures, and conditions suitable to enhance them". In Theorems in school: From history, epistemology and cognition to classroom practice, Edited by: Boero, P. 249-64. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
19. Chazan, D. 1993. High school geometry students' justification for their views of empirical evidence and mathematical proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24: 359-87.
20. Christou, C., N. Mousoulides, M. Pittalis, and D. Pitta-Pantazi. 2004. Proofs through exploration in dynamic geometry environments. In Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education M.J. Hoines and A.B. Flugestad, 2 215-22, Bergen, Norway: PME.
21. de Villiers, M. 1998. "An alternative approach to proof in dynamic geometry". In New directions in teaching and learning geometry, Edited by: Lehrer, R. and Chazan, D. 369-393. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22. Dreyfus, T. and Hadas, N. 1996. Proof as answer to the question why. ZDM. The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 28(1): 1-5.
23. Duval, R. 1992-3. Argumenter, demontrer, expliquer: Continuité ou rupture cognitive?. Petit x, 31: 37-61.
24. Duval, R. 2007. "Cognitive functioning and the understanding of mathematical processes of proof". In Theorems in school: From history, epistemology and cognition to classroom practice, Edited by: Boero, P. 137-62. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
25. Edwards, L. 1990. Children's learning in a computer microworld for transformation geometry. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(2): 122-37.
26. Hadas, N., Hershkowitz, R. and Schwarz, B. 2000. The role of contradiction and uncertainty in promoting the need to prove in dynamic geometry environments. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44(1-2): 127-50.
27. Hanna, G. 1989a. More than formal proof. For the learning of mathematics, 9(1): 20-5.
28. Hanna, G. 1989b. Proofs that prove and proofs that explain. In Proceedings of the 13th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, G. Vergnaud, J. Rogalskied and M. Artigue, 45-51. Paris, France: PME.
29. Harel, G., and L. Sowder. 1996. Classifying processes of proving. In Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, L. Luig and A. Gutierrez, 3 59-65. PME, Valencia, Spain.
30. Harel, G., and L. Sowder. 1998. Students' proof schemes: Results from exploratory studies. In Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education III. Issues in Mathematics Education, A. Schonfeld, J. Kaput and E. Dubinsky, 7 234-82. American Mathematical Society.
31. th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, T. Nakahara and M. Koyama, 1 103-17., Hiroshima, Japan.
32. Hölzl, R. 1996. How does "dragging" affect the learning of geometry. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 1(2): 169-87.
33. Hölzl, R., Hoyles, C. and Noss, R. 1994. Geometrical relationships and dependencies in Cabri. Micromath, 10(3): 8-11.
34. Hoyles, C. 1993. "Microworlds/Schoolworlds: The transformation of an innovation". In Learning from computers: Mathematics education and technology, Edited by: Keitel, C. and Ruthven, K. 203-21. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
35. Jones, K. 2000. Providing a foundation for a deductive reasoning: Students' interpretation when using dynamic geometry software and their evolving mathematical explanations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44(1-2): 55-85.
36. Jones, K., Gutiérrez, A. and Mariotti, M.A. 2000. Guest editorial. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44(1-2): 1-3.
37. Kozulin, A. 2003. "Psychological tools and mediated learning". In Vygotskij's educational theory in cultural context, Edited by: Kozulin, A., Gindis, B., Ageyev, V.S. and Miller, S.M. 15-38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38. Laborde, C. 2000. Dynamic geometry environment as a source of rich learning context for the complex activity of proving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44(1-2): 151-61.
39. Laborde, C., and J.M. Laborde. 1991. Problem solving in geometry: From microworlds to intelligent computer environments. In Mathematical problem solving and new information technologies, J.P. Ponte, J.F. Matos, J.M. and D. Fernandes, 177-92. NATO AS1 Series F, 89. Berlin: Springer Verlag.
40. Laborde, J.M., and F. Bellemain. 1995. Cabri-géomètre II and Cabri-géomète II plus [computer program]. Dallas, USA: Texas instruments, and Grenoble, France: Cabrilog.
41. Laborde, J.M. and Sträßer, R. 1990. Cabri Géomètre, a microworld of geometry for guided discovery learning. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 22(5): 171-7.
42. Leung, A. 2008. Dragging in a dynamic geometry environment through the lens of variation. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 13(2): 135-57.
43. Leung, A. and 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: 145-65.
44. Lolli, G. 1999. Truth and proofs, a short course in the epistemology of mathematics. School on Epistemology and Didactics, Levico Terme, 8-12 February 1999 (mimeographed).
