How Does a Dynamic Geometry System Mediate Students’ Reasoning on 3D Linear Transformations?

  • Melih TurgutEmail author
Part of the ICME-13 Monographs book series (ICME13Mo)


In this chapter, I discuss the integration of the Dynamic Geometry System (DGS) with the teaching and learning of two (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) linear transformations. To do this, certain tools and functions of the DGS, in particular, the dragging, slider and grid functions, and the Rotate and move 3D Graphics and ApplyMatrix construction tools of GeoGebra are focused on. Through semiotic potential analysis, a task is designed for students’ construction of mathematical relationships among the characterization of the transformation matrix, determinant of the transformation matrix, and area and volume of given and transformed figures. A task-based clinical interview was conducted with a pair of undergraduate linear algebra students. Data from video records, student production and field notes was analysed within a semiotic lens with reference to the theory of semiotic mediation. The results appear to confirm that the DGS can be considered as an effective tool of semiotic mediation for characterizing 3D linear transformations. Such an approach to the data also provides a detailed understanding for students’ reasoning steps from the use of artifact to creating mathematical meaning.


Semiotic mediation Teaching-learning linear algebra DGS 3D linear transformations 



I would like to thank my supervisor Prof. Dr. P.H.M. (Paul) Drijvers for his kind and countless contributions to the project and insightful comments on this paper. I also thank the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK), under the 2219-International Post-Doctoral Research Fellowship Programme (grant no: 1059B191401098), which supported this research. Finally, thanks go to anonymous reviewers and Christine Andrews-Larson for making constructive suggestions, which substantially improved the presentation of the paper.


