Abstract
Dynamic geometry environments offer a new kind of representation of mathematical objects that are variable and behave “mathematically” when one of the elements of the construction is dragged. This chapter addresses three dimensions of transformations brought about by this new kind of representation in mathematics and mathematics education: an epistemological dimension, a cognitive dimension, and a didactic dimension.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Abd El All, S. (1996). La géométrie comme un moyen d’explication de phénomènes spatio-graphiques: une étude de cas, Mémoire de DEA de Didactique des Disciplines Scientifiques, Grenoble: University of Grenoble 1, Laboratoire Leibniz-IMAG.
Artigue, M. (2002). Learning mathematics in a CAS environment: the genesis of a reflection about instrumentation and the dialectics between technical and conceptual work. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 7(3), 245–274.
Arzarello, F., Micheletti, C., Olivero, F., Robutti, O., & Domingo, P. (1998a). A model for analysing the transition to formal proofs in geometry. In A. Olivier & K. Newstead (Eds.), Proceedings from the 22nd annual conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 2, pp. 24–31). South Africa: University of Stellenbosch.
Arzarello, F., Micheletti, C., Olivero, F., Robutti, O., Paola, D., & Gallino, G. (1998b). Dragging in Cabri and modalities of transition from conjectures to proofs in geometry. In A. Olivier & K. Newstead (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 2, pp. 32–39). South Africa: University of Stellenbosch.
Bosch, M., & Chevallard, Y. (1999). La sensibilité de l’activité mathématique aux ostensifs. Recherches en didactique des mathématiques, 19(1), 77–124.
Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics. N. Balacheff, M. Cooper, R. Sutherland, & V. Warfield (Trans., Eds.). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
D’Amore, B. (2003). Le basi filosofische, pedagogiche, epistemologiche e concettuali della Didattica della Matematica. Bologna: Pitagora Editrice.
Duval, R. (2000). Basic issues for research in mathematics education In T. Nakahara & M. Koyama (Eds.), Procedings of the 24th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol 1, pp. 55–69). Hiroshima: Hiroshima University.
Duval, R. (2005). Les conditions cognitives de l’apprentissage de la géométrie: développement de la visualisation, différenciation des raisonnements et coordination de leurs fonctionnements, In: Annales de didactique et sciences cognitives, 5–53. Strasbourg, France: IREM, Université Louis Pasteur.
Falcade, R., Laborde, C., Mariotti, A. (2007). Approaching functions: Cabri tools as instruments of semiotic mediation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66(3), 317–333.
Goldenberg, E. P. (1995). Rumination about dynamic imagery. In R. Sutherland & J. Mason (Eds.), Exploiting Mental Imagery with computers in mathematics education, (Vol 138, pp. 202–224). (NATO ASI series F). Heidelberg: Springer.
Hattermann, M. (2011). Explorative Studie zur Hypothesengewinnung von Nutzungsweisen des Zugmodus in dreidimensionalen dynamischen Geometriesoftwaresystemen. Giessen: Dissertation der Justus Liebig Universität.
Hilbert, D., Cohn-Vossen, S. (1952). Geometry and the imagination, (2nd ed., 1990), New York: Chelsea, translation by P. Nemenyi of Anschauliche Geometrie, Berlin, 1932: Springer.
Hölzl, R. (1996). How does the dragging affect the learning of geometry? International Journal of Computer for Mathematical Learning, 1(2), 169–187.
Hoyles, C., & Jones, K. (1998). Proof in dynamic geometry contexts. In C. Mammana & V. Villani (Eds.), Perspectives on the teaching of geometry for the 21st century—An ICMI study (chap. 4, section II, pp. 121–128). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (2003). What can digital technologies take from and bring to research in mathematics education? In J. Bishop, K. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & F. Leung (Eds.), Second international handbook of mathematics education (Part 1; pp. 323–349). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Jones, K. (1998). Deductive and intuitive approaches to solving geometrical problems. In C. Mammana & V. Villani (Eds.), Perspectives on the teaching of geometry for the 21st century: An ICMI study (pp. 78–83). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Kadunz, G., & Straesser, R. (2007). Didaktik der Geometrie in der Sekundarstufe I, Hildesheim. Berlin: Franzbecker.
Laborde, C. (1991). Zu einer Didaktik des Geometrie-Lernens unter Nutzung des Computers in Intelligente Tutorielle Systeme für das Lernen von Geometrie, Proceedings des Workshops am IDM, März 1991, Occasional Paper 124, Bielefeld, Germany: Universität Bielefeld, Institut für Didaktik der Mathematik.
Lagrange, J.-B. (2002). Etudier les mathématiques avec les calculatrices symboliques: quelles places pour les techniques? In D. Guin & L. Trouche (Eds.), Calculatrices symboliques, transformer un outil en un instrument du travail mathématique: un problème didactique (ch. 5, pp. 151–185), Grenoble: La Pensée Sauvage Editions.
Mariotti, A. (2001). Justifying and proving in the Cabri environment. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6(3), 257–281.
Mithalal, J. (2010). Déconstruction instrumentale et déconstruction dimensionnelle dans le contexte de la géométrie dynamique tridimensionnelle. Thèse de l’Université Grenoble 1.
Moreno, J. (2006). Articulation des registres graphique et symbolique pour l’étude des équations différentielles avec Cabri-géomètre: analyse des difficultés des étudiants et rôle du logiciel. Thesis, Université Joseph Fourier, Grenoble, France.
Moreno Armella, L. (1999). Epistemologia ed Educazione matematica. La Matemetica e la sua Didattica, 1, 43–59.
Netz, R. (1999). The shaping of deduction in Greek mathematics Cambridge Univ. Press
Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (1996). Windows on mathematical meanings. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Parzysz, B. (1988). Knowing vs. Seeing, Problems of representation of space geometry figures. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 19(1), 79–92.
Restrepo, A. (2008). Genèse instrumentale du déplacement en géométrie dynamique chez des élèves de 6ème. Thèse Université Grenoble 1.
Schneidermann, B. (1983). Direct manipulation: A step beyond programming languages. IEEE Computer, 16, 57–69.
Smith, D., Harslem, E., Irby, C., & Kimball, R. (1982). Designing the star user interface. Byte, 74, 242–282.
Strässer, R. (1991). Dessin et Figure Géométrie et Dessin technique à l’aide de l’ordinateur. (Juni 1991) Occasional paper n°128. Bielefeld, Germany: Universität Bielefeld, Institut für Didaktik der Mathematik.
Strässer, R. (1992). Didaktische Perspektiven auf Werkzeug-Software im Geometrie-Unterricht der Sekundarstufe I. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 24(5), 197–201.
Vérillon, P., & Rabardel, P. (1995). Cognition and artifacts. A contribution to the study of thought in relation to instrumented activity. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10(1), 77–101.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Laborde, C., Laborde, JM. (2014). Dynamic and Tangible Representations in Mathematics Education. In: Rezat, S., Hattermann, M., Peter-Koop, A. (eds) Transformation - A Fundamental Idea of Mathematics Education. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3489-4_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3489-4_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-3488-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-3489-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)