Ogebra 2010

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/304707241
GeoGebraintegrated professional development: The experience of rural

inservice elementary (K-8) teachers
Conference Paper · July 2010
CITATIONS READS
0 359
5 authors, including:
Frackson Mumba Yazan Alghazo

University of Virginia Prince Mohammad University
35 PUBLICATIONS 132 CITATIONS 16 PUBLICATIONS 5 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
New trends In Higher Education View project
psychological influences on the Learning of Mathematics View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Yazan Alghazo on 17 August 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

PROCEEDINGS
of the
First North American

GeoGebra Conference
GEOGEBRA – NA 2010
July 27-28, 2010
Ithaca College, Ithaca, NY

Conference Chairs
Novak, Dani. Ithaca College, New York / USA
Martinovic, Dragana. University of Windsor, Ontario / Canada
Karadag, Zekeriya. University of Toronto, Ontario / Canada
Scientific Committee
Aktumen, Muharrem. Ahi Evran University, Kirsehir / Turkey
Bayazit, Nermin. Georgia State University, Georgia / USA
Berger, Margot. University of Witwatersrand, South Africa
Beutner, Mike. University of Louisiana at Monroe, Louisiana / USA
Bos, Beth. Texas State University-San Marcos, Texas / USA
Botolossi, Humberto. Fluminense Federal University, Niterói/Brazil
Buffington, Pamela. Education Development Center, Inc. (EDC), Maine / USA
Burke, Maurice. Montana State University, Montana / USA
Diaz, Esteban. University of Connecticut, Connecticut /USA & Chile
Drijvers, Paul. Utrecht University, Netherlands
Dunbar, Steven R. University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Nebraska / USA
Echeverría, Juan Pablo Serrano. Ministry of Education of Costa Rica, Costa Rica
Fahlberg-Stojanovska, Linda. Univ. St. Clement of Ohrid, FYR Macedonia
Freiman, Viktor. Université de Moncton, New Brunswick / Canada
Gonulates, Funda. Michigan State University, Michigan / USA
Haciomeroglu, Erhan. University of Central Florida, Florida / USA
Jarvis, Daniel. Nipissing University, Ontario / Canada
Kabaca, Tolga. Pamukkale University, Denizli / Turkey
Kaspar, Jan. Charles University in Prague, Prague / Czech Republic
Kilibarda, Vesna. Indiana University Northwest, Indiana / USA
Kondratieva, Margo. Memorial University, Newfoundland / Canada
Lombard, Bill. Foothill HS, Palo Cedro / California
Manizade, Agida. Radford University, Virginia / USA
May, Mike. St. Louis University, Missouri / USA
McDougall, Doug. University of Toronto, Ontario / Canada
Valdés, Esperanza. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico
Merges, Kevin. Rutgers University, New Jersey / USA
Moore-Russo, Deborah. University at Buffalo, New York/ USA
Ozgun-Koca, S. Asli. Wayne State University, Michigan / USA
Pierce, Robyn. The University of Melbourne, Australia
Radu, Oana. Memorial University, New Foundland /Canada
Rahikka, Mikko. Helsingin yhteislyseo, Finland
Richard, Philippe R.. Université de Montréal, Québec / Canada
Robertson, Christopher. NSW Department of Education and Training, NSW / Australia
Roulet, Geoff. Queen's University, Ontario / Canada
Saidon, Liliana. Centro Babbage IG-A UNLAM UBA, Argentina
Sherman, Milan. University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania / USA
Stylianides, Gabriel. University of Oxford, UK, Pennsylvania / USA
Tapia, Juan Francisco. Universidad Politécnica de Tecámac, Mexico
Tierney-Fife, Peter. Education Development Center, Inc. (EDC), Maine / USA
Wilhelm, Jennifer. University of Kentucky, Kentucky / USA
Table of Contents
• GeoGebra-integrated professional development:
the experience of rural inservice elementary (K-8) teachers 2
Lingguo Bu, Frackson Mumba, Harvey Henson
Mary Wright, Yazan Alghazo
• Embedding GeoGebra applets in WeBWorK homework 11

Michael E. Gage
• Using virtual manipulatives to support teaching and

learning mathematics 18
Joel Duffin
• Integrating technology into mathematics education teacher courses 27

Erhan Selcuk Haciomeroglu, Lingguo Bu, Guney Haciomeroglu
• Analyzing the discourse of GeoGebra collaborations 33

Gerry Stahl, Carolyn Penstein Ros, Sean Goggins
• Using GeoGebra’s randomization and JavaScript to

create interactive randomized student exercises 42
Marc Renault
• A snapshot of GeoGebra community endeavors:

building a research agenda 48
Viktor Freiman, Dragana Martinovic, Zekeriya Karadag
• Using Google Docs with GeoGebra 63

Dani Novak
• The Pythagorean group Wiki 69

Terry Gastauer
• GeoGebra, Jing, and classroom Wikis 74

Tim Fahlberg Linda Fahlberg-Stojanovska
• Dot-2-Dot, basic graphing, and GeoGebra 81

Auston B. Cron
• Mystery plots: motivating algbraic model building

with dynamic sketches 88
Michael Todd Edwards, Steve Phelps, Jeffrey J. Wanko
• A plan for producing a comprehensive suite of applets for a course,
with single variable calculus as a case study 100
Mike May, S.J.
• A composition of technologies - GeoGebra and distance learning 106

Celina A. A. P. Abar, Lisbete Madsen Barbosa
• GeoGebra as an instructional tool to promote students’ operational

and structural conception of function 117
Ibrahim Bayazit, Ylmaz Aksoy, Onur Alp lhan
• Multi-user support for virtual GeoGebra teams 123

Gerry Stahl, Jimmy Xiantong Ou, Murat Cakir,
Stephen Weimar, Sean Goggins
• Using GeoGebra to create resources for teachers in high needs areas:

a collaboration between U.S. and South African teacher educators 131
Deborah Moore-Russo, Thomas L. Schroeder, Vimlolan Mudaly,
Jason D. Ball, Nirmala Nutakki
• GeoGebra and process-oriented assessment:

a potential for sea level change 136
Meltem Cengel, Zekeriya Karadag
• GeoGebra in the college classroom:

multiple representations 147
Linda Fahlberg-Stojanovska, Vitomir Stojanovski
• Polar and parametric functions with GeoGebra 154

Doug Kuhlmann
• Factoring with GeoGebra 156

Terry Gastauer
• Fun and diversions with GeoGebra 162

Terry Gastauer
• GeoGebra as a component of online collaborative mathematics

investigations: present work toward realizing a dream 166
Geoffrey Roulet
• Reflections on the First Eurasia Meeting of GeoGebra:
experiences met on where continents meet 172
Sevinc Gulsecen, Tolga Kabaca, Zerrin Ayvaz Reis, Elif Kartel
• The effect of the GeoGebra use in mathematics education:

a case study on integers in Turkey 180
Zerrin Ayvaz Reis, Sevinc Gulsecen
• The effects of GeoGebra in conjectures and proofs 190

Yilmaz Aksoy, Ibrahim Bayazit, Danyal Soybas
• Supporting group math cognition in virtual math teams

with software conversational agents 196
Gerry Stahl, Carolyn Penstein Ros, Kate OHara, Arthur Powell
• A conceptual framework for using GeoGebra with

eachers and students 205
Milan Sherman
• Choosing GeoGebra applications most appropriate for teacher’s

current geometry classroom: pedagogical perspective 214
Agida G. Manizade Margie Mason
GeoGebra NA2010 July 27-28 2010 Ithaca College, Ithaca, NY, USA
Practical Pedagogy-Building and Maintaining a Resource Base of

K-12 “Teacher-Ready” Dynamic Worksheets and Lesson Plans
GEOGEBRA-INTEGRATED PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT:

THE EXPERIENCE OF RURAL INSERVICE ELEMENTARY (K-8) TEACHERS
Lingguo Bu1, Frackson Mumba2, Harvey Henson3

Mary Wright4, Yazan Alghazo5
1,2,3,4,5
Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois, USA.
1
lgbu@siu.edu, 2frackson@siu.edu, 3mwright@math.siu.edu, 4henson@cos.siu.edu, 5alghazo@siu.edu
Abstract: Dynamic mathematics software GeoGebra was fully integrated into an online professional development
course on mathematical problem solving in a southern region of a Midwest state. Twenty-seven K-8 inservice
elementary teachers were enrolled in the graduate level course, where they experimented with the new dynamic
tools of GeoGebra in genuine problem solving. After eight week’s intensive online instruction, a 25-item
questionnaire was administered to collect data on the participants’ attitudes, curricular awareness, mathematical
content, and pedagogy with respect to the use of GeoGebra. Based on results of the questionnaire, this paper
provides an initial description of inservice elementary teachers’ learning experience in GeoGebra-integrated
instructional environment. The course design and implications for future efforts are discussed.
Keywords: GeoGebra, professional development, online learning, problem solving
1. INTRODUCTION
Inservice teachers’ professional development (PD) has become a vital component of the ongoing
educational reform, driven by accountability, diversity, and especially the constant advances of
educational technology and innovative instruction paradigms (Darling-Hammond et al., 2008). The need
is demanding in rural areas, where classroom teachers are facing both curricular challenges and a lack of
innovative resources in many subject areas, particularly in mathematics and science. To meet the
professional needs of these full-time classroom teachers, we are currently implementing a state-funded
PD project titled Science and Mathematics Action Research for Teachers (SMART), blending summer
institutes and year-long graduate-level courses in content and pedagogy through E-learning supported by
the Blackboard System® and open-source web technologies. In mathematics methods courses, GeoGebra
is fully integrated into all instructional modules, playing a variety of instructional roles—dynamic
demonstration, computation, graphing, modeling, exploration, alternative solutions, and online
mathematical communication. In this paper, we report on the inservice elementary teachers’ self-
perceived experience with GeoGebra-based learning in an online three-credit-hour graduate course in
mathematical problem solving, which was offered in the first half of Spring 2010 at a Midwest state
university in the US with an enrollment of 27 K-8 inservice teachers. Our purpose is to provide an initial
description of inservice elementary teachers’ general learning experience in GeoGebra-integrated
mathematical problem solving and further identify the primary themes that characterize such an
innovative professional development program.
2
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS
In designing an online course for mathematical problem solving, we were aware of the challenges from
both the mathematical content and the limitations and affordances of the delivery platform. Thus, we
sought guidance from both research in mathematical problem solving and theories of instructional design.
In mathematical problem solving, we were informed by Schoenfeld’s (1985) framework to address the
global issues of problem solving—resources, control, heuristics, and beliefs. At the content-specific level,
we implemented Polya’s (1945/2004, 1981) four-phase strategy for mathematical problem solving. Both
theories were explicitly introduced to the participants through reading and/or video-based problem
solving demonstrations.
As an overarching framework for instructional design, we were guided by Merrill’s (2002) First
Principles of Instruction, placing emphases on knowledge application and integration. In light of the
content requirements of mathematics, we were also informed by Merrill’s (2007) recent work on Task-
Centered and Content-First Design. Focal ideas of school mathematics were presented as whole tasks that
allow participants to grasp the part-part and part-whole interconnections.
New open-course dynamic learning technologies provide a platform to implement the first principles of
instruction (Merrill, 2002). To incorporate modeling and simulation into the online course, we were
guided by model-centered instruction (de Jong & van Joolingen, 2008; Milrad, Spector, & Davidsen,
2003; Seel, 2003), which allows the instructor to address participants’ pre- or mis-conceptions of
mathematics using model-specific language and methods, and subsequently encourage them to build
interactive and dynamic conceptual models as a way to learn, to teach, and to foster metacognition. We
used the open-source, web-ready mathematics learning environment GeoGebra (www.geogebra.org) as a
primary technology tool (Hohenwarter & Hohenwarter, 2009).
3. METHODS
3.1. Participants
Twenty-seven inservice elementary (K-8) teachers were participants in the graduate online course on
mathematical problem solving. They were all full-time classroom teachers. At the time of instruction,
they were teaching various subjects, including mathematics, language arts, science, social studies, or
science. They were located across the southern region of a Midwest state in the US, with a broad span of
teaching experience. They were enrolled in the PD program because of their self-perceived need for
professional growth with support of their school districts. Virtually nobody reported previous
acquaintance with GeoGebra, although a few teachers were aware of the existence of open-source
software.
3.2. Context
GeoGebra was fully integrated into the online course on mathematical problem solving. The course was
specifically designed to engage classroom teachers with the processes of problem solving in alignment
3
with state and national standards. The overarching goal is to provide inservice teachers with a holistic
perspective on the historical, cultural, and technological aspects of mathematics and the mathematical
teaching and learning. Given their teaching experience and daily access to children, they were explicitly
encouraged to experiment their newly acquired teaching skills and methods with their children, and
further reflect on their children’s cognitive processes. Within the overall emphasis on teaching for
understanding, these teachers were guided to learn with understanding, utilizing multiple representations,
dynamic modeling, and the social support in the online community.
3.3 Instructional Procedures and Interventions
3.3.1 Video-Based Demonstrations
In teaching classroom teachers about the new interactive technologies, we met many instructional and
technical challenges. During the first three weeks, we made several Flash videos demonstrating the
features of GeoGebra, the processes of problem solving, and their theoretical relevance for mathematics
teaching. Some were overwhelmed by the combination of new ways of thinking and the use of new tools.
In contrast, others were excited by the new opportunities. All these initial reactions were within the
expectations of the project team and were documented at the course site. These videos provided an
asynchronous form of instructional support and proved to be highly effective in teaching about the
features of GeoGebra.
3.3.2 Emotional Intervention
Our participants have varied teaching experience and mathematical content knowledge as well as
different attitudes and beliefs about mathematics teaching. By the end of the third week, the instructor
realized that there was need for an emotional or metacognitive intervention. In a traditional classroom, it
is relatively easy to spot such tensions among students. In an online setting, such emotional reactions
went in two directions: some were blaming their difficulties on the technology; a few were “threatening”
to drop. A short survey was thus administered to gather some feedback. The results were largely positive,
which pointed to the fact that most of the participants, being teachers themselves, were aware of the
challenges of learning. Those who felt stressed out on their self-perceived “weaknesses” might have read
others’ postings online and felt challenged by the “competition”. Through emails and online messages,
the course instructor sent out messages explaining the emotional aspects of learning and especially
mathematical problem solving. Schoenfeld’s (1985) and Polya’s (1945/2004) work was subsequently
given as reading assignments.
3.3.3 Scaffolding Problem Solving
From a Vygotskian perspective, learners ought to be scaffolded pedagogically so that they could explore
within their Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) (Vygotsky, 1978; Wood & Wood, 1996). In an online
environment, it is difficult to provide one-on-one scaffolding on a timely basis. To help participants learn
about the heuristic strategies, the instructor designed interactive web-units, using Quandary®
(http://www.halfbakedsoftware.com/quandary.php), to provide instructional support. A short
questionnaire revealed that the participants found Quandary-based scaffolding very helpful. Further, team
4
scaffolding is a cyber resource that is more flexible than traditional instruction. There was always
somebody, among the 27 teachers, who could make a good comment or a good “mistake” to get the whole
class moving ahead. A weekly forum turned out to be a powerful social channel of communication and
problem solving. With the instructor providing occasional guidance, all the problems were addressed in
multiple dimensions, some very thoroughly.
3.3.4 Mathematical Content
We organized the course content around three major components: theoretical readings, open-source
dynamic technology GeoGebra, and mathematical content, including geometry, algebra, probability and
data analysis, and some discrete mathematics. Every week, there was a theme emphasized in
mathematical problem solving, such as working backwards or visualization. Five to ten mathematical
problems were discussed each week online by the whole class and subsequently summarized by each
individual.
3.3.5 Data Collection
A variety of data were collected during the implementation of the course through online discussion
forums, on-demand brief questionnaires, and problem sets. Two pre- and post- content tests were also
administered. At the end of the online course, a 25-item questionnaire on GeoGebra use was given to
collect data on participants’ self-perceived experience with GeoGebra in the context of the course. A free-
response question was also included to solicit other comments and suggestions. Since there were no
previous validated instruments to use, we reviewed similar survey instruments on the use of technology,
such as calculators, in teacher education and PD programs (Brown et al., 2007; Burrill, 1992; Kastberg &
Leatham, 2005; Milou, 1999), and adapted some of the questions to address our major concerns and our
primary research questions. Based on our analysis of existing research findings, we established four
tentative factors to investigate inservice teachers’ use of GeoGebra—attitudes, curriculum, content, and
pedagogy. Twenty-six teachers out of 27 responded to the GeoGebra questionnaire. In this paper, we
report the results of the questionnaire as a way to understand inservice elementary teachers’ experience
with GeoGebra.
4. RESULTS
The results of the four-factor questionnaire are presented in Figures 1-4. Given the clear trends in the
percentage clusters, there seems to be no need to conduct further descriptive statistics. In what follows,
we summarize the major responses of our participants.
4.1. Attitudes
What attitudes do inservice elementary teachers have toward the use of open-source GeoGebra? As
shown in Figure 1, in the beginning, more than half of the teachers did not like the use of GeoGebra in the
online course, which could be due to their lack of prior exposure and perceived difficulties with
GeoGebra. However, after eight weeks of intensive instruction and GeoGebra-based problem exploration,
the majority of the teachers came to accept GeoGebra as a meaningful instructional tool and they even
5
shared GeoGebra with their colleagues. Strikingly, more than 80% indicated that they would continue to
use GeoGebra.
4.2. Curricular Issues
What are the curricular challenges if teachers choose to use GeoGebra in their teaching? As shown in
Figure 2, the majority felt that GeoGebra challenges their conception of mathematics. However, they felt
that they could adapt existing materials for GeoGebra use. More than 80% of the teachers thought that the
teacher would have to face challenges from their own students when GeoGebra is used. Importantly,
100% of them believed that GeoGebra helps students create their own mathematical ideas.
Very Strongly Strongly Very

Question Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree
At the beginning, I did not like GeoGebra at all. 38.5% (10) 11.5% (3) 11.5% (3) 30.8% (8) 3.8% (1) 3.8% (1)
Right now, I am more open to explorations 30.8% (8) 11.5% (3) 46.2% (12) 7.7% (2) 3.8% (1) 0.0% (0)
using GeoGebra.
I like it because it is free to everyone. 57.7% (15) 15.4% (4) 26.9% (7) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0)
I shared or will share GeoGebra with students 34.6% (9) 23.1% (6) 26.9% (7) 15.4% (4) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0)
and parents.
I shared or will share GeoGebra with my 38.5% (10) 30.8% (8) 26.9% (7) 3.8% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0)
colleagues and administrators.
I will continue to learn and use GeoGebra. 34.6% (9) 26.9% (7) 19.2% (5) 19.2% (5) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0)
GeoGebra makes mathematics unnecessarily 4.0% (1) 4.0% (1) 20.0% (5) 24.0% (6) 32.0% (8) 16.0% (4)
difficult for me to learn and teach.
Figure 1: Attitudes toward GeoGebra use

Agree Disagree
It challenges my conception of the mathematics 7.7% (2) 19.2% (5) 38.5% (10) 30.8% (8) 0.0% (0) 3.8% (1)
I teach.
The textbook has to be revised for me to make 3.8% (1) 7.7% (2) 15.4% (4) 42.3% (11) 19.2% (5) 11.5% (3)
better use of GeoGebra.
I can adapt existing learning materials for 15.4% (4) 34.6% (9) 38.5% (10) 11.5% (3) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0)
GeoGebra.
GeoGebra helps students create their own 15.4% (4) 26.9% (7) 57.7% (15) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0)
mathematical ideas.
The teacher will have to face the challenges 11.5% (3) 15.4% (4) 57.7% (15) 7.7% (2) 7.7% (2) 0.0% (0)
from students when GeoGebra is used.
Figure 2: Curricular issues related to GeoGebra use
6
5.3. Mathematical Content
In terms of mathematical content, what are the major reactions of classroom teachers? As shown in
Figure 3, the vast majority of the teachers felt that they had re-learned some mathematical ideas or those
which are otherwise beyond their zone of comfort and that they were beginning to see mathematics as a
consistent system. It is not surprising, then, that most teachers did not feel GeoGebra made mathematics
more difficult for them. However, they did feel a new type of mathematics was taking shape.
5.4. Pedagogical Issues
When GeoGebra is used, how do teachers perceive pedagogical issues? As shown in Figure 4, the
majority of the teachers agreed or strongly agreed that GeoGebra helped them make connections among
mathematical ideas, reach out to more children, learn with their children, and provide timely feedback to
students. More than 90% of them believe that their students generally like GeoGebra. As one teacher
wrote in the free response question, “[m]y students really enjoyed seeing the things that we could create
in GeoGebra. I have one student who has a[n] aunt and uncle who are math teachers and they contacted
me about the program because she was so excited about it. I really think that this is a great way to get kids
into math!”
Very Very
Strongly Strongly Strongly Strongly
Question Agree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree
It helps me relearn some mathematical ideas. 7.7% (2) 34.6% (9) 38.5% (10) 19.2% (5) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0)
It makes mathematics more difficult for me. 0.0% (0) 7.7% (2) 19.2% (5) 46.2% (12) 7.7% (2) 19.2% (5)
I have learned some mathematics that would 15.4% (4) 26.9% (7) 38.5% (10) 19.2% (5) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0)
otherwise be difficult to learn.
It helps me see mathematics as a consistent 15.4% (4) 23.1% (6) 42.3% (11) 15.4% (4) 3.8% (1) 0.0% (0)
system of ideas.
I would like to learn more mathematics using 23.1% (6) 19.2% (5) 30.8% (8) 26.9% (7) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0)
GeoGebra.
I feel that a new kind of mathematics is being 11.5% (3) 19.2% (5) 46.2% (12) 23.1% (6) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0)
taught.
Figure 3: Mathematical content related to GeoGebra use
7

Agree Disagree
It helps me make connections between different 19.2% (5) 19.2% (5) 42.3% (11) 15.4% (4) 3.8% (1) 0.0% (0)
domains of mathematics
It helps me reach out to more children. 11.5% (3) 30.8% (8) 38.5% (10) 11.5% (3) 7.7% (2) 0.0% (0)
It helps me rethink about mathematics teaching 23.1% (6) 19.2% (5) 42.3% (11) 11.5% (3) 3.8% (1) 0.0% (0)
and learning
It allows me to design meaningful activities for 19.2% (5) 23.1% (6) 38.5% (10) 11.5% (3) 7.7% (2) 0.0% (0)
students.
Students generally like GeoGebra. 20.0% (5) 24.0% (6) 48.0% (12) 8.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0)
I am willing to learn with my students about the 26.9% (7) 23.1% (6) 42.3% (11) 3.8% (1) 3.8% (1) 0.0% (0)
new tools.
GeoGebra constructions provide useful feedback 20.0% (5) 24.0% (6) 56.0% (14) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0)
to the students.
Figure 4: Pedagogical issues related to GeoGebra use
5. CONCLUDING REMARKS
As shown in the questionnaire results, our inservice teachers benefited significantly from the use of
GeoGebra in various ways, ranging from personal mathematical exploration, better attitudes toward
mathematics and mathematics teaching, to pedagogical reflections. These changes are well aligned with
the emphases of the ongoing mathematical education reform, including the integration of technology. Our
findings support the use of GeoGebra in professional development programs that seek to enhance
inservice teachers’ understanding of big ideas of mathematics and further to empower them with the
pedagogical tools to enact changes in their teaching practice. Looking forward, we would like to make
the following recommendation for future efforts:
1. Provide cognitive support for teachers who may have initial, self-perceived, negative reactions to
GeoGebra or any new innovations, which are a necessary step toward informed use of GeoGebra.
2. Develop self-contained online video-based tutorials showcasing genuine mathematical problem
solving, especially in E-learning cases. These video modules can be watched by teachers on
demand. As one of our teachers pointed out, “[t]he videos are a must for someone just learning
how to use GeoGebra. I can watch them as I need to WHEN I need to. I have watched them over
and over. Each time, I pick up a new piece of information.”
3. Encourage and support teachers in using GeoGebra with their own students. As they observe
children’s mathematical exploration, they may learn about themselves as problem solvers and
develop strategies to support student learning.
4. Use genuine mathematical problems in GeoGebra-integrated learning. Not all problems are best
investigated with GeoGebra. Problems should be carefully selected or designed according to the
mathematical maturity of participants, to maintain a certain level of cognitive complexity and
pedagogical flexibility.
8
In conclusion, we would like to point out the importance of instructional theories in our overall course
design and daily interventions. Professional development is a highly complex endeavor, which gets more
complicated when dynamic technologies are intertwined with mathematical and pedagogical issues,
where GeoGebra may eventually help control the complexity and provide genuine learning experiences to
teachers and students alike.
6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This study is part of a multi-year project entitled Science and Mathematics Action Research for Teachers
funded by the Illinois State Board of Education under grant number 4936-80-30-039-5400-51. The
findings and views expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of the funding agency.
7. REFERENCES
[1] Brown, E. T., Karp, K., Petrosko, J. M., Jones, J., Beswick, G., Howe, C., et al. (2007). Crutch or
catalyst: Teachers' beliefs and practices regarding calculator use in mathematics instruction.
School Science and Mathematics, 107, 102-116.
[2] Burrill, G. (1992). The graphing calculator: A tool for change. In J. T. Fey & C. R. Hirsch (Eds.),
Calculators in mathematics education, 1992 yearbook (pp. 14-22). Reston, VA: National Council
of Teachers of Mathematics.
[3] 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.
[4] 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
Associates.
[5] 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.
[6] Kastberg, S., & Leatham, K. (2005). Research on graphing calculators at the secondary level:
Implications for mathematics teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher
Education, 5(1), 25-37. Retrieved July 25, 2007 from
http://www.citejournal.org/vol5/iss1/mathematics/article1.cfm
[7] Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and
Development 50(3), 43-59.
[8] Merrill, M. D. (2007). A task-centered instructional strategy. Journal of Research on Technology
in Education, 40, 5-22.
[9] Milou, E. (1999). The graphing calculator: A survey of classroom use. School Science and
Mathematics, 99, 133-140.
[10] 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.
9
[11] Polya, G. (1945/2004). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method (2nd ed.).
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
[12] Polya, G. (1981). Mathematical discovery: On understanding, learning, and teaching problem
solving (Combined ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
[13] Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
[14] Seel, N. M. (2003). Model-centered learning and instruction. Technology, Instruction, Cognition
and Learning, 1, 59-85.
[15] Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[16] Wood, D., & Wood, H. (1996). Vygotsky, tutoring and learning. Oxford Review of Education, 22,
5-16.
10
Communicating Effective Ways of Teaching and Learning Dynamic Mathematics –

Building and Maintaing a “Community of Practice/Inquiry”
EMBEDDING GEOGEBRA APPLETS IN WEBWORK HOMEWORK
MICHAEL E. GAGE
1
University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA gage@math.rochester
Abstract: We describe how to embed GeoGebra applets into a WeBWorK homework question using methods similar
to those used to embed them into a wiki page. The combination of GeoGebra applets and online questions that
provide instant feedback for mathematically complex questions gives powerful motivation and support for learning
mathematical concepts. It can be even more effective when small teams of students work on the questions together.
The WeBWorK environment provides persistence – the applet remains just as the students left it if they interrupt
their work session and then return; variety – each student or team receives a different version of the problem; and
most importantly instant feedback to questions – this very important feature motivates students to keep working,
warns them if they have gone wrong somewhere and reassures them if they are on the right track.
Keywords: GeoGebra, WeBWorK, homework

INTRODUCTION
WeBWorK is an open source on-line homework system widely used at many universities and
colleges for precalculus, calculus and higher mathematics courses. Many high schools have also begun to
use it for AP mathematics and statistics courses.
The immediate feedback provided by the computer has proved to be a powerful motivating force for
encouraging students to take their homework seriously. By automatically checking answers and
recording the results WeBWorK saves grading time on routine questions and allows instructors to
concentrate on more productive interactions with students. A surprisingly large fraction of the standard
high school and undergraduate mathematics questions (excepting essays and proofs) can be presented and
automatically graded using WeBWorK.
Combining this powerful question engine with GeoGebra or other applets provides the visual aspect
that is missing from text alone, helping visual learners and reinforcing the importance of visual
representations for all students.
In principle it is possible to program extensive interactions between the GeoGebra applet and the
questions using the javaScript language. In this paper we limit ourselves to describing the simpler task
of transferring a free standing Geogebra applet to a WeBWorK question so that (1) its state is preserved
from one viewing to the next (i.e. the homework remains just as the student left it) and so that (2) the
parameters of the applet and the surrounding questions can be set differently for each student.
1
Author partially supported by NSF grant DUE- 0920341
11
EMBEDDING GEOGEBRA IN WEBWORK QUESTIONS
It’s usually best to first develop the GeoGebra applet and the surrounding WeBWorK questions
separately and then combine them. We’ll assume that you are familiar with GeoGebra and with editing
an ordinary WeBWorK question and limit this paper to a description of how to combine the two.
Complete descriptions of the capabilities of the two software systems are beyond the scope of this paper
but can be found at http://www.geogebra.org/ and http://webwork.maa.org/ respectively where one can
find descriptions, tuturials, forums and video presentations of describing these systems. The best method
for learning to write GeoGebra/WeBWorK applets is to start with existing examples and modify them to
suit your purposes.
Given a WeBWorK question and a free standing GeoGebra applet, either prepared in the GeoGebra
application or copied from a webpage, we need to cut and paste the appropriate parameters from the
GeoGebra applet and paste them into the WeBWorK question. If you are new to working with HTML
first take a look at the instructions at http://geogebrawiki.wikispaces.com/Embed+GeoGebra+Worksheet
for embedding a worksheet in a wiki page. The method for embedding into WeBWorK differs very
slightly from this because we want WeBWorK and GeoGebra to interact. WeBWorK uses only some of
the parameters from Geogebra and sets a few parameters in a different location.
INSERTING THE GEOGEBRA PARAMETERS

Starting with the GeoGebra application, choose “Export” and save the resulting html file where you
can find it. View it with a text editor, or view it with a web browser and choose “View source” from the
web browser menu. Find the section describing the applet – this section begins with <applet> and ends
with </applet>.
If you start with an applet already embedded in a webpage, simply “view source” and find the applet
section.
Select the parameters which begin with
<param name="ggbBase64" value="UEsDBBQACAAIAOCc5TwAAAAAAAAAA.........

...... and continue to just above the end tag ............
</applet>
Save this text somewhere where you can retrieve it later.
12
There are some boiler plate sections that need to be inserted into WeBWorK. We can grab these from
an existing example such as ship problem which uses an applet designed by Prof. Linda Fahlberg-
Stojanovska.
Search for the GEOGEBRA_PARAMS subroutine section at the end of the ship problem file and
paste it into to your WeBWorK file just above the ENDDOCUMENT(); command. Next paste the saved
text with the GeoGebra parameters into the section between the two comment lines (#######),
replacing the parameters from the ship problem. When you are done the GeoGebra parameter section of
the WeBWorK file will look something like this:
# put the parameters defining the geogebra applet down here so they
# don't get in the way
sub GEOGEBRA_PARAMS {
$result = qq{
<param name="ggbOnInitParam" value="$appletName"/>
############################
<param name="ggbBase64" value="UEsDBBQACAAIAOCc5TwAAAAAAAAAA.........
....DAOgAAADKdwAAAAA=" />
<param name="image" value="http://www.geogebra.org/webstart/loading.gif" />
......... more parameters .............
<param name="showToolBarHelp" value="true" />
<param name="showAlgebraInput" value="false" />
<param name="allowRescaling" value="true" />
#########################################
};
}
ENDDOCUMENT();
The value of the ggBase64 parameter is a long string of letters that describes the configuration of the
GeoGebra applet. The other parameters are somewhat self explanatory. The parameter ggbOnInitParam,
which is in the original template and is not copied from the original GeoGebra applet, allows GeoGebra to
tell WeBWorK when it is loaded and ready to go. Be careful to preserve the closing curley braces, the
ENDDOCUMENT() command and the semi-colons just as they are.
Next find the section towards the beginning of the ship problem template which looks like:
##################################
# Create link to applet:
###################################
# You can name your applet (anything reasonable :-) )
# Adjust the height and width as desired
# Paste the geogebra parameters in at the bottom of the page just above the
# command end command
# so that they don't get in the way
###################################
$appletName = "shipGeogebra";
$applet = JavaApplet(
code => "geogebra.GeoGebraApplet",
archive => "geogebra.jar",
codebase => findAppletCodebase("geogebra.jar"),
appletName => $appletName,

........ more parameters defined here ..........
getStateAlias => 'getXML',
setConfigAlias => '',
getConfigAlias => '',
13
returnFieldName => '',

width => 844, # may want to modify width
height => 456, # may want to modify height
mayscript => "true",
debugMode => 0, # set debugMode to 0 for no debug
# to 1 to make xml representation visible
# to 2 to add alerts detailing progression
# through the applet
onInit => 'ggbOnInit',
type => 'geogebra',
parameter_string => GEOGEBRA_PARAMS(),# paste parameters in section at the bottom
);
##################################
# Setup Geogebra applet -- this does not need to be changed
###################################
HEADER_TEXT(qq!
<script language="javascript">
function ggbOnInit(param) {
if (param == "$appletName") {
applet_loaded(param,1); // report that applet is ready.
ww_applet_list[param].safe_applet_initialize(2);
}
</script>
);
Be sure to grab the final parentheses and the semi-colon.

There are three adjustments that should be made in this section, naming the applet, and defining its
height and width. Replace “shipGeogebra” at the top of this section with a name for your applet, the name
can contain letters, numbers and under bars but not spaces. The variable $appletName now contains the
applet name and will supply this throughout the rest of the WeBWorK script where ever $appletName
appears. Next change the width and height parameters to conform to the parameters of the original free
standing GeoGebra applet. This code is read directly by the computer so it’s important that care be taken
not to change line endings. Leave the commas and semi-colons at the end of lines just as they are in the
template. If warning messages occur when viewing the WeBWorK page it usually indicates that a
comma or semi-colon has been omitted or misplaced. To obtain extra information while testing the applet
the debugMode can be set to 1 to display the applet state and to 2 to step through the initialization
procedure. For normal use set the debugMode to 0. Notice that the symbol “=>” is used rather than “=”
in this section to assign values to parameters.
Finally grab the section
###################################
#insert applet into body -- this does not need to be changed
# except to adjust the insertion of the reinitialize_button or
# a hidden AnswerBox
###################################
14
TEXT($PAR, MODES(TeX=>'object code', HTML=>$applet->insertAll(

debug =>0, reinitialize_button => 1, includeAnswerBox=>0,
)));
and insert it at the point where you wish the applet to appear – often before the first
BEGIN_TEXT/END_TEXT section, or perhaps between two such sections. Nothing needs
to be changed in this section.
At this point you can test the applet. It should save its state – i.e. if you manipulate the applet and
submit the WeBWorK question the applet should reappear in the same configuration as when you
submitted the question. There is a “Return this question to its initial state” button if you wish to start
over.
SETTING THE INITIAL VALUES IN GEOGEBRA FROM WEBWORK

For our final task we’ll set WeBWorK to initialize the controlling variables in the applet so that each
student can obtain a different version of the problem. In the ship problem file find the javaScript section
which looks like
###################################
# JavaScript section
# Set the configuration in geogebra
# Set the speed variables vE and vN to the speeds defined above
# The code below is written in javaScript and uses the geogebra javaScript interface
# Comments use // in javaScript instead of #
###################################
TEXT(qq{
<script language="javascript">
function setAppletCoefficients() {
var applet=getApplet("$appletName"); //alert("Updating coefficients");
if (typeof(applet)!="undefined") {
if (typeof(applet.setValue)!="undefined") {
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// List the values of the parameters to be set in the applet here
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// applet.setValue("vE", $e_speed);
// applet.setValue("vN", $n_speed);
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
} else {
setTimeout("setAppletCoefficients()", 1000);
}
} else {
setTimeout("setAppletCoefficients()",1000);
}
}
ww_applet_list["$appletName"].setConfig = function() {setAppletCoefficients()};
</script>
});
and insert it after the applet insertion section.

Much of this code is boiler plate and does not need to be changed (we’ll hide the details in future
versions of this API). The key lines are
applet.setValue(“vE”, $e_speed);
applet.setValue(“vN”, $n_speed);
15
These commands tell WeBWorK to set the GeoGebra variable vE to the value of the webwork
variable $e_speed defined in the WeBWorK setup section. Similarly vN is set to the value of $n_speed.
Uncomment these commands by removing the javaScript comment characters // from the beginning
of the line. You can replace lines with commands that set the defining variables of your applet. For
experienced GeoGebra designers nearly every aspect of GeoGebra can be set by placing the appropriate
javaScript command in this section. See the GeoGebra javaScript page for the available commands.
CUSTOMIZING THE WEBWORK QUESTION.
That’s it. You can change the wording that appears on the WeBWorK page by editing the material in
the BEGIN_TEXT/END_TEXT sections. By checking frequently you can see what is being affected. The
setup section at the top of the file is where the initial variables and the formulas for the problem are
defined. You can reset $e_speed and $n_speed to new values or you can set them to
# $e_speed = Real( random(3,30,1) ); # choose random integer between 3 and 30
# $n_speed = Real( random(3,30,1) );
which will give each student a different speed between 3 and 30. Notice how the GeoGebra applet
changes when you do this.
It’s best to make very small changes and test frequently to see what happens, particularly while you
are learning the system.
If you have questions or have difficulties there is a very active WeBWorK forum attached to
http://webwork.maa.org where WeBWorK questions at all levels of sophistication are answered, many of
them within hours and most within a day or two. Often you can find answers even without posting a
question by searching the forum for previous explanations.
SUMMARY
Online homework is being increasingly utilized at colleges and universities. [5,6]. Studies have shown
that such homework, used together with other interventions to promote active engagement with the
mathematical material can have a significant effect on learning as measured by grade point averages.[7-10]
Combining standard written questions with interactive applets seems a good candidate for providing even
more support for mathematical learning. Fortunately the addition of GeoGebra applets to WeBWorK
questions is not difficult in many cases. The hard part is creating the right applet design and crafting
“good questions”.
Further development of the GeoGebra – WeBWorK application interface (API) will facilitate the
specification of how WeBWorK and GeoGebra interact including additional methods for allowing
WeBWorK to check GeoGebra constructions for correctness and to notify the student.
16
8. REFERENCES AND RESOURCES

[1] http://webwork.maa.org/, Home for WeBWorK at the Mathematics Association of America.
[2] Gage, Michael E., WeBWorK course containing math questions with embedded applets.
http://hosted2.webwork.rochester.edu/webwork2/2010geogebra_at_ithaca.
[3] MAA 101—110 courses
[4] Fahlberg-Stojanovska, Linda, Embedded wiki version of the ship applet.
[5] Fahlberg-Stojanovska, Linda, Embedding GeoGebra worksheets into a wiki page.
[6] Elaine Kehoe, AMS Homework software survey, Notices of the AMS, June 2010.
[7] James Lewis and Alan Tucker, Report on the AMS First-Year Task Force, Notices of the AMS, June
2009.
[8] Dedic, H., S. Rosenfield, I. Ivanov. 2008. Online assessments and interactive classroom sessions: a
potent prescription for ailing success rates in Social Science Calculus. 210 pages.
http://sun4.vaniercollege.qc.ca/PA-2005-008
[9] Hirsch, L. and C. Weibel. 2003. Statistical evidence that web-based homework helps. MAA Focus.
23: 14. (summary of results in [7])
[10] Weibel, C. and L. Hirsch. 2002. WeBWorK effectiveness in Rutgers Calculus. preprint. 18 pages.
http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~weibel/webwork.html,
[11] David Bressoud, WeBWorK, Launchings, April 2009, with further references to assessment studies,
http://www.maa.org/columns/launchings/launchings_04_09.html
[12] The MAA is able to host WeBWorK course for small and medium size math courses or for instructor
experimentation on their website at https://courses.webwork.maa.org/webwork2 free of charge, at
least for the next few years. To request a course send email from your professional account to
webwork@maa.org and supply the following information:
courseID (e.g. math101)

courseName (e.g. Calculus 1)
institution (e.g. University of Rochester)
instructor_email (e.g. gage@math.rochester.edu)
instructor name (.e.g. Michael Gage)
And a short note explaining the purpose of your request.
Your url will include your school or an abbreviation -- something like: UR_math101
or rochester_math101 usually taken from the domain name of your professional email account.
The instructor's login will be derived from the email (e.g. gage in the example above), unless
you supply a different login to use instead.
17
Identifying an agenda of critical development and research needs in the field
USING VIRTUAL MANIPULATIVES TO SUPPORT

TEACHING AND LEARNING MATHEMATICS
Joel Duffin
NLVM, Utah State University, joel.duffin@usu.edu
Abstract — The National Library of Virtual Manipulatives (NLVM) is a free website containing over 110 interactive online
tools (virtual manipulatives) and activities for K-12 mathematics such as geoboards, pattern blocks, graphing tools, and logic
puzzles. The focus of the NLVM National Science Foundation (NSF) project was to develop flexible, focused, interactive tools,
around which rich math learning activities could be developed. As part of a second NSF grant called the eNLVM,
interdisciplinary teams including classroom teachers extended the NLVM by developing and field testing interactive online
math lesson called eModules. Each eModule provides materials for 1-5 days worth of instruction that use NLVM and other web
resources, are aligned with state and national standards, and include online assessments. The eNLVM also developed a web-
application that allows teachers to organize, adapt and create lessons, track student performance, and collaborate with other
teachers. This paper describes the NLVM, eNLVM, research that has been conducted, and future directions for NLVM
research.
Keywords — NLVM, virtual manipulatives, mathlets, interactive online mathematics, authoring tools, evaluation, research,
theory.
I. INTRODUCTION
Researchers at Utah State University began using and building interactive tools for teaching and learning
mathematics early in the 1990s, using Geometer's Sketchpad as part of summer workshops for teachers and
developing CD-based tools to support teaching College Algebra. In 1999, researchers obtained a grant
from the National Science Foundation to develop the National Library of Virtual Manipulatives (NLVM),
a collection of interactive tools for K-12 mathematics freely available on the internet (http://nlvm.usu.edu).
Early efforts focused on the development of math-rich Java applets that could be
Joel Duffin, is with Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322 USA. He is CEO of Models for Learning, Inc a company whose mission is to
prepare youth for careers in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics.
18
Figure 1 – NLVM virtual manipulative

used on multiple browsers and operating systems, a challenge at that time because the support for Java was
very uneven across platforms. The project organized tools into content strands and grade bands identified in
the NCTM standards. In addition to tools, the NLVM site includes background information for teachers,
help files explaining how to use the tools, and activities illustrating how the tools could be used. Along side
of the development of the NLVM, researchers collaborated with publishers and authors to create
companion CDs and websites, that used NLVM tools, to accompany math education and liberal arts
textbooks. Figure 1 shows an example of an NLVM activity that uses pattern blocks to teach rotation
transformations:
II. VIRTUAL MANIPULATIVES
Initial tools created by NLVM researchers included software counterparts to physical or concrete
manipulatives commonly used to teach mathematics in elementary school classrooms, such as base blocks,
geoboards, and pattern blocks. While additional tools were created that do not have physical counterparts
such as graphing tools, the name virtual manipulatives was retained because it emphasizes interactivity.
Other names that have been applied to similar tools include math tools and mathlets.
Strengths of virtual manipulatives include:

Constraints – Constraints can be imposed that help focus student attention on mathematical rules.
For example, in base blocks, ten blocks can only be allowed in the tens column.
Seeding – Virtual manipulatives can be seeded or configured for use in specific activities,
increasing focus and saving start up time.
Dynamic visualization – Visual representations of mathematical concepts can be interacted with,
allowing the learner to explore relationships.
Multiple, linked representations – Representations can be linked to help draw attention to the
relationships between the representations and deepen understanding.
Hints and immediate feedback – Software can make learning more efficient by giving hints when
students request it and providing feedback when it recognizes mistakes.
Simulations – Learners can run simulations that otherwise would be prohibitive in a classroom
setting. For example, a spinner can be spun 1000's of time in only a few seconds.
Instructional sequences – Sequences of instructional activities can be built into online materials
that scaffold and focus student learning.
Cost – Many websites such as the NLVM provide virtual manipulatives for free on the internet.
Saving – The state of virtual manipulatives can be easily printed or saved so that it can be
reviewed, modified, and discussed later.
Maintenance – In contrast to physical manipulatives, virtual manipulatives don't get lost or
broken.
Access – Virtual manipulatives can be accessed anywhere there is internet access including in
student homes.
Significant research has been conducted on concrete manipulatives that demonstrate their value for
19
deepening conceptual understanding [1]. Early research on virtual manipulatives attempted to build on
research on concrete manipulatives and focused on comparing concrete with virtual manipulatives [2].
While research demonstrated benefits of virtual manipulatives, results vary widely depending on student
preparation and stage in learning, instructional strategies, and targeted topics and learning outcomes.
Additionally, results showed that benefits can be gained by using them together.
III. THEORY FOR THE ADAPTATION OF INTERACTIVE ONLINE LEARNING

ACTIVITIES (TADRIOLA)
As a significant number of NLVM tools began to be developed, researchers turned their focus to studying
classroom use of interactive math tools. Researchers developed a theoretical framework for understanding
classroom use of interactive math technology and guiding the design of tools to help support effective,
efficient, enjoyable use of that technology.
A. Theory Development
Based on pilot studies and a review of the literature, researchers proposed a theory, called TATSTAM, that
described barriers to use of mathlets and tasks or activities teachers carry out while using mathlets, and
prescribed guidelines for the design of tools to support effective use of mathlets [3].
TATSTAM research included the development of an authoring tool called TADRIOLA to support teacher
use of interactive online math tools. The formative research methodology depicted in Figure 2 was used to
evaluate and iteratively improve the theory. Researchers used focus group, user test, interview, and
questionnaire techniques with over 40 K-12 math teachers to iteratively evaluate and refine TASTAM and
TADRIOLA.
Figure 2 – Formative Research Methodology Used to Develop TATSTAM
20
B. Barriers to Teacher Adoption of Mathlets
Barriers identified by TASTAM include:

Preparation time - Many teachers think that it takes too long to reuse and adapt mathlets.
Delivery time - Teachers find that the curriculum is so full and that the pressure to cover all of the
content that is tested makes it difficult to find time to include mathlets in their teaching.
Insufficient skills - Many teachers think that they lack the technical skills needed to reuse and
adapt mathlets.
Technology availability - Many teachers think that they do not have adequate, reliable, and timely
access to the hardware, software, and network connections needed to use mathlets in their teaching.
Resource inflexibility - Many teachers think that most mathlet-based online materials cannot be
easily modified in the ways that they want.
Context switching - Many teachers think that having to switch back and forth between the
different tools needed to reuse and adapt resources is complex and confusing.
Grain size mismatch - Many teachers think that the size of online learning resources is often larger
than is needed and it is difficult to use only the relevant parts.
Search difficulties - Many teachers think that it is hard to find appropriate quality resources.
Resource unfamiliarity - Many teachers experience difficulty figuring out how to adapt online
resources that they find to fit what they are teaching.
C. Teacher Goals Influencing Use of Mathlets
During TATSTAM research it became apparent that the goals that teachers were trying to accomplish
greatly influenced their attitudes towards and use of technology in teaching. Goals identified by TASTSAM
as being important to how teachers use technology in their teaching included:
Motivate students - Maintain student interest and motivation for learning.
Meet individual needs - Meet the needs of individual learners by providing self- paced learning
opportunities.
Cover important content - Cover content specified by state standards and that teachers feel is
important.
Use effective materials and technology - Use computers and other technologies and materials in
ways and contexts where they have demonstrated effectiveness.
Manage preparation and delivery time - Balance the time requirements of reusing and adapting
mathlets with other demands on teacher time. Effectively use class time.
Monitor student learning - Track student activities, performance, and learning.
D. Model of Teacher Use of Mathlets
TATSTAM identified the following tasks that teachers wanted to accomplish as part of using mathlets:
Find reusable resources - Find online courses, lessons, activities, and mathlets appropriate for
teaching chosen learning objectives.
21
Understand found resources - Learn enough about a resource that has been found to see how to
reuse and adapt it.
Organize class materials - Select, group, and organize online class materials so that they can be
easily accessed from a single place.
Prepare lessons and online tests - Select, group, and sequence online activities into lessons
designed to support target learning outcomes.
Change the appearance and functionality of mathlets - Change the appearance and functionality
of mathlets to make them appropriate for given activities.
Write activity instructions - Write instructions telling students how you want them to interact
with mathlets to solve problems or complete activities.
Ensure reliable access to materials - Place prepared online materials on systems that can be
reliably accessed at times when they are to be used.
Use resources - Use prepared online materials with students.
Assess student performance - Easily assess work that students do while working with mathlets.
Share resources - Share created or adapted courses, lessons, activities and mathlets with other
teachers and specify the conditions of their reuse.
As illustrated in Figure 3, these tasks should be considered in the context of the the goals a teacher is
trying to accomplish.
Figure 3 – A model of teacher use of mathlets.
E. Design Guidelines for Interactive Online Learning Environments
TATSTAM research produced the following guidelines for the design of authoring tools for mathlets:
Preview without registering - Make it possible to preview functionality and available resources
without registering.
Variety of high quality resources - Provide access to high quality learning resources appropriate
for teaching the content areas that the teachers who your tool is designed for cover.
Search tool and multiple types of indexes - Make it easy to find appropriate resources by
browsing and searching using classifications schemes that teachers are familiar with such as state
standards.
Adaptation tools - Provide features that allow teachers to modify resources that they have found.
22
Activity list editor - Provide features for selecting and sequencing activities in a given lesson.
Activity editor - Provide, on a single screen, which resembles what students see, tools for viewing
and editing all aspects of a given activity.
Activity preview tool - Allow teachers to quickly view exactly what an activity that they are
editing will look like to students.
Mathlet chooser - Provide indexes of available mathlets and can be used to choose ones to build
activities around.
Web resource finder tool - Provide a feature for finding resources on the web and including ones
that have been found in an activity.
Mathlet configuration tools - Make it possible for teachers to change the appearance and
functionality of mathlets without programming.
Instructions editor - A feature for adapting and writing instructions for activities.
Assessment tools - Provide features that allow teachers to provide controls that students can use to
submit or print their answers and work. Provide features that allow teachers to review, grade, and
give feedback on student work.
Class, lesson, and activity sharing tools - Features for sharing classes, lessons, and activities that
have been created.
Usability - Follow standard usability guidelines and user testing processes to insure all features are
usable by teachers. Follow software conventions, use familiar terminology, and provide easily
understood navigation controls.
Offline versions - Provide versions that allow materials to be authored and used without being
connected to the Internet.
Support information - Provide online help information, user manuals, and training.
IV. eNLVM
In 2004, researchers obtained NSF funding for the eNLVM project (http://enlvm.usu.edu) to extend the
NLVM based on TATSTAM research.
A. Interdisciplinary Team Approach to Development
The eNLVM worked with inter-disciplinary teams to develop interactive online lessons called eModules.
Teams included classroom teachers, math educators, mathematicians, instructional designers,
programmers, and graphic designers. The development process was iterative and involved creating design
documents, paper and functional prototypes and conducting expert reviews, user tests and field tests.
Teams that included teachers and math specialists who were also part of the Maine Laptop Project used a
Lesson Study approach to develop the lessons.
Each developed eModule included a lesson plan to guide teachers, one or more lessons consisting of a
sequence of activities that utilized mathlets, and an online quiz. Indexes into eModules were organized
according to courses in which the eModules could be used.
23
B. Selecting Topics and Tools
eModule topics were selected by taking into consideration:

