The Development of a Framework for Assessing Dynamic Geometry Task Quality
This study documents the development of a Framework (the Dynamic Geometry Task Analysis Framework) to be used to indicate the relative quality of tasks produced for dynamic geometry software. Its purpose is to assist curriculum writers and teachers in evaluating and creating dynamic geometry tasks. To produce it, numerous tasks submitted by secondary mathematics teachers as part of a year-long professional development program were analyzed, before creating three dynamic geometry mathematics tasks that, according to the Framework, were ranked as low, medium and high in quality. Semi-structured interviews with twelve high school students were conducted and analyzed to examine relationships between the quality of tasks as specified by the Framework and the quality of student argumentation. Results showed the Framework effectively reflects task quality based on student mathematical activity and argumentation.
KeywordsDynamic geometry Mathematical task Task quality Instructional technology Geometry Secondary mathematics Student argumentation
This material is based upon work partially supported by the US National Science Foundation, under Grant No. DRL-0929543.
- Arzarello, F., Olivero, F., Paola, D., & Robutti, O. (2002). A cognitive analysis of dragging practises in Cabri environments. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 34(3), 66–72.Google Scholar
- CCSSM. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: National Governors’ Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers.Google Scholar
- Cirillo, M., Kosko, K., Newton, J., Staples, M., & Weber, K. (2015). Conceptions and consequences of what we call argumentation, justification, and proof. In T. Bartell, K. Bieda, R. Putnam, K. Bradfield, & H. Dominguez (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37 th Conference of the North-American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 1343–1351). East Lansing, MI: PME-NA.Google Scholar
- Goldin, G. (2000). A scientific perspective on structured, task-based interviews in mathematics education research. In A. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 517–545). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Goos, M., Soury-Lavergne, S., Assude, T., Brown, J., Kong, C., Glover, D., Grugeon, B., Laborde, C., Lavicza, Z., Miller, D., & Sinclair, M. (2010). Teachers and teaching: Theoretical perspectives and issues concerning classroom implementation. In C. Hoyles & J.-B. Lagrange (Eds.), Mathematics education and technology: Rethinking the terrain (pp. 311–328). Lisbon: Springer.Google Scholar
- Hollebrands, K. (2007). The role of a dynamic software program for geometry in the strategies high school mathematics students employ. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(2), 164–192.Google Scholar
- Hoyles, C., & Jones, K. (1998). Proof in dynamic geometry contexts. In C. Mammana & V. Villani (Eds.), Perspectives on the teaching of geometry for the 21 st century (pp. 121–128). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
- Kaput, J. (1992). Technology and mathematics education. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and Learning (pp. 515–556). New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
- NCTM. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
- Polya, G (1954). Mathematics and plausible reasoning. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
- Resnick, L. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
- Sinclair, M. (2004). Working with accurate representations: The case of pre-constructed dynamic geometry sketches. The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 23(2), 191–208.Google Scholar
- Smith, M., & Stein, M. (1998). Selecting and creating mathematical tasks: From research to practice. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 3(5), 344–350.Google Scholar
- Staples, M., Newton, J., Kosko, K., Conner, A., Cirillo, M., & Bieda, K. (2016). Conceptions and consequences of what we call argumentation, justification, and proof. In M. Wood, E. Turner, M. Civil, & J. Eli (Eds.), Proceedings of the 38 th Conference of the North-American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 1704–1712). Tucson: PME-NA.Google Scholar
- Stylianides, A. (2007). Proof and proving in school mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(3), 289–321.Google Scholar
- Stylianides, G. (2008). An analytic framework of reasoning-and-proving. For the Learning of Mathematics, 28(1), 9–16.Google Scholar
- Toulmin, S. (1958/2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Trocki, A. (2015). Designing and examining the effects of a dynamic geometry task analysis framework on teachers’ written Geometer’s Sketchpad tasks. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Raleigh: North Carolina State University. (http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/resolver/1840.16/10437).
- de Villiers, M. (1998). An alternative approach to proof in dynamic geometry. In R. Lehrer & D. Chazan (Eds.), New directions in teaching and learning geometry (pp. 369–393). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Zbiek, R., Heid, K., Blume, G., & Dick, T. (2007). Research on technology in mathematics education. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 1169–1207). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar