Advertisement

Proofs through Exploration in Dynamic Geometry Environments

  • Constantinos Christou
  • Nikos Mousoulides
  • Marios Pittalis
  • Demetra Pitta-Pantazi
Article

Abstract

The recent development of powerful new technologies such as dynamic geometry software (DGS) with drag capability has made possible the continuous variation of geometric configurations and allows one to quickly and easily investigate whether particular conjectures are true or not. Because of the inductive nature of the DGS, the experimental-theoretical gap that exists in the acquisition and justification of geometrical knowledge becomes an important pedagogical concern. In this article we discuss the implications of the development of this new software for the teaching of proof and making proof meaningful to students. We describe how three prospective primary school teachers explored problems in geometry and how their constructions and conjectures led them “see” proofs in DGS.

Keywords

dynamic geometry exploration functions of proof phases of proof proof 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Chazan, D. (1993). High school geometry students’ justification for their views of empirical evidence and mathematical proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24, 359–387. Google Scholar
  2. De Villiers, M.D. (1993). The role and function of proof in mathematics. Epsilon, 26, 15–30. Google Scholar
  3. De Villiers, M.D. (1996). Some adventures in Euclidean geometry. Durban: University of Durban-Westville. Google Scholar
  4. De Villiers, M.D. (2003). Rethinking proof with Geometer’s Sketchpad 4. Emeryville: Key Curriculum Press. Google Scholar
  5. Edwards, L. (1997). Exploring the territory before proof: Students’ generalizations in a computer microworld for transformation geometry. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 2, 187–215. Google Scholar
  6. Hanna, G. (1995). Challenges to the importance of proof. For the Learning of Mathematics, 15(3), 42–49. Google Scholar
  7. Hanna, G. (1998). Proof as understanding in geometry. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 20(2 & 3), 4–13. Google Scholar
  8. Hanna, G. (2000). Proof, explanation and exploration: An overview. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44(1), 5–23. Google Scholar
  9. Hersh, R. (1993). Proving is convincing and explaining. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24(4), 389–399. Google Scholar
  10. Hölzl, R. (2001). Using dynamic geometry software to add contrast to geometric situations – a case study. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6, 63–86. Google Scholar
  11. Hoyles, C. & Healy, L. (1999). Linking informal argumentation with formal proof through computer-integrated teaching experiments. In O. Zaslavsky (Ed.), Proceedings of the 23rd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 105–112). Haifa, Israel. Google Scholar
  12. Jones, K. (2000). Providing a foundation for deductive reasoning: Students’ interpretations when using Dynamic Geometry Software and their evolving mathematical explanations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44, 55–85. Google Scholar
  13. Knuth, E. (2002). Secondary school mathematics teachers’ conceptions of proof. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33(5), 379–405. Google Scholar
  14. Laborde, C. (2000). Dynamic geometry environments as a source of rich learning contexts for the complex activity of proving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44(1), 151–161. Google Scholar
  15. Luthuli, D. (1996). Questions, reflection, and problem solving as sources of inquiry in Euclidean geometry. Pythagoras, 40, 17–27. Google Scholar
  16. Mariotti, A.M. (2000). Introduction to proof: The mediation of a dynamic software environment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44(1), 25–53. Google Scholar
  17. Mason, J. (1993). Questions about geometry. In D. Pimm & E. Love (Eds.), Teaching and learning mathematics: A reader. London: Holder & Stoughton. Google Scholar
  18. NCTM Standards (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston: VA. Google Scholar
  19. Pandiscio, E.A. (2002). Exploring the link between preservice teachers’ conception of proof and the use of Dynamic Geometry Software. School Science and Mathematics, 102(5), 216–221. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Polya, G. (1957). How to solve it. New York: Doubleday. Google Scholar
  21. Simpson, A. (1995). Developing a proving attitude. In Conference Proceedings: Justifying and Proving in School Mathematics (pp. 39–46). London: University of London, Institute of Education. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Constantinos Christou
    • 1
  • Nikos Mousoulides
    • 1
  • Marios Pittalis
    • 1
  • Demetra Pitta-Pantazi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Educational SciencesUniversity of CyprusNicosiaCyprus

Personalised recommendations