What are important topics to cover as identified by state and national standards?
What topics are difficult to teach or learn using traditional methods?
What topics can the unique characteristics of technology provide significant benefit?
What technology tools already exist that can be leveraged to create eModules efficiently?
C. Activity Authoring and Delivery
In order to author, deliver, and allow teachers to track student performance, the eNLVM developed a web-
application uniquely suited to support interactive online math tools. Key functionality included in the
eNLVM web-application:
Mathlet configuration – Authors can change mathlet functionality, appearance, and text through
web interfaces that do not require programming.
Mathlet seeding – Authors can seed mathlets with data sets and figures so that they will be
initialized that way for a specific activity.
Mathlet saving – Learners can save work that they do with a mathlet so they can return to it later
and teachers can review it.
Inclusion of 3rd party tools – Authors can use frames to seemlessly include resources from
anywhere on the web in lessons they create. eNLVM researchers obtained permission for teachers
to do this from major mathlet providers and made it easy to do. When 3rd party tools are displayed
attribution is automatically displayed by the eNLVM delivery tool.
Instruction authoring – Authors can use web-based rich text editors to write activity instructions
and questions to accompany mathlets.
Question and feedback authoring – Authors can easily include controls such as text boxes and
buttons for learners to respond to questions the authors have written. Authors can also specify a
variety of types of feedback and that answers be recorded.
D. Adaptation Tools
The eNLVM provides multiple ways for teachers to adapt existing lessons. Teachers can copy lessons into
courses they set up and reorganize, combine, and modify lessons and activities.
E. Assessment Tools
In order to help teachers monitor student work using the eNLVM, the system records student responses
submitted using mathlets and forms. Teachers can view responses in real-time for specific activities and for
entire lessons, both for individual students and the entire class at one time. This functionality can be used
both to view student work on lesson activities and online quizzes. Teachers report using this functionality to
check student progress and identify points that need clarification.
24
F. Publishing and Updating eModules
The publishing model of the eNLVM web application is that a teacher or author can make changes to the
live version of a course, but if they want to allow it to be copied by other teachers, they publish a snapshot
of the course. Teachers can then copy the course into their private area where they can then adapt it as
needed. When a course is published, the system keeps track of where it came from so that when the original
version is updated, teachers who have made copies of the lesson will be notified at their next login, so that
they can retrieve updates if they choose to.
V. RESEARCH ON VIRTUAL MANIPULATIVES
This paper has focused on research related to teacher use of mathlets and the design of tools to support that
research. As part of the eNLVM project, an external evaluation was performed, case study research was
conducted [4], and artifact analysis was performed [6]. A number of other sources report research on
student learning from virtual manipulatives [7][8].
VI. FUTURE DIRECTIONS

The NLVM has been translated into Spanish, French, Simplified Chinese, Danish, and Arabic. Efforts are
ongoing to translate the NLVM into additional languages including Portuguese. Desktop versions of the
NLVM have been developed that provide additional functionality over the web version including the ability
to access the tools without being connected to the internet, the ability to save and print applets, and to
create web pages that contain the applets. Future work will focus on developing more complete virtual
manipulative-based curriculum for targeted courses, developing manipulative-based online assessments,
and the evaluating, improving, and demonstrating the effectiveness of manipulative-based online lessons.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The work described in this project was supported by National Science Foundation grants IMD 9819107
and IMD 0352570.
REFERENCES
[1] The Mathematics Education Center (2009). Abstracts of research on manipulatives. Retreived May
26, 2010 from http://gse.gmu.edu/cscvm/abs_doc/
[2] Drickey, N.A. (2001). A comparison of virtual and physical manipulatives in teaching visualization
and spatial reasoning to middle school mathematics students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Utah
State University.
25
[3] Duffin, J. (2004). Theory for authoring tools that support teacher adaptation of mathlets.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Utah State University. Available at:
http://www.joelduffin.com/usu/diss/jd-diss.pdf
[4] Buffington, P. & Granofsky, B. (2008). The eNLVM project: Promoting student achievement in
mathematics through educator collaboration. Retrieved Mat, 26, 2010 from
http://enlvm.usu.edu/media/articles/enlvm_buffington_granofsky.pdf
[5] Duffin, J. (2009). Research using materials from the NLVM.
http://www.joelduffin.com/wiki/index.php?title=Research_Using_Materials_from_the_NLVM
[6] Duffin, J. (September, 2006). When teachers reuse and remix interactive online resources.
Proceedings of the Open Education 2006 conference. Logan, UT.
[7] Center for Implementing Technology in Education (2006). Learning mathematics with virtual
manipulatives. Retrieved May, 26, 2010 from http://www.cited.org/index.aspx?page_id=151
[8] Deubel, P. (2010). Math manipulatives. Retrieved May, 26, 2010 from Computing Technology for
Math Excellence Web site: http://www.ct4me.net/math_manipulatives.htm
26
Communicating Effective Ways of Teaching and Learning Dynamic Mathematics -

Building and Maintaining a “Community of Practice/Inquiry”
INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY INTO

MATHEMATICS EDUCATION TEACHER COURSES
Erhan Selcuk Haciomeroglu1, Lingguo Bu2, Guney Haciomeroglu2

1
University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, USA, erhansh@mail.ucf.edu
2
Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois, USA, lgbu@siu.edu
3
Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Canakkale, TURKEY, hguney@comu.edu.tr
Abstract: This study sought to examine the development of prospective secondary mathematics teachers’
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge as they worked individually and in small groups to develop and
present lessons with GeoGebra. Our results suggest that the prospective teachers’ perspectives on teaching and
learning mathematics with technology were enriched as a result of their participation in course activities.
Keywords: GeoGebra, mathematics education, technology, prospective teachers
1. INTRODUCTION
Research concerning the use of technology has received attention in various fields of mathematics
education over the last two decades (e.g., Kaput, 1992; Heid, 1997; Laborde, Kynigos, Hollebrands, &
Strässer, 2006; Kaput, Hegedus, & Lesh, 2007; Heid & Blume, 2008). Despite the increasing importance
of technology and ongoing reform efforts to promote the use of technology in education (e.g., National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM], 2000; National Educational Technology Standards for
Teachers [NETS T], 2008), teachers’ ineffective use of technology has been reported in the literature, and
the focus of research is shifting to designing appropriate activities and providing effective pedagogical
strategies for the teaching and learning of mathematics in a models and modeling perspective (Lesh &
Doerr, 2003; Lesh, Hamilton, & Kaput, 2007), where dynamic software plays an important role in
providing the tools and utilities. In this study, our goal was to describe the collaborative learning
experiences of prospective secondary mathematics teachers as they developed lesson plans with dynamic
mathematics software. We describe our research findings about their use of affordances of GeoGebra
dynamic mathematics software and views on teaching and learning with technology, and discuss
pedagogical implications of these results.
Today’s prospective teachers are proficient in using technology, but many do not have the type of
technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) that supports mathematics learning with new
technologies (Niess, 2008). We as educators ought to incorporate technology into our teacher education
courses to meet the instructional needs of prospective teachers so that they can provide rich technology-
based learning experiences for their future students. Since knowing how to use technology does not
ensure knowing how to teach with it, simply introducing technology or modelling teaching with
27
technology might not be sufficient to change their conceptions about teaching and learning mathematics.
Research has shown that prospective teachers’ learning experiences as a student exert great influence on
their instructional decisions (e.g., Bu, Dickey, Kim, Jakubowski, and Spector, 2008), suggesting that it is
difficult to change preservice teachers’ perspectives about teaching and learning.
Although the use of dynamic mathematics learning environments has changed the nature of mathematics
learning and instructional design, the role of teachers remains central to improving mathematics teaching
and learning, and there has been increasing attention given to teacher education (e.g., Mishra & Koehler,
2006). Over the past years, there have been many studies aiming at enriching prospective teachers’
teaching experience in actual classrooms (Cochran-Smith, 1991; Zeichner, 2002). It seems that
prospective teachers rarely work with their university supervisors, and that their teaching and instructional
decisions are guided by their cooperating teachers. Many student teachers are placed with cooperating
teachers who use traditional strategies for teaching and learning, they practice in a traditional setting
instead of a reform-based system (Borko & Mayfield, 1995; Frykholm, 1998).
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
In this study, our work is framed by the research of Milrad, Spector, and Davidsen (2002) and Spector
and Davidsen (2000) who posit an instructional design framework, Model Facilitated Learning (MFL).
MFL is guided by four principles: 1) Situate the learning experience, We asked the prospective teachers
to illustrate a mathematical concept or problem with GeoGebra in an area of secondary mathematics
content of their preference and to create dynamic learning activities and provide instructional guidelines.
2) Present problems and challenges of increasing complexity. We challenged the prospective teacher to
develop lessons that include inquiry–based practices and dynamic GeoGebra worksheets that allow their
future students to explore mathematical concepts. Whole learning tasks were recommended with
complexity managed by GeoGebra tools and user interface designs. For example, when constructing the
midpoint of a segment, the GeoGebra line bisector tool could be used to reduce complexity as opposed to
the traditional compass approach. 3) Involve learners in responding to a set of increasingly complex
inquiries about the problem situation. In group or class discussions, they were asked to describe how they
would teach their lessons, how they would expect their future students to learn through their activities,
and how they might implement or improve their activities to enhance students’ learning. Open-ended
exploration is a feature of dynamic GeoGebra worksheets. A variety of what-if and what-if-not questions
(Brown and Walter, 2005) could be asked about dynamic mathematical objects. 4) Challenge learners to
develop decision–making rules and guidelines for a variety of unanticipated situations. We engaged the
prospective teachers in discussing teaching strategies for different students learning styles and asked them
to consider and describe teacher actions and possible questions to be asked, and student actions,
misconceptions, questions, and possible responses. We further asked the prospective teachers to make
predictions about and form preliminary principles for the use of dynamic and interactive learning tasks in
mathematics education.
3. METHODS
This study was conducted with 68 prospective secondary mathematics teachers from three methods
courses offered in three semesters at a major research university in the southeastern United States. Data
28
were collected through the prospective teachers’ written reflections, presentations, and classroom
observations. At the beginning of each semester, we provided instructions about GeoGebra in two class
sessions; that is, the prospective teachers first explored the GeoGebra website including GeoGebraWiki,
where worksheets, lessons, and other teaching materials are shared by educators from all over the world.
Then, they learned how to create basic mathematical objects and figures, and shared their ideas with their
classmates about worksheets and lessons of their interest.
The prospective teachers were asked to illustrate a mathematical concept or problem with GeoGebra in
any area of secondary mathematics content. As they designed GeoGebra worksheets, they learned and
discussed learning theories, teaching, planning, and assessment strategies. Throughout the semester, they
were encouraged to work collaboratively with their classmates. Regarding their lessons, they were asked
to identify the appropriate national/state standards, goals, and objectives, describe how they would teach
their lesson, (e.g., include teacher actions and possible questions to be asked, and student actions and
possible responses), consider how their future students would explore the problem or concept illustrated
with GeoGebra, and explain what and how they would expect their future students to learn through their
activities. Each prospective teacher made a thirty-minute presentation of his or her technology-integrated
lesson, and their presentations were critiqued by the class. At the end of each semester, the prospective
teachers wrote open-ended reflections on their experience of developing lesson plans with GeoGebra.
4. RESULTS
The prospective teachers expressed their reluctance to use technology in their teaching due to their
concerns about their future students’ learning of basic skills and computation. Some prospective teachers
claimed that technology must be coupled with traditional teaching or the use of technology can be an
impediment to students’ learning of mathematics prior to the mastery of basic skills and procedures. In
our class discussions, we addressed the importance of creating dynamic worksheets in students’ learning
and introduced the GeoGebra tools that enable users to create dynamic tasks and activities in multiple
representations. As a result, once the prospective teachers learned how to draw mathematical objects and
figures, they collaborated with their classmates in converting static illustrations into dynamic activities.
As seen in Figure 1, the prospective teachers illustrated mathematical objects or concepts in various areas
of mathematics. At the end of each semester, almost all prospective teachers expressed positive views
about teaching and learning mathematics with GeoGebra and described how they would use dynamic
software to teach mathematical concepts.
29
Figure 1: Inverse functions
In an attempt to describe how made use of the tools of GeoGebra, we examined their lesson plans. We
observed that approximately two-thirds of the lessons incorporated dynamic activities to mathematical
objects or relationships, and most of these lessons were student-centered. Of the prospective teachers who
designed dynamic activities, some demonstrated limited used of dynamic activity and did not intend to
allow their future students to explore or reason about mathematical concepts. The other lessons with static
activities, on the other hand, were teacher-centered and required students to measure objects, angles, or
segments to verify their solutions or check correctness of their drawings on paper. In few lessons with
static activities, it became clear that their incomplete understanding of GeoGebra tools was a factor
limiting their ability to create dynamic activities.
5. CONCLUSIONS
As a result of their participation in the extensive activities of this study, prospective teachers gained
experience in designing lessons plans with GeoGebra, and this experience positively influenced
prospective teachers’ perspectives about the use of technology in the teaching and learning of
mathematics. However, some prospective teachers, due in part to their lack of teaching experience,
continued to hold traditional views of teaching mathematics associated with their personal experiences as
students. We observed that the way GoeGebra tools were used in lessons was influenced by teachers’
views and not limited by their knowledge of mathematics or their inability to use tools of GeoGebra in
most lessons. As a result, they preferred to use GeoGebra for routine tasks such as verifying results or
measuring objects which can be done without the use of dynamic mathematics software and did not
intend to explore relationships within GeoGebra activities despite their understanding of GeoGebra tools.
30
In this study, we modelled effective teaching practices and created a collaborative learning environment
in which prospective teachers were encouraged to develop strategies and ideas about teaching and
learning mathematics. We observed that, during classroom presentations or discussions, prospective
teachers tended to focus on the strength of the lessons and thus might not provide quality feedback, which
is in agreement with the findings reported by Andreasen, Haciomeroglu, Akyuz, Coskun, Cristwell, and
Whitby (2009). Although we had interns who implemented their lessons in their internship classrooms
and reflected on the materials, student responses, the strategies used to teach the lesson, some prospective
teachers who did not implement a lesson in an actual classroom failed to relate to them and did not
recognize the importance of dynamic mathematics learning environment in students’ learning of
mathematics. It is difficult to create a realistic environment and provide experiences that will help
prospective teachers develop skills in engaging students in learning or reaching out to a diversity of
learners. We suggest that prospective teachers, enrolled in methods courses with internship or service
learning prerequisites, develop and teach a lesson with technology in an actual classroom, evaluate and
reflect on their teaching, and share their experiences with their classmates during their classroom
presentation of their lesson under the supervision of their professors.
[1] Andreasen, J., Haciomeroglu, E. S., Akyuz, D., Coskun, S., Cristwell, P., & Whitby, P. (2008).
Teacher training in multiple environments: Microteach versus virtual. Florida Association of Teacher
Educators Journal, 1(8), 1-20.
[2] Borko, H., & Mayfield, V. (1995). The roles of the cooperating teacher and university supervisor in
learning to teach. Teaching & Teacher Education, 11(5), 501-518.
[3] Bu, L, Dickey, L., Kim, H., Jakubowski, E., and Spector, J. M. (2008) Model-facilitated learning:
Preservice mathematics teachers’ initial experience with the next generation graphing calculators.
The 2008 International Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and
Technology. Orlando, FL: AECT.
[4] Cochran-Smith M. (1991).Reinventing student teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 42(2), 104-
118.
[5] Frykholm, J. A. (1998). Beyond supervision: Learning to teach mathematics in community. Teaching
& Teacher Education, 14(3), 305-322.
[6] Heid, M. K. (1997). The technological revolution and the reform of school mathematics. American
Journal of Education, 106, 5-61.
[7] Heid, M. K., & Blume, G. W. (Eds.). (2008). Research on technology and the teaching and learning
of mathematics: Research syntheses (Vol. 1). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics.
[8] Kaput, J. J. (1991). Notations and representations as mediators of constructive processes. In E. v.
Glaserfeld (Eds.), Constructivism in mathematics education (pp. 53-74). Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Kluwer.
[9] Kaput, J. (1992). Technology and mathematics education. In D. A. Grouws (Eds.), Handbook of
research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 515-556). New York: Macmillan.
31
[10] Kaput, J., Hegedus, S., & Lesh, R. (2007). Technology becoming infrastructural in mathematics
education. In R. A. Lesh, E. Hamilton & J. J. Kaput (Eds.), Foundations for the future mathematics
education (pp. 173-191). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[11]
[12] Laborde, C., Kynigos, C., Hollebrands, K., & Strässer, R. (2006). Teaching and learning geometry
with technology. In A. Gutiérrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of
mathematics education (pp. 275-304). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
[13] Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. M. (Eds.). (2003). Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives
on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
[14] Lesh, R., Hamilton, E., & Kaput, J. J. (Eds.). (2007). Foundations for the future in mathematics
education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[15] Milrad, M., Spector, J. M., & Davidsen, P. I. (2002) Model facilitated learning. In S. Naidu (Eds.),
Learning and Teaching with Technology: Principles and Practices (pp. 13-27), London: Kogan.
[16] Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006) Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A new
framework for teacher knowledge, Teachers College Record, 108, 1017-1054.
[17] National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000) Principles and Standards for School
Mathematics, Reston, VA.: NCTM.
[18] National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers. (2008) Available:
http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/NETS/ForTeachers/2008Standards/NETS_T_Standard
s_Final.pdf (20 February 2009)
[19] Niess, M. (2008) Guiding preservice teachers in developing TPCK. In AACTE (Eds.), Handbook of
technological pedagogical knowledge (TPCK) for educators (pp. 223-250), New York, NY:
Routledge.
[20]
[21] Spector, J. M. and Davidsen, P. I. (2000). Designing technology enhanced learning environments, in
B. Abbey (eds.), Instructional and Cognitive Impacts of Web-Based Education, Hershey, PA: Idea
Group, 241-261.
[22] Zeichner K.(2002). Beyond traditional structures of student teaching. Teacher Education Quarterly,
29 (2), 59-64.
32
ANALYZING THE DISCOURSE OF GEOGEBRA COLLABORATIONS
Gerry Stahl1, Carolyn Penstein Rosé2, Sean Goggins3
Drexel University, Philadelphia, USA, Gerry.Stahl@drexel.edu

Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA, carolynprose@gmail.com
Drexel University, Philadelphia, USA, outdoors@acm.org
Abstract. This is a position paper presenting a perspective on fundamental assumptions about doing, teaching and
learning mathematics in the presence of computer and communicative technologies. Doing, teaching and learning
mathematics are activities that centrally involve discourse. Computer and communication technologies can facilitate
collaborative interactions around mathematical topics. This can make the processes of doing, teaching and learning
mathematics visible to researchers in the traces of small-group interaction. Analysis of the discourse can reveal
processes of mathematical group cognition. We argue for a view of mathematics as discourse and for a specific set
of complementary approaches to analyzing collaborative math discourse.
1. MATH AS DISCOURSE
For most non-mathematicians, arithmetic provides their paradigm of math. Learning math, they assume,
involves memorizing facts like multiplication tables and procedures like long division. But for
mathematicians, math is a matter of defining new concepts and arguing about relations among them. Math
is a centuries-long discourse, with a shared vocabulary, ways of symbolically representing ideas and
procedures for defending claims. It is a discourse and a set of shared practices. Learning to talk about
math objects, to appreciate arguments about them and to adopt the practices of mathematical reasoning
constitute an education in math (Livingston, 1999; Sfard, 2008).
To mathematicians since Euclid, math represents the paradigm of creative intellectual activity. Its
methods set the standard throughout Western civilization for rigorous thought, problem solving and
argumentation. We teach geometry to instill in students a sense of deductive reasoning. Yet, too many
people end up saying that they “hate math” and that “math is boring” or that they are “not good at math”
(Boaler, 2008; Lockhart, 2009). They have somehow missed the true experience of math cognition—and
this may limit their lifelong interest in science, engineering and technology.
According to a recent “cognitive history” of the origin of deduction in Greek mathematics (Netz, 1999),
the primordial math experience in 5th and 4th Century BC was based on the confluence of labeled
geometric diagrams (shared visualizations) and a language of written mathematics (asynchronous
collaborative discourse), which supported the rapid evolution of math cognition in a small community of
math discourse around the Mediterranean that profoundly extended mathematics and Western thinking.
33
The vision behind our Virtual Math Teams (VMT) Project (Stahl, 2009b) is to foster communities of
math discourse in online communities around the world. We want to leverage the potential of networked
computers and dynamic math applications to catalyze groups of people exploring math and experiencing
the intellectual excitement that Euclid’s colleagues felt—leveraging emerging 21st Century media of
shared math visualization and collaborative math discourse.
Classical training in school math—through drill in facts and procedures—is like learning Latin by
memorizing vocabulary lists and conjugation tables: one can pass a test in the subject, but would have a
hard time actually conversing with anyone in the language. To understand and appreciate the culture of
mathematics, one has to live it and converse with others in it (Papert, 1980). Math learners have to
understand and respond appropriately to mathematical statements by others and be able to critically
review and constructively contribute to their proposals. The VMT Project is designed to create worlds and
communities in which math can be lived and spoken.
The learning sciences have transformed our vision of education in the future (Sawyer, 2006; Stahl,
Koschmann & Suthers, 2006). New theories of mathematical cognition and math education, in particular,
stress collaborative knowledge building, problem-based learning, dialogicality, argumentation,
accountable talk, group cognition (Stahl, 2006) and engagement in math discourse.
These approaches place the focus on problem solving, problem posing, exploration of alternative
strategies, inter-animation of perspectives, verbal articulation, argumentation, deductive reasoning, and
heuristics as features of significant math discourse (Powell, Francisco & Maher, 2003). By articulating
thinking and learning in text, they make cognition public and visible. This calls for a reorientation to
facilitate dialogical student practices as well as requiring content and resources to guide and support the
student discourses. Teachers and students must learn to adopt, appreciate and take advantage of the
visible nature of collaborative learning. The emphasis on text-based collaborative learning can be well
supported by computers with appropriate computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) software.
Students learn math best if they are actively involved in discussing math. Explaining their thinking to
each other, making their ideas visible, expressing math concepts, teaching peers and contributing
proposals are important ways for students to develop deep understanding and real expertise (Cobb, 1995).
There are few opportunities for such student-initiated activities in most teacher-centric classrooms. The
VMT chat room provides a place for students to build knowledge about math issues together through
intensive, engaging discussions. Their entire discourse and graphical representations are persistent and
visible for them to reflect on and share.
2. COLLABORATIVE MATHEMATICS
The argument against discourse-based approaches to math education—like inquiry learning and
collaborative learning—is generally that students must first learn the basic facts before they can speculate
on their own. The major worry expressed about learning through peer discourse is that the group of
students will come up with the wrong answer or an incorrect theory. The proposed solution is that
education must “go back to the basics” and focus on delivering the basic facts of each field to all the
students first, and then, if there is time left over, allow students to discuss their own ideas based on the
34
foundation of knowledge of these facts. Mathematics is taken as the clearest example of this argument.
Make sure that students have memorized their number facts first, then drill them on applying algorithmic
manipulations such as long division. If there is any place for discovery learning, it must come later. Of
course, there is never extra time because once the facts of one area of math have been practiced, it is time
to move on to the next in a never-ending sequence of math areas (Boaler, 2008; Lockhart, 2009).
Similarly, with science, the approach is to have students memorize the basic terminology and facts of one
scientific field after another. The assumption is always that there is a fixed body of factual knowledge that
forms the uncontested basics of each field of math and science.
However, neither math nor science works that way in reality. Each actual field of math and science has
evolved and grown through controversy and over-turning of one position after another. Math and science
are the products of inquiry, dialog and controversy at the level of the creation of individual results and at
the level of the formulation of theories for whole areas.
For instance, the expansion of the concept of number in the history of math proceeded through the
repeated criticism of the limits of each historical concept: from the integers to rationals, to irrationals, to
imaginary and complex, to transfinite, to infintesimal, to hyperreal, …. (Lakoff & Núñez, 2000). If one
follows a particular theorem, such as Lakatos’ (1976) study of refutations of proofs of Euler’s theorem,
one sees that historical progress in professional mathematics proceeds not by collecting more and more
facts, but by reconceptualizations and constructive criticism. Individual proofs of professional
mathematics also proceed through complex paths of inquiry, speculation and critique—although this path
of discovery is obscured in the linear logic of published presentations.
An interesting example of innovative mathematical proof arose this past year when Timothy Gowers, a
renowned professional mathematician, invited others to participate in a virtual math team effort to find a
new proof for a theorem which had only been proven until then in a very indirect and obscure way
(Polymath, 2010):
The work was carried out by several researchers, who wrote their thoughts, as they had them, in
the form of blog comments at http://gowers.wordpress.com. Anybody who wanted to could
participate, and at all stages of the process the comments were fully open to anybody who was
interested. This open process was in complete contrast to the usual way that results are proved
in private and presented in a finished form. The blog comments are still available, so although
this paper is a polished account of the DHJ argument, it is possible to read a record of the entire
thought process that led to the proof. (p. 4)
As Gowers (Gowers & Nielsen, 2010) observed from a look at the trace of the collaborative effort, even
at the highest levels of math problem solving, consideration of false starts is integral to the process:
The working record of the Polymath Project is a remarkable resource for students of
mathematics and for historians and philosophers of science. For the first time one can see on
full display a complete account of how a serious mathematical result was discovered. It shows
vividly how ideas grow, change, improve and are discarded…. Even the best mathematicians
can make basic mistakes and pursue many failed ideas. (p. 880)
35
3. ANALYZING DISCOURSE
In the VMT Project, we study the traces of online collaborative interactions of small groups of students
discussing math topics in order to observe the methods of students engaged in math problem-solving
discourse (Stahl, 2006; 2009b). We use various approaches to analyzing the discourse. In order to work
effectively together, students must make their thinking visible to their collaborators. They can do this in
many ways, dependent upon the affordances of the online environment. The VMT environment, for
instance, supports chat texting, shared whiteboard drawing, GeoGebra constructions, graphical
referencing, wiki postings and math symbols. Because the VMT system captures a complete trace of the
group interactions, the thinking that the students make visible to each other is also visible to researchers.
One approach that we take to the analysis of student interactions is to conduct data sessions in which a
group of researchers collaboratively view the log of what took place in a VMT chat room and slowly step
through the interaction (see Section 4 below). This way, we get interpretations of what took place, as seen
from the various personal perspectives of researchers with different methodological training. Building on
such relatively informal observations, individual researchers can then look more systematically at the
trace data and develop analyses of the student-student interactions using concepts and techniques of
conversation analysis (Schegloff, 2007), as adapted to online math discourse.
Also, we can look at the relations among the students through social-network analysis (see Section 5
below). This way we can quantitatively measure the different roles (e.g., leaders and responders) in the
discourse of different groups during various sessions. We can see what the lines of communication were
and we can correlate social roles with other characteristics, including measures of math learning.
A third approach is to code individual lines of chat for different kinds of interactional moves that may be
of interest (see Section 6 below). Then, statistical analysis can reveal patterns in the discourse. In
addition, we can correlate individual student learning with characteristics of the chats. For instance, we
might compare math test results of individual students before and after the VMT sessions to see who
learned the most and then see which groups contained students who learned more or less than students in
other groups. Knowing how well students in different groups learned, we can compare the statistical
characteristics of the discourse in the different groups.
4. CONVERSATION ANALYSIS AND DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
In Group Cognition (Stahl, 2006), we argued that we do not yet have a science of small groups. Current
approaches in education, psychology and related fields focus either on the individual or the community,
but not on the intermediate small group as the unit of analysis. For instance, most discussions of small
groups either reduce group phenomena to individual behaviors or to cultural factors. The VMT Project
has been trying to define in a preliminary way a science of groups appropriate to understanding computer-
supported collaborative learning (Stahl, 2010a). We are interested in the specifically group-level
phenomena. Focused on the group unit of analysis, our approach adopts the analytic approach of
Conversation Analysis (CA) and adapts it from informal social conversation of mainly dyads to online,
task-oriented interaction of small groups; in the VMT case, the groups are usually four or five high school
students discussing mathematical relationships, using text chat and a shared whiteboard.
36
In the past year, we have been trying to apply CA techniques in a systematic way to the coding of VMT
chat logs (Stahl, 2009a; 2010b). In doing so, we have begun to suspect that these CA techniques are at too
fine-grained a level to capture the most important group-cognitive processes in small-group problem
solving. While it is true that the adjacency-pair structure on which CA analysis focuses provides much of
the interactional fabric of small-group cognitive work, (a) it is at too detailed a level to describe the
important methods of mathematical group cognition, (b) it is often deviated from in the complexity of text
chat by multiple participants and (c) it fails to capture the larger problem-solving processes that are
fundamental to mathematical tasks. At the other extreme, Discourse Analysis (DA) (Gee, 1992) is too
high-level, oriented toward the socio-cultural issues, such as power relationships and gender.
Just as we have previously maintained that a small-group-level science of group cognition is needed to fill
the theoretical lacuna between individual-level psychology and community-level social science, we now
propose that an analytic method is needed that fills the gap between CA and DA. We call this new method
Group-Cognition Analysis (GCA). It builds on the adjacency-pair structure fore-grounded by CA, but
looks at the longer sequences that are so important to mathematical problem solving and explanation.
Unfortunately, GCA is extremely time consuming and involves tedious, detailed, multi-dimensional
analysis of the words, references and utterances that go into longer sequences; therefore, we are interested
in computer-supported statistical analysis and automated coding to assist and complement this analysis
process.
5. ANALYZING INTERACTION STRUCTURE
To complement the ethnomethodologically informed interaction analysis, we will analyze VMT chat logs
using content analysis (Krippendorff, 2004) and social-network analysis (Wasserman & Faust, 1992). The
content analysis will be executed using the following two rubrics. The unit of analysis for this work will
be a complete unit of group conversation.
The first rubric will evaluate the development of group identity within the small groups, using Tajfel’s
(1978) description of group communication as inter-group, inter-personal, intra-group and inter-
individual. Inter-group communication is communication across groups, and only rarely occurs in VMT
data. Inter-personal communication takes place between two individuals. Intra-group communication is
within the group, where all members participate in the dialogue. An utterance addressing an individual
member in the presence of the whole group is coded as inter-individual communication.
The second rubric will evaluate trace data for knowledge co-construction using a rubric developed by
Gunawardena et al (1997). Two raters will score the conversations on these rubrics and measure inter-
rater reliability using Krippendorf’s alpha (2004). This type of analysis has been performed by Goggins
(2009) on asynchronous communication records. The contrast with the results from synchronous chat data
will provide a helpful comparison of synchronous and asynchronous knowledge co-construction in small
groups.
Social-network analysis will be performed on group interactions in order to determine if there are patterns
of networked interaction that correspond with the development of group identity or the co-construction of
knowledge. The resulting networks will be bi-partite (users and objects) and regular. Since the networks
37
in online chats are closed and small, we will focus our analysis on small network evolution over time and
on elaborating semantically meaningful measures of tie strength.
Tracking longitudinal evolution will involve developing a time-series set of network views, possibly
addressing the state of the network as a feature that contributes to other forms of analysis. We will also
explore the advantages of deriving measures of tie strength from the results of machine-learning
algorithms, response-time lag and length of sustained interaction between pairs of group members.
6. AUTOMATED LANGUAGE ANALYSIS
In recent years, the computer-supported collaborative learning community has shown great interest in
automatic analysis of data from collaborative-learning settings, building on and extending state-of-the-art
work in text mining from the language-technologies community. Automatic analysis approaches as we
know them today are only capable of identifying patterns that occur in a stable and recognizable way.
Although those patterns can be arbitrarily complex, there are limitations to contexts in which an approach
of this nature is appropriate. These approaches are most naturally usable within research traditions that
value abstraction and quantification. The most natural application of such technology is within traditions
that employ coding-and-counting approaches to analysis of verbal data. Thus, we do not see this at all as a
replacement for the two frameworks discussed above, but as a synergistic approach. By nature, empirical-
modeling approaches involving statistics and machine learning are mainly useful for capturing what is
typical. In contrast, within many qualitative-research traditions, it is the unusual occurrences and practices
that are worthy of study. Thus, it is unlikely that such technology would be directly usable for producing
the kind of findings that are valued within those traditions. However, what it may be able to assist with is
finding the unusual occurrences within a mass of data, which might then be worthy of study in a more
qualitative way.
Machine-learning algorithms can learn mappings between a set of input features and a set of output
categories, allowing us to automatically generate coded categories for input utterances. Language-analysis
software does this by using statistical techniques to find characteristics of hand-coded “training
examples” that exemplify each of the output categories. The goal of the algorithm is to learn rules by
generalizing from these examples in such a way that the rules can be applied effectively to new examples.
In order for this to work well, the set of input features provided must be sufficiently expressive, and the
training examples must be representative.
Once candidate input features have been identified, analysts typically hand code a large number of
training examples. The previously developed TagHelper tool set (Rosé et al., 2008) and more recent SIDE
tool set (Mayfield & Rosé, to appear) both have the capability of allowing users to define how texts will
be represented and processed by making selections in their GUI interfaces. In addition to basic text-
processing tools such as part-of-speech taggers and stemmers—which are used to construct a
representation of the text that machine-learning algorithms can work with—a variety of algorithms from
toolkits such as Weka (Witten & Frank, 2005) are included in order to provide many alternative machine-
learning algorithms to map between the input features and the output categories. Based on their
understanding of the classification problem, machine-learning practitioners typically pick an algorithm
that they expect will perform well. Often this is an iterative process of applying an algorithm, seeing
38
where the trained classifier makes mistakes, and then adding additional input features, removing
extraneous input features or experimenting with algorithms. SIDE, in particular, includes an interface for
supporting this process of error analysis, which aids in the process of moving forward from a sub-optimal
result. Our automatic analysis technology is extensively discussed in our recent article investigating the
use of text-classification technology for automatic collaborative-learning process analysis (Rosé et al.,
2008).
CONCLUSION
In this position paper, we have argued that traditional assumptions about doing, teaching and learning
mathematics focused on the acquisition of basic math facts by individuals misses the central role of
discourse in doing, teaching and learning mathematics. This does not mean that we believe that groups of
students should just be left to talk about math without any guidance, as though this would lead them to
reproduce centuries of mathematical advances. Rather, we believe that it is important for researchers to
study closely the nature of mathematical discourse within small groups discussing strategically designed
math topics and supported by powerful computer tools, like GeoGebra. In particular, we have identified a
research opportunity for pursuing such a research agenda by studying the traces of online collaborative
learning of math to observe the individual and group cognition that is made visible there. We have
proposed a set of complementary approaches to the analysis of student online math discourse with the
potential to describe group-cognitive moves that contribute to math learning.
Our argument here has focused on certain methodologies that we believe can be fruitfully applied to the
detailed and rigorous analysis of online collaborative learning of mathematics. This should not be taken as
a rejection of the validity of other approaches, not referenced in our position paper, but as a proposal for a
specific approach that we are investigating. We believe that the complex of issues surrounding the
analysis of computer-supported collaborative mathematics learning calls for a multiplicity of
methodologies.
This paper should be read in parallel with our other contributions to this conference (Stahl, Ou et al.,
2010; Stahl, Rosé et al., 2010); they discuss the incorporation of multi-user GeoGebra in our software
environment for virtual math teams, including the design of conversational agents to guide student group
inquiry. For the theoretical background of our research and a diversity of studies from our approach to
supporting and understanding online collaborative math discourse, see especially (Stahl, 2006; 2009b).
REFERENCES
Boaler, J. (2008). What's math got to do with it? Helping children learn to love their most hated subject:
And why it is important for America. New York, NY: Viking.
Cobb, P. (1995). Mathematical learning and small-group interaction: Four case studies. In P. Cobb & H.
Bauersfeld (Eds.), The emergence of mathematical meaning. (pp. 25-130). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gee, J. P. (1992). The social mind: Language, ideology, and social practice. New York, NY: Bergin &
Garvey.
39
Goggins, S. (2009). Knowledge management, social identity and social network structure in completely
online groups. Unpublished Dissertation, Ph.D., Information Science & Technology, University
of Missouri.
Gowers, T., & Nielsen, M. (2010). Massively collaborative mathematics. Nature. 461(15), 879-881.
Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the
development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in
computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 17, 397-343.
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Reliability in content analysis: Some common misconceptions and
recommendations. Human Communication Research. 30, 411-433.
Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and refutations: The logic of mathematical discovery. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Núñez, R. (2000). Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings
mathematics into being. New York City, NY: Basic Books.
Livingston, E. (1999). Cultures of proving. Social Studies of Science. 29(6), 867-888.
Lockhart, P. (2009). A mathematician's lament: How school cheats us out of our most fascinating and
imaginative art forms. New York, NY: Belevue Literary Press.
Mayfield, E., & Rosé, C. P. (to appear). An interactive tool for supporting error analysis for text mining:
Demo. Paper presented at the Human Language Technologies: The 11th Annual Conference of
the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics.
Netz, R. (1999). The shaping of deduction in Greek mathematics: A study in cognitive history.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Polymath, D. H. J. (2010). A new proof of the density hales-jewett theorem. arXiv. Web:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.3926v2
Powell, A. B., Francisco, J. M., & Maher, C. A. (2003). An analytical model for studying the
development of mathematical ideas and reasoning using videotape data. Journal of Mathematical
Behavior. 22(4), 405-435.
Rosé, C., Wang, Y.-C., Cui, Y., Arguello, J., Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., et al. (2008). Analyzing
collaborative learning processes automatically: Exploiting the advances of computational
linguistics in computer-supported collaborative learning. International Journal of Computer-
Supported Collaborative Learning. 3(3), 237-271. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-
9034-0
Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.). (2006). Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: Human development, the growth of discourses and
mathematizing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press. 510 + viii pages. Web: http://GerryStahl.net/mit/
Stahl, G. (2009a). Keynote: How I view learning and thinking in CSCL groups. Paper presented at the
International Conference on Computers and Education (ICCE 2009). Hong Kong, China. Web:
http://GerryStahl.net/pub/iccekeynote2009.pdf
40
Stahl, G. (2009b). Studying virtual math teams. New York, NY: Springer. 626 +xxi pages. Web:
http://GerryStahl.net/vmt/book Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0228-3
Stahl, G. (2010a). Group cognition as a foundation for the new science of learning. In M. S. Khine & I.
M. Saleh (Eds.), New science of learning: Computers, cognition and collaboration in education.
New York, NY: Springer. Web: http://GerryStahl.net/pub/scienceoflearning.pdf
Stahl, G. (2010b). The structure of collaborative problem solving in a virtual math team. Paper presented
at the Conference for Groupware (GROUP 2010). Sanibel Island, FL. Web:
http://GerryStahl.net/pub/group2010.pdf
Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An
historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. (pp.
409-426). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Web:
http://GerryStahl.net/cscl/CSCL_English.pdf in English,
http://GerryStahl.net/cscl/CSCL_Chinese_simplified.pdf in simplified Chinese,
http://GerryStahl.net/cscl/CSCL_Chinese_traditional.pdf in traditional Chinese,
http://GerryStahl.net/cscl/CSCL_Spanish.pdf in Spanish,
http://GerryStahl.net/cscl/CSCL_Portuguese.pdf in Portuguese,
http://GerryStahl.net/cscl/CSCL_German.pdf in German,
http://GerryStahl.net/cscl/CSCL_Romanian.pdf in Romanian,
http://GerryStahl.net/cscl/CSCL_Japanese.pdf in Japanese
Stahl, G., Ou, J. X., Cakir, M. P., Weimar, S., & Goggins, S. (2010). Multi-user support for virtual
geogebra teams. Paper presented at the First North American GeoGebra Conference. Ithaca, NY.
Web: http://GerryStahl.net/pub/geogebrana2010c.pdf
Stahl, G., Rosé, C. P., O'Hara, K., & Powell, A. B. (2010). Supporting group math cognition in virtual
math teams with software conversational agents. Paper presented at the First North American
GeoGebra Conference. Ithaca, NY. Web: http://GerryStahl.net/pub/geogebrana2010a.pdf
Tajfel, H. (Ed.). (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of
intergroup relations. Oxford, UK: Academic Press.
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1992). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Witten, I. H., & Frank, E. (2005). Data mining: Practical machine learning tools and techniques (2nd
ed.). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann. Web:
http://www.cs.waikato.ac.nz/~ml/weka/book.html
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research is funded in part by a grant from the Office of Naval Research (ONR), “Theories and
Models of Group Cognition.”
41
Innovative Technologies for Building Mathematical Models and Modeling
USING GEOGEBRA’S RANDOMIZATION AND JAVASCRIPT TO

CREATE INTERACTIVE RANDOMIZED STUDENT EXERCISES
Marc Renault
Shippensburg University, Shippensburg, PA, USA, msrenault@ship.edu
Abstract: We give three examples of web-based GeoGebra applets where students are presented with a problem that
they must solve. Once they solve the problem, they can reset the applet to produce a similar problem but with some
parameters randomized. These applets make use of some randomization commands native to GeoGebra, and some
JavaScript coding in the html page. The applets presented in this paper may be found at
http://webspace.ship.edu/msrenault/Interactive GeoGebra Applets.html
Keywords: JavaScript, randomization, student activities, interactive applets
1. INTRODUCTION
Using GeoGebra, one can produce excellent demonstrations of mathematical ideas and wonderful
illustrations of problems. In this paper we explore another use for GeoGebra: creating web-based
interactive applets that students engage with in order to solve a problem. Once the problem has been
solved, the applet can be reset, some parameters are randomized, and the student is presented with a
similar but different problem. These applets are interactive in a way that demonstrations and illustrations
are not.
We’ll look at three interactive applets that make use of GeoGebra’s randomization commands and some
JavaScript coding. Briefly, here are the problems that the applets present:
1. The equation for a line is randomly generated and the student must position a line on the screen so
that it is the line of the equation.
2. A point is randomly generated and displayed on a polar grid. The student must type the polar
coordinates of the point into an input box.
3. Four points are displayed, and four coordinate-pairs are randomly generated. The student must
drag the points to the correct coordinates.
2. THE FIRST APPLET: CREATE A LINE WITH A GIVEN EQUATION
In this applet the student is presented with the equation for a line, and he/she must drag a given line so
that it matches the equation. When this is done correctly the word “Good!” appears. See Figure 1. There
is a button below the graphics window that the student can click to get a new, randomly generated
equation.
42
Figure 1: The first applet.
To create the GeoGebra file, points A and B were placed on the screen, a line was drawn between them,
and then the following commands were entered, in the order shown.
slopeList = {-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, -2.5, -1.5, 1.5, 2.5, -1.66, -1.33, -0.66, -0.33, 0.33, 0.66, 1.33, 1.66}
m = Element[ slopeList, RandomBetween[1, Length[slopeList]] ]
b = RandomBetween[-3, 3]
hiddenLine: y = m*x + b
distA = Distance[A, hiddenLine]
distB = Distance[B, hiddenLine]
The line hiddenLine is, of course, hidden. Finally, text was created. The text “Good!” appears when the
condition
distA < 0.08 distB < 0.08
holds true. The value of 0.08 was determined by trial and error, finding a value that would make the line
on the screen a reasonable approximation to the hidden line.
When the objects are recomputed (either by selecting “Recompute All Objects” from the menu or by
refreshing the applet in a web page), new randomization occurs and a new equation and hidden line are
formed.
We’ll look at two methods for re-randomizing the variable values. The first method, resetting the applet,
is the easiest but it has flaws. The second method, introducing a dummy variable, is an improvement.
1.1 Re-randomization by Resetting the Applet
After the GeoGebra file is exported to a web page, a button is added and JavaScript code is created to
handle the button click. The following code is added to the webpage below the applet.
<form name="MyForm">
<input type="button" value="New Line" onclick="makeNewLineEqn()">
</form>
43
<script type="text/javascript">
function makeNewLineEqn() {
document.ggbApplet.reset();
}
</script>
Clicking the button calls the function makeNewLineEqn which resets the applet, causing it to return to its
initial state and recalculating all the random variables.
There are some problems with this method. The reset does not happen instantaneously and smoothly; it
can take almost a second and there is often a distracting flicker as the applet reloads. Also, the line that
the student has been dragging gets reset to its initial position instead of staying where it is. Ideally, the
student should see only the equation change, and not be distracted by other changing objects. These
problems can be solved by introducing a dummy variable.
1.2 Re-randomization by Introducing a Dummy Variable
In the GeoGebra file we define a new number, dummy, and modify two lines as shown.
dummy = 19
m = Element[ slopeList, RandomBetween[1, Length[slopeList]] + 0*dummy ]
b = RandomBetween[-3, 3] + 0*dummy
Then, in the JavaScript code we modify the function makeNewLineEqn.

function makeNewLineEqn() {
document.ggbApplet.evalCommand("dummy = 19");
}
When the button is clicked, JavaScript tells the GeoGebra file to redefine the number dummy, and every
value that depends on dummy is recalculated. The values for m and b depend on dummy (trivially), so
GeoGebra recomputes those random values. Conceivably, one might have an applet with several dummy
variables, and several buttons to re-randomize different parameters.
3. THE SECOND APPLET: WRITE THE POLAR COORDINATES OF A GIVEN POINT
In the first applet, an algebraic representation of an object (a line) was given, and the student had to create
a graphical equivalent. In this next applet the reverse takes place: the graphical representation is given (a
point in the plane) and the student must come up with an algebraic equivalent. In this case the student
types in the polar coordinates of the point. See Figure 2. There is a button to reset and re-randomize the
problem, a text box for students to enter their answer, and a button to click to check the answer.
44
Figure 2: The second applet.
To create the GeoGebra file, the polar grid was drawn, then a point P was placed on the screen and
hidden. The following commands create a random point Q with polar coordinates (r, ) and determine
whether P is “close enough” to Q.
dummy = 19
r = RandomBetween[1, 4] + 0*dummy
thetaList = {0, 1, 1/2, 3/2, 1/3, 2/3, 4/3, 5/3, 1/4, 3/4, 5/4, 7/4, 1/6, 5/6, 7/6, 11/6}*
thetaIndex = RandomBetween[1, Length[thetaList]] + 0*dummy
= Element[thetaList, thetaIndex]
Q = (r; )
tfCloseEnough = Distance[P, Q] < 0.1
Notice that GeoGebra multiplies through the list of numbers in thetaList. Also, notice that GeoGebra
uses a semicolon to denote points in polar coordinates. Finally, observe that tfCloseEnough is a Boolean
variable.
When the New Point button is clicked, JavaScript tells GeoGebra to redefine the dummy variable, and
this causes point Q to be recomputed and displayed somewhere random on the screen. When the student
clicks the Check button, JavaScript performs the following tasks:
Take the student’s answer (s, t) and replace the comma with a semicolon to get (s; t).
Tell the GeoGebra file to execute the command P = (s; t).
Look at the value of tfCloseEnough and output either “Good!” or “No”.
In this applet we use a <span> html element to write dynamic text next to the Check button. The full
code can be found by going to the link in the abstract, selecting the applet, then viewing the source.
45
4. THE THIRD APPLET: INCORPORATING A TIMER
This third applet is an attempt to make the applet-student interaction more “game-like,” to increase
student engagement. The student is given four rectangular-coordinate pairs and four points, and he/she
must drag the four points to their proper locations. See Figure 3 and Figure 4. A timer is included to
challenge the student to place the four points as quickly as possible. The student clicks a button to reset
the applet and start the timer; after all the points have been placed correctly, the student clicks the button
again and his/her time is displayed. The JavaScript code keeps track of the “best time” and the student is
challenged to keep getting lower and lower times.
Figure 3: A new challenge has just started and the timer is running.
46
Figure 4: After the points have been placed and the Start/Stop button has been clicked
The dynamic text below the Start/Stop button is achieved using a <div> html element.
5. SUMMARY
Using GeoGebra and JavaScript, one can create simple, engaging web-based applets. The first and the
third applets presented algebraic representations of an object and the student had to manipulate the
graphics to match it. In the second applet, the graphical representation was given and the student had to
type an algebraic representation.
In the first applet, JavaScript was incorporated only to re-randomize the applet and start a new problem.
In the second applet its role was increased as it modified the student’s answer and submitted that answer
to GeoGebra to check for correctness. Finally, in the third applet, JavaScript was used to create a timer
that gave the applet a more game-like feel.
GeoGebra and JavaScript together provide a powerful tool in creating web-based applets that engage
students.
47
Section: Identifying an agenda of critical development and research needs in the field
A SNAPSHOT OF GEOGEBRA COMMUNITY ENDEAVORS:

BUILDING A RESEARCH AGENDA
Viktor Freiman1, Dragana Martinovic2, Zekeriya Karadag3
1
Université De Moncton, Moncton, NB, Canada, viktor.freiman@umoncton.ca
2
University of Windsor, Windsor, Canada, dragana@uwindsor.ca
3
GeoGebra Institute of Canada, Toronto, Canada, karadag.zekeriya@gmail.com
Abstract: In this paper the authors provide a snapshot of the GeoGebra community research, based on the 17 studies
selected for the review. Some common themes emerged from these studies, for example, an increasing role of local
initiatives offering on-site support to teachers in the form of seminars and workshops, the use of Web 2.0 tools to
promote online sharing and collaboration activities, and a rapidly grown bank of classroom resources which are
available on-paper or online. The authors conclude that the GeoGebra community has reached a point where there is
a need for more collaborative and comparative studies, both quantitative and qualitative, that will further build and
expand the research agenda.
Keywords: literature review, professional development of teachers, dynamic mathematics.
1. INTRODUCTION
Almost ten years of practice since the creation of GeoGebra provide the mathematics education
community with an important number of examples of how this software may enhance mathematics
teaching and learning. Multiple success stories are being reported by the educators who see advantage of
using GeoGebra as the means for visualizing mathematical concepts (i.e., [18]; [19]), representing
mathematical concepts and relationships dynamically (i.e., [4]), and linking different branches and topics
in mathematics ([12]; [22]). These examples place GeoGebra in a row of potentially useful dynamic
computer environments ([15]; [34]), that are equipped to support modelling practices and building virtual
manipulatives ([35]), developing conceptual understanding ([24]), and teaching conjecturing and proving
([29]). GeoGebra is also building upon ideas of ‘symbolic computations’ used in Computer Algebra
Systems (i.e., [8]) and didactic principles of constructionism (learning-by-making, [31]).
Despite the solid theoretical background of GeoGebra and its apparent practical usefulness, the authors of
this paper feel that the evidence collected so far requires rigorous introspection in terms of the impact on
teaching and learning. Namely, we are interested in investigating and conceptualizing research principles
implemented in analyzing classroom practices that use GeoGebra, characteristics that identify such
practices as being the good ones, and finally how these good practices could be multiplied, shared, and
spread out within teaching and learning communities of practice.
48
This paper is, therefore, written with the intention to compile and analyze the research already done by
the GeoGebra community. By doing so, the authors want to find common trends and possible gaps in
research areas and suggest some promising paths for future research endeavours. The outline of this paper
is as follows: we first look into the publications on the use of GeoGebra in teaching and learning activities
and compile examples of good teaching practice; second, we search in these papers for arguments that
such interventions work; and third, we summarize research agendas that emerge from the literature
review. These agendas can be used to build on what has been done earlier and to move further. In
addition, we investigate dissemination procedures that will ensure that such good practices have
maximum impact in the research community and among practitioners.
2. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ON GEOGEBRA AND THE ROLE OF GEOGEBRA

