Jones, Keith (2002) Research on the use of dynamic geometry software: implications for the classroom. MicroMath, 18, (3), 18-20.
http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/14689/

Full text available as:

PDF - Requires Adobe Reader or other PDF viewer. 74 Kb

Abstract

This article summarise the research that has investigated the use of dynamic geometry software (DGS) in the teaching and learning of mathematics. This review is not intended to be exhaustive, rather the research is categorised under three main headings: interacting with the software, designing teaching activities and learning to prove. Overall, the research has found that DGS cannot provide a self-contained environment and that the software itself does not necessarily mean that students will learn geometry theory. Research also suggests that it can take quite a long time for the benefits of using DGS to emerge but that this investment is worthwhile in developing students’ knowledge of geometry. The sorts of tasks that students tackle, the form of teacher input and the general classroom atmosphere are all important factors.

Edit this item (Staff only)

References in Article

Arzarello, F., Olivero, F., Paola, D., and Robutti, O. (2002), A Cognitive Analysis of Dragging Practises in Cabri Environments. International Reviews on Mathematical Education, 34(3), 66 – 72.
Gawlick, T. (2002), On Dynamic Geometry Software in the Regular Classroom. International Reviews on Mathematical Education, 34(3), 85 – 92.
Hadas, N., Hershkowitz, R. and Schwarz, B. B. (2000), The Role of Contradiction and Uncertainty in Promoting the Need To Prove in Dynamic Geometry Environments. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44(1&2), 127-150.
Healy L. and Hoyles C. (2001), Software tools for geometrical problem solving: potential and pitfalls, International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6(3), 235-256.
Hollebrands, K., Laborde, C., & Sträßer, R. (in preparation), The Learning of Geometry with Technology at the Secondary Level. In M. K. Heid & G. Blume (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Technology in the Learning and Teaching of Mathematics: Mathematics Curriculum Development and Tool Development. Greenwich/CT: Information Age.
Hölzl, R. (1996): How does ‘dragging’ affect the learning of geometry? International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 1(2), 169-187.
Hölzl, R. (2001): Using DGS to add Contrast to Geometric Situations – A Case Study, International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6(1), 63-86.
Jones, K. (2000), Providing a Foundation for Deductive Reasoning: students’ interpretations when using dynamic geometry software. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44(1&2), 55-85.
King, J. R. and Schattschneider, D. (Eds) (1997), Geometry turned on! Dynamic software in learning, teaching, and research. Washington: Mathematical Association of America.
Laborde, C. (2001), Integration of Technology in the Design of Geometry Tasks with Cabri-Geometry. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6(3), 283-317.
Mariotti, M. A. (2000), Introduction to Proof: the mediation of a dynamic software environment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44(1&2), 25-53.
NCET (1996), Dynamic Geometry. Warwick: NCET.
Sträßer, R. (2001), Cabri-Geometre: Does Dynamic Geometry Software (DGS) Change Geometry and Its Teaching and Learning? International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6(3), 319-333.