45. Lopez-Real, F. and Leung, A. 2006. Dragging as a conceptual tool in dynamic geometry. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 37(6): 665-79.
46. Mariotti, M.A. 2000. Introduction to proof: The mediation of a dynamic software environment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44(1-2): 25-53.
47. Mariotti, M.A. 2001. Justifying and proving in the Cabri environment. International Journal of Computer for Mathematical Learning, 6(3): 257-81.
48. Mariotti, M.A. 2006. "Proof and proving in mathematics education". In Handbook of Research on the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Edited by: Gutiérrez, A. and Boero, P. 173-204. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
49. Mariotti, M.A. 2007. "Geometrical proof: The mediation of a microworld". In Theorems in school: From history epistemology and cognition to classroom practice, Edited by: Boero, P. 285-304. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
50. Mariotti, M.A. 2009. Artifacts and signs after a Vygotskian perspective: The role of the teacher. ZDM The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 41: 427-40.
51. Mariotti, M.A. 2011. "Proving and proof as an educational task". In Proceedings of the Seventh Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education, Edited by: Pytlak, M., Rowland, T. and Swoboda, E. 61-89. Rzeszów, Poland: University of Rzeszów.
52. Mariotti, M.A., and S. Antonini. 2009. Breakdown and reconstruction of figural concepts in proofs by contradiction in geometry. In Proof and Proving in Mathematics Education, ICMI Study 19 Conference Proceedings, F.L. Lin, F.J. Hsieh, G. Hanna and M. de Villers, 2 82-7. Taipei, Taiwan: National Taiwan Normal University.
53. th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, M. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, 3 343-50. Utrecht, The Netherlands: PME.
54. Mariotti, M.A. and Maracci, M. 2010. "Un artefact comme outils de médiation sémiotique: Une ressource pour l'enseignant". In Ressources vives. Le travail documentaire des professeurs en mathématiques, Edited by: Gueudet, G. and Trouche, L. 91-107. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes et INRP.
55. st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, E. Pehkonen, 1 180-95. Lathi, Finland.
56. Olivero, F. 2001. Conjecturing in open geometric situations in a dynamic geometry environment: An exploratory classroom experiment. In Research in Mathematics Education, C. Morgan and K. Jones, 3 London. 229-46
57. Olivero, F. 2002. Proving within dynamic geometry environments, PhD. diss. Graduate School of Education, Bristol University.
58. Pedemonte, B. 2008. Argumentation and algebraic proof. ZDM. The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 40: 385-400.
59. Rabardel, P. 1995. Les hommes et les technologies-Approche cognitive des instruments contemporains, Paris: A. Colin Editions.
60. Radford, L. 2003. Gestures, speech, and the sprouting of signs: A semiotic-cultural approach to students' types of generalization. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 5(1): 37-70.
61. Restrepo, A.M. 2008. Génèse instrumentale de déplacement en géométrie dynamyque chez des élèves de 6ème, PhD diss. Université Joseph Fourier, Grenoble, France.
62. Schwartz, J. and Yerushalmy, M. 1987. The geometric supposer: An intellectual prosthesis for making conjectures. The College Mathematics Journal, 18(1): 58-65.
63. Sfard, A. 2000. "Symbolizing mathematical reality into being: How mathematical discourse and mathematical objects create each other". In Symbolizing and communicating: Perspectives on mathematical discourse, tools, and instructional design, Edited by: Cobb, P., Yackel, E. and McClain, K. 37-98. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
64. Sierpinska, A. 2005. "On practical and theoretical thinking". In Activity and sign-grounding mathematics education. Festschrift for Michael Otte, Edited by: Hoffmann, M.H.G., Lenhard, J. and Seeger, F. 117-35. New York: Springer.
65. Silver, E.A. 1995. The nature and use of open problems in mathematics education: Mathematical and pedagogical perspectives. ZDM. The International Journal on Mathematical Education, 27(2): 67-72.
66. Simon, M.A. 1996. Beyond inductive and deductive reasoning: The search for a sense of knowing. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 30(2): 197-209.
67. Stylianides, G.J. and Stylianides, A.J. 2005. Validation of solutions of construction problems in dynamic geometry environments. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 10: 31-47.
68. Talmon, V. and Yerushalmy, M. 2004. Understanding dynamic behaviour: Parent-child relations in dynamic geometry environments. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 57(1): 91-119.
69. Thurston, W.P. 1994. On proof and progress in mathematics. Bulletin of the Mathematical Society, 30(2): 161-77.
70. Vinner, S. 1999. The Possible and the Impossible. ZDM. The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 99(2): 77
71. Vygotskij, L.S. 1978. Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.