Abstract
This chapter highlights specific design features of tasks proposed in a Dynamic Geometry Environment (DGE) that can foster the production of indirect argumentations and proof by contradiction. We introduce the notion of open construction problem and describe the design of two types of problems, analysing their potential a priori, with the goal of elaborating on the potentials of designing problems in a DGE with respect to fostering processes of indirect argumentation. Specifically, we aim at showing how particular open construction problems, that we refer to as non-constructability problems, are expected to make indirect argumentations emerge.
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
Notes
References
Antonini, S. (2004). A statement, the contrapositive and the inverse: Intuition and argumentation. In Proceedings of the 28 th PME, Bergen, Norway (Vol. 2, pp. 47–54).
Antonini, S. (2010). A model to analyse argumentations supporting impossibilities in mathematics. In M. F. Pinto & T. F. Kawasaki (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34 th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 153–160). Belo Horizonte, Brazil: PME.
Antonini, S., & Mariotti, M. A. (2006). Reasoning in an absurd world: Difficulties with proof by contradiction. In Proceedings of the 30 th PME Conference, Prague, Czech Republic (Vol. 2, pp. 65–72).
Antonini, S., & Mariotti, M. A. (2008). Indirect proof: What is specific to this way of proving? Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 40(3), 401–412.
Antonini, S., & Mariotti, M. A. (2010). Abduction and the explanation of anomalies: The case of proof by contradiction. In V. Durand-Guerrier, S. Soury-Lavergne, & F. Arzarello (Eds.). Proceedings of the 6 th Conference of European Research in Mathematics Education, Lyon, France, 2009 (pp. 322–331).
Arsac, G. (1999). Variations et variables de la démostration géométriques. Recherches en Didactique de Mathématiques, 19(3), 357–390.
Arzarello, F., Olivero, F., Paola, D., & Robutti, O. (2002). A cognitive analysis of dragging practises in Cabri environments. ZDM, 34(3), 66–72.
Arzarello, F., Bartolini Bussi, M. G., Leung, A., Mariotti, M. A., & Stevenson, I. (2012). Experimental approaches to theoretical thinking: Artefacts and proofs. In G. Hanna & M. de Villiers (Eds.), Proof and proving in mathematics education—The 19 th ICMI study (pp. 97–137). New York: Springer.
Baccaglini-Frank, A. (2010). Conjecturing in dynamic geometry: A model for conjecture-generation through maintaining dragging. Doctoral dissertation, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH. ProQuest.
Baccaglini-Frank, A., Antonini, S., Leung, A., & Mariotti, M. A. (2013). Reasoning by contradiction in dynamic geometry. PNA, 7(2), 63–73.
Baccaglini-Frank, A., & Mariotti, M. A. (2010). Generating conjectures through dragging in dynamic geometry: The maintaining dragging model. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 15(3), 225–253.
Boero, P., Garuti, R., & Mariotti, M. A. (1996). Some dynamic mental process underlying producing and proving conjectures. In Proceedings of 20 th PME Conference, Valencia, Spain (Vol. 2, pp. 121–128).
Boero, P., Garuti, R., & Lemut, E. (2007). Approaching theorems in grade VIII. In P. Boero (Ed.), Theorems in school: from history epistemology and cognition to classroom practice (pp. 249–264). Sense Publishers.
Cametti, O. (1755). Elementa Geometrie quae nova, et brevi methodo demostravit D. Octavianus Camettus. Firenze.
Davis, P. (1993). Visual theorems. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24, 333–344.
Di Sessa, A. A., Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (1995). Computers and exploratory learning. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Fischbein, E. (1993). The theory of figural concepts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24, 139–162.
Freudenthal, H. (1973). Mathematics as an educational task. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel Publishing Company.
Healy, L. (2000). Identifying and explaining geometric relationship: Interactions with robust and soft Cabri constructions. In Proceedings of the 24th Conference of the IGPME, Hiroshima, Japan (Vol. 1, pp. 103–117).