INSTITUTES
Created by one person as a Master’s thesis, and then being studied by its developer and a team for
educational benefits ([13]), the GeoGebra software is now developing and spreading up as a community
that involves thousands of teachers, educators, and researchers. Available at no cost to everyone,
GeoGebra became an attractive educational tool to support teaching and learning of mathematics.
Hohenwarter et al. ([10]) emphasize the increasingly important role of free open-source software
packages for mathematics teaching world-wide:
Open-source packages do not only offer opportunities for teachers and students to use them both
at home and in the classroom without any restriction, but they also provide a means for
developing support and user communities reaching across borders. Such collaboration also
contributes to the equal access to technological resources and democratization of mathematics
learning and teaching. (p.9)
As the GeoGebra example shows, such approach presents a new education model which will have a
lasting impact on both the future formal and informal schooling of mathematics students ([28]) and the
professional development of their teachers. One way of engaging teachers is suggested by Haciomeroglu
et al. ([9]), who see the need to “deepen prospective teachers’ knowledge of teaching and learning
mathematics with technology by creating a rich and collaborative learning environment and challenging
them with new problems, new pedagogies, and new solutions associated with the use of technology” (p.
26, emphasis added).
Similarly, online collaboration is seen by Hohenwarter and Jones ([12]) as a way to fully integrate
technology into the teaching and learning process. As tools for such collaborations, the authors mention
first a User Forum (where users can help other users) and a GeoGebraWiki (an online space for pooling
and sharing teaching materials), and second, the creation of professional development activities for
teachers and the coordination of research activities in relation to GeoGebra.
49
Based on this shared ideology of GeoGebra community, a new international research and professional
development network has been created as the International GeoGebra Institute
(http://www.geogebra.org/igi) with the goals of establishing the self-sustaining local user groups;
developing and sharing open access educational materials; organizing and offering workshops for
educators; improving and extending the features of the GeoGebra software; designing and implementing
research projects both on GeoGebra and IGI; and, delivering presentations at national and international
conferences ([13]). These authors recognize the enthusiasm of many users to integrate GeoGebra into
mathematics teaching and learning but at the same time, emphasize the need of extensive support and
guidance helping expert members of the community, as well as newcomers, to overcome potential
technical and pedagogical obstacles.
Experiences from workshops and presentations on GeoGebra were reported by Papp-Varga ([32]). The
author argues that at conferences, a relatively short time (20-30 min) is enough to introduce the basic
functions and potential applications of GeoGebra. Even such a short presentation enables quite a lot of
people to teach themselves how to use the software with the help of countless teaching materials available
on the World Wide Web (idem). At the same time, prior knowledge about facilities and participants can
help to better plan a workshop. The age group of the participants taught, their computer skills and
possible special needs should be taken into consideration. The choice of examples used in the workshops
needs to be relevant to the particular type of school and grades participants teach and the workshop
facilitator(s) should in their explanations consider the computer literacy of the participants. It is suggested
to print extra materials that include the exercises that are demonstrated, including the explanation of how
to prepare them. Use of questionnaires distributed at the end of the workshop might help to get some
feedback from the audience regarding the quality of the workshop, the helpfulness and the clarity of the
instructor and the distributed materials, as well as the software itself. This feedback Papp-Varga found
essential for planning of future trainings (idem).
In order to better understand teachers’ needs in integrating GeoGebra in their teaching, a series of
workshops with secondary school teachers has been conducted during a summer institute by Hohenwarter
et al. ([11]). The study allowed the researchers to collect research evidence on GeoGebra’s usability, to
assess and categorize dynamic mathematics tools and their difficulty levels, and to recommend possible
ways of improvement of introductory GeoGebra materials and technology-enhanced professional
development of secondary school teachers (idem). The findings reveal the importance of hands-on
experiences to get teachers motivated to integrate GeoGebra, the potential usefulness of GeoGebra for
teaching (as it is user friendly, easy, and intuitive to use), the increased level of expertise gained during
workshops, correlation of perception of difficulty with task complexity, more difficulty in introducing
algebra commands and using menu options, a preference to use a computer mouse instead of TouchPad,
and finally a need for assistance while performing on tasks (idem). Findings allowed immediate
improvement of workshop materials and resulted in a follow-up projects to find out the real use of the
software by teachers.
50
3. A BRIEF REVIEW OF RECENT LITERATURE ON LEARNING AND TEACHING WITH

GEOGEBRA
This section contains description of studies done by using GeoGebra as learning and teaching
environment. One example is the study described by Hohenwarter et al. ([10]) where the authors present
the outcome of use of the interactive learning environments in Austrian high schools. In this project, the
students were supported by their teachers in discovering the concepts of derivative and/or integral. These
learning environments consisted of various media online mathematics resources (animations, applets, ...),
GeoGebra and other software (Excel, Derive,...), and were introduced through worksheets, quizzes and
DIY tasks. It was noted that the various sets of mathematical tools, Java applets, GeoGebra, Excel, and
CAS complement each other very well in the learning process. Each tool has its own particular
advantages; for example, GeoGebra was useful in exploration, application and execution phases of the
learning task. These learning environments were tested in Austrian high schools with several hundred
students ([6]).
Like other researchers, Kokol-Voljc ([21]) finds value in dynamic features of the software which
she finds more representative of mathematics characteristics than what static applications (e.g., pencil and
paper) provide. She suggests that construction of geometric objects is an important step in developing
conceptual understanding, the step that can be lost when student use only ready-made dynamic
worksheets.
While the GeoGebra software is widely used in middle and high schools, especially in Europe, its
use at the university level is also emerging. There are several educators in the USA who have published
interactive university-level calculus material on the Internet. They have reported that creating these
materials by using GeoGebra was easier and less time-consuming than with other software ([14]).
Another exciting area of research is opened through the initiative from Stahl et al. ([33]). This group of
researchers works on incorporating GeoGebra into the existing multi-user environment which will allow
for simultaneous collaboration through the shared space and communication through chat feature.
4. FINDINGS
The Table 1 (see next page) illustrates a brief summary of the reviewed research. Overall, 17 studies
were selected for review. In nine studies, the samples included students from different levels (elementary
school to the university). The size of populations varies from small group of students (N = 5) to several
hundreds. Six studies were conducted with (mostly small) groups of teachers called as pre-service,
prospective, in-service, or experienced. The activities were either related to a specific topic of the seminar
or workshop, or organized within the more general university courses in mathematics and mathematics
education. One study included both teachers and students. There was one study conducted with
mathematicians. One work had rather theoretical character. For one study, the sample was not mentioned.
The four studies were focused on elaboration and implementation of teaching materials, lessons and
learning activities for students (studies 1-4, see table 1). The authors explored ways of implementing
51
GeoGebra to support learning through discovery and investigation, interactive lessons and dynamic
worksheets. Students’ learning was analyzed by seven studies (studies 7, 10, 11, 13, 15-17) to see if there
is improvement in understanding of mathematical concepts, to study development of mathematical
thinking, development of geometric competences of all kinds, and development of abilities to reason and
to make links between mathematical concepts. One study was designed to learn about the effect of
teaching using GeoGebra. Another study was designed around the process-oriented assessment. Finally,
the purpose of six remaining studies (studies 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14) was
development/presentation/implementation of pedagogical scenarios using GeoGebra for pre-service and
in-service professional development. Activities intended to increase both pedagogical and technological
expertise of teachers using technology to teach mathematics.
The methods of data collection in these studies varied from qualitative to quantitative using observations,
surveys, interviews, presentations, analysis of work samples, etc. Several themes emerged from our
analysis of results and recommendations. First, there is an increasing role of local initiatives offering on-
site support to teachers in the form of seminars and workshops. Second, the Web 2.0 tools are being
extensively used to promote online sharing and collaboration activities. Finally, there is a rapidly growing
bank of classroom resources which are available on-paper or online.
According to the students, the dynamic and interactive material was helpful to understand and visualize
underlying mathematical concepts (study 1). One study (study 11) claimed that students gained significant
insights, both individually and collectively. Indicators of students’ assessment were elaborated by one
study (study 17) that allowed observing, among others, confident, not confident, and autonomous
students. One study (study 15) recorded important cognitive gains in terms of transformation of
mathematical representational systems from symbolic to visual. One study (study 13) found that the use
of the applets created with the help of GeoGebra in differential calculus teaching had a positive effect on
the understanding and knowledge of the students. However, working with very young students (grade 3),
authors (study 7) noticed lack of the knowledge of the geometric concepts (especially the one of
perpendicular lines).
52
Study Participants Purpose Method Results Recommendations
1 Embacher et al., Several hundred Supported by their teachers and by Working with Students found the
2006 students using different kinds of interactive dynamic and interactive
instructional materials (e.g., GeoGebra material helpful to
‘traditional’ worksheets on paper, calculus material understand and visualize
interactive applets, quizzes) for one week underlying mathematical
students were guided towards concepts.
discovering the concepts of
derivative and/or integral
2 Hohenwarter, Several US To develop interactive Interviews/conver Creating materials in Interactive constructions have the
Preiner, & Yi, mathematicians university-level calculus material sations GeoGebra was easier and potential to facilitate the teaching of
2007 on the Internet less time consuming than certain calculus concepts. Students
with other software. can benefit from the integration of
dynamic visualizations into their
‘traditional’ calculus classes.
3 Hohenwarter, In-service mid To create dynamic worksheets for Creation of dynamic Students like to work with online
Preiner, & Yi, school teachers the participants’ own teaching worksheets helped materials.
2007 taking Master’s teachers to increase their
degree for science computer literacy and
teaching through confidence concerning
continuing the use of technology in
education classrooms.
4 Little, 2008 Theoretical study Use of draft workshop materials for Anecdotal data Found barriers to The effectiveness of worksheet
GeoGebra dynamic geometry material needs to be researched.
implementation related to Are there pedagogic gains when
curricular scope and students work individually with
accessibility. computers, as opposed to the use of
classroom demonstration and
discussion using a digitally projected
image?
53
5 Lu, 2009 4 English and Determine English and Taiwanese Exploratory and English teachers had a How culture influences technology-
Taiwanese teachers upper-secondary teachers’ multiple-case more positive attitude mediated mathematics teaching?
conceptions of technology and how study, interviews towards technology and
their pedagogies incorporate with participants. associated GeoGebra
dynamic manipulation with primarily with geometry.
GeoGebra into mathematical Taiwanese teachers did
discourse. not consider algebra and
geometry to be
necessarily separate.
There was difference in
how teachers used the
software. Identified
stages of teachers’
progress from starting to
learn GeoGebra to
teaching by utilizing it in
the classroom.
6 Jones et al., 2009 9 experienced To develop ways of providing Design Teachers-participants GeoGebra offers benefits to pupils
teachers professional development and experiment, became interested in such as developing a good
support for other teachers in use of interviews with research and in sharing vocabulary, being able to experiment
GeoGebra in teaching mathematics. participants and their experience with with ideas more rapidly than
the analysis of other teachers. drawing by hand, produce accurate
video recordings drawings, and gaining instant
of the workshops. feedback.
7 Kreis &Dording, 110 elementary To improve children’s Experimental The knowledge of the By using GeoGebra, the children
2009; school children (9 understanding of the basic study; pre- and geometric concepts will get a deeper insight into the
GeoGebraPrim years old) geometric concepts; to obtain post-test with (especially the one of bond between geometry and algebra.
deeper insight in the bond of observation of perpendicular lines)
geometry and algebra; to simplify children. learned in the 3rd grade is
user interface. very poor.
54
8 Papp-Varga, 2009; Explore opportunities for the use of Questionnaires The practical application of
Interactive GeoGebra with IWB. filled by the GeoGebra on an IWB may bring
Whiteboards GeoGebra + IWB about new expectations, the demand
(IWB) and users; interviews to modify existing functions and
GeoGebra with teachers; design new ones, which may lead to
follow/ observe/ the development of a new version.
videotape What extra advantages we might
teachers; gain using these two tools
interview Together? In what potential ways the
students. tools can co-operate?
9 Haciomeroglu, 44 prospective To provide rich learning Observations, Developing and
Bu, Schoen, & secondary experiences to help prospective anecdotal presenting lessons with
Hohenwarter, mathematics teachers develop TPCK and enable information. GeoGebra positively
2009 teachers enrolled in them to design appropriate influenced prospective
two methods activities and describe pedagogical teachers’ views about
courses. strategies for the effective teaching teaching and learning of
and learning of mathematics with mathematics with
technology. technology and led to
effective development of
lessons in various content
areas of secondary
mathematics.
10 Green & 200 students on the To support the mathematics being Surveys and focus The lack of any The GeoGebra sessions need to be
Robinson, 2009 Science and learned in Semester 1. group meeting. intermediate algebraic much more integrated with lectures
Engineering work (unlike for and assessment, and its long-term
Foundation Studies geometrical construction, usefulness assessed.
programme for example) is a
significant drawback.
55
11 O’Reilly, 2009 4 students To convince students that Students’ notes The insights achieved by
multiplication of complex numbers the students, both
is rotation; to link this complex individually and
multiplication to matrix collectively, during a
multiplication. period of about 80
minutes, were significant.
12 Carter & Ferrucci, 5 prospective To ease the barriers to Qualitative and GeoGebra session was Constructing sliders during the
2009 secondary school implementation identified by Little quantitative: more challenging for the orientation is another area that can
teachers, 1 pre- (2008), by involving pre-service Observations, future elementary than improve future GeoGebra student
service middle teachers in developing expertise GeoGebra for future secondary research projects.
school teacher, and with GeoGebra within the worksheets and school teachers. The The instructors should focus more
5 future elementary undergraduate research project. presentations, model lessons researched on the uniquely dynamic feature of
teachers. surveys and and presented by the pre- applications and the power of the
evaluation of service teachers dynamic geometry to enhance
GeoGebra tools, emphasized the understanding of mathematical
scores on various construction and concepts.
activities. measurement stages of
using the application, but
generally did not make
the transition to a stage
where they fully used the
available dynamics.
13 Dikovi , 2009 31 business school Is there a positive effect of using Experimental, pre- The use of the applets Further research should be directed
students taking GeoGebra applets in the differential test, post-test created with the help of to statistical analysis of parallel
Mathematics 2 calculus teaching? design. GeoGebra and used in samples made of a group of
Experimental differential calculus examinees (groups of related
group used teaching, had a positive faculties or groups of different
GeoGebra applets. effect on the faculties).
understanding and
knowledge of the
students.
56
14 Andresen & 12 teachers and To design professional The design was There is need to test the concrete and
Misfeld, 2009 around 100 pupils development activities for teachers productive for mediating to test the overall approach of
in the private K-5 based on the four essentials: between theory and structuring a complex research field
school. 1) Tool practice and for support into more manageable concepts.
2) Medium of the communication to
3) Vehicle for learning discern between at least
4) Change agent: two of the essentials.
a) Rethinking of teaching
mathematics
b) New perspectives
c) New content.
15 Karadag, 2009 Five high school To analyze students mathematical Screen capturing “the importance of using “visual representation systems and
students thinking by monitoring their for data collection dynamic learning linked multi-representational
problem solving processes in and frame analysis environments in systems encourage students to
technology supported method for the mathematics and the interact with mathematical concepts
environments. analysis potential for and advance their mathematical
transformation of understanding. Rather than dealing
mathematical with the grammar of algebra only,
representational systems students may benefit from direct
from symbolic to visual.” interaction with the visually
(Karadag, 2009, p. iii) represented mathematical concepts.”
(Karadag, 2009, p. iii)
16 Cengel & 24 Grade 5 students To explore the challenges and Screen capturing “recording students’ “Teachers can get more information
Karadag, 2010 advantages of the process oriented for data collection problem solving about students’ learning styles,
assessment. and video analysis processes could provide learning outcomes, and what is
accompanied by more information about missing in their knowledge; if they
frame analysis their mathematical implement digital portfolios process
method for the thinking than having their oriented assessment in their
analysis. final papers.” (Cengel & instruction plans.” (Cengel &
Karadag, 2010, p. 9) Karadag, 2010, p. 9)
57
17 Domenech, 2009 12 high school To find how can to integrate Qualitative case For each problem its To design a longer teaching
students GeoGebra into a teaching sequence study pedagogical and logical experiment for a better
to promote students’ geometric Students components were understanding of the synergy of
competences (visual, structural, participated in a determined. environments and the effect of the
instrumental and deductive). To teaching Indicators were instructional design on the students.
learn about the students’ behaviours experiment, developed for scoring
when solving problems under the analysis of students.
influence of the instructional protocols. Confident, not confident,
activities, the teacher’s and autonomous students
orchestration and the synergy of were observed.
paper-and pencil and GeoGebra.
Table 1. Analysis of studies on GeoGebra.
58
From the teachers’ point of view (study 2), creating materials in GeoGebra was easier and less time
consuming than with other software. In the similar way, creation of dynamic worksheets helped teachers
to increase their computer literacy and confidence concerning the use of technology in classrooms
according to one study (study 3). The authors of one study (study 9) found that developing and presenting
lessons with GeoGebra positively influenced prospective teachers’ views about teaching and learning of
mathematics with technology and led to effective development of lessons in various content areas of
secondary mathematics. One study found (study 16) that recording students’ problem solving processes
could provide more information about their mathematical thinking than having only their final papers.
There is one study (study 8) that reveals challenges of incorporating GeoGebra into other innovative
learning environments (such as use of Interactive Whiteboards). Meeting these challenging may have an
impact on creation of teaching materials and GeoGebra development itself.
By evaluating activities for teachers’ professional development, one paper (study 14) states that their
design was productive in terms of mediation between theory and practice and in terms of support of the
communication. Teachers-participants from another study (study 6) became interested in research and in
sharing their experience with other teachers. However, one paper (study 12) argues that GeoGebra session
was more challenging for the future elementary teachers than for future secondary school teachers. There
may be also substantial differences in how teachers of different school settings and cultures use
technology in general, and GeoGebra in particular (study 5). Also, there may be barriers to dynamic
geometry implementation related to curricular scope and accessibility according to another study (study
4).
5. CONCLUSIONS
The authors of numerous papers written by the GeoGebra community members agree that computer
algebra systems (CAS) and dynamic geometry software (DGS) may be used in support of discovery and
experimentation in mathematics classrooms and that teachers can use the software’s visualization features
to help students generate conjectures ([10]; [25], [23]). Karadag and McDougall ([20]) suggest that the
researchers should explore the effects of these new types of learning and try to answer the questions such
as: “How do students transfer the outcomes of this dynamic and visual interaction to the algebraic world
of mathematics? More importantly, do they really need to transfer these understandings or should they
develop an algebraic understanding associated with visual learning?” Such questions are especially
relevant because the main feature of GeoGebra is that it seamlessly connects geometry and algebra, or as
Carter and Ferrucci [2] put it, “the GeoGebra freeware aims to provide a bidirectional combination and
connective link between the visualization capabilities of computer algebra systems and the dynamic
changeability of dynamic geometry systems” (Introduction, para. 2).
Since many of the GeoGebra users are in fact practicing teachers from K-16+, majority interventions that
involve GeoGebra are done in their classes and involve a small-scale action research. Similarly,
publications report on successful use of GeoGebra, often providing examples of worksheets that were
used among learners, however, the methodological details in most cases remain vague, which make
impossible replication of the study or generalization of the results. Dikovi suggests that there exists the
12
59
“limited research on the impact of GeoGebra on teaching and learning of mathematics” ([4], p. 193). This
paper provides an up to date analysis of the studies conducted on GeoGebra that were published or
referenced to in English. The results obtained so far and the recommendations given in these studies
convince the authors of this paper in necessity of continuing efforts in building and expanding the
research agenda.
6. REFERENCES
[1] Andresen, M. & Misfeld, M. (2009). Essentials of teacher training sessions with GeoGebra.
International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 16(1), 37-43. Retrieved May 19,
2010 from thttp://www.navimat.dk/uploads/42130/MicrosoftWord-endeligversionCADGME09.pdf
[2] Carter, J., & Ferrucci, B. (2009). An Analysis of Students' Research on Model Lessons that Integrate
GeoGebra into School Mathematics. (In W-C Yang, M. Majewski, T. de ALWIS, Y. Cao, Eds.)
Proceedings of the Fourteenth Asian Technology Conference in Mathematics, Beijing Normal
University, Beijing, China, 17 - 21 December, 2009. Retrieved May 17, 2010 from
http://atcm.mathandtech.org/EP2009/papers_full/2812009_17215.pdf
[3] Cengel, M. & Karadag, Z. (2010). Process-oriented assessment and digital portfolios. 3rd Future
learning conference, Istanbul, Turkey.
[4] Dikovi , Lj. (2009). Applications GeoGebra into teaching some topics of mathematics at the college
level. ComSIS, 6(2), December 2009. Retrieved May 19, 2010 from
http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/1820-0214/2009/1820-02140902191D.pdf
[5] Domenech, N.I. (2009). Influence of dynamic geometry software on plane geometry problem solving
strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Spain.
[6] Embacher, F., et al. (2006). Medienvielfalt im Mathematikunterricht (Media diversity in mathematics
teaching). Project report for the Austrian Ministry of Education. Vienna, Austria.
[7] Green D.R., & Robinson, C.L. (2009). Introducing GeoGebra to foundation year students. MSOR
Connections, 9(2), May – July 2009.
[8] Güyer, T. (2008). Computer Algebra Systems as the Mathematics Teaching Tool, World Applied
Sciences Journal, 3 (1): 132-139.
[9] Haciomeroglu, E.S., Bu, L., Schoen, R.C, & Hohenwarter, M. (2009). Learning to Develop
Mathematics Lessons with GeoGebra. Learning in Mathematics Teaching, MSOR Connections, 9(2),
May – July 2009.
[10] Hohenwarter, M., Hohenwarter, J., Kreis, Y., Lavicza, Z. (2008). Teaching and calculus with free
dynamic mathematics software GeoGebra. Retrieved May 17, 2010 from
http://tsg.icme11.org/document/get/666
[11] Hohenwarter, J., Hohenwarter, M. & Lavicza, Z. (2009). Introducing Dynamic Mathematics Software
to Secondary School Teachers: the Case of GeoGebra. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and
Science Teaching, 28(2), 135-146. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
[12] Hohenwarter, M., & Jones, K. (2007). Ways of Linking Geometry and Algebra: The Case of
GeoGebra . In D. Kuchemann (Ed.), Proceedings from the British Society for Research into Learning
Mathematics, vol. 27(3): 126-131, 2007.
[13] Hohenwarter, M., & Lavicza, Z. (2007). Mathematics teacher development with ICT: towards an
International GeoGebra Institute. In D. Küchemann (Ed.), Proceedings of the British Society for
Research into Learning Mathematics. 27(3):49-54. University of Northampton, UK: BSRLM
13
60
[14] Hohenwarter, M., Preiner, J, & Yi, T. (2007). Incorporating GeoGebra into teaching mathematics at
the college level. Proceedings of the International Conference for Technology in Collegiate
Mathematics 2007. Boston, USA: ICTCM
[15] Jackiw, N. (1995). The geometer’s sketchpad [Computer software]. Berkeley, CA: Key Curriculum
Press.
[16] Jones, K., Lavicza, Z., Hohenwarter, M., Lu, A., Dawes, M., Parish, A., & Borcherds, M. (2009).
BSRLM Geometry working group: Establishing a professional development network to support
teachers using dynamic mathematics software GeoGebra.
[17] Karadag, Z. (2009). Analyzing students’ mathematical thinking in technology supported
environments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Toronto: University of Toronto.
[18] Karadag, Z., & McDougall, D. (2009a). Visual explorative approaches to learning mathematics.
Atlanta, US: PME-NA.
[19] Karadag, Z. & McDougall, D. (2009b). Frame Analysis Method: Monitoring Metacognitive
Activities. In T. Bastiaens et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in
Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2009 (pp. 934-939). Chesapeake, VA:
AACE.
Retrieved May 23, 2010 from http://www.editlib.org/p/32577
[20] Karadag Z., & McDougall, D. (2009c). Dynamic worksheets: Visual learning with the guidance of
Polya. MSOR Connections, 9(2) May – July 2009.
[21] Kokol-Voljc, V. (2007).Use of mathematical software in pre-service teacher training: The case of
DGS. (In D. Kuchemann, Ed.) Proceedings of the British Society for Research into Learning
Mathematics, 27(3). Retrieved May 19, 2010 from http://www.bsrlm.org.uk/IPs/ip27-3/BSRLM-IP-
27-3-10.pdf
[22] Kreis, Y., & Dording, C. (2009). Geogebraprim – Geogebra for Primary School. In Bardini,, C.
Fortin, P. Oldknow, A. & Vagost D. (Eds.). Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on
Technology, pp. XXX. Metz, France: ICTMT 9.
[23] Kreis, Y. (2004). Mathémat TIC. Intégration de l’outil informatique dans le cours de mathématiques
de la classe de 4e. Luxembourg, Luxembourg: MEN.
[24] Laborde, C. & Mariotti, M. A. (2002). ‘Grounding the notion of function and graph in DGS’, Actes
de CabriWorld 2001 – Montreal.
[25] Lavicza, Z. (2006). Factors influencing the integration of Computer Algebra Systems into university-
level mathematics education. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 14(3)
[26] Little, C. (2008). Interactive Geometry in the classroom: old barriers and new opportunities. In
Joubert, M. (Ed.) Proceedings of the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics.
University of Southampton, UK: BSRLM, 28(2), June 2008.
[27] Lu Yu-Wen, A.L. (2009). Linking Geometry and Algebra: English and Taiwanese Upper Secondary
Teachers’ Approaches to the use of GeoGebra. In Joubert, M. (Ed.) Proceedings of the British Society
for Research into Learning Mathematics 29(1) March 2009.
[28] Martinovic, D., Freiman, V., & Karadag, Z. (2010). Dynamic and collaborative learning with
GeoGebra: From software to community. ED-MEDIA, Toronto, June 28-2, 2010.
[29] Mariotti, M. A. (2000). Introduction to proof: The mediation of a dynamic software environment.
Educational Studies in Mathematics 44: 25–53.
[30] O’Reilly, M. (2009). A complex thing made simple with GeoGebra. MSOR Connections, 9(2), May
– July 2009.
14
61
[31] Papert, S., Harel, I., and Group., M. I, o. T. E. L. R. (1991). Constructionism: Research Reports and
Essays, 1985-1990. Ablex Pub. Corp., Norwood, N.J.
[32] Papp-Varga, Z. (2009). Interactive mathematics for everyone - The GeoGebra way, jampaper
2./iv./2009. http://www.jampaper.eu/Jampaper_H-ARC/2009._IV._2.sz._files/JAM090202e.pdf
[33] Stahl, G., Çakir, M.P., Weimar, S., Weusijana, B.K., & Ou, J.Q. (2010). Enhancing mathematical
communication for virtual math teams. Acta Didactica Napocensia, 5(2). Retrieved May 19, 2010
from http://gerrystahl.net/pub/adn2010.pdf
[34] Sinclair, N., & Crespo, S. (2006). Learning mathematics in dynamic computer environments.
Teaching Children Mathematics, 12(9), 436–444.
[35] Sinclair, N., & Jackiw, N. (2010). Modelling practices with the Geometry Sketchpad. In R. Lesh et al.
(Eds.) Modeling Students' Mathematical Modeling Competencies, 1
ICTMA 13, pp. 547-554.
15
62

USING GOOGLE DOCS WITH GEOGEBRA
Dani Novak
Department of Mathematics, Ithaca College, Ithaca, NY, danovak@gmail.com
Abstract: In this paper we focus on a single aspect of a new experiential way to teach and learn math – namely that
of Intermediate Self Testing via Google Docs "in order to engage learners and gather the information needed to set
more meaningful and personalized objectives". Of course, in order to be effective, the questions posed in such
surveys must be "good questions" and we will discuss this in addition to explaining the technical details of creating
a Google Survey. Finally we give a concrete example of a problem together with an actual Google Survey used in
the classroom and an analysis of the results obtained.
Keywords: google docs, geogebra, good questions, survey
1. INTRODUCTION
This paper will focus on a single aspect of a new experiential way to teach and learn math – namely that
of using Intermediate Self Testing via Google Docs - Google Surveys.
This new model operates in the following way:

An expert teacher creates comprehensive web lessons, which may include class plans, labs, and
video presentation and good questions.
A teacher in another place (the same institution or another country) accesses these web lessons via
computer.
Teachers/students select the projects most meaningful to them. There should be a variety from
which to choose and students can propose their own projects. As a starter, the teacher might
suggest scenario associated with society or nature.
Students can collaborate to complete the project.
Intermediate Self Testing (IST) is based on answering good questions using Surveys (as this paper
will show). Unlike a conventional quiz or test, a word survey leaves power and control in the
hands of the students. After all, students are motivated to get tested, if only to prove they have
learned the material and can graduate from the course. Practice and knowledge lead to self-
confidence.
Final testing is based on product and performance. The natural parallel here is a music academy,
where extensive private practice culminates in a public recital before teachers and peers.
Such surveys "engage learners and gather the information needed to set more meaningful and
personalized objectives" [1]. They are easy to create and use. Of course, in order to be effective, the
63
questions posed in such surveys must be "good questions" [2] and we will discuss this in addition to
explaining the technical details of creating a Google Survey. We include an example of an application of
this strategy that includes an interesting mathematical problem, a GeoGebra simulator [3] of this problem
and actual results of a Google Survey by students working on this problem.
2. GOOD QUESTIONS AND SURVEYS
2.1 Good questions
The Project Good Questions [2] initiated at Cornell University defines the concept as “A pedagogical
strategy that aims to raise the visibility of the key concepts and to promote a more active learning
environment”. Some of the characteristics of Good Questions as defined by the Cornell team are:
stimulate students’ interest and curiosity in mathematics
help students monitor their understanding
support instructors efforts to foster an active learning environment.
By asking students meaningful questions they become active learners and develop their reasoning skills.
Without meaningful questions students can fall back to the passive learning by rote style where there is
little or no understanding.
The art of developing good questions is crucial for effective teaching and is not limited only to simulators
but in the case of simulators that are used in the classroom it is important for the teacher to learn how to
create good questions on their own because the nature of the questions must fit the context and the
particular needs of students. Another aspect of good questions is that it helps the teacher asses the
progress of the class as a whole as well as individual students.
2.2 Using Surveys to Ask Good Questions
Surveys, we discovered, are an effective technique to generate questions. Our first attempt was to use the
free version of Survey Monkey [1] software (see: http://www.surveymonkey.com/) but later we
discovered that Google Forms is more effective since it is integrated together with Google documents. If
you are not using Google documents you may find Survey Monkey better since it allows including
pictures but Google Forms is very easy to use. It also takes little time to submit to students. Surveys give
a teacher a quick way to assess how students are learning. They take a short time to build. Surveys also
allow students to reflect and to think deeper about the material. Here is a quick explanation of using
Google docs. (You need a Gmail account in order to do this.)
Step 1: Open Google Documents (sign into and open your Gmail account, click on Documents at top).
Then open a New Form (on the Google docs menu, click on command New and then from the drop-down
menu, click on Form) – see Figure 1.
64
Figure 1: A New Google doc Figure 2: Setting up the doc
Step 2: Write the questions (we recommend that you use paragraph text for most of the answers unless
you want to have quick True False survey). The Paragraph text option allows the students to write in their
own way without limitation of space (see Figure 2: Setting up the doc).
Step 3: Click on “Email This Form” Box and paste the email addresses of your students.
Figure 3: Sample Spreadsheet of Student Responses to Survey
Once the students have answered the survey, the result appears as a Google Spreadsheet in your Google
documents. In the first row are the actual questions and the rest of the rows are the answers of students
who responded (see Figure 3).
The spreadsheet is created automatically once the survey is emailed and is updated automatically as new
answers come in. It can be copied to a new spreadsheet and the teacher can delete the Name Column (if
there is one) if she wants to share the results with the whole class anonymously.
For each one of the simulators explained in this paper we will provide at least one example of good
questions that can be posed in such a survey.
2.3 Box Folding Problem, Simulator, Good Questions and Google Survey
The Box Folding Problem: A piece of cardboard is rectangular with length=4" and width=6". We cut out
an h" square from each corner and fold up the sides to form a box. What length should h be to maximize
the volume of the box?
65
Try an actual simulator prepared by Linda Fahlberg-Stojanovska and available online (see Figure 4). The
direct URL is: http://geogebrawiki.wikispaces.com/Box-Folding-Problem and some good questions that
can be asked even in a non-calculus classroom can also be found here. We give a screen shot of the
simulator.
What is crucial is that the students here become active learners and have time to absorb what is actually
happening. That way the concept of a function has a chance to be born in their minds.
The following question was given to the students who had a chance to play with the Folding Box Problem
simulator. The answers give a “bird's eye view” of the class understanding as well as individual
evaluations of specific students)
Google Survey Question: Explain how do you find the volume of a box by cutting 4 squares
from the corner a sheet of paper of dimension 8"x16" sheet. Try to be as clear as you can
and imagine you explain it to a person that does not know what functions are. Do not just
write the final numerical answer.
Figure 4: Box Folding Simulator
Actual unedited answers by students are pasted below. The students were given a Google survey and the
answer appeared on a spreadsheet for the teacher to check. The reader can see how diverse the range of
understanding of the students is.
Here is a link to their answers:
http://mathcasts.org/gg/student/calculus/Extrema/box_folding/The%20Box%20Folding%20Problem%20i
n%20a%20Google%20Survey.pdf
there is a relationship between the length of the two equal cuts one could put into all four corners of
a rectangular piece of paper and the volume of space inside the box that would exist if all four of
the sides were folded up so that the 2 corners of each corner cut touched at the top. this is
assuming that there is a top which would not actually exist if you only had one piece of paper. the
length of the cut, which would be cut into each corner twice to create a ninety degree angle, would
determine the height of the rectangular prism. as this value increases the length of the 2 short
66
sides or the widths would decrease and as well as the size of the two long sides or lengths.
assuming that you did this multiple times each time increasing the cuts in length a very small
distance cut would create a small volume and as the cut increased in length the volume would until
certain point after which the cut length would continue to increase while the volume would slowly
decrease. this relationship as a function would be represented on a Cartesian plane by a parabola
or hill shaped line. the function would be written as a function of x where a set starting length and
width is determined. if the length of the flat uncut paper started out as 10 units and the width was
5 units the function would be written as f(x)= x(16-2x)(8-2x) because volume equals length (16-2x)
times width (8-2x) times height (x) where the value of x decreases the length of the widths and
lengths at two times its own value. to make the equation you are simply creating a function that is
in the form of a formula for calculating volume. the only difference is that the length and width
change proportionally to how much the height changes, which then makes the volume change
proportionally to how much the height changes. height is labeled x, width is inside parentheses
because a predetermined width must change when cut into and the length changes in the same
way.
You would find the function, or relationship, between the size of the cut and the volume of the box
made. If you take a length "x" out of the side on each side, this would result in a decrease of "2x" in
the length of the box. The function would be f(x) = (8-2x) * (16-2x) (x) ...(this is because of L*W*H) .
This equation gives you the volume of a box made by taking length x from the coroners.
well, to find the volume of a box, you simply multiply the width by the length by the height. in this
case, you have variables that depend on all three of these constants. should the paper be 8''x16'',
the equation would look something like this: (8-2x)(10-2x)*x
I was confused how this plays into the quadratic equation, but i do understand how this is a definite
start.
first plug in each number to the formula, since there are 4 squares cut out make sure you subtract
each number by 2x.
it should look like this (8-2x)(16-2x)
then don't forget to multiply the whole expression by x for the cut
the final should look like this x(8-2x)(16-2x)
plug into gg to get the max point at (1.7,98.53)
the volume of this box would be length x width x height.

X will represent the 4 squares ripped out of the sheet of paper
(8 + 2x)(16 + 2x)
If you cut 4 2" squares from a 8"x16" sheet, 2" is the volume. The width is = (8-2(2))= 4 and the length
is = (16-2(2))= 12. In order to find volume you multiply l*w*h. So, 2*4*12= 96.
the width of the flat sheet of paper is 8 and the length is 16. and if you cut a square from each
corner, it will make a box. However many square inches you cut from the paper is going to be the
height and you have to adjust the measurements of the width and length accordingly. so, let's say i
cut a 2 inch square off the sides. I have to take 2 inches off both sides off the length and width of
67
the paper by subtracting 4. so the width is now 4 and the length is 12. the height is 2. volume is
length*width*height. so in this case volume is 12*4*2 = 96 square inches
I do not understand this box concept.
3. SUMMARY
From the results of the survey, it is clear that surveys do indeed "engage learners and gather the
information needed to set more meaningful and personalized objectives" [1]. We have seen that they are
easy to create and use. As mentioned several times, it is imperative that the questions given in the survey
are "good questions". This helps the student assess his understanding and helps the teacher asses the
progress of the class as a whole as well as individual students.
Much work and study remain to be done, but using GeoGebra and Google Docs as well as other new
technologies could transform math education. To paraphrase John Louis von Neumann - if students do
not believe that mathematics is relevant, it is only because educators too often prevent them from relating
mathematics to their lives.
[1] http://www.math.cornell.edu/~GoodQuestions/ (Good Questions for Calculus)

[2] Pitler H., Hubbell E., Kuhn M., Malenoski K. (2008) Using Technology with Classroom Instruction
that Works. ASCD, VA and McREL, CO, USA. ISBN: 978-1-4166-0570-6
[3] Novak D., Fahlberg-Stojanovska L., DiRenzo A. (2010) Chapter 10: Building Simulators with
GeoGebra, Model-Centered Learning with GeoGebra: Theory and Practice in Mathematics
Education (pre-print). [Sections of this chapter are included here.]
68

THE PYTHAGOREAN GROUP WIKI
Terry Gastauer
Brooks Academy, Math Dept. Chair, San Antonio, TX tgastauer@gmail.com
Brief Description: A requirement of our course, The Cultural and Historical Significance of Mathematics, was a
collaborative project researching a significant topic/person and offering activities and assessments. We chose
Pythagoras electing to focus on his famous theorem (well known by people of many cultures long before him) and
related topics. So this wiki represents a collaborative effort of several mathematics teachers on various topics, but
primarily proofs of the Pythagorean Theorem from various cultures through the ages. The heart of the
PythagoreanGroup wiki is the interactive constructions and dynamic worksheets created using GeoGebra. With
these, learners of all types, teachers and students alike, are able to explore the genius behind some of the most
famous geometry proofs of the theorem while developing an understanding of the mathematics behind them.
Keywords: Pythagoras, wiki, classroom, collaboration, GeoGebra
INTRODUCTION
The Pythagorean Group wiki started out as an idea about offering activities and assessments as part of a
course project. One goal was to demonstrate how to implement these activities interactively. Another was
to show the feasibility of developing/offering course content in a venue accessible in most school
computer labs. Teachers easily recognize that they are able to create lessons or units of instruction in a
similar manner. Such tools are ideal for implementing individual or group projects as was the case here.
As noted on the Pennsylvania Council of Teachers of Mathematics website [1]: “Investigation in the form
of student projects can add excitement and insight into the students and teachers joint learning
experiences.”
We have used today’s technological advances. We decided to implement the project using free and robust
resources accessible to most every classroom teacher and available in most every classroom. Specifically,
the content is hosted on a free wiki [2] using videos hosted on YouTube [3], and various documents
including PDFs, PowerPoint presentations, and Word documents we created and uploaded to SlideShare
[4] and Google Docs [5].
The heart of course, is the interactive constructions and dynamic worksheets created using GeoGebra [6].
With these, learners of all types, teachers and students alike, are able to explore the genius behind some of
the most famous geometry proofs of the theorem while developing an understanding of the mathematics
behind them. Moreover, they are able to create similar learning tools for units of instruction (teachers) or
69
projects (students). Thus the wiki is a combination of various teaching methods and experiences (see
Figure 1).
Videos
(YouTube)
GeoGebra Presentations
Interactive
Worksheets (Slide Share)
Wikis
in
Mathematics
Good Questions
Interactive
Worksheets
online quiz
(GoogleDocs)
Figure 1: Wikis in Mathematics Education Today
INTERACTION ON THE WIKI

GeoGebra Interaction
One of the key parts of this wiki was the creation of GeoGebra interactive worksheets with various
proofs. These interactivities are embedded on the wikipages themselves so that the user can read and
interact without having to switch between application windows.
GeoGebra encourages students to think critically and abstractly, to understand the mathematics
underlying stated problems, and to make connections among the various representations. That students
are now able to take advantage of such opportunities at school and at home without buying expensive
software is wonderful.
There are over 10 proofs of Pythagoras’s theorem with GeoGebra interactivities (e.g. Figure 2 and
Figure 3). The goal of each interactivity is to show the different types of thinking and reasoning in a
colorful dynamic way. Additionally, these proofs are enriched in many other ways with some of the
history and motivation behind the proof (see Figure 3).
70
Figure 2: InterActive Chinese Proof
Each GeoGebra interactivity is accompanied by a list of good questions and thinking exercises. Some
have been put into worksheets and others posed as questions. For example, for the presidential proof
shown in Figure 3, the following list of thinking questions has been given:
The green and blue triangles are congruent right triangles. They are aligned such that points C, E,
and B are collinear.
1. Quadrilateral ABCD is a trapezoid. Does this suggest a proof to you?
2. Express the area of the trapezoid in terms of a and b.
3. Express the area of all three triangles in terms of a and b. If you have trouble with the white
triangle, check on the "Show Hint" checkbox. Can you prove the hint?
4. Relate the area of the trapezoid to the area of the triangles. Express this relationship using only
the variables a, b, and c.
5. Does this prove the Pythagorean Theorem?
6. Slide the "Rotation" slider from left to right. Did the result surprise you? Why or why not?
Figure 3: GeoGebra Interaction and Thinking Exercise and History on this Wiki
71
Other Interactivities on the Pythagorean Group Wiki
YouTube - SlideShare – Google Docs - Quiz
Many interesting YouTube videos about Pythagoras’ theorem have been collected in an organized way to
improve the learning experience of the user. Presentations have been created and uploaded you Slide
Share (see Figure 4). While some good questions have been included on the wikipages themselves as we
saw above, others have been formatted into worksheets for the user. Finally, there is an interactive quiz on
the most important points about Pythagoras’ theorem (see Figure 5).
Figure 4: Embedded SlideShare Figure 5: Embedded Quiz
STANDARDS AND REFERENCES
To both document our materials and to encourage teachers and students to investigate further, we include
a list of references and to aid teachers in aligning the activities with their curriculum we include pertinent
state standards [8].
SUMMARY
As we mentioned, this collaborative project researches a significant topic or person as required of our
course “The Cultural and Historical Significance of Mathematics”. Here the project offers activities and
assessments in an interactive online format – namely a wiki. The wiki itself represents a collaborative
effort of several mathematics teachers on various topics but primarily proofs of the Pythagorean Theorem
from various cultures through the ages. We used a wide variety of interactivities, but a key feature is the
interactive constructions and dynamic worksheets of various proofs created using GeoGebra. With these,
72
learners of all types, teachers and students alike, are able to explore and understand and then create
similar learning tools for units of instruction (teachers) or projects (students).
From our experience creating and using this wiki, we believe that wikis of this nature with many
interactivities, but including mathematically rigorous, embedded dynamically interactive GeoGebra
worksheets can be a significant learning tool in mathematics.
REFERENCES and RESOURCES
[1] http://www.pctm.org/GeometryForAll.html
[2] http://www.wikispaces.com/site/for/teachers
[3] www.YouTube.com
[4] http://www.slideshare.net
[5] http://www.google.com/google-d-s/tour1.html
[6] www.geogebra.org
[7] http://pythagoreangroup.wikispaces.com
[8] http://pythagoreangroup.wikispaces.com/7+-+References
73

GEOGEBRA, JING and CLASSROOM WIKIS
1 2
Tim Fahlberg Linda Fahlberg-Stojanovska
1
Monona, WI, tim.fahlberg@gmail.com
2
Bitola, FYR Macedonia lindas@t-home.mk
Abstract: "Wikis- Easy collaboration for all."[1]. But maybe not so true for mathematics – until now. With the
release of GeoGebra 3.2, the new Jing from TechSmith and updates to the Wikispaces interface, it is now easy to put
interactive GeoGebra worksheets into and insert screenshots on a Wikispaces wikipage – all for free. In this way,
both teachers and students can create wikipages that dynamically show multiple representations of solutions to
problems and thus improve math understanding and skills.
Keywords: wiki, Wikispaces, mathematics, GeoGebra, dynamic, multiple representations, screenshots, Jing
INTRODUCTION
Many math teachers have tried to use wikis. However several problems immediately come to the
surface. One could not freely create and upload custom mathematics interactivities with dynamically
connected multiple representations – certainly not without extensive technical know-how. Secondly,
inserting screenshots to show a particular solution was – at best – a time-consuming and messy process.
One first had to save the image on our own computers and then upload to the wiki and both our computer
and the wiki became a mess of files. Yet both of these techniques have been shown to be an effective
learning method in mathematics (see e.g. [2]).
Recently, several things have changed. We mention two that we consider really important. Worksheets
created in the most excellent dynamic mathematics freeware GeoGebra [3] can now be directly placed on
a Wikispaces wikipage and even easily updated without any technical know-how. Screenshots taken using
the freeware Jing [4] by TechSmith can be annotated and then easily and visibly inserted on a Wikispaces
wikipage.
Now, if this sounds like an advertisement for Wikispaces, keep in mind 2 things. First, we have
extensive experience with using many, many different wikis for mathematics over the last 5 years and
these new possibilities in Wikispaces have us completely enchanted. Second, Wikispaces is currently
offering free, ad-free wiki spaces for sites used exclusively for K-12 education [5][5]. So in the next
section, we will describe these techniques and hopefully you will find them as easy to use and as useful in
your classroom wiki as we have found them.
74
TECHNIQUES FOR USING WIKIS WITH MATHEMATICS
Embed an InterActive GeoGebra Worksheet Directly in Wikispaces Wikipage
In this section, we show how one can directly embed an interactive GeoGebra worksheet into a
Wikispaces wiki. First of all what do we mean by this? We mean that you create a GeoGebra worksheet
and without having to upload anything or have any technical knowledge – you put this worksheet on a
wiki page and the webpage user can interact with it in exactly the same way that you interact with it on
your computer. In the references in the last section, there are links to a YouTube and TeacherTube video
that explain these steps [6]. Sample page [8].
Step 1 is to create you GeoGebra worksheet exactly as you want it to appear on the wikipage. This means
that you should position the Drawing pad and size the GeoGebra window properly. Also, make sure you
close the Algebra or Spreadsheet Views if you do not want them to appear on the worksheet. If you plan
to re-use this file, go ahead and save it.
Step 2 is to export your worksheet to a dynamic webpage and while we will save this file, we can delete it
almost immediately. (We put them on our desktop and then delete them from there.) So click on
command: File -> Export -> Dynamic Worksheet as Webpage (html) (see Figure 1 ).
Figure 1: Export your GeoGebra Worksheet
Now don't even bother to look at the options on the main page. Click on the Advanced tab and choose
your options here. We highly recommend that select "Double click opens application window" and "Save,
Print, Undo". Choose the others as you desire, but do NOT select "ggb File & jar Files".
75
Figure 2: The Advanced Tab on Export
Click on Export. Save it somewhere where you can find it and delete it later. Now the file will
automatically open in your default browser. Right-click in an empty spot on this page and choose View
Source or View Page Source depending on your browser. A new window will open with a bunch of
code. Find <applet ... and </applet> on this page. Highlight the text from <applet to </applet>. Make
sure to include the < at the beginning and the > at the end.
Figure 3: Applet Code for GeoGebra Worksheet
Go to your Wikispaces wikipage which is open for edit and position the cursor where you want the
GeoGebra worksheet to appear. On the Editor toolbar, click on the Widget button (see Figure 4) and then
on the Other html (see Figure 5 ).
Figure 4: Widget Button on Editor Toolbar in Wikispaces
76
Figure 5: Other HTML Figure 6: Paste in Applet Code from Source
Right-click in the field and choose Paste from the drop-down menu (see Figure 6). Now – there is a
teensy problem. In this window, scroll all the way to the top and then one line down. You will see either
MAYSCRIPT or mayscript="true". Delete exactly this.
Figure 7: Delete mayscript="true"
Click on Save at the bottom of this window. The widget button will appear on your page. Click on Save
on the Editor toolbar. The GeoGebra file will load and be interactive.
Insert a Jing Screenshot as Image on Wikispaces Wikipage
Yes, you can embed an external image in almost any wikispace. However, you need to upload them
somewhere and you need to use a plug-in or widget so you don’t see anything until you have saved the
wikipage. Frequently you cannot resize the image. This technique solves all of these issues – freely. In the
references in the last section, there are links to a YouTube and TeacherTube video [7].
The first thing you need to do is download and install Jing [4]. Then get yourself a free account. The
directions from TechSmith for doing this are very complete so we will assume you have done this.
The cool thing with the Jing screenshots is that (a) you can annotate them in the Jing window, (b) you
only save them to Jing and (c) you can see and adjust them on a Wikispaces wikipage before you save –
all with absolutely no technical know-how.
77
So take a screenshot with Jing, annotate it, change the name (if you want) and upload it by clicking on
the share button . You will see a little box showing the status of the upload. After the upload
finishes, the little Capture Sent box will appear. Click on the link - not on the X (see Figure 8).
Figure 8: Capture Sent – Jing
It opens the image on your screencast.com site. This is the key step. You must right-click on the image
and select “Copy image URL” from the drop-down menu (see Figure 9).
Figure 9: Key Step - Getting the URL of the Image
Go to your wikipage which is open for edit and put your cursor where you want the image to appear.
Click on Insert File in Wikispaces (see Figure 10).
Figure 10: Insert Images and File Button in Wikispaces
A dialog box will open. Click on External Image tab (see Figure 11). Right-click in the field and select
Paste from the drop-down menu (see Figure 12 ).
78
Figure 11: Images & Files Dialog Box
Figure 12: Paste Image URL
The URL should end in .png (or you did not do the KEY phase correctly). Click on Load (see Figure
13). A teensy tiny thumbnail of the image will appear below. Double-click on it (see Figure 14).
Figure 13: The URL ends in .png
Figure 14: After Load - Double-Click on Thumbnail
The image will appear in the wikipage – shadowed – with a dialog box for alignment, size and caption.
Do what you want. When you are done, click on X (see Figure 15).
79
Figure 15: Adjust the Image in Wikispaces
To readjust the image, open the wikipage for editing and click once on the image. The File Properties box
will appear. Remember to click on the X when you are done.
SUMMARY
The power of GeoGebra is that it allows us as teachers and students to freely create dynamically
connected multiple representations of mathematical problems . What we need to do is be able to share this
easily on the internet - ideally via a collaborative wiki. Similarly it is really important that we can easily
insert screenshots of the worksheet as particular solutions of the mathematical problem.
With a Wikispaces wiki – free for K-12 education, both of these important techniques are now easy to do
and require no technical know-how. In addition, equations created in the free online program Sitmo [9]
and with exactly the same interface as in GeoGebra can simply be dragged onto a Wikispaces wikipage.
This makes a classroom wiki for understanding and solving mathematics truly viable.
[1] Richardson, W. (2009) Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms, 2nd Ed.
Corwin Press, CA, USA ISBN: 978-1-4129-5972-8.
[2] Pitler H., Hubbell E., Kuhn M., Malenoski K. (2008) Using Technology with Classroom Instruction
that Works. ASCD, VA and McREL, CO, USA. ISBN: 978-1-4166-0570-6
[3] GeoGebra website: www.geogebra.org (see Help, GeoGebra Wiki and GeoGebra Forum).
[4] http://www.jingproject.com/
[5] http://www.wikispaces.com/site/for/teachers
[6] http://geogebrawiki.wikispaces.com/Embed+GeoGebra+Worksheet
[7] http://geogebrawiki.wikispaces.com/Insert+Jing+Image
[8] http://geogebrawiki.wikispaces.com/Speed_Problem and math247.pbworks.com/GeoGebra
[9] http://www.sitmo.com/latex/
80
GEOGEBRA NA2010 July 26-29 2010 Ithaca College, Ithaca NY, USA

