Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Mathematical Practices of Eighth Graders about 3D Shapes in an Argumentation, Technology, and Design-Based Classroom Environment

  • Published:
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 20 January 2020

This article has been updated

Abstract

This design research investigated the mathematical practices that eight graders (14-year-old students) developed when learning about prisms, cylinders, and their surface areas. An inquiry-based learning environment was created for students to engage in argumentation. The instruction was enriched by use of a dynamic geometry software, namely GeoGebra, to assist students in visualizing and reasoning about 3D shapes. Rasmussen and Stephan’s three-phase method (2008) was used to organize the collected data, which in turn were analyzed using Krummheuer’s model of argumentation (2015). The results indicated the emergence of three mathematical practices and several taken-as-shared ideas: (1) defining prisms, (2) computing the surface area of a prism, and (3) computing the surface area of a cylinder. The study’s results revealed that students’ understanding improved when learning concepts simultaneously with argumentation and dynamic geometry software.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 20 January 2020

    The original version of this article unfortunately contains added author name in the author group.

Notes

  1. Although we did not notice any sign of confusion for computing the net by wrapping a shape, it should be acknowledged that in the physical world where wrappers cannot be infinitely thin, a wrap becomes slightly larger than the actual net of a prism.

References

  • Adolphus, T. (2011). Problems of teaching and learning of geometry in secondary schools in Rivers State, Nigeria. International Journal of Emerging Sciences, 1(2), 143–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akyuz, D. (2016). Mathematical practices in a technological setting: A design research experiment for teaching circle properties. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(3), 549–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asterhan, C. S., & Schwarz, B. B. (2007). The effects of monological and dialogical argumentation on concept learning in evolutionary theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 626–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayalon, M., & Hershkowitz, R. (2018). Mathematics teachers’ attention to potential classroom situations of argumentation. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 49, 163–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battista, M. T. (2007). The development of geometric and spatial thinking. Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning, 2, 843–908.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R. (2017). Using collective argumentation to engage students in a primary mathematics classroom. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 29(2), 183–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clements, D. H. (1999). Geometric and spatial thinking in young children. In J. V. Copley (Ed.), Mathematics in the early years (pp. 66–79). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., Yelland, N. J., & Glass, B. (2008). Learning and teaching geometry with computers in the elementary and middle school. In M. K. Heid & G. Blume (Eds.), Research on Technology in the Learning and Teaching of Mathematic, volume 1: research syntheses (pp. 109–154). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

  • Cobb, P. (2000). Conducting classroom teaching experiments in collaboration with teachers. In A. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 307–334). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, P. (2003). Investigating students’ reasoning about linear measurement as a paradigm case of design research. In M. Stephan, J. Bowers, P. Cobb, & K. Gravemeijer (Eds.), Supporting students’ development of measuring conceptions: Analyzing students’ learning in social context (pp. 1–16). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, P., Stephan, M., McClain, K., & Gravemeijer, K. (2011). Participating in classroom mathematical practices. In A. Sfard, E. Yackel, K. Gravemeijer, & P. Cobb (Eds.), Journey in mathematics education research (pp. 117–782163). Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, P., & Yackel, E. (1996). Constructivist, emergent, and sociocultural perspectives in the context of developmental research. Educational Psychologist, 31(3-4), 175–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, P., Yackel, E., & McClain, K. (2012). Symbolizing and communicating in mathematics classrooms: Perspectives on discourse, tools, and instructional design. Routledge.

  • Cobb, P., Yackel, E., & Wood, T. (1992). A constructivist alternative to the representational view of mind in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23(1), 2–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denbel, D. G. (2015). Students’ learning experiences when using a dynamic geometry software tool in a geometry lesson at secondary school in Ethiopia. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(1), 23–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duval, R. (2000). Basic issues for research in mathematics education. In T. Nakahara & M. Koyama (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Conference of PME, 1 (pp. 55–69). Hiroshima: Nishiki Print Co. Ltd..

    Google Scholar 

  • Erkek, Ö., & Bostan, M. I. (2019). Prospective middle school mathematics teachers’ global argumentation structures. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(3), 613–633.

  • Flores, A., Park, J., & Bernhardt, S. A. (2016). Learning mathematics and technology through ınquiry, cooperation, and communication: A learning trajectory for future mathematics teachers. In M. Niess, S. Driskell, & K. Hollebrands (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Transforming Mathematics Teacher Education in the Digital Age (pp. 324–352). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

  • Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. (2014). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

  • Fukawa-Connelly, T., & Silverman, J. (2015). The development of mathematical argumentation in an unmoderated, asynchronous multi-user dynamic geometry environment. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 15(4), 445–488.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graveimejer, K. & Cobb, P. (2013). Design research from a learning design perspective. Educational design research. In T. Plomp & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research - Part A: An Introduction (pp. 73-112). Enschede, the Netherlands: SLO.

  • Gutiérrez, A. (1996). Visualization in 3-dimensional geometry: In search of a framework. In L. Puig & A. Gutierrez (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th PME International Conference, 1 (pp. 3–19). Valencia: University of Valencia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollebrands, K. F. (2007). The role of a dynamic software program for geometry in the strategies high school mathematics students employ. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(2), 164–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kosko, K. W., Rougee, A., & Herbst, P. (2014). What actions do teachers envision when asked to facilitate mathematical argumentation in the classroom? Mathematics Education Research Journal, 26(3), 459–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krummheuer, G. (1995). The ethnography of argumentation. Hillsdale: Lawrance Erlbaum Assoc., Inc.