  1. Andrews-Larson, C., Wawro, M., & Zandieh, M. (2017). A hypothetical learning trajectory for conceptualizing matrices as linear transformations. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 48(6), 809–829.
  2. Arzarello, F. (2013). In search of the cognitive and cultural roots of mathematical concepts. Paper presented at the VI. Colloquium on History and Technology in the Teaching of Mathematics (HTEM), The Federal University of São Carlos (UFSCar), Brasil, 15–19 July 2013.Google Scholar
  3. Bagley, S., Rasmussen, C., & Zandieh, M. (2015). Inverse, composition, and identity: The case of function and linear transformation. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 37, 36–47.
  4. Bakker, A., & van Eerde, D. (2015). An Introduction to Design–Based Research with an Example From Statistics Education. In A. Bikner-Ahsbahs, C. Knipping, & N. Presmeg (Eds.), Approaches to Qualitative Research in Mathematics Education: Examples of Methodology and Methods (pp. 429–466). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar
  5. Bartolini Bussi, M. G., & Mariotti, M. A. (2008). Semiotic mediation in the mathematics classroom: Artifacts and signs after a Vygotskian perspective. In L. English, M. Bartolini Bussi, G. Jones, R. Lesh, & D. Tirosh (Eds.), Handbook of International Research in Mathematics Education (2nd ed., pp. 746–783). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Dreyfus, T., Hillel, J., & Sierpinska, A. (1998). Cabri based linear algebra: Transformations. In I. Schwank (Ed.), Proceedings of the First Conference of the Europen Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 209–221). Osnabrück: Forschunsinstitut für Mathematikdidaktik.Google Scholar
  7. Ernest, P. (2010). Reflections on Theories of Learning. In B. Sriraman, & L. English (Eds.), Theories of Mathematics Education: Seeking New Frontiers (pp. 39–47). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  8. Falcade, R., Laborde, C., & Mariotti, M. A. (2007). Approaching functions: Cabri tools as instruments of semiotic mediation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66(3), 317–333.
  9. Godino, J. D., Batanero, C., & Font, V. (2007). The onto-semiotic approach to research in mathematics education. ZDM Mathematics Education, 39(1), 127–135.
  10. Gol Tabaghi, S. (2014). How dragging changes students’ awareness: Developing meanings for Eigenvector and Eigenvalue. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 14(3), 223–237.
  11. Gravemeijer, K. (2004). Local instruction theories as means of support for teachers in reform mathematics education. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(2), 105–128.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(1), 55–85.
  13. Lay, D. C. (2006). Linear Algebra and Its Applications (3 ed.). Boston: Pearson Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  14. Leung, A. (2008). Dragging in a dynamic geometry environment through the lens of variation. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 13(2), 135–157.
  15. Leung, A., Baccaglini-Frank, A., & Mariotti, M. A. (2013). Discernment of invariants in dynamic geometry environments. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 84(3), 439–460.Google Scholar
  16. 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.
  17. Mariotti, M. A. (2000). Introduction to proof: The mediation of a Dynamic Software Environment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44(1), 25–53.
  18. Mariotti, M. A. (2009). Artifacts and signs after a Vygotskian perspective: the role of the teacher. ZDM Mathematics Education, 41(4), 427–440.
  19. Mariotti, M. A. (2012). ICT as opportunities for teaching–learning in a mathematics classroom: The semiotic potential of artefacts. In T. Y. Tso (Ed.), Proceedings of the 36th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 25–35). Taipei, Taiwan: PME.Google Scholar
  20. Mariotti, M. A. (2013). Introducing students to geometric theorems: how the teacher can exploit the semiotic potential of a DGS. ZDM Mathematics Education, 45(3), 441–452.Google Scholar
  21. Mariotti, M. A. (2014). Transforming images in a DGS: The semiotic potential of the dragging tool for introducing the notion of conditional statement. In S. Rezat, M. Hattermann, & A. Peter-Koop (Eds.), Transformation–A Fundamental Idea of Mathematics Education (pp. 155–172). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Sierpinska, A. (2000). On some aspects of students’ thinking in linear algebra. In J.-L. Dorier (Ed.), On the teaching of linear algebra (pp. 209–246). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  23. Sierpinska, A. (2005). On practical and theoretical thinking and other false dichotomies in mathematics education. In M. G. Hoffmann, J. Lenhard, & F. Seeger (Eds.), Activity and Sign (pp. 117–135). US: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Trouche, L. (2004). Managing the complexity of human/machine interactions in computerized learning environments: Guiding students’ command process through instrumental orchestrations. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9(3), 281–307.Google Scholar
  25. Turgut, M. (2015). Theory of semiotic mediation in teaching-learning linear algebra: In search of a viewpoint in the use of ICT. In K. Krainer, & N. Vondrová (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th Congress of European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 2418–2424). Prague, Czech Republic: Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Education and ERME.Google Scholar
  26. Turgut, M. (2017). Students’ reasoning on linear transformations in a DGS: a semiotic perspective. In T. Dooley & G. Gueudet (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education. Dublin, Ireland: DCU Institute of Education and ERME.Google Scholar
  27. Turgut, M., & Drijvers, P. (2016). Students’ thinking modes and the emergence of signs in learning linear algebra. Paper presented at the 13th Congress on Mathematical Education, Hamburg, Germany, 24–31 July 2016.Google Scholar
  28. Vérillon, P., & Rabardel, P. (1995). Cognition and artifacts: A contribution to the study of though in relation to instrumented activity. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10(1), 77–101.
  29. Zandieh, M., Ellis, J., & Rasmussen, C. (2012). Student concept images of function and linear transformation. In S. Brown, S. Larsen, K. Marrongelle, & M. Oehrtman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education (pp. 320–328). Portland, Oregon: SIGMAA.Google Scholar
  30. Zandieh, M., Ellis, J., & Rasmussen, C. (2013). Students reconciling notions of one-to-one across two contexts. In S. Brown, G. Karakok, K. Hah Roh, & M. Oehrtman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 297–306). Denver, Colorado: SIGMAA.Google Scholar
  31. Zandieh, M., Ellis, J., & Rasmussen, C. (2017). A characterization of a unified notion of mathematical function: the case of high school function and linear transformation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 95(1), 21–38.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationEskisehir Osmangazi UniversityEskisehirTurkey

Personalised recommendations