DOT-2-DOT, BASIC GRAPHING, AND GEOGEBRA
Auston B. Cron1
1
PSJA North High School, Pharr, TX, abcalc09@gmail.com
1
South Texas College, McAllen, TX, acron@southtexascollege.com
Abstract: By middle school students many times do not understand or continue to have difficulty graphing. An easy
way to reinforce graphing concepts is using Dot-2-Dot picture constructions. Here we discuss how to create a Dot-
2-Dot GeoGebra worksheet from any Dot-2-Dot graphic exercise. This activity can be posted online in a Wikispaces
wiki or a website as a dynamic exercise. We extend from plotting points to plotting points and using lines of
symmetry exercise with Dot-2-Dot creations. A further extension is to include having students to use linear and
other functions with domain and range to create drawing similar to Mickey Mouse and other pictures.
Keywords: geogebra, graphing, Dot-2-Dot, coordinates, middle school, high school
1. INTRODUCTION
While observing many middle and high school students struggling to understand graphing, a great tool to
reinforce graphing concepts is GeoGebra by using dot-2-dot constructions. In the first section, we discuss
how to create a dot-2-dot GeoGebra worksheet from a dot-2-dot graphic. From here we learn how to
make Dot-2-Dot exercises that require plotting points with coordinates.
In part 2, we create a second type of exercise via the "kite problem". This problem adds the need of a
student to learn to use functions with domain and range. Any of these exercises can easily be posted on a
Wikispaces wiki as a dynamic exercise. In this way the exercises can be worked freely online or
downloaded, in class or at home.
2. DOT-2-DOT EXERCISES
In this section, we see how to make a Dot-2-Dot exercise from a Dot-2-Dot image. This is the first step in
making Dot-2-Dot exercises for learning coordinates. At this level, the purpose of these Dot-2-Dot
Exercises is to build an activity for students to learn hand-eye coordination on the computer. In the next
part we will connect these exercises to learning coordinates.
2.1 Creating a Dot-2-Dot Exercise from a Dot-2-Dot Graphic
To create a quick dot-2-dot background graphic in GeoGebra

1. Select graphic you want to create the dot-2-dot with
81
dot-2-dot graphic page from a scanned document or

from an image you found on Internet or
had from a paper pencil exercise or
one that you create yourself.
The graphic can be saved in any of the image formats that GeoGebra allows (see Figure 1):
Figure 1: Graphics / Image types for GeoGebra
2. Open GeoGebra [1]

3. Turn off the Algebra View and Spreadsheet View (if they are open).
4. Using the Insert Image Tool click on the lower left of the Drawing Pad.
5. Select your image. It will be inserted
6. Right-click on the image and select Object Properties
Click on the Position tab and type or paste in the following for the respective corners
(see Figure 2): Corner[1] Corner[2] and Corner[4]
Figure 2: Using the Corner Command to Stretch the Picture Across the Drawing Pad
These are the GeoGebra commands that mark the corners of the Drawing pad. This technique will
stretch the image across the entire Drawing pad no matter how you resize the GeoGebra window.
7. Close Object Properties.
8. Resize your GeoGebra window screen/picture to allow students to work. Return to Object
Properties and on the Basic tab, set image as Background Image (do not select Absolute Position
as this will remove the "corners" set in step 8.)
9. Save your file.
10. Once file is saved send to student computer (see Figure 3).
Once the students start with the exercise, do not try to move or resize the Drawing Pad as the overlaying
solution will not move with this change.
Wolf and Lamb [9] exercise is available for use on a Wikispaces page [2].
82
Figure 3: A Dot-2-Dot Drawing Worksheet in GeoGebra [9]
2.2 Customizing the Toolbar
For smaller children it is good to restrict the tools available. For example, we might give them only the
Move Tool, the New Point Tool, and the Segment Tool (see Figure 4).
Figure 4: GeoGebra Toolbars with Limited Tools
To Customize the Toolbar we use the command Tools => Customize Toolbar. The custom toolbar is at
the left. Don't forget to click on the + signs in front of each tool to remove unwanted "subtools".
Figure 5: Customizing the Toolbar Figure 6: A Customized Toolbar Setup
83
2.3 Various Dot-2Dot Coordinate Exercises
Using Dot-2-Dot to reinforce plotting
Figure 7: A Whale of a Puzzle [11]
This exercise was created after observing a senior student struggling with graphing a list of points on
graph paper. This student did not like to do pencil and paper projects, but he relished using the computer
to do anything. The student was reluctantly working from a book with sets of coordinate point of Dot-
2-Dot pictures from Mystery Media© [8]. The student was presented with a HTML GeoGebra grid
that went from -35 to 34 by -27 to 26. The only tools present were the Move, Point, and Segment
(see Figure 4.) The Options menu had Point Capturing set to On (Grid), this allows the student to
see the coordinates of the point while moving the mouse across the screen. When the point read
the correct value, the student could click the mouse to add the point. After the student
successfully plotted several points, he was shown how to connect the points in order with the
segment tool. The demonstration A Whale of a Puzzle [11] illustrates his work (see Figure 7.)
Later, the Point Capturing was reset to On or Auto to test his learning.
As students gain experience, the graphing can all be done with the Segment Tool only (no visual
reinforcement in this mode.) In the Alien below, the shading is accomplished by using the Polygon Tool.
As when using the Segment Tool, the Polygon Tool does not display the coordinates of the point. If all
points are going to be on the grid, it is worthwhile to set Point Capturing to On (Grid.)
84
Create an Alien
This exercise is taken from the Math is Fun [12] website – but doing it in GeoGebra makes it so much
more interesting and our options greatly increased. Here we give the students the image of the desired
result – here the alien mask (see Figure 88), a list of all of the first-quadrant coordinates and a blank
GeoGebra worksheet. Of course you can add more or less information depending on the age, interest of
your students and the desired mathematical results.
First Quadrant Coordinates:

Face: (8,4) (11,4) (17,16) (17,20) (16,23) (15,25) (14,26) (12,27)
(7,27) (5,26) (4,25) (3,23) (2,20) (2,16) (8,4)
Left Eye: (4,19) (6,19) (8,17) (9,14) (9,13) (8,13) (6,14) (4,17) (4,19)
Right Eye: (15,19) (13,19) (11,17) (10,14) (10,13) (11,13) (13,14)
(15,19)
Left Nose: (8,10) (9,10) (9,9) (8,10)
Right Nose: (10,10) (11,10) (10,9) (10.10)
Figure 8: Alien Mask Mouth: (8,7) (11,7)
Table 1 Alien Mask [13]
For example – to make it easier, you can "pre-format" the blank GeoGebra worksheet to fit the
coordinates [5] and tell them which GeoGebra tools to use to form the elements. To make it harder, you
can just list the coordinates (no elements) or choose a symmetrical image like the alien mask, center it and
give them only the right-sided coordinates. They have to find the left-sided coordinates by themselves. Of
course, the students can add their own colors and other decorations.
Using Functions to Create Graphs
Students in high school classes do picture graphs by using domain limited functions in GeoGebra just as
have been done on graphing calculators for years. The heart (Figure 9) was done by typing the following
lines into the input bar:
If[x > -4 && x < 4, (abs(x) - 4) 1.3]
If[x > -4 && x < 4, abs(sin(x 45°) 2.5)]
Figure 9 Heart
85
The Kite Problem
A more complicated problem of this type is the Kite Problem. This problem originated on the TI-8#
calculators as an activity for students to learn to use functions with limited domain to draw graphs on
calculators. It has been adapted for GeoGebra. Over the years we have seen several activities of this type
and would like to learn what additional sources are out there.
Figure 10 Kite
3. SUMMARY
In an easy progressive manner, GeoGebra can be used with Dot-2-Dot constructions in many ways. We
can embed these exercises on a Wikispaces wiki or HTML page as a dynamic exercise. In this way the
exercise can be worked online or downloaded, in class or at home.
As a first step, GeoGebra can first be used with Dot-2-Dot constructions to improve the hand-eye
coordination on computers of children. Extending this concept, it is easy to use GeoGebra and Dot-2-Dot
to reinforce graphing concepts. In our experience, many middle school students do not understand
graphing. This is a fun way to learn the plotting of points and symmetry. Finally we can further extend
this concept to create Dot-2-Dot constructions that require student to learn to use linear functions,
domain, range and slope.
[1] GeoGebra website: http://www.geogebra.org/ (see Help, GeoGebra Wiki and GeoGebra Forum).
86
[2] Wikispaces Wiki Pages: http://psja-north-math-abc.wikispaces.com and

www.geogebrawiki.wikispaces.com
[3] TeacherTube Mathcast Backgrond Images that Cover Background
http://www.teachertube.com/members/viewVideo.php?video_id=185106
[4] TeacherTube Mathcast: Embed GeoGebra Worksheet in Wikispaces Wiki
[5] http://www.mathsisfun.com/coordinate_alien.html
[6] TeacherTube Mathcast: Restricting Functions with GeoGebra
[7] Kite handout
http://www.psja.k12.tx.us/~abcron/GeoGebraMenu/GeogebraFiles/InvestigatingGraphing/KiteGraph.html
[8] Mystery Media http://mysterymedia.net/
[9] Source of graphic: http://peace.mennolink.org/resources/wordfind/wolflambdots.gif. Wolf and Lamb
[10] Wolf & Lamb lesson http://psja-north-math-abc.wikispaces.com/Dot-2-Dot+Beginner+Page
[11] A Whale of a Puzzle
http://www.psja.k12.tx.us/~abcron/GeoGebraMenu/GeogebraFiles/InvestigatingGraphing/Whale.html
[12] Math is Fun http://www.mathsisfun.com/coordinate_alien.html
[13] Alien Mask
http://www.psja.k12.tx.us/~abcron/GeoGebraMenu/GeogebraFiles/InvestigatingGraphing/AlienMask.html
[14] Resources
http://www.psja.k12.tx.us/~abcron/GeoGebraMenu/GeogebraFiles/InvestigatingGraphing/Dot-2-
DotResources.htm
87
Practical pedagogy-Building and Maintaining a Resource Base of

MYSTERY PLOTS: MOTIVATING ALGEBRAIC MODEL BUILDING WITH

DYNAMIC SKETCHES
Michael Todd Edwards1, Steve Phelps2, Jeffrey J. Wanko3

1
Miami University, Oxford, Ohio, USA, m.todd.edwards@gmail.com
2
Madeira High School, Madeira, Ohio, USA, sphelps@madeiracityschools.org
3
Miami University, Oxford, Ohio, USA, wankojj@muohio.edu
Abstract: Dynamic geometry software (DGS) is a useful medium for studying functions in an active manner. The
following manuscript highlights three sketches that encourage students to build algebraic definitions of functions
from traces of ordered pairs. A strategy for developing similar sketches using a three-step MTA process (Measure -
Trace - Algebratize) is also provided.
Keywords: algebra, function building, modeling, constructivism
1. INTRODUCTION
Functions are central to the study of mathematics at the secondary level. As Froelich, Bartkovich, and
Foerster [3] note, ”the concept of function is probably the most important idea in mathematics” (p. 1).
Although students spend significant time working with functions at the secondary level, much of this time
is spent transforming familiar ”parent” functions - for instance, stretching, reflecting, and translating
exponential, quadratic, square root, and sinusoidal functions - rather than creating original functions. The
tendency to modify and ”borrow” rather than create impacts students’ attitudes regarding mathematics.
Functions become ”gifts” from teachers (or the back of the textbook) rather than objects of discovery in
their own right. Mathematics is not construed as a creative area of study.
In this paper, we explore the use of dynamic geometry software (DGS) as a medium for changing student
and teacher interactions (and attitudes) with functions. We offer three examples of sketches that may be
used to encourage students to build their own functions. Moreover, we share a strategy for developing
additional sketches, namely our three-step MTA process (Measure - Trace - Algebratize). Note that these
steps roughly correspond to concrete, iconic, and symbolic levels of representation proposed by Bruner
[1,2]. As our examples illustrate, the MTA approach provides students with opportunities to explore and
construct remarkably non-standard functions - often beautiful, unexpected, and thoroughly original.
2. INTRODUCING THE MTA PROCESS
Consider the three steps of the MTA process in more detail.
88
1. Measure. Constructing a familiar object (e.g., rectangle, circle, triangle) and look for relationships
among measures (e.g., relationships between angles, side lengths, areas).
2. Trace. Next, plot an ordered pair of two seemingly related measures (e.g., plot (area,perimeter) of
a triangle). Examine a trace as points are dragged in the sketch. In particular, consider the domain
and range of the trace. Specifically, look for traces that suggest functions.
3. Algebratize. Lastly, describe relationships suggested by tracings symbolically by means of one
(or more) algebraic functions (i.e., function models).
It is worthwhile to note that both teachers and students may engage in the MTA process. We use the
technique to build tasks for our students. Likewise, students may use the process to construct their own
functions.
1.1 Mystery Plot 1 (MP1)
We used the MTA approach to create the following task, referred to as Mystery Plot 1 (MP1).
Two vertices of a right triangle are fixed at B(0, 0) and C(6, 0). Vertex D(6, y) may move
anywhere along the line x = 6. Determine the function f(P) = A that describes A, the area of
BCD, with respect to P , the triangle’s perimeter.
We created the Mystery Plot 1 (MP1) task by completing the first two steps of the MTA approach. First,
we created a ”generic” right triangle with base along the x-axis. Then we analyzed various measurements
(area, perimeter, side lengths, slope of sides, etc.), looking for possible relationships. After noting a
possible relationship among these measures, we constructed the ordered pair Q = (perimeter, area),
tracing this point as we dragged vertex D. Initially we were somewhat surprised to find that the plot
appeared to be linear (as shown in Figure 1).
Figure 1: Dynamic sketch of mystery plot (MP1) in GeoGebra DGS.
In MP1, we ask students to complete Step 3 of the MTA approach (Algebratize). Initially, when students
attempt to describe the trace of the ordered pair (perimeter, area) symbolically, they are convinced that the
relationship between Perimeter and Area is linear. This conjecture is based wholly on visual evidence
provided by graph rather than on careful consideration of the relationship between variables.
89
Noting that ordered pairs (12,0) and (15,7.5) are plotted by dragging point D, students follow their initial
conjecture and construct a linear function to describe the plot. Such work is highlighted in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Algebraic work for possible function for area in terms of perimeter.
When the linear function from Figure 2 is superimposed on the plot of various perimeter-area pairs,
results are not wholly unsatisfactory, although the curvature of the original data points becomes more
apparent. While many falsely believe that f (P ) = 2.5P 30 describes the relationship between perimeter
and area, other students become skeptical of this conclusion. Differences of opinion fuel further
investigation as we encourage students to analyze underlying geometric and algebraic relationships
between area and perimeter rather than basing their findings wholly on visual perception.
Letting h = CD, students use the Pythagorean Theorem to determine the length of BD in terms of h, as
shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Calculating BD in terms of h.
From this, students find a formula for perimeter, P, in terms of h. This approach is highlighted in Figure 4
(left). Similarly, students use the familiar area formula for a triangle to find a formula for area, A, in terms
of h, as shown in Figure 4 (right).
90
Figure 4: (Left) Calculating perimeter; (Right) Calculating area.
Combining the results in Figure 4, we see that . As Figure 5 illustrates, this

relationship may be used to find a function for A in terms of P.
Figure 5: Calculating area, A, in terms of perimeter, P.
As Figure 6 illustrates, the function derived using algebraic and geometric relationships between area and
perimeter provides a better "fit" than the linear function. For the function , we use
domain , reflecting mathematical content from which the functions were derived (the smallest
value of the perimeter).
91
Figure 6: Comparing proposed linear and non-linear area models.
The mathematics content required to construct an accurate function model for the MP1 task is noteworthy
for several reasons. First, the use of DGS did not replace the need for students to think deeply about
mathematics. Indeed, "incorrect" conjectures encouraged by the sketch prompted students to challenge
their initial intuitions. Secondly, the task requires students to connect algebra and geometry content
creatively. Recognizing that the Pythagorean Theorem can be used to determine the perimeter of BCD
and that the resulting expression can be expressed in terms of the area of the triangle are essential steps
for solving the task. Lastly, although the algebraic work involved in the task requires little (if any) content
beyond second year algebra, the resulting function is not one typically studied in a second year algebra
course. In this sense, the task requires students to engage in "outside the box" thinking about functions.
1.2 A Second Mystery Plot (MP2)
We used the MTA approach yet again to create the following task, referred to as Mystery Plot 2 (MP2).
Two vertices of a triangle are fixed at and . Vertex C may move anywhere in
the coordinate plane. The plot of the area of with respect to the triangle's perimeter is
bounded above by function . Determine .
As before, we created the Mystery Plot 2 task by completing the first two steps of the MTA approach.
First, we constructed a "generic" triangle and analyzed various measurements. Secondly, we plotted the
triangle's area with respect to perimeter and dragged a vertex. We were genuinely surprised to find that
the plot appeared to be bounded above by a mystery curve (as shown in Figure 7). We ask our students to
complete Step 3 of the approach (Algebratize) by constructing a symbolic representation of the bounding
curve, .
92
Figure 7: Dynamic sketch of mystery plot (MP2) in GeoGebra DGS.
One method for algebratizing makes use of the fact that isosceles triangle has maximal area
for a given perimeter. Hence, when a student positions point along the perpendicular bisector of ,
the plot of the triangle's area with respect to perimeter (i.e., ) lies on . With this observation in
mind, constructing bounding function proceeds in the following manner.
Given , the area of is numerically equal to the height of the triangle, as measured
from . By the Pythagorean Theorem, the height of , and thereby the area, is given by the
expression
Our desire is to express the area in terms of the perimeter. Given being isosceles with
and , we can express the perimeter in terms of .
Solving (2) for $AC$, we have
Substituting for in (1), we have
Plotting yields the graph shown in Figure 8.
93
Figure 8: Graph of f(x) superimposed on original sketch.
Note that since is squared, negative values generate outputs. Hence, the domain of the function must
be restricted to values of .
The mathematics content required to construct a function model for the MP2 task shares features of MP1
work. First, the resulting function is not one typically found in school texts. Secondly, algebraic
manipulation plays an essential role in the construction of the bounding function. Thirdly, the task
requires students to connect algebra and geometry content creatively. Recognizing that isosceles
generates points on boundary function is essential for solving the task. This result may not be
obvious to all students. For these students, this intermediate result should be considered as a sub-problem
and may require teachers’ special attention.
1.3 A Third Mystery Plot (MP3)
To construct our third mystery plot, we begin (once again) with a triangle. This time, however, we
construct a centroid of the triangle and examine measures of angles formed in the construction as we drag
any of the triangle vertices. Consider, for instance, with centroid as depicted in Figure 9.
Figure 9: Scalene triangle ABC with centroid G and angle BGC.
94
Upon measuring and , we noticed an apparent relationship between the two angles as
vertices were dragged. Before we trace the ordered pair , with our students, we
encourage them to build conjectures concerning the nature of the plot. Consider the following talking
points.
• Certainly, as the measure of becomes large, it is intuitively clear that the measure of
will also become large.
• Indeed, if we were to graph the measure of with respect to the measure of , we
would conjecture that the point would be on the graph.
• Likewise, it is also intuitively clear that as the becomes quite small, that the measure of
will also become quite small. Students may visualize getting smaller as points
and are dragged closer together, thereby making just as small.
Through discussions of this sort, many students correctly conjecture that $(0,0)$ will also be on the graph.
What happens in between and is still left to be discovered, but for many it is intuitively
clear that these two points would be connect by some sort of a smooth graph. After all, the graphs of the
majority of functions the students encounter are characterized as smooth. The plot shown in Figure 10,
created by dragging \textbf{all of the triangle vertices}, one after another, is not what most students
expect - provided we have had the kind of discussion with students as described above.
Figure 10: Plot of measure of angle BGC with respect to measure of angle BAC.
Trying to understand the plot in Figure 10 by randomly dragging the vertices is not an efficient method
for revealing its underlying mysteries. In this instance, random dragging generates a plot with large
"gaps." Purposeful dragging, on the other hand, enables one to "fill in" the the feasible region with all
possible ordered pairs. Thoughtful manipulation of vertex encourages students to discover an
important feature of the plot - namely, that different measures of are produced by the same
measures of . This is illustrated in Figure 11. As was the case in MP2, our third task generates a
multi-valued function.
95
Figure 11: Different measures of angle BGC are produced by the same measure of angle BAC.
Dragging in such a manner as to fill the entire feasible region requires students to make connections
between the angles in the triangle and the ordered pairs on the graph. Knowing what ordered pairs one
wants to generate is a far cry from knowing how to change the shape of the triangle to make the desired
result happen. When students drag to fill the plot of the feasible region in the manner suggested in Figure
12, they may notice that the region appears symmetric with respect to the line . Based on
this observation, many conjecture that the desired boundary curve is an arc of a circle, or perhaps part of a
hyperbola (refer to Figure 12).
Figure 12: The function f(x) appears to be modeled by a hyperbola.
In discovering the nature of through purposeful dragging, it appears that the boundary curve is
generated by dragging point A along the perpendicular bisector of (Figure 13). Accepting this
assumption, it appears that this Mystery Plot has something in common with Mystery Plot 2 - namely,
that a solution may follow from knowledge of isosceles triangles.
96
Figure 13: The function f(x) appears to be traced when A is dragged along the perpendicular bisector of
triangle ABC.
Working from this isosceles triangle assumption, and drawing on our knowledge of centroids and
medians, students can begin to build a function describing the lower boundary of the plot region.
Figure 14: Consider angles formed by perpendicular bisector AM of triangle ABC.
Focusing our attention on and with and labeled as shown in Figure 14.
These two triangles, besides both being right triangles (the median drawn from the vertex angle in an
isosceles triangle is also an altitude), share several other significant features. First, they obviously share
side . Less obviously, side is three times the length of (the centroid divides the median in a
1:2 ratio). With respect to and , the opposite side and the adjacent side in each triangle
are related. Hence, we will look to the tangent ratio.
In we have
97
Graphing the function, we see it appears to match the boundary (refer to Figure 15). Of course, the graph
of this function has ordered pairs in the third quadrant, but for our purposes, we will only consider that
portion of the graph that is in the domain .
Figure 15: Plotted data with proposed function model.
Note that we have not conclusively proved that the function in Figure 15 is “perfect” model for the plotted
points. In fact, this provides students with a rich opportunity to explore the fit of various functions.
3. CONCLUSION
In this paper, we've proposed a technique for constructing function tasks for students using dynamic
geometry software (DGS). Using the three-step MTA approach (Measure-Trace-Algebratize), teachers
construct environments for students that require active exploration of function through purposeful
98
dragging. As the previous three examples have illustrated, DGS may be used to enable students to
construct their own functions as producers - rather than consumers - of mathematics. As students
construct a function models for traced data, they connect basic geometry and algebra in ways not
commonly encountered in school texts. Algebraic manipulation plays an essential role in the construction
of bounding functions.
By honoring students' thinking through mathematical exploration, experimentation, and conjecturing, we

encourage students to "own" the mathematics that they experience in school classrooms. Using DGS, we
encourage students to make "incorrect" conjectures based on faulty intuition. Once students "buy in" to
their initial hypotheses, we challenge their intuitions - creating cognitive dissonance that encourages deep
learning - then and "hook" them into rich geometric and algebraic explorations.
[1] Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press.
[2] Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, Mass., Belknap Press of Harvard
University.
[3] Froelich, G. W., Bartkovich, K. G., & Foerester, P. A. (1991). Connecting mathematics. In C. R.
Hirsch (Ed.) Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics addenda series, grades 9
- 12. Reston, VA: NCTM.
[4] Harper, S.R. & Edwards, M.T. (2010). Purposeful dragging: Motivating deeper mathematical
understanding through dynamic geometry exploration. Published in J. Foster (Ed.), Conference
Proceedings of the Twenty-first Annual International Conference on Technology in Collegiate
Mathematics. New York: Pearson Addison-Wesley.
[5] Klein, R. M., Phelps, S. & Edwards, M.T. (2009). Purposeful dragging: Using dynamic tools and the
what-if-not approach to investigate functions in geometry class. On-Math. Retrieved November 5,
2009, from http://www.nctm.org/eresources/tocgraphic.asp? journal_id=6.
[6] National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for
school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
99
5. Communicating Effective Ways of Teaching and Learning Dynamic Mathematics -

A PLAN FOR PRODUCING A COMPREHENSIVE SUITE OF APPLETS FOR A

COURSE, WITH SINGLE VARIABLE CALCULUS AS A CASE STUDY.
Mike May, S.J
Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO, maymk@slu.edu
Abstract – This paper looks at a series of interconnected issues that need to be addressed in using
GeoGebra to produce an effective collection of companion materials for a mathematics curriculum. The
paper will address the issues in the context of creating materials for pre-calculus and single variable
calculus in a collegiate setting. However, much of the discussion will apply in a much broader context.
Keywords: GeoGebra, applets, mathematics, curriculum, textbooks, calculus
1. OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND
The basis of this proposal is anecdotal but extensive. In my department I have been one of the
early adopters of technology in teaching for more than 15 years. It should be noted that I have
been in a department that is very receptive to pedagogical innovation and the incorporation of
technology into teaching. As a department chair, I have also been concerned with what it takes to
institutionalize any change in teaching. In particular, one needs to pay attention to the concerns
of the teachers who are not early adopters. In a university setting, where a tradition of academic
freedom typically means that faculty have great independence in the pedagogical choices they
make for their classrooms, this means providing tools that will convince the reluctant faculty that
making a change will make their lives easier and their work more effective.
It is worthwhile to give some context for my comments. Saint Louis University is a midsized
private comprehensive university. The Department of Mathematics and Computer Science has 27
tenure track lines, and offers a Ph.D. in mathematics and a bachelor's degree in computer science.
In this environment both teaching and research are considered important. Calculus classes are
capped at 30 students, and the regular mathematics faculty all routinely teach calculus. The
departmental culture supports innovative teaching. For the past 15 years we have had a weekly
"calculus lunch" where faculty gather and discuss the nuts and bolts of teaching, compare tests,
and share techniques. A member of the department was one of the organizers of project NExT,
which she ran for the MAA for 15 years. Five members of the department have been involved in
running a series of online professional development workshops through the MAA's PREP
program for 7 consecutive summers. Faculty members are involved in pedagogical projects with
GeoGebra, Sage, Maple, MatLab, SPSS, Gap, Python, Scratch, WebWork, MyMathLab, and
wikis. Quite a number of these projects are at a level that involves grants, publications, and
100
professional presentations. Projects are also typically done by teams of faculty who teach
courses in rotation and who incrementally improve each other's work. We also have faculty
members who do not like change, and who consider themselves "technologically inept". In
particular where we are routinely thinking not only about how to improve our own pedagogy, but
also thinking about what steps we need to take so that our efforts can be adopted and adapted by
other teachers.
2. A THEORY FOR IMPLEMENTING PEDAGOGICAL CHANGE
From my observations in this setting, I have developed what I refer to as the "shiny toys" theory
of pedagogical reform. The structures that support mathematical education also are strong
structures of inertia. Courses are highly sequenced and teachers are expected to cover a lot of
specific material so that it can be assumed for the next course. While faculty have substantial
freedom in developing their own teaching style, the syllabus of most courses is set be a larger
community, either the whole department or the national consensus, to insure courses will transfer.
As a rule all faculty are overworked and developing new techniques is never as efficient in the
short term as sticking with established processes. Thus, a suggestion of a radical revision of
course material or teaching technique will not practically be accepted except in isolated situation
where the faculty member can justify the effort, or for special pilot programs. Practically most
faculty can only chose changes that can be implemented in smaller steps.
I propose four overlapping stages in implementation of a significant shift in teaching technology

or pedagogy: early pioneers, shiny toys, organized resources, and full implementation. The early
pioneers stage requires a great deal of sophistication on the part of the implementer. At this stage
the use of the technology requires a great deal of technological skill from the teacher who uses it.
For computer technology, this means that teachers need to become programmers with a high level
of sophistication. This corresponds to using java applets in a setting where the teacher needs to
write the java code and compile the applets. The second, or shiny toy, stage has the early
pioneers producing small discrete units that a broader array of teachers will be able to
comfortably fit into a pre-existing curriculum to help with a particular lesson or concept.
Development of general java applets in general and GeoGebra activities in particular has reached
this stage. There is a significant amount of material available and much of it is user friendly
enough that a broad collection of energetic teachers will find tools of interest and start using their
favorite "shiny toy" without having to make a substantial shift in their teaching methods or
curriculum. The experience of the teacher at this stage is good, but hit or miss. Like shopping at
garage sales, there are some true bargains and finds, but there are also a lot of discards, and it is
hard to find exactly what you want. The third stage systematically produces discrete learning
objects that fit in with a predefined syllabus. An easy example at this stage is the product
"Calculus in motion" for Geometer's Sketchpad. Such textbook supplements are designed with
the idea that a teacher would use a small number of carefully selected supplements as resources in
teaching a course. It should be noted that the supplements are designed so they can be used with
texts that can also be used without any particular technology. A final stage is full
implementation. At this stage, the basic curriculum is revised, because any significant change in
101
technology significantly changes the order in which concepts and skills become accessible. The
textbooks at this stage are designed so that they would be hard to use without the assumed
technology. With GeoGebra, this stage might assume that the students are each using there own
copy of the software and routinely exploring with their own constructions.
3. COMMENTS ON HOW THIS THEORY APPLIED TO GEOGEBRA DEVELOPMENT
In the preceding discussion, the development framework is not specific, either in terms of the
technology being brought into the curriculum, or to the course in the curriculum. As such my
proposed project can be recast at with different technologies and at for different courses. Let me
now be more specific. I am focusing on precalculus and single variable calculus because my
institution teaches so many sections of those courses and because the current functionalities of
GeoGebra are sufficiently strong for those courses.
As noted above, the four proposed stages are not clear and distinct but overlapping. Markus and
the development team continue to add to the capabilities of GeoGebra. This part of the project
requires programming skills far beyond those possessed by most math teachers. At the same time
there is an informal collection of teachers who are producing an ever-expanding collection of
applets and GeoGebra activities that teachers can use without having a high level of technical
skills. In turn, the expanding user base adds to the pool of materials available. Some teachers
have made GeoGebra their tool of choice for classroom presentation and have produced their own
collection of materials. (I am one of those people and have my own collection of applets.) Some
teachers and schools have already made fundamental shifts using GeoGebra. It should be noted
however that, in the United States at least, we have not yet developed the integrated resources and
textbook support comparable to what has been produced for graphing calculators or Geometer's
Sketchpad.
4. SPECIFIC CONCERNS FOR THIS COURSE LEVEL
Without trying to take away from the work being done along the whole spectrum implementation
efforts, I argue that the time is ripe for a focused effort in the third stage at the introductory
collegiate level.
The target instructor is receptive to using technology but will be teaching from syllabus that
requires covering set of chapters from one of the standard texts that are published by the major
US publishers. The instructor is one of several teachers assigned to a course in a sequence where
students with any instructor in course two needs to be able to build on the work of any instructor
in course one. Furthermore, substantial change in the syllabus requires some form of sign off
from a number of client disciplines. With job requirements that include time commitments for
both teaching and research, the instructor is willing to use one or two supplements to the assigned
text. The amount of time that can be devoted to teaching different technologies to the students is
102
minimal. The instructor has the ability to do live computer demonstrations in class and all
students can be assumed to have computer and internet access.
The instructor needs to be able to go to a single main directory for resources for the class with the
resources arranged according to the de facto standard syllabus that is effectively shared by the
major texts. The activities in the directory need to be fundamentally independent so an instructor
can choose to use only one or two, or can choose to routinely use them for assignments and
classroom discussions. Each activity should be a web page that include an applet tuned to
demonstrate a concept, enough explanatory text to be used independently, a basic lesson plan, a
list of examples that help illustrate the concepts to be demonstrated, and a suggested homework
assignment. Ideally, each activity should actually have three separate assignments designed by
instructors at different institutions, making it clear that the use of the activity can be easily
modified to different teaching styles and situations.
The "auxiliary text" should also contain clear instructions for incorporating material into the
instructor's local learning management system. At a first level, that will be providing an easy
system of links and assignments to manage. It should also include the option of uploading a file
that will run entirely within the local system.
5. MANAGEMENT AND DELIVERY CONSIDERATIONS
I suspect that supplements, like the one I am describing, will eventually be produced by the major
publishers, and linked to their specific texts. In the meantime it seems worthwhile to produce one
collaboratively, written by a team of early adopters and designers of shiny toys. The team should
include writers from a variety of types of institutions and have a means of making editorial
decisions. For at least a period of several years, the collection of resources should be housed in
some wiki arrangement so that it is relatively easy for collaborators to make additions and
revisions. The finished product should be hosted on a site that will be stable and with sufficient
resources for the traffic load. Efforts should be made so the finished product gets approved by
and is linked to by sites like the NSDL (National Science Digital Library), MERLOT, and
NCTM.
6. COMPARISON TO MATERIALS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
This paper can be understood as a call to action aimed at the people attending this conference.
That group should offer a rich collection of the talents needed to make the effort a success. It is
worthwhile to offer a comparison to some currently available material and to make comments on
why GeoGebra is a superior platform for development of such material.
The most complete set of applets for single variable calculus is probably the set
<http://calculusapplets.com/>, written by Tom Downey building on the work of David Eck's Web
Components for Mathematics project. The project contains an impressive collection of applets
103
organized in lime with a standard calculus curriculum. Each applet is also in a page that includes
material concerning how the applet can be used for exploration and the mathematical concepts
that are illustrated. The collection is available under a creative commons license and was posted
in 2007. The collection is based in the WCM project (2001) by Eck designed to make it easier to
create applets, and still easier to modify the examples used in applets. Nevertheless,
modifications still requires fairly high level coding skill. This means that a typical teacher will
not be expected to ever modify these materials to tailor them to a particular class. While the set
has been mirrored in a number of places, I have not found any postings of the applets with
modifications. Unfortunately, Downey died shortly after completing this set of applets, so it is
unlikely that they will ever be updated.
Other noteworthy collections of applets written from scratch in java include the Manipula Math
Applet Collections <http://www.ies.co.jp/math/products/calc/menu.html>, a collection by David
Heath at Lutheran University <http://www.plu.edu/~heathdj/java/>, and a collection by David
Little at Penn State <http://www.math.psu.edu/dlittle/applets.html>. While all three collections
are impressive and are worthwhile resources for calculus teachers, and Little's collection even
includes source code and permission for free non-commercial educational use, since all three
collections are compiled java, it would be impractical for a typical teacher to modify the applets
or to incorporate them in a class web site.
My own collection of applets, <http://www.slu.edu/classes/maymk/MathApplets-SLU.html>, is

more eclectic. It has been built up with a variety of technologies, looking at topics as they struck
my interest or were important to a class I was teaching. This site is more relevant to the
discussion from the micro rather than the macro level. Of particular note is the applet on
Riemann sums <http://www.slu.edu/classes/maymk/Riemann/Riemann.html>. That applet is
accompanied by both notes for the instructor, and also by a sample homework assignment to
illustrate how the applet might be used in a classroom setting. Ideally, an applet would be
accompanied by a collection of several sample assignments, making it clear that it is adaptable to
an individual class. As with the other materials described above, this applet is written directly in
java. Even though the source code is provided I have not seen anyone modify and adapt the
applet, or even mirror it.
7. ADVANTAGES OF USING GEOGEBRA IN THE PROJECT
With the Java applets for calculus that one can find on the web, it is common to find applets that
have been inspired by other applets, but it is hard to find examples where applets have one
teacher adopting and adapting someone else's work in applets they produce. For most math
teacher, the learning curve of programming in java is too steep for this to be a reasonable effort.
In contrast, it is common for find GeoGebra activities and applets that are modifications of
materials previously posted by someone else. (Several of the GeoGebra applets on my site are
noted as modifications of applets posted by someone else. I have received a number of e-mail
messages from others who have in turn used my applets to build their own.) This puts applets
and computer activities back into the realm of other teaching materials where teachers routinely
104
adapt and modify as part of the adoption process. A second advantage GeoGebra brings to the
project is that it is supported by a community and it continues to develop. The other projects
listed above (including my own) are typically the work of a single person. They stop developing
and being supported when that person moves on to other interests.
8. STATUS OF MY OWN PROJECT AND REPRODUCIBILITY
Given the teaching commitments at my institution, my first focus is single variable calculus and
pre-calculus as the material of that course is intertwined with calculus. First efforts at a
comprehensive effort on calculus have been launched at <http://geogebraproject.pbworks.com/>,
but more progress is expected as sabbaticals provide time for concentrated work. There is little in
the method or reasoning behind the project that is unique to calculus. It is easy to see how one
might make the same effort with wither high school geometry or algebra II. Those projects,
however, should be left to writing teams for whom those subjects are at the center or their
teaching interests.
9. REFEREBCES AND RESOURCES
[1] http://calculusapplets.com/ (A complete collection of applets for calculus, done with JCM
platform.)
[2] http://www.ies.co.jp/math/products/calc/menu.html (An old commercial collection of
applets, spanning several courses, with no pedagogical material.)
[3] http://www.plu.edu/~heathdj/java/ (A solid collection of applets, mainly commercial. Most
cannot be mirrored or modified.)
[4] http://www.math.psu.edu/dlittle/applets.html (An extensive collection of applets.
Reasonable pedagogical notes provided. No easy way to modify the applets)
[5] http://www.slu.edu/classes/maymk/MathApplets-SLU.html (My collection of applets using a
collection of different technologies.)
[6] http://www.slu.edu/classes/maymk/Riemann/Riemann.html (A single applet with the level of
pedagogical material that ideally should be provided with an applet.)
[7] http://geogebraproject.pbworks.com/ (A site for a planned collection of applets. More of an
outline than an extensive site.)
105
5. Communicating Effective Ways of Teaching and Learning Dynamic Mathematics
A COMPOSITION OF TECHNOLOGIES – GEOGEBRA AND DISTANCE LEARNING
Celina A. A. P. Abar1, Lisbete Madsen Barbosa2
1
Postgraduate in Mathematics Education, Pontifical Catholic University, São Paulo, SP, Brazil, abarcaap@pucsp.br
2
Computer Science Department, Pontifical Catholic University, São Paulo, SP, Brazil, lisbete@pucsp.br
Abstract: The text presented in this article describes an initial experience of an online course
"Mathematical Dynamics" aimed at primary and secondary school mathematics, enabling them
to make efficient and effective use of new tools and resources – GeoGebra and Moodle - through
proper technology educational. The tools chosen are freely accessible and easily used, an
important factor for the new technology will be incorporated into teaching practice. Nowadays,
many teachers become increasingly distant from the students who belong to a generation steeped
in digital media. Besides acquiring new skills due to new tools, teachers need to rediscover
themselves in a new role, interacting in a dynamic new system that includes teacher, student and
tools. The positive results show that a well-constructed proposal with clarity regarding what it
intends to achieve can meet the expectations of the teachers, showing also that the challenge of
using new technologies involves not only technical issues but changes in behavior and
relationships between the actors involved in the system.
Keywords: Distance Learning, Teacher Education, Moodle, GeoGebra
1. INTRODUCTION
Research indicates that the limitations in the initial education of teachers covers both the mastery of the
specific content subjects, and that of the didactic-pedagogical field, added to the fact that there are few
opportunities for teachers to continue their education throughout their professional life, in particular for
the use of information and communication technologies.
Today teachers have many other resources and tools with the new educational technologies, but they must
reinvent or even rediscover themselves in a new role. Although the final objective is the same, since
Mathematics is the mastery of abstractions, the technologies indicate other types of relationships with the
students and new dynamics in the classes. In a virtual learning environment and with the use of
computational tools, the educational techniques require greater dynamism.
Now, teachers and students all play an active role in this new scenario. The didactic material is interactive
and can be modified dynamically through computational tools. Since virtual environments allow
communication at all time and from everywhere, communication among all participants shouldn’t be time
restricted.
106
But it is not sufficient to incorporate technologies in the professional development of the teachers so they
learn about or manipulate the technological equipment. This incorporation must be present in their initial
and permanent education, an indispensible condition so that this future teacher develops the ability to
research, use, and generate information, which is only possible with the support of technologies.
Each new technology that arises needs to be learned, through their own initiative, by means of courses or
help from those who are more experienced. Furthermore, technologies, in addition to allowing situations
that simulate the real, must also provide a meaningful and challenging learning experience and help
people understand mathematics.
How can meaningful learning be achieved, considering that there is no time to reflect on the experience?
How can we ensure that the experience has been truly lived? These are some of the major challenges and
questions that guide this work and that present themselves to the teachers of today.
The text presented in this article describes the experience of the first version of a on-line course, aimed at
primary and secondary school mathematics teachers. Its goal is the improvement in the teaching and
learning of Mathematics with the use of the GeoGebra software, available at http://www.geogebra.org/.
Since it is freely accessible and easily used, this software fully complies with the proposal of the course
and it can be a facilitator for these teachers to practice the use of the technologies.
The proposal of the course that we offer plans to provide not only to the technical and didactic questions
to the teachers, but primarily the investigation and the concern with the pedagogical model, which can
and must attract the students to the experience of reflecting, analyzing, and questioning.
The course entitled “Dynamic Mathematics” is part of the research developed by the Digital Technologies
in Mathematics Education (TecDEM) research group and is offered through COGEAE – the General
Coordinating Committee for Specialization, Improvement, and Extension, an academic unit at the
Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo - PUC/SP, which, since 1983, has developed continuing
education activities that have been organized and proposed by teachers and researchers in various fields
of knowledge.
2. METHODOLOGY
To work with Mathematics, one could think in grand topics, such as number sense, algebraic thinking,
spatial sense, or statistical literacy.
However, we chose to work with Mathematics by thematic units, so that the students can understand the
scope of the technology, in particular that of GeoGebra, for each theme, and with the depth necessary for
their improvement. The thematic units chosen for each one of the proposed modules are in accordance
with the curricular guidelines for Primary and Secondary School. We consider it important that the
activities have the following assumptions:
107
(1) the role of the teacher must be valued as poser of problems and not a mere facilitator or activities
monitor; to include proposals for experiments beyond those present in the conceptual part and indication
texts to diversify the possible approaches that the teachers can use with their students.
(2) clear presentation of the use of the GeoGebra software with simulations, arguments, and records, in
order to construct meaningful learning.
(3) proposals consistent with the theoretical-methodological assumptions of Mathematics Education that
guide the proposals of the activities and the selection of the content to be presented.
To comply with these assumptions, we mean that the methodology of the design-research [4]can support
this proposal for the conception and production of the contents.
According to these authors, the design experiments aim to contribute to the development and
comprehension of "learning ecologies” i.e., of complex systems that involve multiple elements of distinct
natures. The elements of a learning ecology typically include the tasks and problems that the learners will
face, the tools and resources supplied for their resolutions, and the practical means by which the teachers
can orchestrate the relationships between these elements in their classrooms. The use of the metaphor
regarding ecology emphasizes the interactive nature of the contexts investigated and the importance of
analyzing its various elements together rather than separately.
According to [5] this methodology:
[...] requires several analysis cycles to improve the product and the interpretation at
multiple levels. [...] the gathering and interpretation of the data do not occur at the end
of the experiment, but the collection per se during development and the interpretation
of data in all the levels should generate and refine principles, properties, and products
that are increasingly more useful to researchers, teachers, and other professionals (p.
117).
Considering that this on-line course is an initial proposal, a detailed analysis of its entire development is
inserted in the methodology presented and it will permit an improvement of its design.
Thus, the course “Dynamic Mathematics” was structured in eight modules to be worked in 44 hours, over
8 weeks. Since it is a 40-hours distance course, two physical presence meetings of 2 hours each were
scheduled:
Furthermore, considering that the most natural manner of approaching the learning of software is based
on what can be done with it, i.e., its functionality, we tried to propose the Mathematics contents such that
certain resources and tools of GeoGebra were required in the proposed situation. In this way, we avoid the
presentation of a sequence of basic commands and menus available on the screen for memorization. In
each module, the student should appropriate the software tools as the activities are developed and become
involved in the discovery of strategies for solving tasks, exploring, investigating, resolving problems, and
explaining and justifying their reasoning.
108
The mechanisms chosen from the Virtual Learning Environment to provide individualized and almost
permanent attention to the students were the Forum, the Diary, the Task, and the Portfolio. A special
forum for questions was provided to allow difficulties and mutual help to be shared among all the
participants, students, and teachers.
All the modules presented a theoretical text, which was discussed in the forum, about research in
Mathematics Education regarding the subjected being studied, highlighting the didactic strategies that
could allow the difficulties in understanding the subject to be overcome.
In each module, the student was invited to provide statements in the Moodle Diary tool about each subject
studied. We consider it important for teachers to cultivate the habit of systematic reflection, both to
improve their teaching and to maintain their professional development throughout their lives.
Improvements in education do not depend exclusively on the manner in which content is transmitted, but
also on the mobilization activities in which the teacher is the primary protagonist, we chose themes that
favored the development and advancement of the teaching practices of Mathematics teachers supported
by research produced in the area of Mathematics Education.
3. SUBJECTS STUDIED AND DESIGN OF THE MODULES.
Establishing the quantity and depth of the subject contents was a difficult decision, in order to allow
everyone to dive in deeply, but also to remain on the surface if necessary. Like a “talking cricket” perched
on the shoulder of each student, we needed to provoke reflection and debate within the context of the
course. Thus, the design of the course presented:
1. FIRST STEPS: In this module, the first steps in the exploration of GeoGebra were taken, and in the
fundamental constructions of Geometry. In this first part, it is necessary to acquire familiarity with the
screen, with the basic resources of the GeoGebra application and in particular to investigate the
fundamental constructions of geometric drawings. We chose to present the basic resources of the
application in the midst of simple geometric construction problems.
The text [8] supporting the activities of this module point out the cognitive difficulties of students in
geometry and the contributions that the dynamic geometry environments offer to overcome these
difficulties.
2. POLYGONS: Since the study of polygons provides enticing investigation for the beginning geometry
students, the objective was the investigation and construction of quadrilaterals and triangles. We also
recommended using the GeoGebra resources to verify the properties of the geometric figures.
The text by [6] that was shared in the forum of this module deals with barriers to the effective use of
technology in school, and with conceptions about its use in Mathematics Education.
109
3. CIRCLES: The properties of circles, often intuitive, but not always so simple, and the construction of
mosaics having circles as their base were the main subjects of this module in which we investigated the
properties of circles relative to the tangents, cords, arcs, and central angles.
The text [13] dealing with the different functions of the demonstration in Mathematics Education is
important for this stage of the course. The role of technologies in mathematical demonstrations is a
subject that is not studied in depth in the initial education of teachers.
4. ISOMETRIES: Isometries are revealed in nature [2], in almost everything that exists in the world of
art, and in constructions made by man. In this module, we investigated the isometric transformations –
translation, reflection, and rotation, as well as some coverings of the plane.
The text [10] suggested in this module, discusses aspects of the relationship between Art and
Mathematics, and its trajectory through time.
5. AND ALGEBRA?: In this module, we explored some algebraic resources of GeoGebra. The equations
and coordinates can be entered directly in the command area and it is possible to manipulate variables
associated with numbers, vectors, and points. The dual geometric and algebraic presentation of the objects
studied in GeoGebra enables the natural progression from synthetic geometry (based on the geometric
properties) to analytical geometry (based on algebraic equations).
The article by [3] presents considerations about Algebra and Algebraic Education, triggered by responses
to questions about the subject given by students taking courses for a Mathematics Teaching Degree. From
these responses, the authors discuss concepts of Algebra and Algebraic Education, as well as about
learning styles of learning, concluding that these subjects need to be discussed more deeply in primary
and secondary school teacher education courses.
6. STUDY OF FUNCTIONS: In this module, we continue with the algebraic exploration of GeoGebra,
working with functions, a fundamental concept in Mathematics, establishing definitions and properties,
and exploring the different records for representation (natural, symbolic, and graphical language). Follow
is a sample activity.
In this activity, we will explore equations and inequalities

of a variable. The process for exploring these situations
comes from applications of the definition by parts of
absolute value. The absolute value of x is equal to x if x is
positive; it is equal to –x (negative x) if x is negative, and
it is equal to 0 if x is equal to 0.
In the text suggested in this module, the author in [9] proposes that the discipline of Differential and
Integral Calculus use mathematical software as tools for resolving problems, in addition to environments
for investigation and generalization of concepts. He justifies his proposals by highlighting that because it
was developed with the support of a computational environment, the discipline allows the use of multiple
representations, and in this way, when possible, the teacher can encourage the students to analyze the
110
problems in multi-represented contexts.
7. TRIGONOMETRY: We recall in this module that trigonometry studies the relationships between the
sides and the angles of a triangle, and it is intimately related to mathematics and astronomy. Situating the
student in the context of the proposed subject is very important, since it shows that mathematics did not
arise by chance; it started to be developed according to the need of man and it is a living science that is
always under construction. Follow is a sample activity.
In this activity, you will construct an animation that traces a special curve called a
“sinusoid.” Variations of the “sinusoid” curve are graphs of the functions that are
called periodic functions; that is, functions that repeat. The movement of a pendulum
or the waves of the ocean can be examples of periodic functions.
The text [11] reports a classroom experiment, in the first year of high school, of a public school in the
state of Paraná, Brazil. A motivating subject was used, bringing the contents of trigonometry with
emphasis on the history of mathematics to assist in the motivation for learning. The authors consider that
at present, it is essential to know the history of mathematics for a better understanding of the concepts and
also to allow its use in the classroom, as a pedagogical resource.
8. GEOMETRIC PLACE: In this module, by means of results involving mathematical objects, we offer
an introduction to the concept of geometric place, exploring the facilities of GeoGebra for its
construction.
The forum of this module discussed the text [1]. The authors raise question about the use of
computational resources for teaching and learning geometry, seeking to show the transformations that
occurred with the substitution of the use of paper and pencil with strokes made by computational
resources. From the results presented in the text, we sought to expand the discussion of informatics in
education, primarily as it relates to geometric constructions and recovering the work developed
throughout the “Dynamic Mathematics” course.
4. RESULTS
The course “Dynamic Mathematics” had the participation of 14 students, of which 9 had an effective
participation of 75%.
111
In Module 1, the students presented difficulties that we considered normal and that showed the
importance of the initial physical presence encounter. The expectations and experiences were expressed
without inhibition and with great clarity.
In Module 2, when the initial difficulties were almost overcome, a view of the teaching practices began to
emerge and the day-to-day experiences were recovered as the activities were developed.
In this quarter, we will work with quadrilaterals and the activities proposed in this module
will be highly valuable to us. Handling quadrilaterals based on their properties (inclusively)
is usually learned with difficulty, since it deals with geometric abstraction, and many
students do not yet present sufficient cognitive maturity. I believe that we will try to use the
software in order to, in some way, overcome these difficulties.
In the development of the following two modules, about circles and isometries, the difficulties were
directed at performing the activities with the use of resources that required a more creative mathematical
reasoning and theoretical knowledge that may have been asleep since graduation. However, the
difficulties were overcome by the majority of the students. In this module, some students were not able to
administer their time and felt powerless when faced with the tasks to be fulfilled. This is a factor that must
be reviewed in the next course.
Once again, I was able to complete my task on time. I am pleased, since I worked on
developing a covering of the plane with the Tangram pieces. This subject is of great interest
to me, since I am developing a project for making games, using virtual tools, and one of the
games that we are developing is the Tangram. I plan to use GeoGebra on this project too.
Interaction with an on-line game was proposed to initiate the modules in the algebraic context. The game
was constructed in GeoGebra, in which the students had to correctly state the coordinates of the points
displayed on the screen. After interacting with the game, one of the students stated:
Upon considering the use of games in school life, I highlight that the activity of playing, if
well done, plays an important role in the development of reasoning abilities, such as
organization, attention, and concentration, so necessary for learning, in particular
Mathematics, and for resolving problems in general.
The reflection about the text that was provided in the forum, in the context of algebra, brought to light the
difficulties of this subject in primary and secondary school, as one of the students highlights:
The first difficulty in teaching algebra in middle school is the transition that the student must
undergo. Upon encountering the first algebra topics, students usually show great insecurity
due to the moment of the rupture with concepts and procedures that have already been
incorporated, as the authors of the text indicate. One of the needs that these students
demonstrate is that of finding meaning in what they are learning. It helps them greatly when
they are shown that despite all the abstraction, this material is applicable in their lives.
112
The module that was aimed at studying functions caused a certain impact, since there was an
understanding among the students that the Dynamic Geometry software was limited to the exploration of
Geometry. Again, the proposed activities brought to light the difficulties experienced in the practice of
teaching, as one student observes:
The activity that I considered the most motivating was the activity that dealt with the study of
domain, since it is a subject which students have great difficulties in understanding; the
relationship between the resolution of the equations and the existence condition in the
analysis of a domain is lacking. When analyzed by means of the selector, this becomes very
evident. The exploration of functions greatly motivated me. It is much more common to find
various resources for geometry and it is rare to find those that explore algebra in an
intelligent and interesting manner.
In the study of trigonometry, GeoGebra allows interactive explorations that are extremely motivating and
the historical aspects of this material contributed to showing the importance of this resource, as [12]
observes:
In many situations, using the History of Mathematics can clarify
mathematical ideas that are being constructed by the student, especially for
providing responses to some “whys,” and in this way, it can contribute to
the formation of a more critical view of the knowledge objects. Thus, the
history per se of the concepts can suggest ways to approach them, as well
as the objectives that will be met with them. For example, this becomes
evident when one perceives that the expansion of numeric fields is
historically associated with the resolution of word problems that involve
measurements.
Recognition of the importance of the history of mathematics in teaching and learning mathematics,
accompanied again by the theoretical difficulties about the subject being studied, are also present:
Since students always ask me who invented Mathematics or what purpose it serves, or where
they will use a particular material, I try to talk a little about the history of Mathematics, or I
have them research it, so that they learn a little about the “guilty parties,” who, according to
them, complicate their lives. But seriously, I believe that making them relate time and the
events that led to the formation and development of Mathematics is of extreme importance,
since it awakens the students’ interest in a certain concept, making them perceive that
Mathematics is a part of the History of humanity, leading to a contextualization and in the
majority of cases, a better assimilation.
The difficulties presented will be analyzed for the next course, as well as the contents and the proposed
activities. However, we did not find, in the statements presented, that these difficulties negatively affected
the development of the “Dynamic Mathematics” course.
113
5. CONCLUSION
The subjects studied in each module were well received by the students and generated new aspirations
and expectations, beyond what was proposed. On the other hand, they were aware that, due to the short
time frame, a deeper study of the subjects presented and the proposal of new subjects would not allow a
meaningful reflection about their education and teaching practices within the time frames of each module.
Thus, we conclude that the activities elaborated met, in large part, the established suppositions.
My expectations were met beyond what I had hoped for; in fact, I had a different idea of
what distance learning would be. It was “distance” learning only in name, since I had
complete assistance whenever I needed it...
As a suggestion for improvement, as already mentioned in a prior diary text, I would like to
insist on an extension of this course so that we can investigate, discuss, reflect, apply, and
further leverage this tool.
The GeoGebra software proved to be quite user-friendly as a support for the proposed activities, based on
the fact that it is free and that there are suggestions on the Internet for activities from the creators and the
community that may be be used directly with the students or, using the creativity of the teachers, with
minor modifications.
Example of activity produced by a student in Module 4
The challenges of Distance Learning were overcome by the students and indicated a possible path for
their continuing education. The positive results obtained show that a well-constructed proposal with
clarity regarding what it intends to achieve, with whom it will be developed, and which technologies and
approaches will be utilized, can meet the expectations of a public that lacks opportunities for professional
growth. The statements consolidate the presented proposal of the course.
With each class and with each access to the Internet in the virtual learning environments, I
grow and always learn something new. The physical presence meetings were excellent, since
we exchanged some of our experiences and we could have a more personal contact, eye to
eye, with the participants. However, the Virtual Learning Environments are extremely rich.
Through them, we greatly developed our creativity, our writing, our form of communication.
It is an environment of mutual collaboration, where one learns with the other. We are all
apprentices at some time, and collaborators at others. Each one of us has a new knowledge
to be shared.
114
With the understanding that technology is just a mediator in the process of teaching and learning, the
teacher must assume the role of the primary protagonist in the activities of mobilization, creativity, and
exchange of experiences with their peers, so that positive changes may occur in their teaching practices.
Upon reading the sentence by Seymor Papert:
... what is required is a profound change in how to think about Education. Thus,
technology is not a solution, it is only an instrument. But while technology does
not automatically produce a good education, the lack of technology
automatically ensures a poor education.
a student affirmed:
I agree when the author refers to the need to change how we think about Education and that
technology is an instrument. But when he states that the lack of technology ensures a poor
education, I have some reservations. In a country like Brazil, in which access to technology
is still for the few, there are many true educators who overcome this barrier, who use their
great creativity, and who obtain excellent results. What automatically causes a poor
education is, without doubt, the lack of preparation of the professionals of this area and the
governmental policies.
We found that the effective insertion of technology in teaching involves issues beyond the teacher’s good-
will, and that the school’s organization and support material with recommendations are essential for the
teacher’s first steps in this paradigm that presents itself.
6. REFERENCES
[1] Almeida, I.A.C.; Bellemain, F. Rodrigues, M.H.W.L. (2008) Construções Geométricas com Papel e
Lápis ou Utilizando Software Gráfico: que Mudanças ocorrem quando se opta por uma dessas
Mídias? 4º. Colóquio de História e Tecnologia no Ensino de Matemática – HTEM 4 Rio de Janeiro,
RJ. Available at http://www.limc.ufrj.br/htem4/papers/79.pdf . Accessed in January 2009.
[2] Barbosa, R.M. (1993) Descobrindo padrões pitagóricos. p 33. São Paulo. Current.
[3] Brolezzi, A.C.; Cury, H.N. ; Lannes, V. ; Vianna, C.R. (2002) Álgebra e Educação Algébrica:
Concepções de Alunos e Professores de Matemática. Available at
http://200.189.113.123/diaadia/diadia/arquivos/File/conteudo/artigos_teses/MATEMATICA
/Artigo_Cury.pdf . Accessed in January 2009.
[4] Cobb, P., Confrey, J., Disessa, A., Lehrer , R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design Experiments in
Educational Research. Educational Researcher, 32 (1), pp. 9-13.
[5] Doerr H. M., Wood T. (2006) Pesquisa-Projeto (design-research): aprendendo a ensinar Matemática.
In:Tendências Internacionais em Formação de Professores de Matemática. Org. Borba M. C.
Autêntica Editora – Belo Horizonte – MG.
[6] Frota, M.C.R and Borges, O. (2004) Perfis de Entendimento sobre o uso de Tecnologias na Educação
Matemática. 27ª Reunião Anual da ANPEd. Available at
http://www.anped.org.br/reunioes/27/gt19/t199.pdf . Accessed in January 2009.
[7] GeoGebra website: http://www.geogebra.org
115
[8] Gravina, M. A. ( 1996) Geometria Dinâmica uma Nova Abordagem para o Aprendizado da
Geometria. Available at
http://penta.ufrgs.br/edu/telelab/mundo_mat/curcom2/artigo/artigo.htm. Accessed in January
2009.
[9] Guimarães, O.L.C. (2002) Cálculo Diferencial e Integral: do Algebrismo às Representações
Múltiplas. Available at http://www.ufrrj.br/emanped/paginas/home.php?id=25 Accessed in
January 2009.
[10] Medeiro, A. P. (2006) Arte e Matemática no ensino fundamental: Um estudo sobre a relação da
geometria e da arte. Available at
http://www.unimesp.edu.br/arquivos/mat/tcc06/Artigo_Adriana_Paula_de_Medeiro.pdf .
Accessed in January 2009.
[11] Pacheco, E.R.; Simionato, I.M. (2007) Um Olhar Histórico à Trigonometria como fonte de
Motivação em Sala de Aula. Available at
http://www.diaadiaeducacao.pr.gov.br/portals/pde/arquivos/700-4.pdf . Accessed in January
2009.
[12] MINISTRY OF EDUCATION. Brazil. Secretariat of Primary and Middle School. Parâmetros
Curriculares Nacionais. Matemática. 1998.
[13] Villiers M. (2002) Para uma Compreensão dos Diferentes Papéis da Demonstração em Geometria
Dinâmica. Actas do ProfMat 2002. Viseu: APM.2002. Available at
http://mzone.mweb.co.za/residents/profmd/profmat2.pdf . Accessed in January 2009.
116
Innovative Technologies for Building Mathematical Models and Modelling
GEOGEBRA AS AN INSTRUCTIONAL TOOL TO PROMOTE STUDENTS’

OPERATIONAL AND STRUCTURAL CONCEPTION OF FUNCTION
brahim Bayazit, Y lmaz Aksoy & Onur Alp lhan
Ecriyes University, Turkey
Abstract: The contemporary literature acknowledges two sorts of conceptions associated with the function
concept: operational conception of function and structural conception of function. The former entails
interpreting a function as a dynamic process transforming every input to an output. The latter is attained
through constant reflection upon a function process which eventually leads to encapsulation or reification of that
process into a unified entity. Structural conception enables one to use a function in further processes as if it was
a single object, such as using a function in the processes of derivatives and integrals. It is in this respect students
need to possess a structural conception of function so that they could succeed in learning advanced calculus
topics including limits, derivatives and integrals. In this paper we discuss the opportunities that the GeoGebra
offers to promote students’ structural conception of function.
Key words: Function concept, process conception of function, object conception of function, graphical and
algebraic representations, GeoGebra software.
INTRODUCTION
The concept of function has often been used as an organising principle in the teaching of
mathematics (Yerushalmy & Schwarz, 1993). Simply defining function is a relation (a
process) that matches (transforms) inputs to outputs. It has two fundamental properties:
univalence and arbitrariness conditions. The univalence aspects suggest that every element in
the domain must be assigned to a unique element in the co-domain while the arbitrariness
rules out attributing a mechanical rule, algebraic or otherwise, a function. The central
importance of the function concept in mathematics prompted interest in studying the cognitive
processing of the functions. These studies indicated that most students from elementary level
to undergraduate studies have enormous difficulties in understanding the concept of function.
Some students wrongly believe that a function is a one-to-one correspondence (Dubinsky &
Harel, 1992) while some others indicate strong tendency to think of a function as arithmetic or
algebraic formulas (Sfard, 1992). Students’ mental images of function are largely restricted to
smooth and continues line or curve. This misconception causes students to reject the graphs of
functions in strange shapes but to accept the graphs of equations which are in nice shapes,
such as a graph of a circle, as a graph of function. Most students lack an ability to shift
between algebraic and graphical representations of the same function. For instance, in Even’s
(1998) research only 14% of 152 prospective teachers were able to move from an algebraic to
a graphical from of a quadratic function so that they could work out the number of solutions
that the corresponding quadratic equation had. Still some others indicate a lack of
understanding of the sub-concepts of the functions. Tall & Bakar (1992) reported that half of
the university students in their sample rejected the graph of a constant function because these
117
students possessed a misconnection that a function has variables x and y; and when x changes
accordingly y should change.
A review of available literature acknowledges two sorts of conceptions concerning the idea of
function: an operational (action-process) conception of function and a structural (object)
conception of function (Sfard, 1992; Dubinsky & Harel, 1992; Breidenbach et al, 1992). The
former entails interpreting a function as a process transforming every input to an output
(ibid). A process is a sequence of actions; therefore it is dynamic in nature. Nevertheless, an
operational conception could be considered at two levels in accord with the quality of
understanding that the students display when dealing with a function process. Some students
may need an explicit algebraic formula so that they insert element(s) into the function and
work out its image through step-by-step physical or mental calculations. Dubinsky and his
colleagues consider this sort of understanding as an action conception of function (see, for
instance, Dubinsky & Harel, 1992; Breidenbach et al, 1992). A process conception, which is
considered to be at a higher level of sophistication in the continuum of an operational
conception, is attained through interiorising actions associated with the previous step. The
possessors of a process cooption are able to think of a function process in terms of inputs ad
outputs without necessarily making physical or mental manipulations. Once attained a process
can be reversed or combined with other processes (Cottrill et al, 1999); for instance, this
quality of understanding enables one to combine two constant functions or to interpret a graph
of a function point-by-point. Constant reflections upon a function process would eventually
lead to its encapsulation (Dubinsky & Harel, 1992) or reification (Sfard, 1992) as an object.
A structural (object) conception of function requires interpreting a function as a unified entity
in which the process and the properties of the function have been combined. Those who
attained a structural conception of function could use a function in the processes of
derivatives and integrals as if it was a single entity. They could deal with a graph of a function
in a global way without necessarily employing point wise approaches.
So, what does GeoGebra offer to support students’ development of the function concept? As
illustrated before, initial stage of operational conception of function, so called an action
conception of function, entails an ability to make manipulations with the algebraic
expressions – inserting elements into an expression and calculating their images in step-by-
step manner. Students would attain this sort of manipulative skills in the traditional teaching-
learning environments. Traditional approaches may also promote, to some extent, the
development of a process conception. Yet, GeoGebra has still something to offer to strengthen
students’ process cooption of function. It is considered that one crucial aspect of a process
conception entails the ability to move freely between algebraic and graphical representations
of a function. At the process conception level students could link the representations through
point-by-point mappings – they concentrate upon the critical features of a graph (e.g.,
maxima, minima, intersection points) and, then, try to relate them to the corresponding
elements in the algebraic expression, or they do the reverse. Using the GeoGebra the
teaching-learning community could conduct several activities in this kind. For instance, the
graph of function f(x)=3x-6 can easily be generated using GeoGebra (see Figure 1). Then, the
students can be asked to find out what sort of changes they observe on the graphs of function
as they replace coefficient and constant terms with different numbers in the algebraic
118
expression. More specifically they could be asked to investigate the relations between the
coefficient and constant terms in the algebraic expression and the points where the graph
intersects x and y-axis. Inversely, using the slider students can drag up and down the graph
and, then, look for the corresponding changes in the coefficient and constant terms in
algebraic form.
Figure 1: Connecting algebraic and graphical representations

to promote students’ process conception of function
The actual benefits of GeoGebra can be seen in promoting students’ structural conception of
the functions. As illustrated before a structural conception entails the ability to manipulate a
function as if it was a single entity. A graphical depiction of a function incites very much a
structural interpretation, because in such a figure the process and the properties of the function
concept are unified (Sfard, 1992). In this respect, a meaningful understanding of the
translation of functions along the coordinate axis requires a structural conception. GeoGebra
allows manipulating this sort of activities and investigating the relations between the changes
on the graphical and algebraic depictions. For instance, the teaching-learning community
would sketch the graph of f(x)=cosx (see Figure 2). Then, they would draw the graphs of
g(x)=(cosx)+3 and h(x)=(cosx)-3 on the same coordinate system.
Figure 2: Translation of the graph of f(x)=sinx parallel to the y-axis
The teaching-learning community would find out through collective reflection that the graphs
of g(x)=(cosx)+3 and h(x)=(cosx)-3 are obtained by translating the graph of f(x) 3 unit along
the y-axis respectively in the positive and negative directions. The teachers would continue to
probe their students to discover the underlying meaning of why the graph of f(x) is translated
along the y-axes, but not parallel to the x-axis.
119
Another activity to enhance students’ structural conception of function might involve

exploring the changes in the general behaviour of a graph of a function in accord with the
changes in its algebraic form. The teaching-learning community could sketch the graph of
f(x)=x2 and, then, they could change the coefficient of x2 (see Figure 3).
Figure 3: GeoGebra screen showing an investigation of the changes in the general behaviour of a
parabola in accord with the changes in its algebraic form.
It is seen in the above figure that actions taken upon the coefficient of x2 cause changes on the
graph of function. GeoGebra allows students to observe this change in a more global way and
find out the idea that ‘as the coefficient of x2 increases, the graph of f(x)=x2 gets closer to the
y-axis; and as the coefficient of x2 decreases, the graph gets flattened’.
Students manipulate a function as if it was a single object when they take its derivative and
integral. However, most students carry out such manipulations in a procedural way and very
few of them can imagine the impacts of these operations on a function. The dynamic
GeoGebra software allows students to observe the changes that a function goes through when
its derivative and integral is taken. It is in this respect GeoGebra promotes students’ structural
conception of function. For instance, the teaching-learning community could sketch the graph
of a third power function, for instance f(x)=x3; and then they could obtain a new function by
taking its derivative, f (x)=3x2, and sketch the graph of it on the same screen. They would find
out the impacts of derivative on the function by comparing the general behaviours of the
graphs of f(x)=x3 and f (x)=3x2.
Figure 4: Graphical connection between a function and its derivative.
120
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The concept of function is at the heart of mathematics curriculum, and it is often used as an
organising principle in the teaching of mathematics (Yerushalmy & Schwarz, 1993).
Nevertheless, most students have great difficulties in developing a proper understanding of
this notion. The epistemological complexity of the function concept (profusion of properties
and the sub-notions of the function) and the diversity of the representations used (e.g., graphs,
ordered pairs, and algebraic expressions) are the major factors that would make the subject
difficult to understand (Eisenberg, 1991).
If it is to go beyond mere manipulation with the algebraic expressions an understanding of the

function concept requires possessing operational (process) and structural conceptions of the
function. In this paper we tried to illustrate how dynamic GeoGebra software could be used to
promote students’ operational (process) and structural (object) conceptions of the function. It
is indicated that GeoGebra allows an integrated use of expressions and graphs and, thus, gives
students an opportunity to understand the underlying meaning of rules, procedures and the
factual knowledge associated with the notions of functions. GeoGebra promotes students
structural conception of function in that it gives them an opportunity to observe the global
behaviour of the graph of a function in accord with the changes in its algebraic form. It is
illustrated also that a proper use of the GeoGebra allows students to monitor the impacts of
derivative and integral operations on a function in the graphical context. Finally, it is
indicated throughout the paper that GeoGebra enhances students’ visual ability and enable
them to conduct visual strategies to resolve problems related to the concept of function.
In closing, it is worth noting that most of the ideas presented in this paper are theoretically
based. These ideas can be validated through an experimental study; and this is the issue for
further research.
REFERENCES
[1] Breidenbach, D., Dubinsky, Ed., Hawks, J., & Nichols, D. (1992). Development of the
Process Conception of Function. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23(3), 247-285.
[2] Cottrill, J., Dubinsky, Ed., Nichols, D., Schwingendorf, K., Thomas, K. & Vidakovic,
D. (1996). Understanding the Limit Concept: Beginning with a Coordinated Process
Scheme. Journal for Mathematical Behaviour, 15 (2), p: 167-192.
[3] Dubinsky, Ed. & Harel, G. (1992). The Nature of the Process Conception of Function,
in G. Harel & Ed. Dubinsky (Eds.), The Concept of Function: Aspects of Epistemology
and Pedagogy, (p: 85-107), United States of America: Mathematical Association of
America.
121
[4] Eisenberg, T. (1991). Function and Associated Learning Difficulties. In D.O.Tall

(Ed.), Advanced Mathematical Thinking, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp.
140-152.
[5] Even, R. (1998). Factors Involved in Linking Representations of Functions. Journal of
Mathematical Behavior, 17(1), pp. 105-121.
[6] Sfard, A. (1992). Operational Origins of Mathematical Objects and the Quandary of
Reification-The Case of Function. In Harel & Ed. Dubinsky (Eds.), The Concept of
Function Aspects of Epistemology and Pedagogy (pp. 59-85). United States of
America: Mathematical Association of America.
[7] Tall, D. & Bakar, M. (1992). Students’ Mental Prototypes for Function and Graphs.
International Journal of Mathematics Education in Science and Technology, 23(1),
pp. 39-50.
[8] Yerushalmy, M. & Schwartz, J. L. (1993). Seizing the Opportunity to make Algebra
Mathematically and Pedagogically Interesting. In Romberg, T. A., Fennema, E., &
Carpenter, T. P. (Eds.), Integrating Research on the Graphical Representation of
Functions (pp. 41-68). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
122
Innovative Technologies for Building Mathematical Models and Modeling
MULTI-USER SUPPORT FOR VIRTUAL GEOGEBRA TEAMS
Gerry Stahl, Jimmy Xiantong Ou, Murat Cakir, Stephen Weimar & Sean Goggins
Abstract: This is a paper on innovative development activities to create a multi-user format for the GeoGebra
interface. The Virtual Math Teams Project has for several years been developing an online environment to support
small groups of students to engage in collaborative learning of mathematics. The software environment integrates
synchronous and asynchronous media and associated tools. It supports a shared whiteboard, wiki pages, text chat
and, most recently, an innovative multi-user version of GeoGebra. This will allow teams of students to work
together—even globally—on dynamic mathematics constructions and discussions. This paper discusses some design
considerations for an environment to support collaborative learning with GeoGebra—it is a technological design
paper, assuming math educational goals discussed elsewhere.
The Virtual Math Teams (VMT) Project grew out of the Problem-of-the-Week (PoW) service at the Math
Forum. The Math Forum is a well-established online resource for improving math learning, teaching and
communication (Renninger & Shumar, 2002). Operating since 1992, the Math Forum is now visited by
several million different visitors a month. Its PoW service provides challenging problems for K-12
students on a weekly basis. These problems are primarily oriented to individual student work, and
exemplary student solutions are posted to the http://mathforum.org site. The original idea of the VMT
Project was to provide similar stimulating problems for small groups of students to work on
collaboratively over the Internet (Stahl, 2006; 2009).
In our design-based research at the VMT Project, we started by hosting student chats in a variety of
commercially available environments, including AOL Instant Messenger, Babylon, WebCT and
Blackboard. Based on these early investigations, we concluded that we needed to include a shared
whiteboard for drawing geometric figures and for persistently displaying notes. We also found a need to
minimize “chat confusion” by supporting explicit referencing of response threads. We decided to adopt
and adapt ConcertChat, a research chat environment with special referencing tools (Mühlpfordt &
Wessner, 2009). By collaborating with the software developers at Fraunhofer IPSI in Germany, our
educational researchers have been able to successively try out versions of the environment with groups of
students and to gradually modify the environment in response to what we find by analyzing the chat logs.
The ConcertChat environment integrates text chat with a shared whiteboard. A unique feature of
ConcertChat is its support for graphical referencing (see Figure 1 below for an example). It allows for
three forms of referencing from the text chat:
123
A chat message can point to one or more earlier textual postings with a bold connecting line. When
that message appears in the chat as the last posting or as a selected posting, a bold line appears
connecting the text to the selected chat posting above.
While someone types a new chat message, they can select and point to a rectangular area in the
whiteboard. When that message appears in the chat as the last posting or as a selected posting, a bold
line appears connecting the text to the area of the whiteboard.
While someone types a new chat message, they can select and point to a graphical object in the
whiteboard. When that message appears in the chat as the last posting or as a selected posting, a bold
line appears connecting the text to the area of the whiteboard.
Figure 1. A VMT chat room. Note the multiple workspace tabs on the left and the chat area on the right. The
selected chat message is referencing an area on the whiteboard and the new message being typed references
that previous message. The small rectangles above the selected chat message provide awareness within the
chat area that a series of actions have taken place within one of the workspaces. The rectangles are color
coded to match the color of the chat messages of the user who made the actions.
Referencing is critical to supporting online collaboration. In face-to-face situations, like a group standing
around a physical whiteboard, we tend to take for granted that people point to and gesture at items in the
whiteboard. People also take turns drawing on the whiteboard by exchanging possession of the marker—
and it is visible to everyone who is doing the drawing. In an online context, other forms of referencing
and awareness are needed. The Concert-Chat referencing tool can be used to avoid or resolve confusions
in text-chat discussions. The action indicators (shown in Figure 1) provide another form of awareness to
someone focused on the chat that other participants are active in the whiteboard. In addition, notices are
displayed announcing who is typing in the chat, editing text boxes in a whiteboard or creating new objects
in a drawing. The box above the chat maintains a list of people currently logged in the room.
This referencing is just one form of integration of media in the VMT environment. The overall
technological integration of the VMT Lobby (or portal), chat room/shared whiteboard, and wiki should be
124
understood theoretically as a pedagogical integration of learning at the individual, small-group and

community levels: (a) The VMT Lobby provides a portal for the individual user to browse the people and
topics of the community and to select a room for group work. (b) The chat rooms are basically meeting
and work places for the small groups as they engage in synchronous collaborative learning. (c) The wiki,
on the other hand, primarily provides an asynchronous community space in which the work of all groups
is coordinated, commented upon and perhaps summarized.
(a) The VMT Lobby provides a social networking portal for students to log into the system. It includes
tools for defining and viewing personal profiles. In general, students in a VMT group have no knowledge
about each other except for what is revealed in the chat interaction; with the functionality available in the
VMT Lobby, they can define their own profiles and view profiles of each other, as well as send messages
to individuals or groups in their communities (projects). Communities are defined for various VMT
constituencies, such as participants in a given online contest or in a given course. There is also support for
defining buddies, listing favorite chat rooms, etc. In addition, there is an interface for searching and
browsing available chat rooms, usually listed for a given community (see Figure 2). This provides access
to chat rooms on different topics. Students may be told by their teachers to find certain rooms, may be
invited by buddies, may search for rooms on interesting topics or may create new rooms and invite peers
to join them.
Figure 2. The VMT Lobby. In this view, a list of chat rooms is displayed for Project eMath. The math
subjects for which there are rooms in this project are listed; under each subject are math topics (here, a set of
related combinatorics topics) that have rooms defined; under each topic are a list of rooms. Clicking on a
room name opens the associated chat room.
125
(b) A typical VMT chat room consists of the text chat interface on the right and a shared whiteboard on
the left (see Figure 1 above). The history of the whiteboard state can be scrolled through, much like that
of the chat, but unlike the chat it usually retains inscriptions in the visible board as long as they are
relevant. VMT chat rooms have a tabbed interface, with multiple workspaces—and users can add
additional spaces as needed. One kind of workspace is the shared Whiteboard, supporting graphics and
text boxes. Another is a similar shared whiteboard, intended for preparing a Summary of the group’s work
for posting to a special wiki page associated with this chat room. A third tab may display the Topic for the
room, stored on a wiki page by an instructor. A MyWeb tab displays a page of the VMT wiki; a special
page is created for each room, linked to other pages on the Topic, math Subject or Community. An
OurWeb tab provides a simple multi-user web browser that can support the graphical referencing tool
from the chat and a history navigation bar. A final tab can display wiki pages containing the VMT Help
manual and associated information. As described below, we have recently added an optional GeoGebra
tab. This provides a complex, but integrated set of spaces for a group to work and communicate together.
A group working on a math topic can bring in resources from the different tabs and everyone can see
what the others are viewing and working on.
(c) The VMT wiki can act as a digital library repository for summaries of work posted by teams. If there is
a course that involves multiple chats by several teams, a wiki home page can be constructed for the
course. The home page would then point to pages describing the course and each assignment. Group
assignments are all posted to linked wiki pages. The course wiki includes index pages that bring together
the student assignments in various combinations and allow the instructor to post feedback that is visible to
all. The student groups can also rate and provide feedback to each other’s previous reports.
The VMT environment has come a long way from the simple AOL Instant Messaging system to the
current lobby/chat/tabbed-spaces/wiki multiple-interaction space. In part, this increased complexity
parallels the shift from simple math exercises to open-ended explorations of math worlds, from one-shot
meetings to multiple-session Fests, from problem-solving tasks to knowledge-building efforts. Along with
the considerable gain in functionality come substantial increases in complexity and the potential for
confusion. This has been countered by trying to extend and supplement the integration approaches of
ConcertChat. The graphical referencing and the history scrollbars have been extended to the multiple tabs.
New social awareness notices have been added to track which tab each group member is viewing or
referencing.
The VMT collaboration environment has been tuned to the needs of high-school math students. There are
specifically math-oriented functions—like a partial implementation of MathML for displaying equations
(see http://vmt.mathforum.org/VMTLobby/VMTHelp/ mathequations.html) and the whiteboard’s stock of
Euclidean shapes. In addition, there are tools for integrating the multiple workspaces—like the graphical
referencing from chat, the creation of wiki pages corresponding to each chat room and the posting of
summary text to the proper wiki page.
Integration across modules has been important. Logins and passwords have been unified across the
Lobby, chat rooms and wiki, so that logging into one automatically logs into the others. People registered
in one module show up in the profiles and messaging system, by their selected community. When a new
chat room is created, it is categorized by a community (e.g., a school), subject (e.g., combinatorics), a
topic (e.g., Week 3’s assignment) and a group (e.g., Team D). A new wiki page is generated for posting
126
the summary from this room. The MediaWiki functionality of categories automatically associates this
new page with aggregation pages for the community, subject, topic and group.
Our most recent enhancement to the VMT environment was to port the single-user GeoGebra application
into VMT as a multi-user component of the tabbed chat room. This allows groups of users to co-develop
and co-explore a GeoGebra geometric construction. They can chat about the drawing and reference parts
of it from their chat postings. There is a history slider, so users can scroll back and forth, watching the
changes take place in the drawing for convenient review and reflection.
The version of GeoGebra in VMT is fully multi-user. VMT integrates GeoGebra as a tab of the
environment (see Figure 3). GeoGebra is a particularly appropriate dynamic math application for this
project because its source code is freely available as open source, there is a development community to
support on-going development, the lead developer and the founder are consulting with us, the application
supports a wide range of math from Euclidean construction to calculus and 3-D, GeoGebra has won
international prizes, and it has been translated into about 50 languages.
Figure 3. A GeoGebra construction created and discussed collaboratively in the VMT 2.0 learning
environment. (This is an illustrative use scenario, not real student data.)
Like all other dynamic-math applications, GeoGebra previously existed only as a single-user application.
While users could send their static constructions to each other, display screen images, or awkwardly
include a view of the GeoGebra application within other environments (Blackboard, Moodle, Elluminate,
etc.), only one person could dynamically manipulate the construction. Our port converted GeoGebra into
a client-server architecture, allowing multiple distributed users to manipulate constructions
simultaneously and to all observe everyone’s actions in real time. Every action in the GeoGebra tab is
immediately broadcast by the server to all collaborating clients.
127
In addition, incorporation of GeoGebra in the VMT environment framework allows users to engage in
text chat while manipulating the construction. Importantly, users can graphically point from a chat posting
to an area of the construction that they want to index—an important support for math discourse that is
unique to VMT (or its now-defunct basis, ConcertChat). They can also scroll back and forth through the
history of the GeoGebra construction, animating its evolution—a powerful way to explore many
mathematical relationships. In addition, a complete record of the collaborative construction is available to
the participants, their teachers and project researchers, allowing them to analyze and reflect upon the
complete interaction, including the construction actions synchronized with the chat.
The VMT version of GeoGebra is compatible with the standard version. Thus, constructions can be
imported and exported seamlessly between the two versions. This facilitates use of legacy GeoGebra
curriculum within the collaborative VMT environment. Images of GeoGebra co-constructions can be
created and pasted by users into the VMT wiki or into Word documents. Logs of the corresponding chats
can also be saved as spreadsheet files and pasted into documents.
The integration of GeoGebra significantly enhances the mathematical domain-orientation of the VMT
system. On the other hand, for the GeoGebra community, it makes available for the first time truly multi-
user dynamic geometry support within a rich collaborative environment. With the flexible system of
tabbed components, a curriculum designer, instructor or even a student can define topics for rooms with
just GeoGebra and chat or with a more complicated mix of additional browsers and support components.
Figure 4. The VMT Replayer. The slider at the bottom can be set to scroll forward in real time or fast
forward, as well as being dragged for browsing or stepped forward and backward action by action for
detailed observation of coordinated construction and chat. Note that the new chat message being typed is
graphically referencing a point in the GeoGebra construction for others to see.
For researchers of math learning, the enhanced environment provides a flexible laboratory for hosting
virtual math teams engaged in GeoGebra-based tasks. The entire interactions of these teams will be
logged in detail. Not only can the logs be generated in a variety of convenient formats, but also the team
128
interactions can actually be replayed from the logs like digital videos for careful study (see Figure 4).
With these tools, researchers can explore the group cognition of small teams accomplishing creative
problem solving involving geometric constructions that are shared, visible and dynamic.
Making GeoGebra multi-user has involved many technical, underlying changes to the software and has
necessitated a number of trade-offs and design decisions. In terms of the software architecture, we treated
the GeoGebra application as a client and embedded it in a Concert-Chat tab. Every action performed in
the tab is immediately broadcast across the Internet to the VMT server. The server logs the action in its
database and then broadcasts the action to the client of every user who is logged into the same room,
including the originating client. In this way, each action performed by someone in a given VMT room is
displayed identically for everyone who is working together. Minimizing Internet traffic is a major
concern, especially with potentially large GeoGebra interdependent objects, and we had to make changes
to Concert-Chat and GeoGebra implementations to keep traffic volume under control.
A major issue with multi-user systems is what to do when two users try to do conflicting things at the
same time. We have recently implemented a locking mechanism, so that when two clients are creating
objects at the same time or are manipulating the same object simultaneously, the changes are not
broadcast until the end of the operations. This causes some delay in sharing what people are doing;
however, we believe it is necessary to avoid serious confusion. Imagine if several clients were moving
point A in opposite directions at the same time. If the system broadcast changes every tenth of a second,
point A would be jumping back and forth wildly, making it hard for either user to move it sensibly.
Where would point A end? We have decided to have point A end where the last user to release it leaves it.
If two clients were simultaneously creating an initial triangle ABC, then without locking we would get
multiple points with the same names. Our locking mechanism avoids these problems by noting the
conflict and assigning different names to the points, but at some cost to mutual awareness.
In the near future, we plan to try to implement two mechanisms to counteract the negative consequences
of delayed mutual awareness: (1) labeling actions and (2) simulating dragging. (1) We would like to
display awareness notices in the drawing area stating who is creating, editing or moving a graphical
object. This would indicate when multiple users are simultaneously at work, and perhaps some of the
users would then wait to see what the others have done. (2) If point A were dragged to a new position,
ending up, say, 5 units to the right, rather than having point A suddenly jump to the new position in
everyone’s client, we would simulate the dragging motion by interpolating 10 steps at tenth-of-a-second
intervals. Then point A would appear to move to its new position through a smooth and straight motion.
This would not be true to the original dragging motion, but would give some feel for a dragging
manipulation, which we believe to be important to the GeoGebra manipulation experience.
Of course, other trade-offs are possible, depending upon the technical architecture. We are trying certain
approaches and testing them out. We hope to soon have students trying our system. Gradually, we will
learn of additional problems and evolve some solutions. The experience will never be the same as having
a group of geometers standing around a physical whiteboard—although in some ways it will be better
because there will be a permanent record of all interactions, which can be replayed for reflection and
analysis. We hope that the integration of GeoGebra with text chat will help to overcome problems that
arise from imperfect mutual awareness by allowing people to discuss in text what they are doing in
constructions.
129
Mathematics is often thought of as a solitary experience. However, our findings in the Virtual Math
Teams Project show that it can be an exciting, engaging, motivating and rewarding experience when
conducted collaboratively. To promote this effectively online, one must provide a carefully crafted set of
tools. We believe that GeoGebra can play an important role as a central tool in the VMT environment and
we look forward to working with the GeoGebra development and user community to tune our
environment to meet the needs of math education globally.
Two other papers at this conference discuss related aspects of the VMT project. One is a position paper
outlining our view of mathematics learning and proposing a set of complementary methodologies for
analyzing how small online student groups could engage in mathematical discourse in the VMT system
with GeoGebra (Stahl, Rosé & Goggins, 2010). The other describes our research on incorporating
conversational agents in this system (Stahl et al., 2010). The best source for the theoretical background of
VMT is (Stahl, 2006); a recent compilation of case studies of students interacting in VMT is (Stahl,
2009).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research has been funded in part by grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF): “Dynamic
Support for Virtual Math Teams” award DRL-0835383, “Exploring Adaptive Support for Virtual Math
Teams” award DRL0723580, "Engaged Learning in Online Communities" award SBE-0518477, "IERI:
Catalyzing & Nurturing Online Workgroups to Power Virtual Learning Communities" award IERI
0325447, "Collaboration Services for the Math Forum Digital Library" award DUE 0333493 and by a
grant from the Office of Naval Research (ONR), “Theories and Models of Group Cognition.” We would
like to thank Markus Hohenwarter and Michael Borcherds for their support and assistance in porting
GeoGebra to VMT.
REFERENCES
Mühlpfordt, M., & Wessner, M. (2009). The integration of dual-interaction spaces. In G. Stahl (Ed.),
Studying virtual math teams. (ch. 15, pp. 281-293). New York, NY: Springer. Web:
http://GerryStahl.net/vmt/book/15.pdf Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0228-3_15
Renninger, K. A., & Shumar, W. (2002). Building virtual communities. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Stahl, G. (2009). Studying virtual math teams. New York, NY: Springer. 626 +xxi pages. Web:
Stahl, G., Rosé, C. P., & Goggins, S. (2010). Analyzing the discourse of geogebra collaborations. Paper
presented at the First North American GeoGebra Conference. Ithaca, NY. Web:
http://GerryStahl.net/pub/geogebrana2010b.pdf
Stahl, G., Rosé, C. P., O'Hara, K., & Powell, A. B. (2010). Supporting group math cognition in virtual
math teams with software conversational agents. Paper presented at the First North American
GeoGebra Conference. Ithaca, NY. Web: http://GerryStahl.net/pub/geogebrana2010a.pdf
130
Building and Maintaining a Resource Base of

USING GEOGEBRA TO CREATE RESOURCES FOR TEACHERS IN HIGH

NEEDS AREAS: A COLLABORATION BETWEEN U.S. AND SOUTH AFRICAN
TEACHER EDUCATORS
1
Deborah Moore-Russo, 2Thomas L. Schroeder, 3Vimlolan Mudaly,
4
Jason D. Ball, 5Nirmala Nutakki
1,2,4,5
University at Buffalo - State University of New York, NY
3
University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa
Abstract: In a joint project between the University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN) in South Africa and the
University at Buffalo - State University of New York (UB) we make use of screen capturing and video
recording technology to create low cost resources with the dynamic geometry software GeoGebra. The in-
service and pre-service teachers and the teacher educators on our team have created digital resources to
work either in DVD players or on computers using free, open-source software. These resources provide
low cost, flexible delivery, digital tools to support the teaching and learning of geometric constructions in a
variety of settings across both South Africa and the United States.
Reaching students in low-income schools and schools with limited access to the Internet.
Reaching both at-risk and gifted students, and students with disabilities.
Reaching often isolated groups, including Aboriginal, women and minorities.
Screen capturing and video recording of GeoGebra use.
Keywords: GeoGebra, professional development, online learning
INTRODUCTION
Since 1997, in the wake of Apartheid, radical transformations have taken place at all levels of the
South African educational system (Harley & Wedekind, 2004). A new curriculum in mathematics
was released in South Africa in 2003 that included four mathematics content bands: Number and
Number Relationships; Functions & Algebra; Shape, Space, & Measurement; and Data Handling
& Probability (South Africa Department of Education, 2003). This major curriculum change was
“driven by a need for social, economic, and political transformation” (Parker, 2006, p. 59).
In South Africa, education is compulsory for all youth through Grade 9; Grades 10 to 12 are
optional. As is the case in most countries, the completion of Grade 12 brings numerous economic
opportunities not available to Grade 9 completers. The adoption of new curricula in mathematics
also brought with it changes in regulations for the qualifications needed to teach Grades 10-12
131
mathematics. (For more information on the teacher qualifications, which fall under higher
education guidelines of the South African Qualifications Authority, see www.saqa.org.za.) These
changes in regulations, along with the closing of all Apartheid-created teacher colleges and the
transfer of responsibility for teacher education to the universities, unintentionally has made it
difficult for teachers of underserved populations to earn the qualifications needed to teach Grades
10-12 mathematics. Since these grades are not required, mathematics courses are often not
offered after Grade 9. These changes have had less impact on traditionally white areas where
mathematics teachers often attended universities in the past, but high needs areas rarely have
teachers who now meet the requirements to teach Grades 10 to 12 mathematics. The resulting
shortage of qualified teachers has been labeled “critical” by Adler and Davis (2006).
In order to help address

this situation, a
collaboration between the
University of KwaZulu-
Natal (UKZN) in South
Africa and the University
at Buffalo - State
University of New York
(UB) funded by the United
KwaZulu Natal
States Agency for (rose-colored region)
International Development
through the non-
governmental organization
Higher Education for Development (HED) has created an Advanced Certificate of Education
(ACE) which provides an alternative means of obtaining the necessary teacher qualifications for
teaching Grades 10-12 mathematics. The program provides a way for practicing teachers,
especially those in high needs areas, to meet national requirements. The program allows for
flexible delivery through the use of multiple learning centers across the South African province of
KwaZulu-Natal to reach some of the most remote, rural, and underserved populations. Since the
program works with currently employed teachers, learning activities are carried out during school
holidays and weekends with self-study materials being used between meetings.
Many of the learning centers where teacher educators work with teachers in this alternative
teacher qualification program offer only minimal digital resources, and this is true to an even
greater extent in the secondary schools in the areas that the learning centers serve. While most
teacher educators and teachers in the program have access to DVD players and televisions, few
have access to computers, and even fewer yet have access to the Internet.
FLEXIBLE ACCESS, LOW-COST GEOMETRY RESOURCES
De Villiers (1997) called for major changes to South African teacher education programs since
even “qualified” secondary mathematics teachers hardly knew more geometry than their students.
132
Since then little seems to have changed; reports from UKZN colleagues provide anecdotal
evidence that the Shape, Space, & Measurement content band in the new mathematics curriculum
has been especially difficult for students, as well as for teachers. Even practicing mathematics
teachers are often unaware of the most basic compass and straightedge constructions. For that
reason the UKZN and UB team members collaborating on the alternative teacher qualification
program decided to create additional resources for the teacher educators and teachers enrolled in
the new program to help introduce how to use common tools in geometry and how to perform
traditional geometric constructions.
The partners agreed that the resources should start with basic information, beginning with how to
measure angles using a protractor and how to use various types of compasses. The UKZN and
UB team members then identified a number of key constructions to be addressed in the resources.
These included the following:
copying a given angle onto a given line,
copying a given line segment onto a given line,
constructing the bisector of a given angle,
constructing the bisector of a given segment,
constructing a line perpendicular to a given line through a given point,
constructing a line parallel to a given line through a given point,
constructing certain regular polygons (e.g., equilateral triangles, squares, and
regular hexagons),
locating the center of a given circle, and
constructing a line or a circle tangent to a given circle through a given point.
Pre- and in-service teachers enrolled in the mathematics education program at UB or working
with UB’s Gifted Mathematics Program next created short video clips of the aforementioned
compass and straightedge constructions. These short videos go beyond quick demonstrations of
how to conduct the constructions; they also present quick explanations of why the constructions
work. While similar videos clips are available on the Internet through video sharing sites, these
new video resources offer a unique additional feature. The team also created GeoGebra files to
accompany each construction. The GeoGebra demonstrate in detail why each construction
works.
After considering the well-known construction of the perpendicular bisector of a line segment, for
example, two additional problems are explored using the classical problem posing strategy of
asking “what-if-not” (Brown and Walter, 2005): 1) how to create a bisector that is not
perpendicular to the given segment and 2) how to create a perpendicular to the given segment that
is not a bisector. GeoGebra is used to show how the classical perpendicular bisector construction
relates to the fact that the diagonals of a rhombus are the perpendicular bisectors of each other.
The first extension problem relates to the fact that the diagonals of a parallelogram bisect each
other but are not necessarily perpendicular, and the second extension problem relates to the fact
that a kite has diagonals that are perpendicular but not necessarily of equal length. GeoGebra is
also used to engage in problem posing by asking, and then helping to explore, what would happen
133
if the two arcs of two congruent circles used in the classical construction were no longer arcs of
congruent circles. (This of course leads to the second extension problem.)
The GeoGebra files make use of sliders. Hence they can be manipulated directly by the viewer,
but it was also through this mechanism that it was easy to use screen capturing software to
convert these GeoGebra animations so that they could be shown as videos themselves. So, we
have created three types of digital resources: 1) video clips of the constructions with which a
viewer could follow along, 2) explanatory GeoGebra files that allow for the viewer to manipulate
them directly, and 3) presentation files, that seamlessly unite the construction videos and
GeoGebra explanations which have also been converted into videos together. The digital
resources with their multiple formats allow for flexibility for the teacher educators and the pre-
and in-service teachers in both South Africa and the U.S. to make use of the resources that best fit
the available technology.
The digital resources will be disseminated to the teacher educators and teachers in the South
Africa in July 2010; by August 2010 they will also be made available on line. Once the digital
resources are distributed to the teacher educators and teachers in the program, we will evaluate
their effectiveness in meeting the expectations held by the teacher educators and teachers
involved in the UKZN program as well as the UKZN program coordinators. We will also assess
the impact of the materials on teachers’ content knowledge.
In the U.S. the digital resources will also be used in conjunction with a Teaching and Learning of
Geometry class at UB to be offered in the Spring 2011 semester. At that time additional
evaluation will occur similar to that described for the South African setting.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The overall goal of the partnership project was to increase the number of South Africans,
particularly those in underserved communities, who are qualified to teach Grades 10-12
mathematics courses. In an attempt to meet this goal, the project has created a model program
that helps prepare mathematics teachers internationally through flexible delivery mechanisms that
strengthen teachers’ pedagogical skills and content knowledge. In the South African context this
would not have been possible without access to inexpensive, open source dynamic geometry
software like GeoGebra.
Using GeoGebra as a platform ensures the digital resource more longevity, since it allows for the
creation of animated, narrated videos that show why the constructions work. It also provides an
environment in which, should additional technology become available (i.e., more computers and
greater access to the Internet), the dynamic nature of GeoGebra can be explored through more
learner-centered, hands-on interactions with the digital resources. The inclusion of problem
posing is also an important feature that encourages those who are already familiar with basic
constructions to extend and deepen their knowledge and understanding of constructions by
solving extension problems such as how to construct a non-perpendicular segment bisector or a
non-bisecting perpendicular.
134
REFERENCES
Adler, J., & Davis, Z. (2006). Opening another black box: Researching mathematics for teaching
in mathematics teacher education. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education. 3(4), 270-
296.
Brown, S. I., & Walter, M. (2005). The art of problem posing (3rd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
de Villiers, M. (1996, October). The future of secondary school geometry. Plenary address
presented at the SOSI Geometry Imperfect Conference, University of South Africa, Pretoria,
South Africa.
South Africa Department of Education. (2003). National curriculum statement grades 10-12
(General): Mathematics. Pretoria, South Africa: Department of Education.
Harley, K. & Wedekind, V. (2004). Political change, curriculum change, and social formation. In
Chisholm, L. (Ed.), Changing class: Education and social change in post-Apartheid South
Africa (pp. 195-220). Cape Town, South Africa: HSRC Press.
Parker, D. (2006). Grade 10-12 mathematics curriculum reform in South Africa: A textual
analysis of new national curriculum statements. African Journal of Research in Mathematics,
Science, and Technology Education, 10(2), 59-63.
135
GEOGEBRA AND PROCESS-ORIENTED ASSESSMENT:

A POTENTIAL FOR A SEA LEVEL CHANGE
1
Meltem Cengel, 2Zekeriya Karadag
1
Adnan Menderes University
2
GeoGebra Institute of Canada
In their review article, Kaput and Thompson (1994) used a metaphor using “deep-water ocean waves to
illustrate the complex interactions between technology and research in mathematics education” (p. 676),
and then, the metaphor was borrowed and elaborated by Galbraith (2006) to identify the broader impact
of technology in mathematics education. Kaput and Thompson (1994) suggest three types of waves as
surface waves, swells, and tides while Galbraith (2006) adds a fourth one for the sea level changes.
Surface waves create local effects as the result of winds and eddies, and therefore, Kaput and Thompson
(1994) use them to describe the use of “calculators and computers as adjuncts to existing curricula and
instruction” (p. 676) because the effects of this type of technology integration occurs at local levels. In
contrast, swells are larger scale waves and have origins at a distant (i.e. current or temperature changes)
although their effects still stay local. By the words of Kaput and Thompson (1994), research having “a
closer look at the role of the technology in learning or cognition-how it can be used to support problem
solving…. or how it affected students' learning of particular ideas” (p. 677) are swell level studies
because researchers tend to explore the effect of technology and seek for possible trends and development
in students’ mathematical conceptualization rather than looking for a definite answer. Galbraith (2006)
describe both of them as an attempt to work with existing technologies, update and adapt the current
practice to find efficient use of “new innovations and more sophisticated versions of familiar devices” (p.
278). In other words, a majority of contemporary implications of technology adopts and adapts the
technology developed for the disciplines other than mathematics education into the classroom. For
example, many computer algebra systems (CAS) software packages and spreadsheet applications can be
considered in this category. Despite the fact that CAS packages such as Maple, Derive, and Mathematica
are the perfect and impressive tools to do mathematics and to perform mathematical procedures, and have
the potential to inspire both mathematicians and novice students for further exploration of mathematical
ideas, their major goal seems far from to help students learn mathematics or to enhance their mathematics
learning.
In contrast to surface waves and swells, tides and sea level changes are large scale changes and have
greater effects both in magnitude and duration because the occurrence of tides is explained by celestial
mechanics while sea level changes are caused by global warming. Kaput and Thompson (1994) identify
some shifts in this category such as the shift in research methodology, the shift in curriculum content, and
pedagogical shift:
Some of these tidal changes involve the shift in research methodology from statistically
based comparison studies to cognitive model building based on qualitative studies as
discussed elsewhere in this special issue (see Schoenfeld; Steffe & Kieren). Others involve
the shift in curriculum content focus, from procedural arithmetic and algebra to problem
136
solving and deeper mathematical reasoning. Accompanying this latter shift is a pedagogical
shift to more active and responsible engagement on the part of students. (p. 678)
As technology improves, both the interaction between technology and mathematics education and
pedagogy accompanying this interaction evolves. Moreover, this evolution is more active on the
mathematics education side because some software packages have been developed through mathematics
education perspective, that is, educational concerns and pedagogical demands have started guiding
software developers rather than accepting what is available. Dynamic learning systems (DLS) such as
Cabri, Geometer’s Sketchpad, Virtual Manipulatives, and GeoGebra have been the artefacts of this
evolution period. Software packages have become more dynamic and more interactive to allow students
explore mathematical concepts and processes accompanying concepts.
Although there is no definite evidence to consider DLS as the software packages that have the potential to
cause sea level changes or tides, it is obvious that some deep changes have been in progress in
mathematics education and mathematics education has been evolving. The theoretical support for this
evolution comes from Artigue (2002) with her discussion about instrumentalization and instrumental
genesis. She posits a two-way interaction and evolution of artefact and human cognition rather than
conceiving two distinct entities:
For us, the first contribution this approach makes is the conception of “instrument” itself.
The instrument is differentiated from the object, material or symbolic, on which it is
based and for which is used the term “artefact”. Thus an instrument is a mixed entity, part
artefact, part cognitive schemes which make it an instrument. For a given individual, the
artefact at the outset does not have an instrumental value. It becomes an instrument
through a process, called instrumental genesis, involving the construction of personal
schemes or, more generally, the appropriation of social pre-existing schemes.
Instrumental genesis works in two directions. Firstly, it is directed towards the artefact,
loading it progressively with potentialities, and eventually transforming it for specific
uses; this is called the instrumentalisation of the artefact. Secondly, instrumental genesis
is directed towards the subject, leading to the development or appropriation of schemes of
instrumented action which progressively take shape as techniques that permit an effective
response to given tasks. The latter direction is properly called instrumentation. (p. 250)
Assessment, particularly formative assessment, has a significant effect in shaping the quality of learning
outcome (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Watson, 2006) and a potential to make a significant difference. Wolf
and Reardon (1996) suggest re-conceptualizing assessment and rethinking student assessment in ways
that reach far beyond upgrading to performance assessment: “At the most basic level we have to create
embedded tasks that grow directly out of what has been taught and which consequently carry crystal clear
signals that effort can make a difference” (p. 3).
The rest of the paper will explore the effectiveness of assessment in a dynamic learning, particularly
GeoGebra, environment. The exploration will investigate if the opportunities situated in technological
challenges could have the potential to lead to a tide or a sea level change.
Theoretical Framework
Regardless of how they are performed and what their goals are, educational assessment is often treated as
part of teaching and learning activities and considered as continuously interacting components (Gordon &
Bonilla-Bowman, 1996) because assessment is a “process of determining how much a student has
learned” (Marsh & Willis, 2003, p. 276). Then, depending on why it is implemented, we are introduced
various types of assessments such as diagnostic, summative, and formative assessments. Marsh & Willis
137
(2003) argue that the goals for diagnostic, formative, and summative assessments are to identify what
students know before coming to classroom, what students learn while the instruction is in progress, and
what students have learned when the instruction is completed, respectively.
In terms of the content being assessed, two types of assessments are identified. In contrast to what
students produce as the artefacts (i.e. reports, projects, and exam papers), performance assessments focus
on the process of how students plan and carry out work and even on how they think and/or collaborate
(Marsh & Willis, 2003). In that sense, some scholars (i.e. Black & Wiliam, 1998) use the terms
performance assessment and formative assessment interchangeably because both interest in the learning
process of either individual or community.
PROCESS-ORIENTED ASSESSMENT
Regardless of how it is performed and what its goals are, educational assessment is often treated as part of
teaching and learning activities. In other words; teaching, learning, and assessment are usually considered
as continuously interacting components (Gordon & Bonilla-Bowman, 1996) because assessment is a
“process of determining how much a student has learned” (Marsh & Willis, 2003, p. 276) and therefore, a
determination method to plan and implement the next steps in learning and teaching. Depending on how
we use the information obtained through assessment, we are introduced various types of assessments such
as diagnostic, summative, and formative assessments.
Marsh & Willis (2003) argue that the goals for diagnostic, formative, and summative assessments are to
identify what students know before coming to classroom, what students learn while the instruction is in
progress, and what students have learned when the instruction is completed, respectively. Diagnostic
assessment is performed to understand students’ strength and weakness in a certain domain and to
develop learning goals and teaching activities accordingly. In contrast, summative assessment aims to
identify what is learned or what is known, in general. Besides the assumption of what you know is what
you have learned, which is underlying summative assessment, it seems that the very fundamental
assumption of both diagnostic and summative assessments is the ability of using, mostly recalling, a
certain piece of knowledge identically refers to the evidence of knowing.
In the field of assessment, it has been narrowly assumed that since teaching and learning
concern the transfer and assimilation of knowledge and skills, the assessment process
should sample the pool of that required knowledge and skills. This logic seems to be
based on the assumption that if one can produce, on demand, evidence of having
mastered such assimilated knowledge and skills, one not only knows but can use the
knowledge and skill whenever it is required. This basic conceptual model for assessment
ignores the fact that the traditional assessment process is also heavily dependent upon the
ability of person being tested to recall and symbolically represent knowledge, and to
select iconic representations of skills, on demand in decontextualized situations. (Gordon
& Bonilla-Bowman, 1996, p. 32)
Prior to talking about formative assessment, it might be better to re-emphasize the content being assessed.
In terms of the content being assessed, two types of assessments are speculated. Traditional and widely-
used assessment techniques deal with the artefacts, students produce, such as reports, projects, and mostly
exam papers. In contrast, process-oriented assessment techniques explicitly address the learning process
rather than the outcome –product –of the learning (Cengel, & Karadag, 2010; Karadag, & McDougall,
138
2009). The focus appears to be on the process of how students plan and carry out work and even on how
they think and/or collaborate (Marsh & Willis, 2003).
Process-oriented assessment versus formative assessment
We define process-oriented assessment as the assessment of problem solving processes of students. In

order to assess problem solving processes, various qualitative monitoring techniques, such as
interviewing, thinking-aloud, focus-grouped studies, eye-tracking, and screen-capturing, have been
documented in the literature. This paper speculates about screen capturing technique to document and
monitor students’ problem solving processes and video analysis and frame analysis method to assess their
work.
The thinking and abstraction skills guiding mathematical activities are considered significantly important
skills in mathematics as well as in mathematics education because “mathematics involves more than
calculation” (Wolf & Reardon, 1996, p. 22). That is, it involves an intention to improve the skills
mentioned above and the ability to use these skills. Regardless of the way they are represented (i.e.
algebraically or graphically), we perceive mathematical objects as mathematical concepts, abstract their
properties from those objects, explore the relationships between concepts under certain operations, and
conceptualize these relationships under certain rules (Hershkowitz, Schwarz, & Dreyfus, 2001).
Therefore, both doing and learning mathematics involve more than mathematical objects and some
abstract relationships conceptualized by mathematicians; rather, they involve enormous cognitive
processes. In order to be able to monitor these processes and assess the way they progress, mathematics
educators need tools to “make the process of thinking public and therefore attainable” (Wolf & Reardon,
1996, p. 7).
We claim that process-oriented assessment may provide opportunities to monitor and assess students’
mathematical thinking processes. Furthermore, we also claim that process-oriented has become more
important as technology improves and mathematics learning environments evolve.
THE STUDY
The data for this paper comes from a big research exploring students’ problem solving processes in a
computer based dynamic learning environment, GeoGebra. The research was conducted in an elementary
school, and the participants are the Grade 5 students of a private school in Turkey. We will describe the
main study to provide the readers with a contextual overview, and then, focus on one specific student’s
work, which is chosen for this paper, in this context. However, the readers who would like to learn more
about the context and the other aspects of the study are more than welcome to review the other papers
(Cengel & Karadag, 2010, and Martinovic, Karadag, & Cengel, 2010).
Meltem, one of the authors of this paper, provided students with the training for necessary software
packages and collected data in site. 26 students were recruited for the study, and their mathematics and
computer teachers participated in both the training sessions and part of data collection. The overall study,
including one-on-one interviews with the chosen students, took more than eight months starting from
November 2009 till June 2010.
An important aspect of this study is the way the authors communicate with each other throughout the
study because all of the communication and back-and-forth file transfer were online. The study was
planned through email communication and wiki communication supported by monthly or biweekly Skype
conversations. Similarly, the data transfer was performed through wiki spaces, and two different wiki
spaces were used because of the large amount of data files, both in size and in numbers. In this sense, the
139
complete study is a good example of online collaborative research. Moreover, the study demonstrates an
intercontinental collaboration of two researchers who had never met at any stage of the data collection
and data analysis because Meltem is a doctoral student at the Adnan Menderes University, Turkey while
Zekeriya is post-doctoral researcher living in Toronto, Canada.
Data Collection
There were five main stages of the study excluding the planning stage at the beginning. The pilot study
conducted in November 2009 involved the student training for necessary software packages and pilot-
testing of data collection while the main study was done in December 2009. It took three weeks to
complete each stage, and the data were analyzed during next four months by Zekeriya, the other author of
this paper.
Having said that we are interested in understanding students’ problem solving processes in computer
based dynamic learning environments and concerned with minimizing student distraction during data
collection, we employed screen capturing technique to collect data and the frame analysis method to
analyze these screen shots (Karadag, 2009). Wink, free software, was used to record students’ work done
in their computer screen, and Meltem trained the students on how to record and save their own work.
Then, she collected all of the saved files and transferred to Zekeriya through wiki.
The first three stages of the study were completed in the first six months, and then the researchers
identified the students to be interviewed and the semi-structured questions to be asked. Meltem visited the
school again and conducted interviews with the chosen students in May 2010 by audio-recording all
sessions. She then shared the interview files with Zekeriya through wiki. Interviewing students and
analyzing the interview recordings to validate and clarify the interpretations of the frame analysis are the
forth and fifth stages of the study, being the last stage is still in progress.
RESEARCH QUESTION
The study was designed as an exploratory research to develop an understanding of students’ cognitive
processes while they are solving their own mathematics problems in a dynamic learning environment.
The dynamic learning environments (DLE) provide students with many opportunities to explore concepts
and processes associated to concepts both interactively and dynamically (Martinovic, Freiman, &
Karadag, 2010; Martinovic, Karadag, & Cengel, 2010). GeoGebra, as a DLE, was chosen for this study
because of its multi-language support and online availability. We assume that these two features of
GeoGebra may promise us, also all researchers in mathematics education, a chance to repeat the study in
another context (e.g., country and/or language) and to compare various aspects of the study.
Despite the fact that the study is designed an exploratory study, the emergence of many themes were
anticipated. However, the focus of this paper is limited to discussing the process oriented assessment and
its possible implementations. Therefore, the research question regarding the scope of this paper is
considered as follows: What features of process oriented assessment may become available and feasible
in dynamic learning environments, particularly in GeoGebra?
Findings
In the overall study, the students are provided three mathematics problems addressing three different
topics such as geometry, addition, and fractions. For the first week, the students were given a geometry
problem created in a dynamic GeoGebra worksheet, asked to construct a specific construction, and
identify the names of the triangles and their properties in that specific structure. The instructions asked
140
them to create three congruent triangles without intersecting sides, except in corners, by dragging the
given points A, B, C, and D (Fig. 1).
Figure 1. Initial view of the problem presents a random quadrilateral with

numeric representations of side lengths and angle measures.
In this paper, we will describe geometry problem and the work of one specific student, Burak (the
name is pseudonym) on this problem. There are at least three reasons making Burak’s work on this
problem interesting and unique. First, the data reveals that student’s understanding of the problem evolves
as he explores the problem. Second, the student develops his solution through exploration. Third, the data
illustrates that the process oriented assessment has superiority over the traditional assessment.
We analyzed Burak’s work by employing the frame analysis method (Karadag, 2009), that is, by
exploring each half second of his problem solving processes through multiple steps. The analysis of data
indicates that Burak spent 942 seconds (15 minutes and 42 seconds) to complete solution for this
geometry problem. It appears that almost half of this time, 455.5 seconds (7 minutes 35.5 seconds) was
spent to understand exactly what is asked in the problem through various exploration and attempts to
solve it. His attempts were unsuccessful because of his ill-structured construction (see Figure 2).
141
Figure 2. Burak explores a ill-structured construction at the frame 306.
In the 912th frame, he started creating the correct construction and the frame 974 illustrates his
final construction (see Figure 3).
Figure 3. Burak starts creating the correct construction.
142
It took 20 frames (10 seconds) to create the correct figure, and then he spent another 21 seconds to
explore and assess the new construction (see Figure 4).
Figure 4. Burak’s final construction leading him to complete the task.
Starting 975th frame, Burak devoted his attention to identify triangles and their properties as well as to
type his findings in the cells reserved for this purpose (see Figure 4). Although he recorded almost 16
minutes (15 minutes and 42 seconds) for the solution process, no action is recorded after 1726th frame, in
other words, the actual problem solving process is finalized in 863 seconds (14 minutes and 3 seconds)
and records demonstrate the same final screen for the last 79 seconds (see Figure 5).
143
Figure 5. Final solution completed by Burak
Finally, he completed the table as the task given in the study. Given that the correct construction should
have four triangles, Burak listed their names correctly and their properties with some mistakes. The first
column of the table in the figure 5 involves the names of the triangles while the second and third columns
illustrate their properties. In order to provide reader with a better understanding of the final answer, we
provide its English translation in the following table:
Table1. English translation of the table in the figure 5.
Type of the triangle Type of the triangle

Name of the triangle
based on its sides based on its angles
CDB triangle Scalene triangle Acute angled triangle
ACD triangle Isosceles triangle Obtuse angled triangle
ABD triangle Scalene triangle Obtuse angled triangle
ABC triangle Isosceles triangle Acute angled triangle
One can easily assess the correctness of the final answer by comparing to the construction in the figure 4.
The names of the triangles are correct although some other constructions and as such some other
combinations for the names are possible. However, unfortunately the identifications of the triangles with
respect to their sides and angles are somehow problematic.
For example, the triangle ABC should be identified as equilateral triangle while the other three small
triangles satisfy being isosceles triangles. Burak could provide only one correct answer, that is, the
triangle ACD is an isosceles triangle. Similarly, the small side triangles should have been identified as
144
obtuse angled while the triangle ABC has been acute angled or equilateral triangle. Burak has provided
three correct answers, for the triangles ACD and ABD are being described obtuse angled while for ABC
is being identified acute angled.
In order to understand if Burak really knows what he was doing at the time of experiment, we chose
Burak to interview and asked semi-structured questions addressing these issues. The following are some
related excerpts from transcription of this interview:
Meltem: How did you understand that the CBD triangle is a scalene and acute angled triangle?
Burak: I looked at the triangle.
Meltem: Which triangle did you look at?
Burak: CDB triangle.
Meltem: OK and you have said that this is a scalene triangle. How did you understand that?
Burak: Because sides are different.
Meltem: The side lengths are different?
Burak: Yeah!
Meltem: How did you understand that it is acute angled triangle?
Burak: Because the angles are acute.
Meltem: Hmmm, how did you understand that the angles are acute?
Burak: It was written here.
Meltem: Where?
Burak: Here.
Meltem: Do you mean these numbers?
Burak: Yeah!
It seems that Burak relied on both his visual perception and the numeric representation provided next to
the construction (see Figure 4). However, his later explanation reveals that actually he relied on mostly on
his visual perception but he uses the numerical representations to convince Meltem during interview, at
least for the questions she addressed. Surprisingly, this result is exactly what we expect because our
previous classroom experience validates what we hear from him. The students at early ages first attempt
to use visual information until they experience a cognitive conflict. In the case of cognitive conflict, they
start seeking a numerical support for their visual perception.
Discussion
One major theme emerged from the findings aforementioned is the valuable contribution to our
understanding of this specific student’s challenge, and this theme puts more information forward than
what is understood from the final solution sheet only. Having said that this paper is a preliminary version
of an ongoing large study, we will discuss the possible implementations of process oriented assessment
and its advantages in educational settings at the conference.
REFERENCES
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, 245-274.
Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles,
Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7-74.
Cengel, M. & Karadag, Z. (2010a). Process-oriented assessment and digital portfolios. In S. Gulsecen and
Z. Ayvaz-Reis (Eds.), the proceedings of the 3rd Future learning conference, Istanbul, Turkey.
145
Hershkowitz, R., Schwarz, B. B., & Dreyfus, T. (2001). Abstraction in Context: Epistemic Actions.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(2), 195-222.
Galbraith, P. (2006). Students, mathematics, and technology: assessing the present –challenging the
future. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 37(3), 277-
290.
Gordon, E. W. & Bonilla-Bowman, C. (1996). Can performance-based assessments contribute to the
achievement of educational equity? In J. B. Baron and D. P. Wolf (Eds.), Performance-based
student assessment: Challenges and possibilities. The National Society for the Study of
Education. Chicago, Illinois.
Kaput, J. J. & Thompson, P. W. (1994). Technology in mathematics education research: The first 25
years in the JRME. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25-6, 676-684.
Karadag, Z. (2009). Analyzing student’s mathematical thinking in technology supported environments.
Unpublished PhD dissertation. Toronto: University of Toronto.
Karadag, Z. & McDougall, D. (2009). Process-oriented assessment in mathematics education. In T.
Bastiaens et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate,
Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2009 (pp. 426-429). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/32494
Marsh, C. J. & Willis, G. (2003). Curriculum: Alternative approaches, ongoing issues. NJ:
Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Martinovic, D., Freiman, V., & Karadag, Z. (2010). Dynamic and collaborative learning with GeoGebra:
From software to community. ED-MEDIA, Toronto, June 28-2, 2010.
Martinovic, D., Karadag, Z., & Cengel, M. (2010). Connecting intelligent tutoring systems with dynamic
learning systems: Is there a natural fit? ED-MEDIA, Toronto, June 28-2, 2010.
Watson, A. (2006). Some difficulties in informal assessments in mathematics. Assessment in Education:
Principles, Policy & Practice, 13(3), 289-303.
Wolf, D. P. & Reardon, S. F. (1996). Access to excellence through new forms of student assessment. In J.
B. Baron and D. P. Wolf (Eds.), Performance-based student assessment: Challenges and
possibilities. The National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago, Illinois.
146

GEOGEBRA IN THE COLLEGE CLASSROOM

MULTIPLE REPRESENTATIONS
1
Linda Fahlberg-Stojanovska, 2Vitomir Stojanovski
1
Univ. St. Clement of Ohrid, Bitola, MK lindas@t-home.mk,
2
Univ. St. Clement of Ohrid, Bitola, MK vitomir.stojanovski@gmail.com
Abstract: In the college classroom – particularly in technical and engineering sciences – we work analytic
mathematics. This means that we require that our students solve problems algebraically. Frequently, the result is
that we spend so much time working through algebraic solutions that (a) we do not represent the problem in other
more accessible formats and (b) our students cannot easily check their homework. GeoGebra is a wonderful tool
that fulfils both of these needs in many situations in real time – that is, we can make GeoGebra constructions in the
classroom that our students can use at home. In this paper we illustrate several examples that we have successfully
used over the past several years in our classrooms.
Keywords: geogebra, multiple representations, dynamic mathematics, engineering
INTRODUCTION
Typically a mathematics professor in technical and engineering sciences spends most of his time teaching
algebraic solutions to enable students to solve the complex problems required by his profession. But now
in our classrooms, we frequently use a computer and video projector (hopefully with a graphics tablet or
whiteboard and not a dreaded PowerPoint presentation). This means that the freeware GeoGebra is also
available with it power to dynamically make both algebraic and geometric representations of problems.
Using GeoGebra in the classroom, we can quickly construct these multiple representations. This enhances
our explanations, furthers understanding and encourages our students to work through exercises at home
since then they too can use GeoGebra to check and understand their work.
Let us look at some examples from college mathematics. All of these applications of GeoGebra take less
than 3 minutes to create in class.
POLYNOMIALS – REVIEW LEVEL
Problem 1a: Find the equation of the line passing through the points (2,1) and (1,0). Sketch everything.
GeoGebra: Here we simply draw the line and look at the equation. They can check both their calculation
and their drawing in 3 clicks.
147
Table 1: Steps for illustrating problem 1a (see Screenshot 1)
Tool (Menu) Action Result

1. Click on Point (2,1) and then Free objects
2. Click on Point (1,0) Points
A=(2,1)
B=(1,0)
Dependent objects
Line
a: x-y=1
Screenshot 1: Select . Screenshot 2: Toggle between standard and slope-

Then draw the line by clicking on given points intercept form to check answer
Multiple representations: GeoGebra can put the line in slope-intercept or in standard form. Simply right-
click on “a” in the Algebra view and then click on the other form (see Screenshot 2).
Extensions: Of course, this same techniques can be used to draw other functions that the students are
required to sketch except that in these cases you will actually need to know the answer. We use this
extensively with quadratic functions and for problems involving polynomial interpolation.
Problem 1.b: Find the equation of the quadratic function with vertex V=(1,3) and passing through
P=(2,2). Sketch.
Table 2: Steps for illustrating problem 1.b (see Screenshot 3)

1. V=(1,3) Free objects
Input 2. P=(2,2) Points
V=(1,3) and P=(2,2)
Input 3. your calculated function or Dependent object
Function
Input 3. a= -((y(V)-y(P)) / (x(V)-x(P))2 Dependent object
Number
a (coefficient of x2)
Input 4. f(x)=a*(x-x(V))2+y(V) Dependent object
Function
f(x) through V and P
148
Using either plan – which is different than how one actually calculates the answer, (a) students can easily
check their result, (b) it is reusable (simply click and drag P and V to their new values or double-click and
type in the new coordinates) and (c) it does not give them the results they need if they are trying to just
copy homework. (It does give the result in “complete the square” format – a bonus.)
Screenshot 3: Quadratic functions Screenshot 4: Polynomial Interpolation
We particularly like technique of using GeoGebra when we are doing polynomial interpolation with
several points. Testing our result and seeing it pass through the given points is great fun after all that work
and of course it gives students a free and simple way to check their homework or study – again without
GeoGebra doing the actual work for them. Also, this is an easy way to find “good” test questions.
LOCAL EXTREMES, TANGENTS AND NORMALS – 1ST YEAR LEVEL
Problem 2: Let y 0.5 x 2 3x 2 . Find the intercepts and local extreme(s). Sketch the graph. Then find
the equation of the tangent and normal of this function for x=6. Sketch these.
Here as before you can input your results to check them or let GeoGebra do the work to see if it is a good
problem. Let’s do the first part of this problem.
GeoGebra: Input the function, find intercepts as intersections using , calculate the derivative by
inputting fprime=Derivative[f], find its intersection with x-axis, draw perpendicular using , find
intersection with function as local extreme point.
Table 3: Steps for illustrating problem 2 – part a (see Screenshot 5)

2
1. The function: 0.5 x -3 x+2 Free object
Input Function
f(x)
2. Click on function and then on y-axis Dependent object
3. Click on function and then on x-axis Points
A=(0,2)
B=(0.76,0) and C=(5.24,0)
149

Input 4. fprime=Derivative[f] Dependent object
Function
fprime(x)=2x-3
5. Click on fprime and then on x-axis Dependent object
Point
D=(3,0)
6. Click on D and then on the x-axis Dependent object
Line
a: x=3
7. Click on intersection of function f and line a Dependent object
Point
E=(3,-2.5)
Multiple representations: (a) Visualization of the problem and the functions. (b) By graphing the
derivative, geometrically finding the root and then drawing the vertical to find the intersection with the
function, the student sees the meaning of setting the derivative equal to zero to find the extreme (see
Screenshot 5 and Screenshot 6).
Screenshot 5: Checking a Sketch of a Function Screenshot 6: Construction Protocol
Problem (cont.): Now find the equation of the tangent and normal of this function at the point x=6.
Sketch.
GeoGebra: Draw the point F=(6,0) and the vertical through this point. Find the intersection G with the
function. Draw the tangent using and the normal as a perpendicular to the tangent. Check points and
equations (see Screenshot 7).
Table 4: Steps for illustrating problem 2 – part b (see Screenshot 7)

1. Click on (6,0) Dependent objects
Point
F=(6,0)
150

2. Click on F and then on x-axis Dependent object
Line
b: x=6
8. Click on intersection of function f and line b Dependent object
Point
G=(6,2)
9. Click on G and then on function f Dependent object
Line
c: y=3x-16 (renamed t)
3. Click on G and then on line c Dependent object
Line
d: y=-0.33x+4 (renamed n)
Multiple representations: (a) Visual representation. (b) The point F=(6,0) is a free object and can be
moved along the x-axis, moving the intersection G, tangent and normal with it. Great dynamic fun!
Plus: Find the intersection point H of the vertical with the derivative to check that the y-value of H is in
fact the slope of the tangent (see Screenshot 7).
Screenshot 7: Visualizing and Checking Tangents and Normals
TAYLOR POLYNOMIALS – 1ST YEAR LEVEL
Problem: Approximate the function y ln(2 x 1) at the point a=1 using Taylor polynomials of degree
n=1, n=2 and n=3. What is error of each of these polynomials for the point x=1.3?
GeoGebra: Input the function, define p1, p2 and p3 with input p3=TaylorPolynomial[f(x),1,3]. Make a
point A on the x-axis and draw the vertical a through A. Intersect a with each of the functions. Using
draw segments between intersection points to measure the error.
151
Table 5: Steps for illustrating problem 3 (seeScreenshot 8)

Input 1. ln(2x-1) (Notice this is a math function so Free object
parenthesis not brackets) Function
f(x)
Input 2. TaylorPolynomial[f,1,1]. Dependent objects
3. TaylorPolynomial[f,1,2]. Functions
4. TaylorPolynomial[f,1,3]. g(x) (renamed p1(x))
h(x) (renamed p2(x))
p(x) (renamed p3(x))
5. Click on (1.3,0) Dependent objects
Point
A=(1.3,0)
6. Click on A and then on x-axis Dependent object
Line
a: x=1.3
7. Click on intersection of line a and f Dependent objects
8. Click on intersection of line a and p1 Points B, C, D, E
9. Click on intersection of line a and p2
10. Click on intersection of line a and p3
11. Click on B and then C. Dependent objects
12. Click on B and then D. Segments: b, c, d
13. Click on B and then E.
Screenshot 8: Approximating with Taylor Polynomials
Multiple Representations: (a) Visualization of approximation. (b) Click and drag point A along x-axis to
see error increase/decrease (see Screenshot 8). Finally students understand what they are doing!
152
SUMMARY
In the college classroom, a computer and video projector is often standard equipment. So the freeware
GeoGebra is accessible. The point here is not to use GeoGebra to do the mathematics since that will not
be acceptable for assessment, but to give full constructions for a geometric interpretation of the algebraic
solutions. The power of GeoGebra is that it allows us to do this quickly and dynamically so that we have
multiple representation of a problem. In the process, the student learns how to check his work at home in
a visually stimulating and thought-provoking environment.
GEOBEBRA RESOURCES
[1] GeoGebra website: http://www.geogebra.org (see Help, GeoGebra Wiki and GeoGebra Forum).
[2] http://math247.pbworks.com/GeoGebra and http://geogebrawiki.wikispaces.com
153
Practical pedagogy-Building and Maintaining a Resource Base

of K-12 “Teacher-Ready” Dynamic Worksheets and Lesson Plans
POLAR AND PARAMETRIC FUNCTIONS WITH GEOGEBRA
Doug Kuhlmann
Phillips Academy, Math Dept, Andover, MA 01810

dkuhlmann@andover.edu
Abstract: We examine the power of GeoGebra for teaching polar and parametric functions in precalculus and
calculus. The first applet shown will demonstrate how to use the rectangular form of a polar graph to deduce the
shape of the polar graph. The second will show how to use tangent vectors and their components when analyzing
parametric curves in the plane.
Keywords: mathematics, GeoGebra, dynamic, functions, polar, parametric, precalculus, calculus.
INTRODUCTION
We show some examples using GeoGebra in pre-calculus and calculus classes. These are exercises that I
use in my trigonometry and BC calculus courses that are taken mostly by 11th and 12th graders at Phillips
Academy. Students have the ability to change the functions that they wish to study by entering a new
function in the Input command line. They can then dynamically change the polar point or the vectors.
1.1 Graphs of polar functions
Figure 1 is a screen shot of an applet that shows the relationship between the rectangular equation y=f(x)
and the corresponding polar equation r=f(q). In the picture below the dotted curve is y=2cos(2x) and the
solid curve is r=2cos(2q). As the slider ‘a’ is moved points A and the corresonding A’ move with it. The
vectors are also color coordinated so that when r<0, the vectors to A and A’ are red.
Figure 1: Polar – Cartesian Grapher
154
1.2 Parametric curves and tangent vectors
Figure 2 is a screen shot of an applet that shows the graph of a 2-dimensional parametric curve. The user
has the option to look at velocity and/or accleration vectors and watch them change dynamically as the
point moves around the curve. This applet also projects the the velocity vector onto the position vector r,
showing components that are parallel and perpendicular to the position vector. Similarly, the accleration
vector is projected onto the velocity vector. Another applet will be shown that shows the Cartesian
components of the velocity and accleration vectors.
Figure 2: Velocity Acceleration Vectors Trigonometry
SUMMARY
GeoGebra can be a powerful tool for teaching and demonstrating many topics in pre-calculus and
calculus. We have shown how two topics, polar functions and parametric curves, could be taught using
GeoGebra.
[1] http://www.dougkuhlmann.webs.com/
155
Practical pedagogy-Building and Maintaining a Resource Base

of K-12 “Teacher-Ready” Dynamic Worksheets and Lesson Plans
FACTORING WITH GEOGEBRA
Terry Gastauer
Brief Description: There are many methods of factoring quadratic equations. Here by “factoring” we mean any
method which moves the quadratic equation from its standard form of f(x)=ax2+bx+c into a form by which different
information can easily be obtained. Thus we include here a small subset of our worksheets, namely those for the box
method of factoring, completing the square one, and the difference of squares. We have developed GeoGebra
dynamic worksheets for these techniques which we use in our high school classroom as part of learning activities
that are assessed according to common standards in mathematics.
Keywords: quadratics, factoring, box method, completing the square, GeoGebra
INTRODUCTION
Children begin the study of quadratic functions as early as in 6 th-7th grade by looking at x2 and relating
this function to the area of a square. This study then continues throughout and factoring quadratics is one
of the major areas of study. Here by “factoring” we mean any method which moves the quadratic
equation from its standard form of f(x)=ax2+bx+c into a form by which different information can easily
be obtained. However, building interactive dynamic worksheets about factoring that encourages
understanding via visual experimentation is quite a challenge – particularly if one wants to get the student
to learn both the algebra and the geometry of factoring and to relate all these ideas to the quadratic
function itself.
Here we show 6 GeoGebra interactivities that we have developed for working with quadratics that we
have used in our classroom and found to be of help in increasing the understanding both of our students
and indeed of ourselves as teachers. Some of these interactivities are part of eLearning modules with
worksheets with good questions and metadata. Others are simply the GeoGebra interactivity. Of course,
there are many, many more GeoGebra activities for quadratic functions - see e.g.[1]
This means that development can take a minimum of two directions within the GeoGebra community. We
can look to expand and complete the incomplete interactivities into complete eLearning modules as
“Teacher Ready” and we can develop new interactivities. We hope with this paper to encourage both
types of activities.
156
BOX METHOD OF FACTORING
This is a collection of 3 GeoGebra worksheets [2] for using the box method of factoring [3,4,5,6]. We
particularly like this example because it shows the power of GeoGebra to move from the first
case when a=1 is the coefficient of x2, to the upgraded case when a=±1 and then on to the complex case
when a can be “anything.” The first case is a remarkably straightforward GeoGebra construction and just
creating the GeoGebra file leads to understanding the connection between factoring and roots.
Figure 1: Box Method for Factoring with a=1
Figure 2: Box Method of Factoring - General Case
157
The upgrade to the case when a = ±1 is also reasonable although getting all of the parts organized
properly requires great diligence. However, it is interesting to note that the upgrade to the general case
was very difficult (see Figure 2). The algorithm for finding the solution when a ±1 from the roots
(which is how GeoGebra works since it cannot eyeball the combinations) was quite complex and we
would like to thank L. Fahlberg-Stojanovska for her help here [7]. Indeed this algorithm is complete only
for abs(a) 20 so do not extend the range of a in the interactivity. The added cautions come from our
experience in teaching – these are the points at which students most often err.
COMPLETING THE SQUARE
This is an eLearning module with GeoGebra interactivity, good questions worksheet and metadata. It is
available on: http://geogebrawiki.wikispaces.com/CompleteSquare
GeoGebra Interactivity
We look at x2+bx. The GeoGebra interactivity for completing the square is very rich even though we
allow only a=1 for the coefficient of x2 so that indeed the completion relies only on the value of b (the
coefficient of x). Key parts include a slider for b (the first dynamic of course) and a slider xsize for the
size of x. With this 2nd slider, the student can see that the completion does not depend on x, but only on b.
Recall that the algorithm for completing the square is:
2 2 2 2
b b b b b
x 2 bx x2 2 x x ( x C )2 C 2
2 2 2 2 2
where C=b/2. The graphic is constructed so that the student becomes aware of the reasoning behind
division of b by 2 to complete the square. He can see that the sum of the areas of the 2 green rectangles is
bx and the area of the square needed to complete the square is C2=(b/2)2.
With all checkboxes deselected, we have only the starter blocks – not even the function is written out (see
Figure 3). The student is expected to work through the problems in the Good Questions worksheet by
hand and use the checkboxes to check his work (see Figure 4).
158
Figure 3: Start Figure 4: Some of the information available in the worksheet
Good Questions
As we mentioned above, this module includes a page with good questions. Here is a sample good
question from this page.
4. How does the number of squares needed relate to the added side length? To the value of b?
Repeatedly:
A) Move the slider bar labeled "b"
B) Predict the number of unit squares necessary to fill the empty corner
C) Check the "Complete the Square" checkbox to test your conjecture.
D) Uncheck the checkbox.
Do this until you can define the relationship.
As always, the idea it to get the student to connect the symbolic and visual (that is, algebraic and
geometric) mathematics in a useful way.
DIFFERENCE OF SQUARES
Here we look at the algorithm for the difference of two squares – in both the algebraic way: a2-b2 and in
the geometric way as a difference of two actual squares. We include several figures to show the different
ways that the interactivity works. First there is the interaction with a and b showing how the we have
subtracted a square with side b (and hence area b2) from a square with side a (and hence area a2) (see
Figure 5). Then sliding from 0° to 90° shows that this difference of areas stays the same (see Figure
6). When we get to 90°, we are then allowed to reflect and start sliding the pieces together (see Figure 7).
Finally, we slide the pieces together and see the formula –
a2 b2 (a b)(a b)
both symbolically and graphically (algebraically and geometrically) (see Figure 8). We have noticed in
our classroom that this interaction with the rotation, reflection and then connection adds both interest and
learning.
159
Figure 5: Difference of squares - 1
Figure 6: Difference of squares – 2
Figure 7: Difference of squares – 3
160
Figure 8: Difference of Squares - 4
SUMMARY
In this talk we have described some of the GeoGebra interactivities that we have created for quadratic
functions and how we use them in our classroom as part of learning activities that are assessed according
to common standards in mathematics. In particular, we have focused on the interactivities for factoring
using the box method, the interactivity for completing the square and the interactivity for understanding
the formula for the difference of two squares. As we mentioned we have many other interactivites about
quadratics.
Some of these are interactivities as part of eLearning Modules with the goal of being “Teacher Ready. We
and others have created many other such activities for quadratic functions [5] and hope that as the
GeoGebra community begins to work together, they can become an integral part of the process of
Building and Maintaining a Resource Base of K-12 “Teacher-Ready” Dynamic Worksheets and Lesson
Plans adding our experiences and feedback in a successful effort to improve mathematical education. We
have found that creating and using such interactivites helps both ourselves and our students to understand
the mathematics.
[1] Bennett, N. http://geogebrawiki.wikispaces.com/Discriminant

Box Method References
[2] http://geogebrawiki.wikispaces.com/Factoring+Box+Method
[3] http://mi-math-
companion.wikispaces.com/file/view/A1.2+Solutions+of+Equations+and+Inequalities.pdf
[4] http://www.purplemath.com/modules/factquad3.htm
[5] http://artmathonline.com/files/9.6_Factoring_Using_the_Box_Method.pdf
[6] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WipeiPxKTCI
Other References
[7] http://geogebrawiki.wikispaces.com
[8] www.geogebra.org/wiki
161

FUN AND DIVERSIONS WITH GEOGEBRA
Terry Gastauer
Brief Description:.Not all GeoGebra interactivities need to be directly connected to the syllabus and standards for
assessment. It is also important to provide our students with recreational math that shows them why people
throughout the centuries have been fascinated by mathematics. In this talk, we look at two such interactivites that
are just incredibly fun in and of themselves and yet illustrate important mathematical concepts. Both creating and
playing with such worksheets can be challenging mathematically and artistically and give both teachers and
students a necessary diversion from the everyday curricula.
Keywords: GeoGebra, classroom, mathematics, fun, diversions
INTRODUCTION
In this talk, we look at how GeoGebra can be used to create fun activities that also show important
concepts from mathematics. We take two examples from Ivan Moscovich’s book: 1000 Play Thinks:
Puzzles, Paradoxes, Illusions & Games.
THE HINGED SQUARE
This GeoGebra worksheet is great fun to watch and even animate. Its constuction is a study in geometry
of areas and lengths. To create the worksheet so that the pieces fit together at the same time is a study in
angles. Notice that all the hinge points are midpoints of the sides of the squares (see Figure 1). Now start
the rotation (see Figure 2). Who would think these pieces would form an equilateral triangle (see Figure
3)? Create the construction with paper and then think how to do it with GeoGebra. How far does each
piece have to travel to get from the square to the triangle – that is, what is the angle that each hinge must
go through?
162
Figure 1: Hinged Square – Hinges at 0
Figure 2: Hinged Square - Hinges Opening
Figure 3: Hinged Square - The End
163
THE SQUARE WHEEL
Although we still need to do documentation on the construction, I think you'll see right away
how this activity is both fun and instructive. I start with a round wheel and the question is what
path will a point on the wheel (say a paint mark) travel. You can turn on the trace for the point
or click on the "Show Path of Point" to show the locus.
It's not obvious to first-timers that the path will be the cycloid or elongated semicircle-like
bumps whose heights are equal to the diameter of the wheel and whose lengths are the
circumference of the wheel. (So definitely not real semicircles since the ratio of bump width to
bump height is .) There is no need to mention the definition of the cycloid (a parametric
function using sine and cosine) since the path is drawn by using the locus command in
GeoGebra. At the beginning, it is enough that the student sees the path (see Figure 4) and
connects the various dimensions of the wheel with the height and width of the bumps.
Figure 4: The Round Wheel
Next, you can click on "Square Wheel" to see just that, a square wheel. The “radius” of the
square is half of the diagonal (as if it is a square inscribed in a circle of that radius).
The question is:

What will the road have to look like for a car with square wheels to have a smooth ride?
You can click on "Show contact" to show where the rubber meets the road, so to speak and can
trace that. After that hint, most will know, but you can click on "Show Road" to provide the
visual (see Figure 5). Notice that the road is a cycloid, but a different cycloid from the point-on-
the-wheel cycloid.
There are many different things one can think about with this interactivity. For example, when is
the distance from the center of the square wheel to the red point at its maximum. How long is
this distance? When is the distance from the center of the square wheel to the red point at its
minimum. How long is this distance? How high are the bumps? How far apart are the bumps in
the road?
164
Figure 5: Rolling a Square Wheel
SUMMARY
Here we study two fun mathematical problems – the hinged square and the square wheel. In interacting
with these activities, GeoGebra allows us a great deal of freedom to see connections between all different
branches of mathematics. In creating these interactivities, I myself have learned a great deal of
mathematics. I would like to invite you to create and/or use such interactivities in your classroom to show
your students why people throughout the centuries have been fascinated by mathematics and that
mathematics can indeed be both fun and interesting.
[1] Moscovich, I. (2001) 1000 Play Thinks: Puzzles, Paradoxes, Illusions & Games. Workman
Publishing Company. ISBN: 978-0761118268
[2] http://geogebra.org
165
Improving GeoGebra
GEOGEBRA AS A COMPONENT OF ONLINE COLLABORATIVE MATHEMATICS

INVESTIGATIONS: PRESENT WORK TOWARD REALIZING A DREAM
Geoffrey Roulet
Faculty of Education, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, geoff.roulet@queensu.ca
Abstract: GeoGebra provides a powerful environment for student explorations and problem solving. Wikis are an
effective tool to support collaborative work. This paper discusses present efforts to combine these resources and
produce an online environment for collaborative mathematics investigations.
Keywords: online, mathematics, collaboration, investigation
1. INTRODUCTION
Shifting views of mathematics learning over the past two decades have followed a couple of dominant
themes: an understanding that children construct rather than receive their mathematical understanding,
and recognition of the socially and culturally situated nature of mathematical activity (Cobb, 1994). These
ideas, combined in a social constructivist (Ernest, 1998) view of mathematics, have driven significant
international changes in the teaching and learning of the discipline (Black & Atkin, 1996, Romberg,
1992). Across jurisdictions new mathematics curricula call for students to engage in investigations and
mathematical talk (NCTM, 2000) through which, classroom-based research has shown, they can
collaboratively construct deep robust knowledge (Cobb, Boufi, McClain & Whitenack, 1997; Hufferd-
Ackles, Fuson & Gamoran-Sherin, 2004).
Dynamic mathematical tools such as GeoGebra have been shown to effectively support students’
mathematical investigations and motivate the development and exploration of conjectured generalizations
(Hoyles & Noss, 2009). Manipulation of mathematical objects on a computer screen when working in
small groups, or on a large screen projection in a whole class setting, can become the focus for
mathematical conversations. Adding a classroom network to link computers can enhance inter-group
collaboration and support the development of collective understandings (Roulet, Mackrell, Taylor &
Farahani, 2004; White, 2007). This mix of mathematical investigations, supporting dynamic tools, and
inter-student collaboration becomes more complex when communication is extended beyond the
classroom and over time in asynchronous mode.
Synchronous online communication tools such as text chat supported by a common web-based shared
drawing board (Cakir, Zemel & Stahl, 2009) have been employed to support inter-student mathematical
collaboration over distance. In asynchronous mode, web-based discussion boards have been used to
166
facilitate out of class interaction in university mathematics courses (Thomas, Li, Knott & Li, 2008), but as
Nason and Woodruff (2004) observe, in general, online asynchronous collaborative learning
environments do not support the simple exchange of mathematical ideas in symbol or image forms. To
address this issue and incorporate computer-based mathematical tool support, Simpson, Hoyles, and Noss
(2005) added file sharing to discussion board conversations. Participants, using supporting software,
explored model building off-line and then shared ideas and their work via notes linked to uploaded files.
The project report here is an effort to generate a similar system using GeoGebra and a wiki tool and thus
make available a fully online, asynchronous computer-supported collaborative learning space (CSCL)
(Lehtinen, 2003) for mathematics.
2. ASYNCHRONOUS ONLINE COLLABORATIVE MATHEMATICS
Research with pupils in Grades 7 to 10, working within the Math-Towers website (www.math-towers.ca),
has shown that it is possible to develop an asynchronous collaborative mathematics space where students
can develop collective knowledge (Roulet 2009, 2010, Taylor, 2005). Participants in Math-Towers are
presented with a challenging mathematical problem and provided with a laboratory in which they find
tools (manipulatives) to support exploration of the problem situation, tables for recording data, and a note
pad where they can collect their ideas. In addition to these supports for individual investigation, there is a
communication tool that allows students to share their emerging understandings of the problem. It is
possible for any participant to share their mathematical work by attaching to a note a live copy of the
exploration tool. Others, working on the problem, may take this attachment back to their laboratory and
use it as a starting point for further exploration. In this mathematical environment classes together build a
solution to the problem.
In Math-Towers the tools provided to participants are limited and specific to the particular problem being
investigated. For each challenge new tools must be created by the site developers and participating
students must work through a period while they learn to employ these supports for their investigations.
GeoGebra, running as a server-based application, could provide a much more extensive set of tools for
secondary school students working in an online environment similar to Math-Towers. The challenge,
from a technical point of view, is how to support the process of a student sharing an instance of GeoGebra
as he/she has left it with all others in the class.
3. WIKIS WITH TOOL SUPPORT
At the Faculty of Education, Queen’s University, within the C DWorks project, we have combined
MediaWiki (www.mediawiki.org) with a drawing tool. With this Flash-based extension, contributors to a
wiki conversation can expand on their ideas by providing a graphic. Key to this application is the fact that
the embedded graphic is not static, but is in fact available to others to manipulate and expand within
pages or comments they may contribute (see Figure 1). We hope, in a similar manner, to embed instances
of GeoGebra within wiki pages and thus provide a space where students can, over time, work
collaboratively on mathematical problems.
167
Figure 1: A MediaWiki conversation supported by whiteboard graphics
3. The Plan
A server based application combining MediaWiki and GeoGebra would provide a space where a teacher
could describe a problem in text and provide an initial GeoGebra window. Students could then contribute
to a solution by adding linked pages that contained a revised GeoGebra window and in text provide
commentary on the changes they made. A student, while studying the contributions of his or her
collaborators, could at any point grab a GeoGebra instance that they viewed as productive, create a new
linked wiki page, paste in the GeoGebra file and then use this as a starting point for further investigation,
along with providing a text message describing their actions and thinking. Since this contribution could
be inserted at any point in the conversation there would be the potential for branching and multiple
investigation paths (see Figure 2).
168
Figure 2: Online collaborative problem-solving
169
Upon completion of a problem solving task the collaborators could review the record of the investigation
or problem solution path retained by the wiki. A careful analysis of decisions made and their relative
value in advancing the study could contribute to the development of meta-cognitive processes.
4. AN INVITATION
It is my hope that this description of our plans and the associated session at the First North American
GeoGebra Conference will lead to discussion and refinement of the proposed design for a web-based tool
combining GeoGebra and a wiki structure. In addition, I would hope for the formation of a group that will
work together to realize a GeoGebra based online collaborative exploration space.
8. REFERENCES
Black, P., & Atkin, J. M. (1996). Changing the subject. London: Routledge.
Cakir, M. P., Zemel, A., & Stahl, G. (2009). The Joint Organization of Interaction within a Multimodal
CSCL Medium. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(2), 115-
149.
Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical
development. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 13-20.
Cobb, P., Boufi, A., McClain, K., & Whitenack, J. (1997). Reflective Discourse and Collective
Reflection. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(3), 258-277.
Ernest, P. (1998). Social Constructivism as a Philosophy of Mathematics. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (2009). The technological mediation of mathematics and its learning. Human
Development, 52(2), 129-147.
Hufferd-Ackles, K., Fuson, K. C., & Gamoran-Sherin, M. (2004). Describing levels and components of a
math-talk learning community. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(2), 81B116.
Lehtinen, E. (2003). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An approach to powerful learning
environments. In E. De Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle & J. van Merriënboer (Eds.), Powerful
learning environments: Unravelling basic components and dimensions (pp. 35-53). Amsterdam:
Pergamon.
MediaWiki [computer software]. Version 1.15.3. Available at: www.mediawiki.org
Nason, R., & Woodruff, E. (2004). Online collaborative learning in mathematics: Some necessary
innovations. In T. S. Roberts (Ed.), Online collaborative learning: Theory and practice (pp. 103-
131). Hershey, PA: Information Science Pub.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM]. (2000). Principles and Standards for School
Mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
Romberg, T. A. (1992). Toward a world class curriculum in the United States. In I. Wirzup & R. Streit
(Eds.), Developments in school mathematics education around the world: Volume three (pp. 223-
235). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
170
Roulet, G. (2009). Is seeing (and hearing) believing? In T. Hillman (Ed.), Colloquium on methodological
issues in mathematics education research (University of Ottawa, Dec 4-6, 2009) proceedings,.
Ottawa: Mathematics Education Research Unit, University of Ottawa. Available at:
http://mathedmethod.pbworks.com/Geoff-Roulet
Roulet, G. (2010). Math-Towers: Promoting and supporting online collaborative mathematical
exploration. In S. Gülseçen & Z. Ayvaz Reis (Eds.), Future-Learning: 3nd international Future-
Learning conference on innovations in learning for the future 2010: e-learning (Istanbul, Turkey,
May 10-14, 2010) proceedings (pp. 181-188): Istanbul: Istanbul Kültür University.
Roulet, G., Mackrell, K., Taylor, K., & Farahani, B. (2004). Linking geometric, algebraic and
combinatorial thinking. In D. McDougall & J. Ross (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty sixth
annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of
Mathematics Education (pp. 2 681). Toronto: OISEXT. [CD ROM]
Simpson, G., Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (2005). Designing a programming-based approach for modelling
scientific phenomena. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 143–158.
Taylor, K. L. (2005). An examination of student interactions and mathematical knowledge-building by
dyads of grade 7/8 students in a web-based learning environment. Unpublished master=s thesis,
Faculty of Education, Queen=s University, Kingston, Canada.
Thomas, D., Li, Q., Knott, L., & Li, Z. (2008). The Structure of Student Dialogue in Web-Assisted
Mathematics Courses. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 36(4), 415-431.
White, T. (2007). Code talk: Student discourse and participation with networked handhelds. International
Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(3), 359-382.
171

REFLECTIONS ON THE FIRST EURASIA MEETING OF

GEOGEBRA: EXPERIENCES MET ON WHERE CONTINENTS MEET
Sevinc Gulsecen1 Tolga Kabaca2 Zerrin Ayvaz Reis 3 Elif Kartel4
1
Istanbul University, Faculty of Science, Istanbul, Turkey, gulsecen@istanbul.edu.tr
2
Pamukkale University, Faculty of Education, Pamukkale, Turkey
3
Istanbul University, Faculty of Education, Istanbul, Turkey, ayvazzer@istanbul.edu.tr
4
Istanbul University, Faculty of Education, Istanbul, Turkey
ABSTRACT: The First Euroasia Meetting of GeoGebra (EMG) was held as part of the Future Learning 2010
International Conference in Istanbul, Turkey. The theme of the Future Learning Conference is stated as
“Innovations in Learning for the Future: e-Learning” and GeoGebra will be pronounced as one of innovations
in learning for the future. It was particularly meaningful to make this first organization in Istanbul, in 2010;
because Istanbul has been designated as one of the European Capitals of Culture by the Council of European
Union. Therefore, the time and place were the right choice for the European and Asian GeoGebra Communities
to make the First Eurasia Meeting of GeoGebra, as well as, to celebrate and explore this amazingly beautiful
and historical part of the world. Since GeoGebra can easily be considered as an e-learning platform for the
future, sharing their works with E-learning Community provided new opportunities for participants to improve
their scholar expectations. Furthermore, they have developed new ideas while sharing and discussing their
academic work with this inspiring environment. In this paper we will present the reflections on the First Eurasia
Meeting of GeoGebra based on pre-conference preparatory activities, observations made during the conference
and discussions/dialogs with participants.
1. INTRODUCTION
A genuine definition of Mathematics may be stated as “a science of searching pattern in complicated

structures”. This definition contains a message for both mathematicians, who try to make contributions
to mathematics as a pure science and mathematics educators, who are looking for innovative ways of
teaching mathematics. Analyzing the secret pattern of a complicated structure is utilized. In this sense,
it can be said that one of the important components of efficient mathematics education is to teach
being able to look at concepts and events in multiple ways. Formally, we can name this approach as
‘’multiple representation’’ (Gulsecen et al., 2010).
Computers have been a theme of intense discussion within the mathematics education community for
more than two decades. If the notion of computers is extended to include other devices, such as
calculators, it can be said that the debate has been going on for over thirty years. Within the
mathematics education community, one of the few issues on which there is consensus regarding the
discussion about technology is that computers alone are not likely to bring any change, and that
intense pedagogical discussion should be undertaken. In other words, if the decision is made to use
technology in the classroom, the debate is still open regarding how to use them, from the perspective
172
of the teacher and the students, as well as from the standpoint of other actors in the mathematics
education landscape (Borba, 2006, pg. 1-2).
GeoGebra is software combining geometry, algebra and table representations, which are three
important representations of mathematical concepts, interactively used with each other thanks to its
dynamic structure (Hohenwarter and Jones, 2007). It presents a perfect platform to design experiments
and exploring activities in levels from primary to higher education. Dr. Markus Hohenwarter and Dr.
Zsolt Lavicza leadership brings mathematics educators, who are interested in using GeoGebra in
mathematics education, close together in an international working group (International Institute of
GeoGebra http://www.geogebra.org/igi) and keeps its development in the way of technical level and
educational usage. In Turkey, GeoGebra is represented by two working groups (GeoGebra Institute of
Ankara - http://www.ankarageogebra.org and GeoGebra Institute of Istanbul – http://geocebir.org)
Numerous research have been made about features of GeoGebra mentioned above, both on pure
mathematics and mathematics education (Preiner, 2008; Kabaca and Bulut, 2009; Carter and Belluci,
2009; Tas, Gulsecen and Kabaca, 2010). GeoGebra-themed works were discussed and the first
international meeting of GeoGebra took place in the city of Linz in Austria in July, 2009. In this
meeting it is proposed that organizing more local meetings will attract more local participants.
The First Euroasia Meetting of GeoGebra (EMG) was held as part of the Future Learning 2010
International Conference in Istanbul, Turkey. The theme of the Future Learning Conference is stated
as “Innovations in Learning for the Future: e-Learning” and GeoGebra will be pronounced as one of
innovations in learning for the future. It was particularly meaningful to make this first organization in
Istanbul, in 2010; because Istanbul has been designated as one of the European Capitals of Culture by
the Council of European Union. Therefore, the time and place were the right choice for the European
and Asian GeoGebra Communities to make the First Eurasia Meeting of GeoGebra, as well as, to
celebrate and explore this amazingly beautiful and historical part of the world. Since GeoGebra can
easily be considered as an e-learning platform for the future, sharing their works with E-learning
Community provided new opportunities for participants to improve their scholar expectations.
Furthermore, they have developed new ideas while sharing and discussing their academic work with
this inspiring environment.
In this paper we will present the reflections on the First Eurasia Meeting of GeoGebra based on pre-
conference preparatory activities, observations made during the conference and discussions/dialogs
with participants.
2. FL2010 CONFERENCE AND EMG MEETING
The Third International Conference on Innovations in Learning for the Future: e-Learning (FL2010),
organized by Istanbul University, Turkish Informatics Foundation, Istanbul Kultur University and
Informatics Association of Turkey, was held at Istanbul Kultur University (Istanbul-TURKEY) On
May 10-14, 2010.
The Future Learning (FL) conferences (FL2004, FL2008 and FL2010) provide a unique forum for the
interchange of ideas, advances, and applications among academicians, practitioners and companies in
the Information and Communication Technology (ICT), Teaching and Learning (both traditional and
web based) and Digital Information Resources fields. Under the Influence of ICT, learning acquired
new dimensions, discussed quite regularly on many levels. With the excellent papers written by
173
researchers, practitioners and academics from several countries, FL conferences encourage a debate on
strategies for the development of the most effective methods, techniques and technologies that will
serve humankind in the lifelong learning process.
The total number of submissions was about 140 papers from 25 countries. The FL2010 Program
Committee has developed an exciting program that includes 35 sessions (contributed, invited and
poster) on the following themes: Information and IST (Information Society Technology) literacy,
Digital Information Resources, Computer Based/Supported Learning, Institutional strategies, policies,
standards, accreditation and legislation for e-Learning, New Technologies for e-Learning, Content
Design for e-Learning, Sociological and psychological dimensions of e-Learning, Learning with
Online Games, Testing and Evaluation of e-Learning Systems, e-Learning Strategies for Moderation
and Examination, Virtual Class Applications, Security problems and solutions in e-Learning, e-
Government and e-Learning, Information Society and e-Learning Strategies for e-Transformation in
Turkey, Distance Learning in Higher Education Institutions and Mobile Learning.
The First Eurasia Meeting of GeoGebra consisted of following activities:
Workshops: Elementary level GeoGebra workshops, for beginners, were organized by

members of GeoGebra Institute of Ankara. The participants who are willing to start exploring
and learning how to use GeoGebra from the beginning were free to attend in these workshops
whereas other participants discussed some advanced use of GeoGebra in more advanced
settings. In total, 110 Mathematics teachers, from all over Turkey, attended the workshops.
Presentations: Scholars from GeoGebra Communities of neighboring as well as abroad
countries (Romania, Hungary, Poland, Korea) have presented their qualified research in
mathematics and mathematics education in the parallel presentation sessions.
Main focuses of workshops were:
• to introduce GeoGebra to the participants, potential GeoGebra users in their teaching and
learning environment, such as math teachers and students.
• to discuss more effective use of GeoGebra in teaching mathematics at various levels.
Oral presentations were organized on following topics:
• The use of GeoGebra in classrooms at various levels

• GeoGebra in Math Education Research
• GeoGebra in Math Research
• GeoGebra as an explorative learning tool.
2.1. Submission and Participation
In order to make the submission process easier, a Surveymonkey environment has been created and
participants has been invited to send their submissions through this environment.
The total number of submissions was 13. Nine papers were accepted for presentation and according to
the evaluation done by scientific committee the average score was 7.6 over 10. This average score can
be considered as an acceptable level of quality. Totally seven foreign scholars have been attended the
meeting: four from South Korea, one from Slovakia, one from Czech Republic and one from Romania.
Actual expected impact of the meeting was planned for local mathematics teachers. Regarding this
expectation, the organizing comity have set a close collaboration with National Ministry of Education
of Turkey and more than 120 teachers from all parts of Turkey have applied to attend the workshops,
174
and 100 of them have registered. The numbers of teachers-participants according to different cities of
the country are presented in Figure 1.
2
2 4
1
21 2 2
2
4 3
1 1
2
1
4
2 3
3 1
3
2 4
6 2 1
2
2
1 2 2
2 2
1
2
Figure-1: Distribution of EMG teachers-participants all over the Turkey
3. EVALUATION OF THE REFLECTIONS ON THE FIRST EURASIA MEETING OF

GEOGEBRA (EMG)
We evaluated the reflections of EMG both in international and national context.
3.1 International reflections
The following nine papers were presented at the international scientific sessions of EMG held in
pararlel with the sessions of FL2010 and included in the content of EMG Proceedings book:
“New methods of teaching and learning mathematics involved by GeoGebra” (Valerian N. Antohe –
Romania)
“Effect of Using GeoGebra of Students’ Success: An Example about Triangles (Mustafa Do an,
Rukiye çel-Turkey)
“Geometric and Algebraic Proofs with Geogebra” (Sema pek, Oylum Akku spir-Turkey)
“Geogebra as a tool for mathematical education in Slovakia” (Jan Guncaga-Slovakia)
“Motivating students in learning mathematics with GeoGebra” (Kyeog-Sik Choi, Korea)
“Constructing 3D Graphs of Function with GeoGebra (2D)” (Jeong-Eun Park, Young- Hyun Son, O-
Won Kwon, Hee-Chan Yang, Kyeong-Sik Choi, Korea)
“Visualization of the construction of various parametric curves” (Murat Ta , Sevinç Gülseçen, Tolga
Kabaca – Turkey)
“Derivative with GeoGebra” (Mehmet Yuyucu, Zerrin Ayvaz Reis – Turkey).
The focal point of the papers was the research on use of GeoGebra in education. Furthermore, there
were papers on modelling of mathematical concepts with GeoGebra and on the effect of GeoGebra on
students and their learning.
175
Figure-2: A Scene from a paper presentation
During the workshop on “More Effective Use of GeoGebra in Teaching Mathematics at Various
Levels”, Dr. Valerian Antohe motivated teachers in order to perform more specific studies with
GeoGebra and after that to share their result in journal published in Romania. Furthermore, through
the help of a consortium, he suggested to publish the journal in Turkish as well as in other foreign
languages.
Umut Akyürek, who is the member of GeoGebra Institute of Ankara and developed a system to be
integrated to GeoGebra, intruduced this system that allows distance users to use GeoGebra
syncronously. Although there is the similar system developed in US (Stahl, 2009), participants
emphasized that it is important to increase the number of similar systems in order to increase the
number of international collaborative studies.
Figure-3: A Scene from Turkish and Foreign participants
3.2 National Reflections
At the “Local Training Workshop For GeoGebra and Using GeoGebra in Mathematics Teaching”
Tolga Kabaca, Muharrem Aktümen, Y lmaz Aksoy and Mehmet Bulut shared their professional
knowledge with turkish mathematics teachers, who are mostly beginners in using GeoGebra. An
176
intensive content about technical properties of GeoGebra and some techniques on creating dynamic
activities with GeoGebra have been presented. The content is included in the EMG Proceedings book.
The most exciting part of the workshop was the time when teachers shared their opinnions and
discussed the use of the system with each other. Many positive feedbacks have been received from the
teachers by various ways. These feedbacks have a potential to reflect the effect of this workshop.
3.3. Feelings of and Comments from Participants
During the conference we have collected the oral and written feedback from participants of EMG.
They also were glad to share their feelings at the discussions and dialogs with us. This information is
categorized as “General Comments” and “Comments on Scientific Sessions”.
General Comments on EMG
“A perfect experience regarding my professional development. I hope it will continue. Many thanks”
“The program of meeting was really succesfull by means of introducing GG. I hope we can meet
again in order to develop original works. Even, it will be perfect to organize a workshop for this”
“Thanks to the dynamic structure of GG and its simplicity (in using it) it is really too easy to
understand some difficult mathematical concepts. But I was unable to understand its features as a
program that helps to retention in learning. I liked the experiences shared by participants and
examples given. I have many positive feelings now.”
Figure-4: A Scene from Local Workshop for Turkish Math Teachers
“It is very successful study for teachers, students and for teaching. I benefitted too much. I hope it
will continue.”
“It was the perfect workshop ever I have attended. Teachers were very careful and responsible. We
learn things we had to learn and start to use them. It was a real fun…..”
“Although it was the first meeting on the topic, the multidirectional way of presenting it made the
meeting satisfactory.”
“I think that it was a serious and effective meeting. At the same time it was a fun! I am so glad that I
have learned how to use GeoGebra”
“I understood that GeoGebra helps in understanding of some difficult mathematical concepts
instead of memorizing them. I will use it definitely in my course.”
177
“Know how to use GeoGebra will help me much in developing course material. “
“I would like to thank you for organizing such a fruitful workshop. You taught us the topics that
were hard to understand. It was so fruitful. Please organize it again!”
“In 21st century it is really important to integrate the ICT and education. I am greatfull to all
instructors of the workshop and to all friends attended the workshop. I hope the Turkish Ministry of
Education will allow us to use this software in our schools.”
Comments on Scientific Sessions

“The papers were really so interesting”
“I found the papers too successful and they were really pedagogical. They let me to think more on
the topic”
“It was impossible to attend all of them but now I have an idea about the use of GeoGebra”
“There was no translation for some of the papers and this was a lack.”
“The papers showed me the way how to apply GeoGebra in my courses and studies.”
“Now I know that I can do something by myself!”
“The papers attracted me. By using GeoGebra it is possible to prepare interactive examples for my
students and to explain the subject more easily”
“I realized that it is possible to prepare some applications in short time and get an immediate
feedback from my students. This made my students more active”
“Now GeoGebra is more interesting to me. I will exactly use it in my courses during next semester.”
“It is real fun to use the colorful and interactive environment of GeoGebra! Someone can explain
the hard mathematical concepts easily by using GeoGebra and it would be definitely more
instructive.”
“The papers extended my vision about the applications someone can make in his/her course”
“The presentation about 3-d objects attracted me much. I will use this facility in my class. Also, the
collaboration between university and Ministry of Education is a good example for partnership and I
like it very much”
“Especially after seeing applications that Korean students did, I was too excited and I believe that,
with enough support and motivation, our students also can do similar applications.
“Now I am seeing the subject from different perspective”
“Attending the sessions help me to decide that GeoGebra is very useful software. Particularly, it
motivates students in their learning and helps for their attention. Teaching and learning mathematics
with GeoGebra will be real fun for me and my students”
“Papers show that it is possible to develop the way of teaching math through a dynamic software”
4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Algebra and geometry are the two main concepts of mathematics curricula of schools. GeoGebra as
one of the dynamic mathematics software combines both geometric and algebraic constructions. It
reinforces students to discover mathematical concepts by doing practices. Using GeoGebra supports
both learners and teachers to learn and teach essential conditions of geometric concepts. All level of
students were provided to gain better understanding of mathematics by the use of GeoGebra (Atiyah,
2001; Sangwin, 2007; Hohenwarter, 2004; Kokol-Voljc, 2007; Hohenwarter at al., 2007; Ipek and
Akku spir, 2010)
First Eurasia Meeting of GeoGebra (EMG) was held as a part of FutureLearning2010 Conference in
Istanbul, Turkey. Since GeoGebra can easily be considered as an e-learning platform for the future,
178
sharing their works with E-learning Community provided new opportunities for participants-
researchers to improve their scholar expectations. Furthermore, they have developed new ideas while
sharing and discussing their academic work with this inspiring environment. On the other hand, the
common view of Turkish mathematics teachers towards EMG was "the most productive meetings we
ever attended".
ACKNOWLEDGMENT: We would like to thank Dr. Zekeriya Karadag, Dr. Zsolt Lavicza and Dr.
Markus Hohenwarter for their encouragements in organizing this meeting in order to be more
accessible for local colleagues and teachers. Also special thanks to Fatih Gursul, member of local
organizing committee for his support during the pre-conference activities and registration process of
Turkish mathematics teachers.
REFERENCES:
Atiyah, M. (2001). Mathematics in the 20th century: Geometry versus Algebra,

Mathematics Today, 37, 2, 46-53.
Borba, M.C. and Villareal, M.E. (2006). Humans-with-Media and the Reorganization of
Mathematical Thinking, New York-USA, Springer.
Carter, J. A. and Ferruci B. J., (2009) An Analysis of Students’ Research on Model
Lessons That Integrate GeoGebra into School Mathematics, Electronic Proceedings of
the Fourteenth Asian Technology Conference in Mathematics, Beijing China, 17-21
December.
Gülseçen, S., Ayvaz Reis, Z. ve Kabaca, T. (Eds), (2010), First Eurasia Meeting Of
GeoGebra (EMG): PROCEEDINGS, stanbul Kültür University Publication: 126,
ISBN:978-605-4233-31-1.
Hohenwarter, M., (2004). Bidirectional dynamic geometry and algebra with GeoGebra.
Hohenwarter, M., Jones, K., (2007). Ways of Linking Geometry and Algebra: The Case
of GeoGebra, Proceedings of British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics,
27,3, November 2007.
Kabaca T ve Bulut, M. (2009), A Suggestion of Using GeoGebra at College Level: The
Case of Finding Arc-Length of a Curve, First international Geogebra Conference, Linz-
Avusturya, 14-15 July.
Kokol-Voljc, V. (2007). Use of mathematical software in pre-service teacher training: the
case of dgs. Proceedings of f the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics,
27,3.
Preiner, J., (2008). Introducing Dynamic Mathematics Software to Mathematics Teacher:
the Case of GeoGebra. Dissertation in Mathematics Education, University of Salzburg.
Sangwin, C. (2007). How does this button work?. The Journal of Online Mathematics
and its Applications, 7.
Stahl, G., (2010), The Virtual Math Teams (VMT) Project, Drexel University, USA.
Tas, M., Gulsecen, S. And Kabaca, T., (2010), Çe itli Parametrik E rilerin as n
Görselle tirilmesi, First Eurasia Meeting Of GeoGebra (EMG): PROCEEDINGS,
Gülseçen, S., Ayvaz Reis, Z. ve Kabaca, T. (Eds), stanbul Kültür Üniversitesi Yay nlar ,
yay n no:126, ISBN:978-605-4233-31-1.
179

THE EFFECT OF THE GEOGEBRA USE IN MATHEMATICS EDUCATION:

A CASE STUDY ON INTEGERS IN TURKEY*
Zerrin Ayvaz Reis 1, Sevinc Gulsecen 2

1
Istanbul University, Faculty of Education, Istanbul, Turkey, ayvazzer@istanbul.edu.tr
2
Istanbul University, Faculty of Science, Istanbul, Turkey, gulsecen@istanbul.edu.tr
* This study was supported as Project Number: 7461 by Istanbul University Scientific Research Projects Unit
Abstract: This case study has been carried out with a view to replying the question of how we can make the subject
of integers, which students in the 6th grades find too difficult to learn, easier and more permanent. The subject of
Integers is one of the most difficult subjects that students have difficulty in grasping because they have only learnt
natural numbers in Math. In general, when students come across a new number system, they have difficulty in
learning it. Also, as they haven’t conceptualized the subject, they do not like the subject and cannot correlate the
mathematical links. However, as teachers and mathematics educators, our duty is to make our students enjoy the
subject of integers and ensure its retention. For this purpose, so as to eliminate the problems faced during the
learning process, we have tried to conceptualize the subject by employing new software, Geogebra, by which we aim
to provide a permanent learning for our students. The subject of integers has been taught with different methods to
two homogeneous classes. One of the classes was taught with traditional (conventional) teaching techniques,
whereas the other was taught by Geogebra.
Keywords: Integers, Geogebra in teaching Math at Turkey, Permanent learning by geogebra
1. INTRODUCTION
GeoGebra is free algebra, geometry and calculus software [1], [2], [3] developed in the University of
Cambridge Education Institute [4], [5], [6]. This software which was awarded a number of awards such as
EASA 2002: European Academic Software Award, Learnie Award 2003: Austrian Educational Software
Award , Comenius 2004: German Educational Media Award Trophées du Libre 2005: International Free
Software Award, category Education AECT Distinguished Development Award 2008: Association for
Educational Communications and Technology (Orlando, USA) and NTLC Award 2010: National
Technology Leadership Award 2010, has been used by several countries in their education systems [2],
[14]. This software, mainly designed for primary education level of students, was added into the
curriculum by the National Education Ministry in order to teach terms in Geometry in the 8th graders
[12], [14].
The most important reasons for the software to be applied are; they enjoy the support of many languages
and online lessons are available in these languages [2].
180
For this purpose, two websites have been implemented and put in use. The site implemented by the
GeoGebra Institute of Istanbul (whose members made Turkish translation of GeoGebra) intends to
contribute to the Computer Assisted Mathematics Learning and enables students and academicians share
information and files. Volunteer educators are expected to support the site so that it could carry out its
intended functions. Another one is Ankara Geogebra Institute. These two institutes aim to make Geogebra
known better and make it more common in Maths teaching by translating it from English to Turkish [12],
[14].
In this study, by using the samples prepared for the subject of integers, how the application of Geogebra
influenced the success of Turkish students is searched through a case study and the findings are presented.
2 CASE STUDY: TEACHING THE SUBJECT OF INTEGERS
According to the Turkish education system, primary and secondary school teachers have to prepare daily
and yearly lesson plans. Yearly lesson plans are prepared by group chair regarding the curriculum stated
by the National Ministry of Education. The daily lesson plans are prepared by class teachers and after
confirmed by group chair they are applied. In order to prepare plans teachers can use various templates
[7], [13]. In our study, we used the template shown in Table 1.
Tablo 1: Template of daily lesson plan

PART 1: DATE :
The name of the subject Class Time recommended
The name of the unit:
Topic to teach:
PART: II
Student Achievements / Goals and Behaviors

Unit concepts and symbols / Behavior pattern
Security Measures (if exist)
Teaching and Learning methods and approaches
The Education Technologies employed – Tools and equipments and Sources
Teaching and learning Activities

Summary:
PART III
Assessment and Evaluation
The connection of the subject with other subjects.

PART IV
Explanations as to the application of the plan
181
2.1 Method:
The application has been implemented in five steps:

1. Formation of classes for case study
2. Lecture
3. Measure the level of learning
4. Measure the retention of learning
5. Evaluate the findings.
2.2 Application
1.Formation of Classes for Application: Regarding the success rates got in degree tests, two
homogenous classes each including totally 12 students, were formed.
2.Lecture: The topic of integers was presented to both classes; by using presentation method [8] to
one and by using GeoGebra to another [9], [11], [13]. Lecture has been prepared regarding the daily
lesson plan template presented in Table-1 (in the daily lesson plan we use “A” for presentation
method and “B” for GeoGebra).
DAILY LESSON PLAN

PART 1: DATE : March, 2010
The name of the Time
Mathematics Class 6 4 hours
subject recommended
The name of the Numbers: Integers
unit:
Topic to teach: Integers, Positive and Negative Integers, Addition and Subtraction with Integers
PART: II
GOAL 1. Acquaint yourself with integers
BEHAVIOURS
1. Explain the integers
2. Explain the meaning of Absolute Value
3. Compares and orders the Integers
Remind them that “+” and “–” signs put in front of the numbers are signs that
shows the direction of the numbers.
It is explained that the union set of positive and negative integers with 0 is called
Student integers set and is shown with letter Z
Achievements /
The operations including the absolute value of integers cannot be done.
Goals and
Emphasize that the absolute value of an integer is positive.
Behaviors
While arranging the integers, numerical axis model is used
GOAL 2: The operations with Integers
BEHAVIOURS:
1. Perform addition and subtraction operations
The problems which require a-b and a+(-b) operations are analyzed individually by
comparing the acquired solutions, a-b= a+(-b)is reached.
The editing and combination features of addition are examined.
That two integers the addition of which is 0 (zero) is emphasized to be the opposite
182
of each other as to the addition operation.

BEHAVIOURS (Teaching with Geogebra):
1. Do the addition and subtraction operations of Integers with Geogebra
Explain the effect of the change on the numerical axis on the shape.
Unit concepts
and symbols / Positive Integers ,Negative Integers
Behavior pattern
A-Presentation method (Lecturing), TPR (Total Physical Response) , Question and Answer,
Teaching and
Problem Solving
Learning methods
B-Teaching with Geogebra, TPR (Total Physical Response) , Question and Answer,
and approaches
Problem Solving
A-Textbook (school book) , NEM(National Education Ministry) approved supplementary
books, Ruler and Board
B-Textbook, MEB (NEM-National Education Ministry) approved supplementary books,
Used in Educational Geogebra, Computer lab, Projector
Technologies Pre-prepared GeoGebra content published in web site.
Subtraction with natural numbers:
Tools, equipments http://www.emathforall.com/gg/student_tr/numberline/num_nn2/index.html
and references Addition and subtraction with natural numbers:
http://www.emathforall.com/gg/student_tr/numberline/num_nn4/index.html
Teacher Subtraction with negative natural numbers:
Student Subtraction with integers:
Addition and subtraction with integers:
Teaching and learning Activities
Attract
Who can count integers? Do you think these numbers are sufficient in real life?
attention
A-Once you have learnt integers, you will use numbers more easily
Motivation B- Once you have learnt the subject of integers by using computer, you will more easily
notice (understand) integers and use the computer more efficiently.
A-You will learn what integers are and learn how to operate with them.
Revision B-You will learn what integers are and will be able to do operations with them on the
computer
Warming up Start with known (acquainted) number samples.
Individual
learning
exercises
The exercises about the subject in the book are given as homework
(Homework,
Make students find the order of numbers in numerical axis
experiment,
problem
solving etc.)
Group Learning In groups of 4, the questions prepared by each group are asked to other groups and answers
Activities are given.
Summary:
1- Learning Integers: We know that cardinal numbers are presented as S ={1,2,3…} and natural numbers as
N={0,1,2,3…}. However, it is not always possible to express everything using natural numbers. For instance,
183
while talking about the weather conditions in winter, in some cities the air temperature is said to be below zero.
…(1, -10 or -40) That number with minus is an integer. That is, integers are necessary just when natural numbers
do not fulfill.
Integers : composed of Negative integers positive integers and zero and shown with Z
Z = {…,-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3,…}
Negative Integers: used in daily life to express the depth of a place below the sea level or the amount of debt we
have.
Positive Integers: used in daily life to express the height of mountains or the heat over zero.
We make up integers by putting to the right and left of zero. We use – to specify that the number is on the left of
zero and + to specify that the number is on the right of zero. In other words, the numbers on the right of zero are
named as positive integers and the numbers on the left of zero are named as negative integers.
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Negative Integers Positive Integers
2- The Order of Integers

When integers are arranged on numerical axis, they increase in number from left to right and decrease from right
to left.
Example: Order (Arrange) the following numbers -1, 3, 5, -2, 0 from small to big (large) by placing them on
numerical axis
Solution: Firstly draw a numerical axis and place the numbers on it.
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
As can be seen from the numerical axis it is -2<-1<0<3<5
3. Addition with Integers

While doing addition with integers, we look at the signs of numbers. If the signs of the numbers are the same, the
sign of the numbers is written and the numbers are added. If the sign of the numbers is different, the sign of the
big number is written and the big number is subtracted from the small number.
Examples:
1) (+3) + (+5) = (+8)
2) (-3) + (-5) = (-8)
3) (+3) + (-5) = (-2)
4) (-3) + (+5) = (+2)
4- Subtraction with Integers:

The signs should be examined first while doing subtraction with integers. – sign that we use in subtraction changes
the sign of the number used in the front. That is if the sign is minus, it turns into plus and if the sign is plus, it turns
into minus. Accordingly,
(-3) - (+5 )= -3 – 5 = -8
(-3) - (-5) = -3+5 = +2
As can be seen in the examples above, first of all, the sign is changed. Then, common laws in addition are applied.
Examples:
1) (+2) + (+5) + (+7) =?
2) (-3) + (-7) + (-8) =?
3) (-3) + (-6) + (+10) =?
4) (-5) - (+8) - (+7) =?
5) (-5) - (-7) - (-9) =?
184
PART III
Assessment and Evaluation
Individual Learning Activities directed Assessment and Evaluation
Learning with groups directed Assessment and Evaluation
Assessment and Evaluation activities for students with learning disabilities and with advanced learning
abilities
The connection of the subject with Social Sciences: the temperature in the regions
other subjects.
PART IV
Explanations as to
The subject has been studied in 4 hours of lesson as advised and with the completion of the
the application of
evaluation activities, the aim has been realized.
the plan
During the lecture presented by using GeoGebra we have used the pre-prepared material in turkish
included in GeoGebra web site. One of sample material is shown Figure 1 [13]. The web address is
presented in the references section of the lesson plan.
Figure 1: Sample of material lecture by using Geogebra
3.Measuring the Level of Learning: By the end of the lecture, in order to measure the level of
learning [10], a test including the following questions had been applied to both classes.
QUESTIONS:
1) (-15) + (-23) =?
2) (+28) + (+54) =?
3) (-58) + (+30) =?
4) (+10) + (+18) + (+23) =?
5) (-28) + (-18) + (-30) =?
6) 3, -5, -7, 10, 0, 7 Arrange the numbers from big (large) to small
7) (+28) - (+18) =?
185
8) (+30) - (+15) - (+3) =?

9) (+17) - (-17) - (+17) =?
10) (-28) - (-35) =?
4.Measuring the retention of learning: The lecture was given to both classes by different methods.
Two weeks after the teaching of the subject, the exam, including the questions shown in Table-1,
was applied to both classes, in order to understand the retention of the subject and to determine the
method that is better for retaining the knowledge[10]. Following questions had been applied to both
classes.
QUESTIONS: The questions of the second exam measuring retention of learning
1) 7, 3, -2, 4, 9, -5, -3 Arrange the numbers from small to big
2) (-38) - (-25) =?
3) (+17) + (+21) + (+13) =?
4) (+32) - (+14) - (+6) =?
5) (+37) + (+25) =?
6) (-23) + (-17) =?
7) (-18) + (-17) + (-10) =?
8) (-12) - (-13) - (+19) =?
9) (+42) - (+21) =?
10) (-64) + (+21) =?
5.Evaluation of Findings: In this step we try to find out if students learned the subject or not and if
they learned it, what is the level of retention [10].
The results taken after the application of the exams (the exams were applied just after the lessons
and 15 days later) to both classes are shown in Table -2.
Table 2: The results of two exams taken by the students of both classes
Students taught with Students taught with
Exam Exam
Geogebra presentation Method
Results Results
Class A Class B
1. 2. 1. 2.
Student-1 90 80 Student -13 70 70
Student -2 90 70 Student -14 100 60
Student -9 100 100 Student -21 60 30
Student -11 90 100 Student -23 60 70
186
The analysis of the results taken by the students of both classes can be seen in Table 3 and Table 4
respectively.
Table 3: The analysis of the results taken by Class A

The analysis of the results of the 1st exam The analysis of the results of the 2nd
exam
Range=20 Range= 100-70=30
Mode=90 Mode= 90
Median = 90 Median =85
Mean = 89 Mean = 85
Standard Deviation = 292 / 11 5.1 Standard Deviation = 1175 / 11 10.3
The success is quite high in the exam taken just after the teaching of the subject with Geogebra, the
average is 89 for each student. However, some details (knowledge) were forgotten in the course of time
and the average fell, though not sharply, 4 points to 85. Moreover, the range is rather heterogeneous in
the second exam. This can be attributed to such factors as students’ not revising the subject and being
unaware of the time of the exam. Yet, the results of both exams are quite good.
Some students’ scores showed a slight decrease. This proves that students have to revise the subject,
otherwise the learning will be forgotten considerably, if not completely. Some other students’ scores
have gone up. This shows that students have revised the subject, thereby understanding the subject better
and made it permanent, thus got a higher mark compared to the previous one.
Table: 4 The analysis of the results got by Class B

The analysis of the results of the 1st The analysis of the results of the 2nd
exam exam
Range=80 Range= 60
Mode=50 Mode= 60
Median= 50 Median=60
Mean =53 Mean = 60
Standard Deviation = 4219 / 11 19.6 Standard Deviation = 4225 / 11 19.6
As a result, in general, lecturing with Geogebra in which more sense organs are appealed to, better
results are achieved. While some students got pretty good marks right after the lecturing of the subject by
traditional teaching methods, some others got rather low marks in contrast. We can conclude that some
students take advantage from verbal teaching, whereas some others can’t. That is why there is a huge gap
(discrepancy) between the scores of the students.
In the exam taken two weeks later, students who revised the subject got higher scores while the students
who got a high marks in the first exam but did not revise the subject got lower marks as they forgot the
details That is to say, traditional teaching method did not prove to be permanent.
While the average of the first exam was 53, at the end of the course of time the average went up to 60.
That is, even if some time passes, the success may go up if studied. However, the success is not much
187
high, here there is just a 7 points increase. As a result, in presentation method the result was not as good
as we had accepted. From this method, students with good verbal ability benefited a good deal.
3 EVALUATION
We had formed two homogeneous groups for our application and had two parallel tests applied in two
weeks’ time. The results obtained from these exams are shown in Table 1. As it can be seen, the success
in learning by traditional teaching is not so high as desired. Most of the students failed to understand the
subject at the desired level with traditional (conventional) teaching method because it appeals only to the
ear (conventional teaching is merely audial.) Apart from this, the students are bored with conventional
teaching and are easily distracted. However, the opposite is the case in teaching with Geogebra. The
success is at a desired level. This is because Geogebra appeal more to their sense organs. Geobebra
helped students conceptualize the operations in addition and subtraction. The students having learned the
integers with Geogebra proved to have a more permanent learning. A few more factors influenced the
results of the exam which was done two weeks later. These are revising or not revising, individual
studying, doing exercises or not, having the test unaware. Considering the results of the second exam,
Geogebra, again, produced better results. On the other hand, there was a slight change in convantional
teaching. This might be because some students revised the subject or did some exercises afterwards.
Nevertheless, the success is not still at a desired level.
Considering the standard deviation and the mean, it can be said that Class A had a more homogeneous
structure, thus concluding that all the students had almost the same level of learning. The results are so
close to each other and the standard deviation is considerably small. This shows us that the class is quite
homogeneous. As for class B, the mean is significantly low yet the standard deviation is extremely big.
Taking these two parameters into account, we can say that this class is heterogeneous. Teaching with
presentation method led to this situation as the way of presentation can only enable students who learn
only by listening to be successful. In teaching through the presentation method, this led to the lack of
learning of students who uses other sense organs while learning. As a result, we can say that the teaching
of integers only through the presentation method hinders a desired level of achievement.
4. CONCLUSION
It is quite obvious in educational sciences that we cannot ensure the full learning just by lecturing the
subject. As this is totally a teacher-centered instruction, it cannot attract the attention of the students.
According to Gagne, we have to attract the attention of the students first. For this we need materials that
attract their attention. That Geogebra is a computer software and students are somewhat interested in
computer makes our job easier.
As can be seen, the success of teaching with Geogebra is higher compared with that of convantional
teaching. Naturally, there is another reason for that. We can attribute it to Gardner’s theory of multiple
intelligences. There are 8 different types of intelligence in the theory of multiple intelligences and
Gardner states that a human being was born with all these types of intelligences but some are dominant.
188
Starting this study, with the application of Geogebra, more intelligences of students are aimed to be
reached at, thus success is to be higher. Besides, according to Edgar Dale's Cone of Experience, we
remember 30 % of what we hear but remember % 80 of what we see, hear and utter. The results of our
application indeed show exactly this.
With Geogebra, students are more involved in the process and more sense organs are appealed to, thus
higher success was achieved. Therefore we can say ‘Making more use of Geogebra in Mathematics
Teaching will be an important factor in an effective math teaching and a permanent learning’. Thus, we
teach students to learn, not to memorize that is the true aim of education.
5. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We would like to thank Istanbul University Department of Scientific Research Project Unit for their
support our study.
[1] Suzuki, J., (2006). The Open Source Revolution. Retrieved June 10, 2010 from
http://www.geogebra.org/publications/2006-FOCUS_suzuki.pdf
[2] Geogebra (http://tr.pardus-wiki.org/GeoGebra )
[3] Grandgenett, N., (2007). Geogebra. Retrieved May 10, 2010 from
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3950/is_200710/ai_n21100292/?tag=content;col1
[4] Hohenwarter, M., Fuchs, K., (2004). Combination of dynamic geometry, algebra and calculus in the
software system GeoGebra. Retrieved May 10, 2010 from
http://www.geogebra.org/publications/pecs_2004.pdf
[5] Hohenwarter, M., Hohenwarter, J. (2008). Introduction to GeoGebra. Retrieved April 1, 2010 from
http://www.geogebra.org/book/intro-en/ .
[6] Hohenwarter, M., Jones, K., Ways of linking geometry and algebra: the case of geogebra. Retrieved
May 15, 2010 from http://www.bsrlm.org.uk/IPs/ip27-3/BSRLM-IP-27-3-22.pdf
[7] Buhan, A., (2008). Whole Courses Activities 6.Degree (Turkish: Tum Dersler Etkinlikleri 6. S f),
Istanbul, Buhan Publishing
[8] Pegem Academy Commission Authors (Turkish: Pegem Akademi Komisyon Yazarlari), (2009).
Developing Programme (Turkish:Program Gelistirme), Ankara, Pegem Publishing
Special Teaching Methods and Techniques (Turkish: Ozel Ogretim Yontem ve Teknikleri), Ankara,
Pegem Publishing
Measurement and Evaluation (Turkish: Olcme ve degerlendirme), Ankara, Pegem Publishing
[11] Sangwin, C.J., Geometrical functions: tools in GeoGebra. Retrieved May 10, 2010 from
http://mathstore.gla.ac.uk/headocs/84Sangwin_C.pdf
[12] Ankara Geogebra Institute, (http://www.geogebraturkiye.org/cms/ )
[13] Tools For Education (www.geogebra.com )
[14] Turkish Geogebra (http://www.geogebra.org/en/wiki/index.php/Turkish )
189
Innovative Technologies for Building Mathematical Models and Modelling
THE EFFECTS OF GEOGEBRA IN CONJECTURES AND PROOFS
lmaz Aksoy, brahim Bayazit & Danyal Soyba
Erciyes University, Turkey
Key words: Dynamic Geometry Software, GeoGebra, Conjecture, Proof, Pre-service Mathematics Teacher
INTRODUCT ON
Mathematical proofs and conjectures are central to mathematics and mathematics education. The most
significant potential contribution of proof in mathematics education is the contribution proofs might
make to students’ mathematical understanding (Hana, 1996; Hersh, 1997).
More specifically, conjectures are mathematically precise hypotheses that are expected to turn out to
be true. Once proven, conjectures become theorems. According to Mazur (1997),
The art of conjecturing has achieved a formidable and quite formal prominence in the mathematical
landscape. I believe that ‘formalization of conjectures’ is a good thing for mathematics, and an
inevitable thing, as mathematical theories grow larger (p. 197).
Despite the importance of proofs, research has demonstrated that students at all levels have great
difficulty with the task of proof construction (Frazier, 1970; Williams, 1980; Baylis, 1983; Senk,
1985; Schoenfeld, 1985; Selden and Selden, 1987; Martin and Harel, 1989; Moore, 1994; Hart, 1994;
Thompson, 1996; Harel and Sowder, 1998). Mathematics educators face a significant task in getting
students to understand the roles of reasoning and proving in mathematics. This challenge has now
gained even greater importance as proof has been assigned a more prominent place in the mathematics
curriculum at all levels. The recent National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) Principles
and Standards document and several other mathematics curricular documents have elevated the status
of proof in school mathematics in several educational jurisdictions around the world.
This renewed curricular emphasis on proof has provoked an upsurge in research papers on the teaching
and learning of proof at all grade levels. This re-examination of the role of proof in the curriculum and
of its relation to other forms of explanation, illustration and justification (including dynamic graphic
software) has already produced several theoretical frameworks, giving rise to many discussions and
even heated debates.
The advancement of dynamical computer software has contributed to fundamental changes in the way
mathematics is being taught at various levels. Not only has a renewed emphasis on visualizing
mathematical concepts been observed in teaching various topics, but also such a dynamic environment
has added the potential for more elaborate student investigations. Hanna (2000) writes: "The
availability in the classroom of software with dynamic graphic capabilities has given a new impetus to
mathematical exploration"; in particular Hanna adds that "dynamic software has the potential to
190
encourage both exploration and proof, because it makes it so easy to pose and test conjectures." This is
particularly important in geometry where research results have shown that dynamic geometry software
programs help students understand geometric propositions because such programs allow them to more
easily perform geometric constructions with high level of accuracy. According to Gawlick (2003),
"DGS expands the scope of activity", by making the ruler and compass constructions more dynamical.
Thus, "students can easily test conjectures by exploring given properties of the constructions they have
produced" (ibid.). In line with these claims, De Villiers (1995) had asserted that explorers are now able
to more easily investigate whether conjectures are true or false through continuous variations of
geometric configurations. GoeGebra is one of the dynamic mathematics software which is the
combination of both geometric and algebraic constructions. It reinforces students to discover
mathematical concepts by doing practice (Hohenwarter, 2004).
The focus of this study is to examine if GeoGebra helps the learner in the exploration, explanation,
and communication of geometrical conjectures. The geometry problems investigated are elementary
and the results of this investigation may help teachers devise appropriate questions that exploit the
potential of the GeoGebra, and provide guidance in order for the learner to reach a desired result.
The availability of a set of powerful computer tools, namely DGS, in mathematics classrooms has
enabled the realization of the aforementioned vision of proving. DGS, due to two main aspects, affords
experimentation: the ability to drag objects to manipulate them dynamically, and visual control.
"Dragging" is the most defining feature of DGS that enables the construction to respond dynamically
to the altered conditions by maintaining the invariant (Goldenberg & Cuoco, 1998). This aspect of
DGS facilitates conjecturing and more inductive approaches to geometric knowledge, as students can
reason about the generality of their hypotheses for several cases (Kaput, 1992).
As much as DGS attracts great interest, concerns have been raised that students using DGS could be
misconceptualizing the nature of mathematical truth; that is, coming to believe that a confirmation of a
conjecture for several cases would secure its truth (Allen, 1996; Chazan, 1993; Hoyles & Jones, 1998;
Laborde, 2000). Hoyles and Jones caution that when pupils can generate their own empirical evidence,
this means that they have little motivation to appreciate the importance of the logical argument and to
produce a proof. They point to the danger that the use of DGS may limit the mathematical work of the
majority to empirical arguments and pattern spotting. As conviction can be obtained easily by
dragging, DGS environments may prevent students from understanding the need and function of proof
(Hadas et al., 2000).
Despite these concerns, other researchers believe that there is no tension between proof and empirical
exploration. Regarding real mathematical activity, de Villiers (1998) argues that exploring ideas with
DGS in an inductive manner makes proof more meaningful, as DGS supports the inductive and
experimental approaches that are so prevalent in the activity of mathematicians. In addition, the
accuracy of constructions in DGS allows the rejection of statements based on the impossibility of the
figure (Botana & Valcarce, 2002).
Empirical studies suggest that DGS could play an important role in enabling students to develop
deductive reasoning (Hadas et aI., 2000; Healy & Hoyles, 2001; Jones, 2000; Mariotti, 2000, 2001;
Marrades & Gutierrez, 2000). What is emergent in these studies is the role of supporting factors in
realizing the potential of DGS as a useful tool to teach proof. In other words, with carefully designed
191
tasks, a classroom environment that supports conjecturing and deductive justifications, teacher
guidance, and a programmable interface, students can highly benefit from the DGS environment in
developing proving skills.
Thus the worry that facilities such as "drag" mode and "measure" afforded by DGS may reduce the
perceived need for deductive proof may be ameliorated by several supporting factors, as emphasized
by Hanna (2000) and Laborde (2000). The studies mentioned above analyzed student activities taking
place in the classroom; however, they did not specifically look at the curriculum materials that are
meant to provide direction in mathematics classrooms. Textbooks written for use with DGS are clearly
one supporting factor that is left uninvestigated within the 'proof with DGS' research.
The teacher's role is central in the evolution of the student's approach to investigating a conjecture. As
De Villiers (1995) points out, it is of utmost importance that while students are investigating a
geometric conjecture through continuous variation with a dynamic software program, they are asked
why they think a particular result is true and challenge them to explain. In this context, the subjects of
this study have been asked to explore geometric conjectures using pencil-and-paper before surveying
the problems in a dynamical environment. The researchers aimed at investigating how a dynamical
environment contributes to an evolution of the exploration strategies of the learners before reaching a
conclusion and communicating what they have observed. For this reason, intervention of the
investigator was critical but it was guided by one objective, namely to direct students to provide a
multi-dimensional inquiry to a claim - that is, an examination that has “communicatory, exploratory
and explanatory functions” as argued in Hoyles and Jones (1998).
Methodology
The target class of this study is pre-service mathematics teachers, students at a large Turkish
university. The course has been designed for prospective mathematics teachers and is intended to
allow students to explore technologies that may be utilized in their future teaching career and to reflect
on the role of these technologies in mathematics education. The class was organized around content
rather than technology. The required mathematical knowledge in these content areas was basic. The
main computer software program used was GeoGebra. 8 weeks (24 hours) were spent on learning the
program. Instead, the instructor of the course typically introduced the technology that would be
employed in a given content area and prepared class activities that often aimed at developing the
students' skills in evaluating the educational potential of the software and technology employed. In-
class activities asked the students to make conjectures in the form of mathematical theorems..
Only five students (out of 20) agreed voluntarily to participate in this study. The meetings (one with
every volunteer) were conducted near the end of the semester. Each individual student-volunteer was
sequentially given three conjectures and asked to examine them first using pencil-and-paper only (a
maximum of 30 minutes) and later using GeoGebra (another 30 minutes). The meetings with the
student-volunteers were videotaped in order to observe the strategies adopted by the students while
investigating the static figure using pencil-and-paper, and then the changes (if any) while investigating
using GeoGebra. As mentioned above, the investigator interfered during the videotaping sessions to
provide some basic guidance to the student volunteers for the purpose of a multi-dimensional response
to the conjecture. In most cases, the guidance offered was in line with the thinking strategy of the
students and only in few cases did the investigator attempt to change the students' approaches.
Because the mathematical knowledge required of students enrolled in this class was minimal, it was
192
important to pose questions that require only a basic knowledge of mathematical concepts.
Specifically, student-volunteers were asked to prove or disprove the following three conjectures:
1. It is possible to divide a given triangle into two triangles having equal areas;
2. If the perimeter of a triangle increases, then its area increases also, and
3. If two parallelograms have one equal side and equal areas, then the other sides are also equal.
Note that the three chosen tasks were dynamic in nature because they all required changes in some
measurements of the geometrical object in question. Since tracking the changes is almost impossible
in a static environment, it became important to investigate the conjectures in a dynamical one. In
addition, all three tasks chosen were related (as will become clear later) and if a pupil is successful in
tackling any one of them, he/she can successfully investigate the other two provided the student is able
to observe the interconnections.
CONCLUSION
In spite of the limited number of students who participated in this study and the recognition that it took
place in a rather particular context, the ability to check the conjectures by the dragging property of the
software appears to be particular1y important (in most cases) for the explorations of the conjectures
and for the explanations that follow. Whereas Hoyles and Jones (1998) suggested that DGS permit the
students "to generate ample evidence for geometric theorems" and "allow them to explain why these
geometrical facts are necessarily true", results of this research show however that students need
explicit mathematical goals if they are using GeoGebra as a demonstration tool. In many mathematical
subjects, demonstrations/proofs of theorems can be done by contradiction, by induction, or other
nonexplanatory methods. Geometry is different in this regard since most of its proofs are explanatory.
For writing mathematical proofs, De Villiers (1998) had suggested introducing proofs to students in
the following sequence: explanation (providing insight of why it is true), discovery (the discovery or
invention of new results), and verification (concerned with the truthfulness of the statement). This
investigation suggests that a DGS environment appears to be less useful in the explanation and the
discovery processes than in the verification process. In most instances, explanation and discovery
required the investigator's interference which later assisted the students in the verification process.
Thus, if a student's approach in a DGS environment is to simply replace a static figure with a similar
figure on the screen, then one should not expect improvement in the student's conceptions.
Since pupils show a preference for the use of empirical argument over deductive reasoning, it is
legitimate to ask if a dynamical environment fosters students' construction or appreciation of proof.
Research results on theorem-proving assert that a strategy is often necessary for reaching the desired
results. Edwards (1997) for instance writes that proving a theorem is often a difficult task which
requires mathematics teachers to give some guidance to the learners. Hoyles and Jones (1998) stated
that it is central that teachers design novel activities that enable students to make links between
empirical and deductive reasoning while investigating a given problem. In this research, it is clear that
a strategy that simply replaces static figures on paper with dynamic figures on the screen need not
improve conceptions. Instead, technology must be used in a way that brings together the construction
process and the verification, thus leading to a formal proof/explanation. In conclusion, one cannot
assume that the use of dynamical software in investigating geometric conjectures will necessarily
bring about change for the better. The challenge remains for the teacher to design questions that
exploit the potential of the new technologies and that provide guidance in order for the learner to reach
193
the desired conclusions.
Due to the small number of students that participated in this study, it is difficult to reach firm
conclusions on how technology contributes to a better understanding of geometric concepts.
REFERENCES
[1] Allen, F. B. (1996). A program for raising the level of student achievement in secondary level
mathematics. Retrieved 10 March 2010, from http://mathematicallycorrect.com/allen.htm
[2] Baylis, J. (1983) 'Proof - The essence of mathematics, part 1', International Journal of
Mathematics Education and Science Technology 14,409-414.
[3] Botana, F., & Valcarce, J. L. (2002). A dynamic-symbolic interface for geometric theorem
discovery. Computers & Education, 38(1-3), 21-35.
[4] Chazan, D. (1993). Instructional implications of students' understanding of the differences
between empirical verification and mathematical proof. In J. L. Schwartz, M. Yerushalmy & B.
Wilson (Eds.), The geometric supposer: What is it a case of? Hillsdale, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
[5] De Villiers, M. (1995) "An Alternative Introduction to Proof in Dynamic Geometry",
Micromath, pp. 14-19, ISSN: 02675501.
[6] De Villiers, M. (1998). An alternative approach to proof in dynamic geometry. In R Lehrer &
D. Chazan (Eds.), Designing learning environments for developing understanding of geometry
and space. Mahwah: NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
[7] Edwards, L. D. (1997) "Exploring the territory before proof: Student's generalizations in a
computer microworld for transformation geometry", International Journal of Computers for
Mathematical Learning, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 187-215, ISSN: 13823892
[8] Frazier Sr., R.C.: (1970), 'A comparison of an implicit and two explicit methods of teaching
mathematical proof via abstract groups using selected rules of logic', Dissertation Abstracts
International 30, 5317A.
[9] Gawlick, T. (2003) "Utilizing DGS as a Heuristic TooI in Introductory Calculus Courses",
Electronic Proceedings of the International Conference on Trends in Mathematics Education.
[10] Goldenberg, E. P., & Cuoco, A. A. (1998). What is dynamic geometry? In R. Lehrer & D.
Chazan (Eds.), Designing learning environments for developing understanding of geometry and
space. Mahwah: NJ: Lawrance Erlbaum.
[11] Hadas, N., Hershkowitz, R., & Schwarz, B. (2000). The role of contradiction and uncertainty in
promoting the need to prove in dynamic geometry environments. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 44, 127-150.
[12] Hanna, G. and Jahnke, N. (1996), in Proof and Proving, edited by A. Bishop et al. (Dordrecht:
Kluwer), pp. 877–908.
[13] Hanna, G. (2000). Proof, explanation and exploration: An overview. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 44,5-23.
[14] Harel, G. and Sowder, L. (1998), 'Students' proof schemes', CBMS Issues in Mathematics
Education: Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education III, 234-283
[15] Hart, E.W. (1994) 'A conceptual analysis of the proof-writing performance of expert and novice
students in elementary group theory', in J.J. Kaput and E. Dubinsky (eds.),
[16] Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (2001). Software tools for geometric problem solving: Potentials and
pitfalls. International Journal of Computers For Mathematical Learning, 6,235-256.
[17] Hersh, R. (1997), Philos. Math., 5, 153–165.
194
[18] Hoyles, C. and Jones, K. (1998) "Proof in Dynamic Geometry Context", In C. Mammana and V.
Villani (Editors), Perspectives on the Teaching of Geometry for the 2lst Century - An ICMI
Study, pp. 121-128, ISBN: 9780792349914.
[19] Jones, K. (2000). Providing a foundation for deductive reasoning: Students' interpretations when
using dynamic geometry software and their evolving mathematical explanations. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 44, 55-85.
[20] Kaput, J. 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.
[21] Laborde, C. (2000). Dynamic geometry environments as a source of rich learning contexts for
the complex activity of proving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44, 151-161.
[22] Mariotti, M. A. (2000). Introduction to proof: The mediation of a dynamic software
environment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44,25-53.
[23] Mariotti, M. A. (2001). Justifying and proving in the cabri environment. International Journal
of Computers For Mathematical Learning, 6,257-281.
[24] Marrades, R., & Gutierrez, A. (2000). Proofs produced by secondary school students learning
geometry in a dynamic computer environment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44, 87-125.
[25] Martin, G.W. and Harel, G. (1989) 'Proof frames of preservice elementary teachers', Journal
for Research in Mathematics Education 20, 41-51.
[26] Mazur, B. (1997), Synthese, 111, 197–210.
[27] Schoenfeld, A.H. (1985), Mathematical Problem Solving, Academic Press, Orlando.
[28] Selden, A. and Selden, J. (1987) 'Errors and misconceptions in college level theorem proving'
Proceedings of the Second International Seminar on Misconceptions and Educational
Strategies in Science and Mathematics. Cornell University
[29] Senk, S. L. (1985) 'How well do students write geometry proofs?', Mathematics Teacher 78,
448--456.
[30] Thompson, D.R. (1996) 'Learning and teaching indirect proof', Mathematics Teacher 89, 474--
482.
[31] Williams, E. (1980) 'An investigation of senior high school students' understanding of the nature
of mathematical proof', journal for Research in Mathematics Education 11, 165-166.
195
Improving GeoGebra
SUPPORTING GROUP MATH COGNITION IN VIRTUAL MATH TEAMS WITH