  • Krummheuer, G. (2007). Argumentation and participation in the primary mathematics classroom: Two episodes and related theoretical abductions. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 26(1), 60–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krummheuer, G. (2015) Methods for reconstructing processes of argumentation and participation in primary mathematics classroom ınteraction. In A. Bikner-Ahsbahs, C. Knipping, & N. Presmeg (Eds.), Approaches to qualitative research in mathematics education. Advances in mathematics education (pp. 51–74). Dordrecht: Springer.

  • Laborde, C., Kynigos, C., Hollebrands, K., & Strässer, R. (2006). Teaching and learning geometry with technology. In A. Gutierrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education: Past, present, and future (pp. 275–304). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Leung, A. (2011). An epistemic model of task design in dynamic geometry environment. ZDM, 43(3), 325–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, M. (1998). The van Hiele levels of geometric understanding. In L. McDougal (Ed.), The professional handbook for teachers: Geometry (pp. 4–8). Boston: McDougal-Littell/Houghton-Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, C., & Alshwaikh, J. (2012). Communicating experience of 3D space: Mathematical and everyday discourse. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 14(3), 199–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moschkovich, J. N. (2002). An introduction to examining everyday and academic mathematical practices. In M. Brenner & J. Moschkovich (Eds.), Everyday and academic mathematics in the classroom (pp. 1–11). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

  • Mueller, M., Yankelewitz, D., & Maher, C. (2014). Teachers promoting student mathematical reasoning. Investigations in Mathematics Learning, 7(2), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ng, O., & Sinclair, N. (2015). Area without numbers: Using touchscreen dynamic geometry to reason about shape. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 15(1), 84–101.

  • Oldknow, A., & Tetlow, L. (2008). Using dynamic geometry software to encourage 3D visualization and modeling. The Electronic Journal of Mathematics and Technology, 2(1), 54–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owens, K. (2014). Diversifying our perspectives on mathematics about space and geometry: An ecocultural approach. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(4), 941–974.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plomp, T. (2013). Educational design research: An introduction. In T. Plomp & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research - Part A: An Introduction (pp. 10-51). Enschede, the Netherlands: SLO.

  • Prusak, N., Hershkowitz, R., & Schwarz, B. B. (2012). From visual reasoning to logical necessity through argumentative design. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79(1), 19–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, C., & Stephan, M. (2008). A methodology for documenting collective activity. In A. E. Kelly, R. A. Lesch, & J. Y. Baek (Eds.), Handbook of design research methods in education: Innovations in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics learning and teaching (pp. 195–215). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sack, J. J. (2013). Development of a top-view numeric coding teaching-learning trajectory within an elementary grades 3-D visualization design research project. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 32(2), 183–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90(6), 986–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saxe, G. B., de Kirby, K., Le, M., Kang, B., & Sitabkhan, Y. (2015). Understanding learning across lessons in classroom communities: A multi-leveled analytic approach. In A. Bikner-Ahsbahs, G. Kaiser, & N. Presmeg (Eds.), Approaches to qualitative research in mathematics education (pp. 253–318). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, B. B., Hershkowitz, R., & Prusak, N. (2010). Argumentation and mathematics. In C. Howe & K. Littleton (Eds.), Educational dialogues: Understanding and promoting productive interaction (pp. 115–141). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, M. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(2), 114–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: Human development, the growth of discourses, and mathematizing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Stephan, M. (2015). Surface area.https://cstem.uncc.edu/sites/cstem.uncc.edu/files/media/files/stephan_surface_area.pdf. Accessed 3 Aug 2016.

  • Stephan, M., & Akyuz, D. (2012). A proposed instructional theory for integer addition and subtraction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 43(4), 428–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, M., & Rasmussen, C. (2002). Classroom mathematical practices in differential equations. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21(4), 459–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. E. (1969). The uses of argument. Cambridge: The University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, T., & McNeal, B. (2003). Complexity in teaching and children's mathematical reasoning. In N. A. Pateman, B. J. Dougherty, & J. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 435–441). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai'i.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, T. & Turner-Vorbeck, T. (2001). Extending the conception of mathematics teaching. In T. Wood (Ed.), Beyond classical pedagogy teaching elementary school mathematics (pp. 185–208). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Wood, T., Williams, G., & McNeal, B. (2006). Children’s mathematical thinking in different classroom cultures. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37, 222–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, V., & Smith, K. (2017). Children’s schemes for anticipating the validity of nets for solids. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 29(3), 369–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yackel, E. (2001). Explanation, justification and argumentation in mathematics classrooms. In M. Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 25th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education PME-25 (Vol. 1, pp. 1–9). Utrecht (Olanda).

  • Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Middle East Technical University, Universiteler Mah. Dumlupinar Blvd, No: 1, 06800, Ankara, Turkey

    Sule Sahin Dogruer & Didem Akyuz

Authors
  1. Sule Sahin Dogruer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Didem Akyuz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sule Sahin Dogruer.

Additional information

The original version of this article was revised: The original version of this article unfortunately contains added author name in the author group.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dogruer, S.S., Akyuz, D. Mathematical Practices of Eighth Graders about 3D Shapes in an Argumentation, Technology, and Design-Based Classroom Environment. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 18, 1485–1505 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-10028-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-10028-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation