Abstract
This chapter presents a model-centered theoretical framework for integrating GeoGebra in mathematics teaching and learning to enhance mathematical understanding. In spite of its prominence in the ongoing mathematics education reform, understanding has been an ill-defined construct in the literature. After reviewing multiple perspectives from learning theories and mathematics education, we propose an operational definition of understanding a mathematical idea as having a dynamic mental model that can be used by an individual to mentally simulate the structural relations of the mathematical idea in multiple representations for making inferences and predictions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
REFERENCES
Barron, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). How can we teach for meaningful learning? In L. Darling- Hammond, B. Barron, P. D. Pearson, A. H. Schoenfeld, E. K. Stage, T. D. Zimmerman, G. N. Cervetti, & J. L. Tilson (Eds.), Powerful learning: What we know about teaching for understanding (pp. 11–70). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Beckmann, P. (1976). A history of Pi (3rd ed.). New York: St. Martin’s Griffin.
Brenner, M. E., Mayer, R. E., Moseley, B., Brar, T., Duran, R., Reed, B. S., et al. (1997). Learning by understanding: The role of multiple representations in learning algebra. American Educational Research Journal, 34(4), 663–689.
Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In L. Schauble, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289–326). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brown, S. I., & Walter, M. I. (2005). The art of problem posing (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Darling-Hammond, L., Barron, B., Pearson, P. D., Schoenfeld, A. H., Stage, E. K., Zimmerman, T. D., et al. (2008). Powerful learning: What we know about teaching for understanding. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
de Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W. R. (2008). Model-Facilitated Learning. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 457–468). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
diSessa, A. A. (2007). Systemics of learning for a revised pedagogical agenda. In R. A. Lesh, E. Hamilton, & J. J. Kaput (Eds.), Foundations for the future in mathematics education (pp. 245– 261). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Doerr, H. M., & Pratt, D. (2008). The learning of mathematics and mathematical modeling. In M. K. Heid, & G. W. Blume (Eds.), Research on technology and the teaching and learning of mathematics: Research Syntheses (Vol. 1, pp. 259–285). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Dossey, J. A. (1992). The nature of mathematics: Its role and its influence. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 39–48). New York: Macmillan.
Fey, J. T. (2006). Connecting technology and school mathematics: A review of the didactical challenge of symbolic calculators: Turning a computational device into a mathematical instrument. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36, 348–352.
Freudenthal, H. (1973). Mathematics as an educational task. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel.
Freudenthal, H. (1978). Weeding and sowing: Preface to a science of mathematics education. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel.
Freudenthal, H. (1983). Didactical phenomenology of mathematical structures. New York: Kluwer.
Goldin, G. (2003). Representation in school mathematics: A unifying research perspective. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 275–285). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Goldin, G. (2007). Aspects of affect and mathematical modeling processes. In R. A. Lesh, E. Hamilton, & J. J. Kaput (Eds.), Foundations for the future in mathematics education (pp. 281–299). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Goldin, G., & Shteingold, N. (2001). Systems of representations and the development of mathematical concepts. In A. A. Cuoco, & F. R. Curcio (Eds.), The roles of representation in school mathematics (pp. 1–23). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Gravemeijer, K., Cobb, P., Bowers, J., & Whitenack, J. (2000). Symbolizing, modeling, and instructional design. In P. Cobb, E. Yackel, & K. McClain (Eds.), Symbolizing and communicating in mathematics classrooms: Perspectives on discourse, tools, and instructional design (pp. 225–273). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gravemeijer, K., & van Galen, F. (2003). Facts and algorithms as products of students’ own mathematical activity. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 114–122). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Guin, D., Ruthven, K., & Trouche, L. (Eds.). (2005). The didactical challenge of symbolic calculators: Turning a computational device into a mathematical instrument. New York: Springer.
Guin, D., & Trouche, L. (1999). The complex process of converting tools into mathematical instruments: The case of calculators. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 3, 195–227.
Gutiérrez, A., & Boero, P. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Hegedus, S. J., & Moreno-Armella, L. (2009). Introduction: The transformative nature of “dynamic” educational technology. ZDM, 41, 397–398.
Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. P. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 65–97). New York: Macmillan.
Hohenwarter, J., & Hohenwarter, M. (2009). Introducing dynamic mathematics software to secondary school teachers: The case of GeoGebra. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 28, 135–146.
Hohenwarter, M., & Preiner, J. (2007). Dynamic mathematics with GeoGebra. Journal of Online Mathematics and Its Applications, 7. Retrieved fromhttp://mathdl.maa.org/mathDL/4/?pa=content&sa=viewDocument&nodeId=1448
Hollebrands, K., Laborde, C., & Sträβer, R. (2008). Technology and the learning of geometry at the secondary level. In M. K. Heid & G. W. Blume (Eds.), Research on technology and the teaching and learning of mathematics: Research Syntheses (Vol. 1, pp. 155–205). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Hoyles, C., Noss, R., & Kent, P. (2004). On the integration of digital technologies into mathematics classrooms. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9, 309–326.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Toward a cognitive science of language, inference, and
consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jonassen, D. H. (2005). Problem solving: The enterprise. In J. M. Spector, C. Ohrazda, A. van Schaack, & D. A. Wiley (Eds.), Innovations in instructional technology: Essays in honor of M. David Merrill (pp. 91–110). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kaput, J. (1992). Technology and mathematics education. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 515–556). New York: Macmillan.
Kaput, J., Hegedus, S., & Lesh, R. (2007). Technology becoming infrastructural in mathematics education. In R. A. Lesh, E. Hamilton & J. Kaput (Eds.), Foundations for the future in mathematics education (pp. 173–191). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kaput, J., Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (2002). Developing new notations for a learnable mathematics in the computational era. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 51–75). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence and Erlbaum.
Lesh, R. (2006). Modeling students modeling abilities: The teaching and learning of complex systems in education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 45–52.
Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. M. (Eds.). (2003). Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mariotti, M. A. (2002). The influence of technological advances on students’ mathematics learning. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 695–723). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence and Erlbaum.
Milrad, M., Spector, J. M., & Davidsen, P. I. (2003). Model facilitated learning. In S. Naidu (Ed.), Learning and teaching with technology: Principles and practices (pp. 13–27). London: Kogan Page.
Minsky, M. (2006). The emotion machine: Commonsense thinking, artificial intelligence, and the future of the human mind. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Moreno-Armella, L., & Hegedus, S. (2009). Co-action with digital technologies. ZDM(41), 505–519.
Moreno-Armella, L., Hegedus, S. J., & Kaput, J. J. (2008). From static to dynamic mathematics: Historical and representational perspectives. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 68, 99–111.
NCTM. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
Nickerson, R. S. (1985). Understanding understadning. American Journal of Education, 93, 201–239.
Norman, D. A. (1983). Some observations on mental models. In D. Gentner, & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 7–14). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Perkins, D. N. (1986). Knowledge as design. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Presmeg, N. (2002). Beliefs about the nature of mathematics in the bridging of everyday and school mathematical practices. In G. C. Leder, E. Pehkonen, & G. Törner (Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education? (pp. 293–312). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Presmeg, N. (2006). Semiotics and the “Connections” standard: Significance of semiotics for teachers of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61, 163–182.
Puntambekar, S., & Hubscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning Environment: What have we gained and what wave we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40, 1–12.
Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20(3), 2–9.
Seel, N. M. (2003). Model-centered learning and instruction. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 1, 59–85.
Seel, N. M. (2004). Model-centered learning environments: Theory, instructional design, and effects. In N. M. Seel, & S. Dijkstra (Eds.), Curriculum, plans, and processes in instructional design: International perspectives (pp. 49–73). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Seel, N. M., Al-Diban, S., & Blumschein, P. (2000). Mental models & instructional planning. In J. M. Spector, & T. M. Anderson (Eds.), Integrated and holistic perspectives on learning, instruction and technology: Understanding complexity (pp. 129–158). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Sfard, A. (1991). On the dual nature of mathematical conceptions: Reflections on processes and objects as different sides of the same coin. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22, 1–36.
Silver, E. A. (1986). Using conceptual and procedural knowledge: A focus on relationships. In J. Hiebert (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics (pp. 181–198). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Spector, J. M. (2004). Multiple uses of information and communication technology in education. In N. M. Seel, & S. Dijkstra (Eds.), Curriculum, plans, and processes in instructional design: International perspectives (pp. 271–287). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Streefland, L. (Ed.). (1991). Fractions in Realistic Mathematics Education: A paradigm of developmental research. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
Treffers, A. (1987). Three dimensions: A model of goal and theory description in mathematics instruction–The Wiskobas Project. Dordrecht, Netherlands: D. Reidel.
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, 281–307.
Trouche, L. (2005). An instrumental approach to mathematics learning in symbolic calculators environments. In D. Guin, K. Ruthven, & L. Trouche (Eds.), The didactical challenge of symbolic calculators: Turning a computational device into a mathematical instrument (pp. 137–162). New York: Springer.
Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2003). The didactical use of models in realistic mathematics education: An example from a longitudinal trajectory on percentage. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 54 9–35.
van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Clark, R. E., & de Crook, M. B. M. (2002). Blueprints for complex learning: The 4C/ID-model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(2), 39–64.
van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2007). Ten steps to complex learning: A systematic approach to four-component instructional design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Sense Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bu, L., Spector, J.M., Haciomeroglu, E.S. (2011). Toward Model-Centered Mathematics Learning and Instruction Using Geogebra. In: Bu, L., Schoen, R. (eds) Model-Centered Learning. Modeling and Simulations for Learning and Instruction, vol 6. SensePublishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-618-2_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-618-2_3
Publisher Name: SensePublishers
Online ISBN: 978-94-6091-618-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)