Heath, T. L. (Ed.) (1956) Euclid. The thirteen books of the elements (vol. 1). Dover.
Hölzl, R. (2001). Using dynamic geometry software to add contrast to geometric situations—a case study. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6(1), 63–86.
Laborde, C. (2005). Robust and soft constructions: Two sides of the use of dynamic geometry environments. In Proceedings of the 10th Asian Technology Conference in Mathematics (pp. 22–35). Cheong-Ju, South Korea: Korea National University of Education.
Laborde, J. M., & Sträßer, R. (1990). Cabri-Géomètre: A microworld of geometry for guided discovery learning. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 22(5), 171–177.
Legendre, A. M. (1802). Elementi di geometria di Adriano M. Legendre per la prima volta tradotti in italiano. Pisa: Tipografia della Società Letteraria.
Leher, R., & Chazan, D. (1998). Designing learning environments for developing understanding of geometry and space. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Leung, A. (2008). Dragging in a dynamic geometry environment through the lens of variation. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 13, 135–157.
Leung, A., & Lopez-Real, F. (2002). Theorem justification and acquisition in dynamic geometry: A case of proof by contradiction. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 7, 145–165. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Leung, A., Baccaglini-Frank, A., & Mariotti, M. A. (2013). Discernment in dynamic geometry environments. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 84(3), 439–460.
Mariotti, M. A. (2000). Introduction to proof: The mediation of a dynamic software environment. Educational Studies in Mathematics Special Issue, 44, 25–53.
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, et al. (Eds.), Transformation—A fundamental idea of mathematics education (pp. 155–172). New York: Springer.
Mariotti, M. A., Bartollni Bussi, M., Boero, P., Ferri, F., & Garuti, R. (1997). Approaching geometry theorems in contexts: From history and epistemology to cognition. In Proceedings of the 21th PME Conference, Lathi, Finland (Vol. 1, pp. 180–195).
Mariotti, M. A., & Antonini, S. (2009). Breakdown and reconstruction of figural concepts in proofs by contradiction in geometry. In F. L. Lin, F. J. Hsieh, G. Hanna, & M. de Villers (Eds.), Proof and Proving in Mathematics Education, ICMI Study 19th Conference Proceedings (Vol. 2, pp. 82–87).
Mogetta, C., Olivero, F., & Jones, K. (1999). Providing the motivation to prove in a dynamic geometry environment. In Proceedings of the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics (pp. 91–96). Lancaster: St. Martin’s University College, Lancaster.
Olivero, F. (2000). Conjecturing in open-geometric situations in Cabri-geometre: An exploratory classroom experiment. In C. Morgan, & K. Jones (Eds.), BSLRM Annual Publication of Proceedings.
Saada-Robert, M. (1989). La microgénèse de la representation d’un problem. Psychologie Française, 34, 2/3.
Sinclair, N., & Robutti, O. (2013). Technology and the role of proof: The case of dynamic geometry. In A. J. Bishop, M. A. Clements, C. Keitel, & F. Leung (Eds.), Third international handbook of mathematics education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Thompson, D. R. (1996). Learning and teaching indirect proof. The Mathematics Teacher, 89(6), 474–482.
Yerushalmy, M., Chazan, D., & Gordon, M. (1993). Posing problems: One aspect of bringing inquiry into classrooms. In J. Schwartz, M. Yerushalmy, & B. Wilson (Eds.), The geometric supposer, what is it a case of? (pp. 117–142). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Baccaglini-Frank, A., Antonini, S., Leung, A., Mariotti, M.A. (2017). Designing Non-constructability Tasks in a Dynamic Geometry Environment. In: Leung, A., Baccaglini-Frank, A. (eds) Digital Technologies in Designing Mathematics Education Tasks. Mathematics Education in the Digital Era, vol 8. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43423-0_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43423-0_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-43421-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-43423-0
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)