SOFTWARE CONVERSATIONAL AGENTS
Gerry Stahl, Carolyn Penstein Rosé, Kate O’Hara, Arthur Powell

Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA, carolynprose@gmail.com
Long Branch High School, Long Branch, USA
Rutgers University, Newark, USA
Abstract. This is a research paper on a new tool to support dynamic mathematics in education. The research
explores the use of software agents to engage in synchronous interaction with a small group of students working
online in the Virtual Math Teams environment. The purpose of the agents is to facilitate discourse by the students
that promotes their collaborative learning. In particular, the conversational agents try to encourage academically
productive talk, in which students work together in ways that are accountable to each other and to their task. The
agents are currently being tested in student groups working on problems in combinatorics. This research will soon
be extended to student groups using a multi-user version of GeoGebra.
1. THE VISION OF SOFTWARE AGENTS USED TO SUPPORT COLLABORATIVE ONLINE

WORK WITH DYNAMIC MATH
The vision of the Virtual Math Teams (VMT) Project (Stahl, 2009b) is to open up an online opportunity
for students to get together in small groups to discuss mathematics. The educational theory behind this is
that learning mathematics centrally involves developing skills in mathematical discourse (Sfard, 2008)—
see the companion position paper on math as discourse at this conference (Stahl, Rosé & Goggins, 2010).
While the Internet allows students from around the world to enter into conversation with each other,
turning that abstract possibility into a practical experience with educational benefits requires more than
generic online communication media (Stahl, 2006). The VMT environment supplies some of the kinds of
tools needed for sharing and discussing mathematical constructions and relationships. It also allows
educators to develop well-designed and motivating math topics for exploration and discussion. The VMT
environment is currently being extended to incorporate a multi-user version of GeoGebra—see the
companion technology paper on this at this conference (Stahl et al., 2010).
In order to enhance the focus of students on math topics and to guide them in productive directions, forms
of scaffolding or scripting their discussion are probably important (Kobbe et al., 2007). Of course, well-
conceived topic statements can go a long way toward setting a discussion off in a promising direction
from the start (Powell et al., 2009). Also, following up on the small-group work with various kinds of
feedback afterwards can help to overcome problematic student understandings. For instance, a teacher can
196
annotate or formally assess the work after an online session, student groups can comment on each other’s
findings or class discussion following the online group work can check the thinking of individual groups
and bring multiple approaches into contact with each other.
In addition to scaffolding before and after the small-group work, it is possible to guide the collaborative
process synchronously. It may not be practical to expect a teacher who is supervising several groups to
interact effectively with all of them simultaneously. The groups may even be meeting at times when a
teacher is not available. In fact, groups of students may decide to discuss math topics with no teacher
involved. Our research looks at the possibility of using software conversational agents to guide the
student discourse synchronously in some productive way. Software agents have proven to be effective in
guiding the mathematical work of individual students. In addition, progress in computer analysis of
natural (human) language makes it feasible to design software that can parse typed utterances and respond
to them based on their characteristics. This provides the motivation for our investigations of the use of
“conversational agents” in the VMT environment (Cui et al., 2009).
This paper will first introduce the VMT Project and the form of mathematical learning that it is designed
to foster. Then the paper will discuss the kind of conversational agents that we are developing,
particularly the approach of academically productive talk that the agents are trying to promote in
collaborative student discussions. The paper will conclude by describing our classroom experiments with
topics in combinatorics and in dynamic geometry.
2. THE VIRTUAL MATH TEAMS PROJECT
The Virtual Math Teams (VMT) Project has conducted research since 2003 on how to support small
teams of students around the world to collaborate in online discussions of stimulating mathematical
topics. The project has developed an extensive web-based environment and logged about a thousand
sessions of usage. Analysis of usage has resulted in over a hundred academic publications (see
http://GerryStahl.net/vmt/pubs.html)—the most important of which are collected in Group Cognition
(Stahl, 2006) and Studying Virtual Math Teams (Stahl, 2009b)—and six doctoral dissertations (Çakir,
2009; Litz, 2007; Mühlpfordt, 2008; Sarmiento-Klapper, 2009; Wee, 2010; Zhou, 2009) (see summaries
in Çak r, Zemel & Stahl, 2009; Sarmiento & Stahl, 2008).
The VMT environment—available at the Math Forum—currently includes a social-networking portal

(http://vmt.mathforum.org/VMTLobby), a Java application that integrates synchronous text chat with a
shared whiteboard, social awareness indicators, and an asynchronous community wiki. The dynamic math
GeoGebra system (http://www.geogebra.org) has recently been ported into the VMT environment. The
integration of the open-source GeoGebra code enables it to function in a multi-user, synchronous online
environment. Integration into the VMT environment supports simultaneous text-chat discussion of
dynamic-math diagrams, graphical referencing between chat and diagrams, scrollable history of chat and
diagrams, and pasting of diagrams into the associated wiki.
The incorporation of GeoGebra within the VMT environment provides significant mathematical content
and functionality to enhance mathematical exploration and communication by virtual math teams. The
integration includes the ability to support importing and exporting of GeoGebra dynamic worksheets; this
197
allows teachers and students to take advantage of available curricular materials; it provides a multi-user
version of GeoGebra for the community of teachers and students currently using single-user versions of
GeoGebra. Following a period of testing and research, the Math Forum plans to release the new system
for worldwide usage, providing a convenient online venue for students to engage in synchronous
collaborative learning within a rich environment for mathematical inquiry and knowledge-building
interaction.
3. A NEW FORM OF MATH LEARNING
The Math Forum manages a website (http://mathforum.org) with over a million pages of resources related
to mathematics for middle-school and high-school students, primarily on algebra and geometry, mostly
user generated (as a forerunner of the Web 2.0 philosophy). This site is well established; a leading online
resource for improving math learning, teaching and communication since 1992, the Math Forum is now
visited by several million different visitors a month. A community has grown up around this site,
including teachers, mathematicians, researchers, students and parents—using the power of the Web to
learn math and improve math education. The site offers a wealth of problems and puzzles, online
mentoring, research, team problem solving, collaborations and professional development. Studies of site
usage show that students have fun and learn a lot; that educators share ideas and acquire new skills; and
that participants become increasingly engaged over time (Renninger & Shumar, 2002).
The Virtual Math Teams Project explores the potential of the Internet to link learners with sources of
knowledge around the world, including other learners, information on the Web and stimulating digital or
computational resources. It offers opportunities for engrossing mathematical discussions that are rarely
found in most schools (Boaler, 2008; Lockhart, 2009). The traditional classroom that relies on one
teacher, one textbook and one set of exercises to engage and train a room full of individual students over a
long period of time can now be supplemented through small-group experiences of VMT chats,
incorporating a variety of adaptable and personalizable interactions (Scher, 2002).
4. CONVERSATIONAL AGENTS
We have integrated the agent technology developed by Carolyn Rose’s research group (Cui et al., 2009)
into the VMT environment developed by Gerry Stahl’s research group (Stahl, 2009a). The conversational
agents appear in the VMT interface just like human chat participants (see Figure 1).
There have already been several successful studies of student groups benefitting from the support of
automatically triggered conversational agents that enrich the interaction between students (Kumar &
Rosé, 2010); many of these studies have employed a version of the Virtual Math Teams environment
augmented with this form of dynamic collaborative-learning support (Cui et al., 2009; Kumar & Rosé,
2009). For example, early evaluations measured the extent to which students learned more in conditions
when automatic support was offered in the environment in comparison to conditions where it was not
(Kumar, Gweon et al., 2007; Kumar, Rosé et al., 2007; Wang et al., 2007). These early studies showed
that addition of a support agent into the environment increased pre to post-test learning gains by about
one standard deviation, which is a full letter grade. Subsequent studies compared alternative versions of
this form of automatic support. These evaluations showed additional increases in effectiveness as we have
198
refined the design of the support. For example, Chaudhuri et al. (2009) showed that students learned more
when the support agents allowed the students to put off discussion with the support agents until they were
ready to give it their full attention. Ai et al. (to appear) showed that students learned more when the
support agents engaged in social behavior in addition to only offering cognitive support.
Figure 1. The VMT collaborative-math-learning environment. Note along the right-hand side of the
interface that a software agent named TutorE is listed as a current user, as the poster of several chat
utterances and as the current chat typist.
5. ACADEMICALLY PRODUCTIVE TALK
It is quite easy to program agents to greet students as they enter a VMT chat room and to prompt students
to say something when everyone is quiet for an extended period or to prompt a specific student to
contribute when that student has been particularly quiet. Another agent strategy might be to suggest
mathematical content that is relevant to a current stage of problem solving. This might build on the
intelligent tutoring technologies developed for guiding individual math learning. Intelligent tutors
maintain a model of one or more standard solutions to a problem and also develop a model of the student
understanding or problem-solving strategy, which is then compared step by step with the correct solution.
Such an approach may be more problematic where there is a group of students with different
understandings and where the goal of the math topic is more to explore than to derive the correct answer.
So we are also experimenting with an alternative approach of generic guidance for math discourse and
collaboration.
An approach called “academically productive talk” seems promising for scaffolding collaborative math
discourse. Academically productive talk strategies have developed in response to observed difficulties
199
that teachers have in maintaining mathematical rigor and reasoning in their class discussions (Michaels,
O’Connor & Resnick, 2008). Academically productive talk has three dimensions: accountability to the
community, accountability to math knowledge and accountability to accepted standards of reasoning. The
concept of academically productive talk thus highlights the need to combine appropriate classroom
discourse, mathematical rigor and student reasoning to achieve powerful mathematics instruction and
learning.
The academically productive talk form of classroom interaction is one in which a facilitator (or an agent)
poses a question that calls for a relatively elaborated response (in mathematics, both a solution and a
reason for the solution) and then presses the group as a whole to develop explanations for the solution.
The process includes extended exchanges between teacher and student and among students, and includes
a variety of talk moves, such as asking other students to explain what the first respondent has said,
challenging students—sometimes via posing of counter examples, or “re-voicing” a student’s contribution
(“So let me see if I’ve got your idea right. Are you saying…?”), which makes the student’s idea,
reformulated by the teacher, available to the entire group.
6. EXPERIMENTS WITH COMBINATORICS
We are currently conducting a series of experiments using a curriculum of problems in combinatorics

(Powell, Lai & O’Hara, 2009) specifically designed for the VMT Project by Arthur Powell’s research
group. This involves eight problems:
1. The Towers Problem Set

2. The Pascal’s Triangle Problem Set
3. The Pizza Problem Set
4. The Pizza with Halves Problem Set
5. The World Series Problem Set
6. The Taxicab Problem Set
7. The Cuisenaire Rods Problem Set
8. Final Compare-and-Contrast Problem Set
The problems are closely related to each other and to Pascal’s triangle (Powell & Lai, 2009), which is
introduced in the second problem. A high school class on finite math taught by Kate O’Hara is working
on these problems in small groups. They work on each problem for about two sessions, gradually gaining
insight into the structure of typical combinatorics problems.
In these experiments, conversational agents play different roles, as discussed above. In the first place, we
have tried a broad range of degrees of intervention. We often use a “wizard-of-oz” approach, in which a
human researcher plays the role of the software agent, without the student participants knowing. This
makes it easier to try many different approaches, without being too concerned about the practicality of
programming them.
In some sessions, the agents play a rather directive role, similar to that of a teacher-centered discourse.
Here, the agent recommends steps for students to take, asks questions and provides content-related
feedback. The students become quite focused on interacting with the agents—even more than with each
200
other. They ask the agents to tell them if they have the correct answer and sometimes even ask the agent
to give them the answer.
In other sessions, the agent greets the students at the beginning and then informs them that they are
accountable for their own discourse and math work, but that the agent is available to answer questions. In
such cases, the agent plays the role of an interactive help system without being intrusive. Students can
easily access the agent by addressing it in the chat, just as they would address a peer or teacher.
Probably the most interesting role for the agents is as promoters of academically productive talk. Here,
they monitor the discourse and occasionally intervene to encourage mutual understanding among the
students in a group. Thus, they promote accountability to the collaborative community, to math
knowledge and to accepted standards of reasoning in their class.
7. EXPERIMENTS WITH GEOGEBRA
When the students finish their sessions on combinatorics, we will move on to dynamic geometry topics
involving the use of GeoGebra. Our VMT 2.0 environment, currently in alpha testing in several
experimental classrooms, includes a multi-user version of GeoGebra. In Figure 2, a quadrilateral has been
constructed and the midpoints of its edges have been connected. The chat participants are discussing the
ratio of the area of the interior quadrilateral to that of the original one.
Figure 2. A GeoGebra construction created and discussed collaboratively in the VMT 2.0 learning
environment.
Of course, the work in Figure 2 is just a scenario, not actual student data. When we conduct experiments
with student groups we will be interested in how they integrate work in GeoGebra with the chat discourse.
As an additional layer, we will have the interactions in the chat between students and conversational
201
agents. An added challenge for development of our software agents will be the question of whether the
agents need to analyze the work in the GeoGebra tab or whether they can just focus on the chat discourse.
We hope that our experience with these studies will help us to determine the most effective roles for
conversational agents in facilitating virtual GeoGebra teams.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research is funded in part by the NSF grant “Dynamic Support for Virtual Math Teams” award DRL-
0835383. We wish to thank the participation of Kate O’Hara’s students.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ai, H., Kumar, R., Nguyen, D., Nagasunder, A., & Rosé, C. P. (to appear). Exploring the effectiveness of
social capabilities and goal alignment in computer-supported collaborative learning. Paper
presented at the Intelligent Tutoring Systems.
Boaler, J. (2008). What's math got to do with it? Helping children learn to love their most hated subject:
And why it is important for America. New York, NY: Viking.
Çakir, M. P. (2009). How online small groups co-construct mathematical artifacts to do collaborative
problem solving. Unpublished Dissertation, Ph.D., College of Information Science and
Technology, Drexel University. Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Çak r, M. P., Zemel, A., & Stahl, G. (2009). The joint organization of interaction within a multimodal
CSCL medium. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. 4(2), 115-
149. Web: http://GerryStahl.net/pub/ijCSCL_4_2_1.pdf Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11412-
009-9061-0
Chaudhuri, S., Kumar, R., Howley, I., & Rosé, C. P. (2009). Engaging collaborative learners with
helping agents. Paper presented at the Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AI in
Ed 2009).
Cui, Y., Kumar, R., Chaudhuri, S., Gweon, G., & Rosé, C. P. (2009). Helping agents in VMT. In G. Stahl
(Ed.), Studying virtual math teams. (ch. 19, pp. 335-354). New York, NY: Springer. Web:
Kobbe, L., Weinberger, A., Dillenbourg, P., Harrer, A., Hämäläinen, R., Häkkinen, P., et al. (2007).
Specifying computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-
Supported Collaborative Learning. 2(2), 211-224. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-
9014-4
Kumar, R., Gweon, G., Joshi, M., Cui, Y., & Rosé, C. P. (2007). Supporting students working together on
math with social dialogue. Paper presented at the SLaTE Workshop on Speech and Language
Technology in Education.
Kumar, R., & Rosé, C. P. (2009). Building conversational agents with basilica. Paper presented at the
North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics.
Kumar, R., & Rosé, C. P. (2010). Engaging learning groups using social interaction strategies. Paper
presented at the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics.
202
Kumar, R., Rosé, C. P., Wang, Y. C., Joshi, M., & Robinson, A. (2007). Tutorial dialogue as adaptive
collaborative learning support. Paper presented at the Conference on Artificial Intelligence in
Education (AIED 2007).
Litz, I. R. (2007). Student adoption of a computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) mathematical
problem solving environment: The case of the math forum’s virtual math teams (VMT) chat
service. Unpublished Dissertation, Ph.D., School of Computer and Information Sciences, Nova
Southeastern University. Florida.
Lockhart, P. (2009). A mathematician's lament: How school cheats us out of our most fascinating and
imaginative art forms. New York, NY: Belevue Literary Press.
Michaels, S., O’Connor, C., & Resnick, L. B. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized:
Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in the Philosophy of Education. 27(4),
283-297.
Mühlpfordt, M. (2008). Integration dualer interaktionsräume: Die verknuepfung von textbasierter
synchroner kommunikation mit diskreten konstruktionswerkzeugen. (the integration of dual-
interaction spaces: The connection of text-based synchronous communication with graphical
construction tools [in German]). Unpublished Dissertation, Ph.D., Fakultaet fuer Mathematik und
Informatik, Fern Universitaet. Hagen, Germany.
Powell, A. B., Borge, I. C., Floriti, G. I., Kondratieva, M., Koublanova, E., & Sukthankar, N. (2009).
Challenging tasks and mathematics learning. In E. J. Barbeau & P. J. Taylor (Eds.), Challenging
mathematics in and beyond the classroom: The 16th icmi study. New York, NY: Springer.
Powell, A. B., & Lai, F. F. (2009). Inscriptions, mathematical ideas and reasoning in VMT. In G. Stahl
(Ed.), Studying virtual math teams. (ch. 13, pp. 237-259). New York, NY: Springer. Web:
Powell, A. B., Lai, F. F., & O’Hara, K. (2009). Supplemental curriculum unit for online, collaborative
problem solving in VMT. Web: http://GerryStahl.net/vmt/combinatorics.pdf
Renninger, K. A., & Shumar, W. (2002). Building virtual communities. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Sarmiento, J., & Stahl, G. (2008). Extending the joint problem space: Time and sequence as essential
features of knowledge building. Paper presented at the International Conference of the Learning
Sciences (ICLS 2008). Utrecht, Netherlands. Web: http://GerryStahl.net/pub/icls2008johann.pdf
Sarmiento-Klapper, J. W. (2009). Bridging mechanisms in team-based online problem solving: Continuity
in building collaborative knowledge. Unpublished Dissertation, Ph.D., College of Information
Science and Technology, Drexel University. Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Scher, D. (2002). Students’ conceptions of geometry in a dynamic geometry software environment.
Unpublished Dissertation, Ph.D., School of Education, New York University. New York, NY.
Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: Human development, the growth of discourses and
mathematizing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Stahl, G. (2009a). Designing a mix of synchronous and asynchronous media for VMT. In G. Stahl (Ed.),
Studying virtual math teams. (ch. 16, pp. 295-310). New York, NY: Springer. Web:
Stahl, G. (2009b). Studying virtual math teams. New York, NY: Springer. 626 +xxi pages. Web:
203
Stahl, G., Ou, J. X., Cakir, M. P., Weimar, S., & Goggins, S. (2010). Multi-user support for virtual
geogebra teams. Paper presented at the First North American GeoGebra Conference. Ithaca, NY.
Web: http://GerryStahl.net/pub/geogebrana2010c.pdf
Stahl, G., Rosé, C. P., & Goggins, S. (2010). Analyzing the discourse of geogebra collaborations. Paper
presented at the First North American GeoGebra Conference. Ithaca, NY. Web:
http://GerryStahl.net/pub/geogebrana2010b.pdf
Wang, H. C., Rosé, C. P., Cui, Y., Chang, C. Y., Huang, C. C., & Li, T. Y. (2007). Thinking hard
together: The long and short of collaborative idea generation for scientific inquiry. Paper
presented at the Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL 2007). New
Brunswick, NJ.
Wee, J. D. (2010). Reinventing mathematics problem design and analysis of chat interactions in quasi-
synchronous chat environments. Unpublished Dissertation, Ph.D., National Institute of Education,
Nanyang Techological University. Singapore.
Zhou, N. (2009). Investigating information practices of collaborative online small groups engaged in
problem solving. Unpublished Dissertation, Ph.D., College of Information Science and
Technology, Drexel University. Philadelphia, PA, USA.
204
A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR USING GEOGEBRA

WITH TEACHERS AND STUDENTS
Milan Sherman
University of Pittsburgh, PA
Abstract: I describe a framework for teacher knowledge for using GeoGebra, and important conceptual distinctions
for its use with students. I provide examples from instructional materials used in a teacher education course on the
use of technology for mathematics instruction which demonstrates the importance of these frameworks in describing
students’ (and teachers’) opportunities to learn.
Keywords: teacher education; pedagogy; TPACK
TECHNOLOGICAL PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE (TPACK)
Research in teacher education with technology has been criticized for lacking conceptual coherence,
resulting in an eclectic and idiosyncratic collection of case studies and descriptions of exemplary practice.
Mishra and Koehler (2006) have developed and promoted the conceptual framework of Technological
Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) to address this issue. Building on Shulman’s (1986) idea of
pedagogical content knowledge, this framework emphasizes the integrated and highly contextual nature
of the knowledge needed to teach well with technology. Pierson (2001) demonstrates that providing
technology to a good teacher, i.e., one with strong pedagogical content knowledge, does not necessarily
result in exemplary instruction which makes use of it. That is, pedagogical content knowledge (PCK )
plus knowledge of technology (T), is not the same as TPACK. As Mishra and Koehler put it
The standard approach suggests that teachers simply need to be trained to use technology.
Underlying this approach is a view of technology that sees it as being a universally applicable
skill; unlocking the power and potential of technology can be achieved by acquiring basic
competency with hardware and software packages. (p. 1031)
In order to make the best use of GeoGebra, teachers must have a deep, integrated knowledge of the
content to be taught, the students who are to learn it, and the affordances and constraints of GeoGebra in
relation to both (see Figure 1).
205
Figure 1. A schematic of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Retrieved from http://tpack.org
Most mathematics teachers did not learn mathematics using technology, and have few images of
meaningful use of technology for mathematics instruction (Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck, 2001; Kaput,
1992; Manoucherhri, 1999; Russell, Bebell, O'Dwyer, & O'Connor, 2003). Furthermore, teachers’ beliefs
about the use of technology for instruction may be the most important factor in whether or not they use it,
and how (Drier, 2001; Russell et al., 2003). Thus, one way that a teacher education course can address
teachers’ knowledge and beliefs is by developing their technological content knowledge (TCK). That is,
by providing teachers with the experience of learning mathematics with technology that they often did not
have as students, they can begin to understand the value of a dynamic environment like GeoGebra for
their own students to discover mathematics.
While having this experience as a learner may be a necessary condition for using technology for
mathematics instruction, it is by no means sufficient. In terms of the TPACK framework, TCK
TPACK. In fact, TCK + P TPACK. A primary claim of the TPACK framework is that it is an
integrated and contextual knowledge, not merely the juxtaposition of different types of general
knowledge, i.e., T, P and C. Thus, an approach to teacher education which seeks to have teachers learn
about a host of different types of technologies that can be used in math instruction only allows for a brief
introduction to each. Such an approach may prevent teachers from thinking deeply about how to integrate
technology with instruction as their attention will almost always be at the level of learning the technology.
This approach of learning technological procedures apart from content and pedagogical considerations
has been found to be ineffective (Moursund & Bielefeldt, 1999), and is part of the impetus for a more
integrated approach.
206
My teacher education course has focused on the use of GeoGebra to help teachers enhance instruction and
learning with technology because it is freely available and can be used for a number of different courses,
e.g. algebra, geometry, trigonometry, calculus, etc. I have found that teachers tend to learn GeoGebra
fairly quickly, allowing the focus of the course to be on designing instruction which utilizes it in
meaningful ways. The distinctions described below shift teachers’ focus to pedagogical issues associated
with the use of GeoGebra for instruction, providing a more nuanced understanding of what is meant by
“meaningful.”
AMPLIFIER VS. REORGANIZER USE OF TECHNOLOGY
Pea defines cognitive technologies as those which “help transcend the limitations of the mind (e.g.
attention to goals, short-term memory span) in thinking, learning, and problem-solving activities” (Pea,
1987, p. 91). He further proposes the metaphors of amplifier and reorganizer of mental activity in his
discussion of two fundamental ways in which cognitive technologies might be used in education (Pea,
1985, 1987). These ideas have been used to describe and organize the literature on the use of technology
for mathematics instruction and learning (Heid, 1997; Zbiek, Heid, Blume, & Dick, 2007) as well as by
researchers in describing uses of technology for mathematical learning (Ben-Zvi, 2000; Lee &
Hollebrands, 2008).
When technology is used as an amplifier, it performs more efficiently tedious processes that might be
done by hand, like computations or the generation of standard representations. In this use of technology,
what students do or think about isn’t changed, but can be done with significantly less time and effort. The
use of PowerPoint to display representations of mathematical objects is an example of using a cognitive
technology as an amplifier as the representations could just as well be drawn on a blackboard. The use of
PowerPoint may allow for more accurate, digitally generated representations which can be embedded
prior to its use for instruction, allowing for greater efficiency, but if the use of a digital technology in this
example does not change what students are thinking about with respect to the purpose of presenting these
representations during instruction, then such use is what is meant by amplifier. This use of technology is
epitomized by the white box/black box principle (Buchberger, 1989), in which students first learn a
procedure by hand and then learn how to execute it using technology. It is also characteristic of drill and
practice software programs that are a popular means of preparing students for standardized exams 1. I
view GeoGebra more as a representational tool than a computational tool, and thus there is perhaps less
danger of it being used as an amplifier. However, using GeoGebra to demonstrate what students already
know would be an example of this type of use. For example, giving the students the proof of a theorem
about the diagonals of a rectangle and then demonstrating that it holds in a GeoGebra construction would
seem to add little to their understanding of why it’s true and doesn’t change the focus of their thinking.
As a reorganizer, technology has the power to affect students’ thinking by providing novel
representations which make salient some aspect of a concept which is difficult to make explicit without it,
or to allow for students’ cognitive focus to shift by offloading tedious or time consuming computations to
technological tools, or providing feedback to students that they would otherwise not have access to. For
1
It is interesting to note that most of the recommendations for technology use by the National Mathematics
Advisory Panel in their 2008 Final Report were as an amplifier.
207
example, in analyzing the relationship between the amount of time used and cost of two cell phone plans,
students could use a GeoGebra applet 2 to vary the amount of time dynamically to see how the two phone
plans compare (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. The cost of two cell phone plans with respect of number of minutes used.
The use of GeoGebra in this example reorganizes students’ thinking in a number of ways 3. First, the use
of a dynamic representation has the potential to promote students’ understanding of the relationship
between the quantities in this situation as varying systematically, which encompasses an important
conception of the idea of mathematical function (Chazan, 1999, 2000). This is something that would be
difficult if not impossible to promote in a static environment, and thus gives students access to a concept
they may not otherwise have.
Second, it can help students connect the idea of function as the relationship between variable quantities
(Chazan, 1999; 2000) with the concept of a linear function and its graphical representation, as the lines
are traced out as the “elapsed time” is dragged along the x-axis. This connection between the
representation of a situation and the representation of a mathematical function is difficult to achieve in a
static environment (Nathan, Kintsch, & Young, 1992). Indeed, Kaput (1992) argues that a primary
affordance of representational software is that actions taken in one representational system are automated
in another, which can help students to make important connections between them.
2
I’ve re-created this applet in GeoGebra from a task which appeared in the chapter Using Technology to Foster
Students’ Mathematical Understandings and Intuitions (Knuth & Hartman, 2005).
3 These are affordances of using GeoGebra in this way, and are by no means automatic: “Availability of
representations, however, is insufficient to ensure that student will take advantage of their availability” (Zbiek et al.,
2007, p. 1193). Indeed, understanding this fact, as well as strategies to leverage these affordances with students during
instruction, i.e., get them to notice what you want without telling them, is an important aspect of TPACK.
208
Third, students have opportunities to connect the situation to its representation in GeoGebra. In
particular, the use of this applet may allow for the reversal the common direction of interpretation4 by
having students start with the applet and describe verbally or symbolically the phone plans represented
therein. The ability to move between representations fluently and with understanding is an important
concept in the learning of mathematics in general, and algebra in particular (Chazan, 1999; Moschkovich,
Schoenfeld, & Arcavi, 1993; Nathan et al., 1992). A number of studies have shown that representational
software helps students develop aspects of representational fluency (Burrill et al., 2002; Zbiek et al.,
2007). In all of these ways, GeoGebra allows for students’ cognitive focus to shift from writing and
graphing equations and looking for an intersection point5, and thus acts as a reorganizer of their thinking.
EXPLORATORY VS. EXPRESSIVE ACTIVITY
Another important distinction for students’ work in a technological environment like GeoGebra is how its
use is constrained by the task in which it is used. Researchers have made a distinction between
exploratory and expressive activity (Zbiek et al., 2007), drawing on and generalizing the distinction made
between exploratory and expressive mathematical models (Bliss & Ogborn, 1989; Doerr & Pratt, 2008).
An exploratory model is one created by someone else (generally an expert) that students engage with in
order to investigate a problem, while an expressive model is one that students build themselves. Thus, it
may seem that having students use a dynamic worksheet would be an example of exploratory activity,
while having them use the GeoGebra program while working on an open ended problem would be
expressive activity. But the degree of autonomy is the key factor in distinguishing these two types of
activity, and this is not dictated by the medium so much as how the teacher structures the activity. This
is clear from the description by Zbiek and her colleagues: “when students are given a procedure to carry
out, they are engaging in exploratory activity; however, when students decide which procedures to use
they are engaging in expressive activity” (p. 1181).
With respect to GeoGebra, this is an important difference in considering what tools to provide students
within a dynamic worksheet, if any. At one extreme, one can create a dynamic worksheet for students
with no tools available. They simply drag an object and answer questions. At the other extreme, students
may be given a fairly open ended problem and use GeoGebra to try to solve it with any of the default
tools available. What is pedagogically appropriate depends on students’ prior mathematical knowledge,
the socio-mathematical norms of the classroom, and their experience with GeoGebra.
An example of an exploratory activity is given in Figure 3. Students (in this case, teachers) are asked to
move the slider for b while leaving a and c fixed, and notice the shape traced out by the vertex of the blue
parabola (which is the red parabola), and find the equation for the red parabola. Students are then
directed to change a and c and repeat the process above. Finally, they are asked to generalize their results
4 Interpreting a situation in terms of a mathematical model.

5
This is not to say that more couldn’t be done with this task in a non-technological environment. But the use of
GeoGebra provides “strategic apertures” (Hoyles & Noss, 1992) through which students might gain access to concepts
through representations that would otherwise be difficult or impossible to provide.
209
to determine the equation of the parabola traced out by changing the value of b for any value of a and c,
i.e., . Key features of this activity are that the students are told what to investigate and how,
and should all arrive at the same conclusion if successful. Exploratory activities might scaffold students’
use of GeoGebra, especially students unfamiliar with it, but constrain students’ problem solving by telling
them what to do, and prevent GeoGebra from becoming a tool to think with. That is, no connections
between the mathematics to be investigated and the affordances of the tools provided by GeoGebra are
made, since the applet doesn’t provide any tools besides the three sliders. As Heibert et al. (1997) point
out, students must construct meaning for and with tools, and they do so best when they given the
opportunity to use them.
Figure 3. The blue parabola is the original function. The red parabola is traced out by the vertex by changing the
slider for b.
Expressive activities, by contrast, are much more open-ended, prompting students to make decisions
about what is to be investigated and how. An example of an activity which falls on the more expressive
end of the exploratory-expressive continuum is the construction of a square in GeoGebra. This activity is
used within my teacher education course to introduce teachers to doing mathematics with GeoGebra,
creating the opportunity for GeoGebra to become a mathematical tool for these teachers.
Many teachers have never studied Euclid’s postulates, so to scaffold their engagement in this task we
begin by reviewing the postulates and constructing an equilateral triangle using a compass and
straightedge. This is followed by using GeoGebra to construct the equilateral triangle. Teachers are
asked to reflect on how the two experiences differ, and what the pedagogical implications of using these
tools might be. An important point that comes up, also noted by Kaput (1992), is that tools like a
compass or straightedge are not restricted to mathematical actions. That is, there are many things that one
may do with these tools which would have no mathematical meaning, such as hitting or poking a
classmate. By contrast, one can only draw circles or line segments with the compass or line segment tools
in GeoGebra. These differences matter to the mathematical knowledge that students construct, especially
210
as they relate to precision. A student with weak motor skills or a compass that tends to spread as one tries
to draw a circle with it will have a greater difficulty in understanding the mathematical meaning of their
actions with that tool. The mathematical properties they are intended to use or discover may be less
apparent, possibly leading to incorrect conclusions.
Following this discussion, teachers construct a square in GeoGebra. This task is surprisingly difficult for
many of them, but provides the opportunity to think about both the mathematical properties of the figure
that they are to construct, and how to use the tools in GeoGebra to construct them. They discover the
drag test as a way to monitor their progress, which leads them to consider both the minimal properties
needed to determine a square, as well as equivalent conditions. By not restricting the tools available in
GeoGebra, they begin to think about which tools correspond to Euclid’s postulates, and which tools
would be considered “cheating,” e.g., the perpendicular line tool. That is, the tools begin to develop
mathematical meaning for the teachers as they use them to achieve a given purpose and reflect on whether
and how that purpose was achieved. An important part of the discussion of this activity is the
pedagogical consideration that construction of a square in a static medium may actually obscure the
mathematical significance of this activity for a student. The differences between a square which can be
deformed into other shapes (underconstrained), a square that can be resized and yet still retains the
defining properties of a square (appropriately constrained), and a square which cannot be deformed or
resized (overconstrained), is obscured in a static medium.
The freedom to make decisions about which tools to use and how in GeoGebra seems to be an important
element of developing technological content knowledge (TCK), i.e., using technology to do mathematics.
Reflection and discussion about the pedagogical implications help teachers begin to develop TPACK.
While giving students more freedom and control in their use of GeoGebra may require a greater
investment of time and energy on the part of the teacher, it is important for teachers to consider the
learning opportunities that students gain when given this freedom. Furthermore, the issue of autonomy
may have important implications for understanding students’ thinking: “different insights into learning
result from observing what occurs when one does what one is directed to do with a tool as opposed to
when one initiates what is to be done with the tool” (Zbiek et al., 2007, p. 1181).
CONCLUSION
GeoGebra is a powerful tool for doing, teaching, and learning mathematics. In order to utilize it to its full
potential, careful consideration must be given to how students’ opportunities to learn are related to how
its use is structured within mathematical tasks. The distinctions described above are gleaned from the
literature and personal experience, and can provide ways for teachers to differentiate the use of GeoGebra
that matter for students’ learning.
211
REFERENCES
[1] Ben-Zvi, D. (2000). Toward understanding the role of technological tools in statistical learning.
Mathematical thinking and learning, 2(1&2), 127-155.
[2] Bliss, J., & Ogborn, J. (1989). Tools for exploratory learning. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 5, 37-50.
[3] Buchberger, B. (1989). Should student learn integration rules? SIGSAM Bulletin, 24(1), 10-17.
[4] Burrill, G., Allison, J., Breaux, G., Kastberg, S., Leatham, K., & Sanchez, W. (2002). Handheld
graphing technology in secondary mathematics: E. Lansing: MI: Michigan State University.
[5] Chazan, D. (1999). On teachers' mathematical knowledge and student exploration: A personal
story about teaching a technologically supported approach to school algebra. International
Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 4, 121-149.
[6] Chazan, D. (2000). Toward a "conceptual understanding" of school algebra. In Beyond formulas
in mathematics and teaching: Dynamics of the high school algebra classroom. New York:
Teachers College Press.
[7] Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high
school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal,
38(4), 813.
[8] Doerr, H. M., & Pratt, D. (2008). The learning of mathematics and mathematical modeling. In M.
K. Heid & G. W. Blume (Eds.), Research on technology in the teaching and learning of
mathematics: Research syntheses (Vol. 1, pp. 259-286). Charlotte, NC: Information Age
Publishing.
[9] Drier, H. S. (2001). Beliefs, experiences, and reflections that affect the development of techno-
mathematical knowledge. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology and Teacher
Education, Orlando, FL.
[10] Heid, M. K. (1997). The technological revolution and reform of school mathematics. American
Journal of Education, 106, 5-61.
[11] Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Wearne, D., Murray, H., et al. (1997).
Making sense: Teaching and learning mathematics with understanding. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
[12] Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (1992). A pedagogy for mathematical microworlds. Educational Studies
in Mathematics, 23, 31-57.
[13] Kaput, J. J. (1992). Technology and mathematics education. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of
research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 515-556). New York, NY: Macmillan.
[14] Knuth, E. J., & Hartman, C. (2005). Using technology to foster students’ mathematical
understandings and intuitions In W. J. Masalski & P. C. Elliott (Eds.), Technology supported
mathematics learning environments. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
[15] Lee, H. S., & Hollebrands, K. F. (2008). Preparing to teach mathematics with technology: An
integrated approach to developing technological pedagogical content knowledge. Contemporary
Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8(4), 326-341.
[16] Manoucherhri, A. (1999). Computers and school mathematics reform: Implications for
mathematics teacher education. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching,
18(1), 31-48.
212
[17] Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A
framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
[18] Moschkovich, J., Schoenfeld, A. H., & Arcavi, A. (1993). Aspects of understanding: On multiple
perspectives and representations of linear relations and connections among them. In T. A.
Romberg, E. Fennema & T. P. Carpenter (Eds.), Integrating Research on the Graphical
Representation of Functions (pp. 69-100). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
[19] Moursund, D., & Bielefeldt, T. (1999). Will new teachers be prepared to teach in a digital age?
A national survey of inofrmation technology in teacher education. Santa Monica, CA: Milken
Exchange on Education Technology and the International Society for Technology in Education.
[20] Nathan, M. J., Kintsch, W., & Young, E. (1992). A theory of algebra-word-problem
comprehension and its implications for the design of learning environments. Cognition and
Instruction, 9(4), 329-389.
[21] Pea, R. D. (1985). Beyond amplification: Using the computer to reorganize mental functioning.
Educational Psychologist, 20(4), 167-182.
[22] Pea, R. D. (1987). Cognitive Technologies in Mathematics Education. In A. H. Schoenfeld (Ed.),
Cognitive science and mathematics education (pp. 89-122). Hilldale, NJ: Erlbaum.
[23] Pierson, M. E. (2001). Technology integration practice as a function of pedagogical expertise.
Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(4), 413-430.
[24] Russell, M., Bebell, D., O'Dwyer, L., & O'Connor, K. (2003). Examining teacher technology use:
Implications for preservice and inservice teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education,
54(4).
[25] Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
[26] Zbiek, R. M., Heid, M. K., Blume, G., & Dick, T. P. (2007). Research on technology in
mathematics education: The perspective of constructs. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of
research in mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 1169-1207). Charlotte, NC: Information Age
Publishing.
213
Practical pedagogy-building and maintaining a resource base of

K-12 “teacher-ready” dynamic worksheets and lesson plans.
CHOOSING GEOGEBRA APPLICATIONS MOST APPROPRIATE FOR TEACHER’S

CURRENT GEOMETRY CLASSROOM: PEDAGOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
1 2
Agida G. Manizade Margie Mason
1
Radford University, amanizade@radford.edu
2
The College of William and Mary, mmmaso@wm.edu
Abstract: One of the main pedagogical tasks that mathematics teachers engage on daily basis when teaching
geometry is choosing appropriate activities considering: the content they are teaching, and their students’
background. There are many different frameworks and instruments that have been developed in recent years to
evaluate the quality of various educational technology applications. In this paper we propose a framework for
teachers’ decision making when assessing appropriateness of GeoGebra applications available on-line for teaching
a specific geometric content. We are using vanHiele theory of students’ geometric development as the underlying
structure of our framework.
INTRODUCTION
Teachers’ skills and knowledge such as pedagogical content knowledge and mathematical knowledge for
teaching affect their interaction in the classroom (Ball & McDiarmid, 1988; Hill, Ball, Schilling, 2008;
Shulman, 1987; Sowder, Philipp, Armstrong, & Schappelle, 1999). Based on a seminal empirical study
of the research on teacher education by Medley (1987), researchers suggest that teachers’ competencies
affect teachers’ instructional practices such as planning, reflection, and assessment (“preactive”) as well
as activities teachers do with students during the class (“interactive”), which then affect students’
experiences in the classroom and their cognition development. These findings have been supported and
replicated by mathematics educators in the past two decades of research (Ball & McDiarmid, 1988;
Carpenter et al., 1988; Knapp, 1997; Koehler & Grouws, 1992; Simon, 1997). Teachers use their
knowledge and skills when making decisions on what type of technology applications are most
appropriate for a given geometric topic considering backgrounds of their current students. In this paper
we provide readers with a framework as a tool for teacher’s decision making in choosing appropriate
Geogebra dynamic applications when engaged in “preactive” activity such as planning.
EVALUATION FRAMEWORKS
Different technology evaluation frameworks, tools, and instruments were indentified and developed for
evaluation of quality and usefulness of educational technology applications (Massachusetts Department of
Education, 2003; Noeth & Volkov, 2004; Oliver, 2000). However these frameworks and tools were not
214
designed specifically for teachers’ decision making within a geometry and measurement content area. In
this paper we are proposing such framework that is designed to help teachers to make decisions on use of
specific GeoGebra applications given diverse developmental backgrounds of their students.
Teachers consider several factors when choosing a technology application for a given geometric lesson.
One of the main considerations is students’ developmental background in geometry. There are several
learning theories addressing different levels of geometric development that learners can pose.
Understanding how students learn geometry as described by researchers such as van Hiele and Piaget is
an important component of teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and mathematical knowledge for
teaching and must be considered when planning a geometry lesson (Piaget & Inhelder, 1967; Piaget,
Inhelder, & Szeminska, 1960; van Hiele, 1959; van Hiele-Geldof, 1984). In this paper we are using
VanHiele theory as the underlying component of our evaluation framework (van Hiele, 1959; van Hiele-
Geldof, 1984).
According to vanHiele theory students progress through the following stages of development when
learning geometry: a) Level 1 (Visualization) when students recognize figures by appearance alone, often
by comparing them to a known prototype. The properties of a figure are not perceived. At this level,
students make decisions based on perception, not reasoning; b) Level 2 (Analysis) when students see
figures as collections of properties. They can recognize and name properties of geometric figures, but
they do not see relationships between these properties. When describing an object, a student operating at
this level might list all the properties the student knows, but not make connections between properties of
figures; c) Level 3 (Abstraction) when students perceive relationships between properties and between
figures. At this level, students can create meaningful definitions and give informal arguments to justify
their reasoning. Logical implications and class inclusions, such as squares being a type of rectangle, are
understood. The role and significance of formal deduction, however, is not understood; d) Level 4
(Deduction), when students can construct proofs, understand the role of axioms and definitions, and know
the meaning of necessary and sufficient conditions. At this level, students should be able to construct
proofs such as those typically found in a high school geometry class; e) Level 5 (Rigor), when students at
this level understand the formal aspects of deduction, such as establishing and comparing mathematical
systems. Students at this level can understand the use of indirect proof and proof by contrapositive, and
can understand non-Euclidean systems (Mason, 1998; van Hiele, 1959; van Hiele-Geldof, 1984).
In 1992 Clements and Battista (1992) proposed the existence of Level 0, which they call pre-recognition.
Students at this level notice only a subset of the visual characteristics of a shape, resulting in an inability
to distinguish between figures.
Progress from one level to the next level is dependent on educational experiences rather than on
maturation of a student. Some experiences can impede or facilitate progress within a level or to a higher
level. The van Hiele theory indicates that effective learning takes place when students engage in
discussion and reflection and when they actively experience the objects of study in appropriate contexts.
All of this can be best facilitated by using dynamic applications.
215
When teachers provide their students with appropriate GeoGebra dynamic applications students can have
opportunities to progress to the next level. Teachers can provide instruction at the current levels of their
students to create experiences organized to develop each successive level of understanding.
This theory explains why many students encounter difficulties in their geometry course, especially with
formal proofs. The van Hieles believed that writing proofs requires thinking at a comparatively high
level, and that many students need to have more experiences in thinking at lower levels before learning
formal geometric concepts. We use this theory as a base for a critical framework for evaluating
appropriateness of different GeoGebra applications available on-line for a diverse (in cognitive
development) population of students.
From experience we know that students come to our mathematics classes with wide variety of
developmental backgrounds. Since most students progress through each of the aforementioned levels, our
geometry instruction has to include activities addressing needs of students at these levels with respect to
the same geometry content idea. We propose and define the following three types of activities for
identifying dynamic applications that help addressing students’ various geometric developmental levels.
Type 1 (Developing Analysis) Dynamic Activity: In these activities students get an opportunity to
manipulate and directly compare shapes, and visually match up to their properties. When evaluating
different attributes if geometric shapes (such as length, or area) students can directly measure these
attributes by manipulating the objects within a dynamic application. In these activities students are
encouraged to identify and communicate the properties of the shapes.
Type 2 (Developing Abstraction) Dynamic Activity: In these activities students get opportunities to
manipulate different attributes of individual geometric objects. They get a chance to compare them with
related geometric shapes. They compare and manipulate different properties of these shapes in order to
decide which properties are necessary and sufficient to describe each shape. They are encouraged to
categorize geometric objects into groups by creating families of related objects based on their properties.
Type 3 (Developing Deduction) Dynamic Activity: Students have an opportunity to create meaningful
definitions and give arguments to justify their reasoning. Within a dynamic application, they have a
chance to demonstrate logical implications and class inclusions, such as equilateral triangles being a type
of isosceles triangles. Students are encouraged to examine the meaning of necessary and sufficient
conditions and construct geometric proofs.
SUMMARY
We described a framework for teachers’ decision making when assessing appropriateness of dynamic
applications such as GeoGebra applications available on-line for teaching a specific geometric content.
Type 1 activity is most appropriate for students thinking at levels 0 through level 1. For students are at
levels 2 on vanHiele scale type 2 activities are appropriate. Finally, for students at vanHiele level 3, type
3 activities are most helpful. If a teacher has a class of students ranging in their development from level 1
to level 4, ideally dynamic activities should be designed to address the needs of each student. Since a
typical high school geometry class is assuming student thinking at level 4 we do not see the need for
216
identifying the fourth level of dynamic activities. We trust that this framework is practical for K-12
teachers’ lesson planning as they look for appropriateness of available on-line GeoGebra applications for
their students. We think there is a need for further theoretical development in this area. During the
conference presenters will present participants with examples of aforementioned types of GeoGebra
dynamic activities as listed on http://www.geogebra.org/en/wiki/index.php/English web site.
REFERENCES
Ball, D. L. (1990). The mathematical understanding that prospective teachers bring to teacher education.
Elementary School Journal, 90(4), 449-466. doi: 10.1086.461626
Ball, D. L. & Bass, H. (2000). Interweaving content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach:
Knowing and using mathematics. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on teaching and learning
mathematics (pp. 83-104). Westport, CT: Ablex.
Ball, D. L., & McDiarmid, B. (1988). Research on teacher learning: Studying how teachers’ knowledge
changes. Action in Teacher Education, 102), 17-23.
Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it
special?, Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 389-407. doi: 10.1177/0022487108321554
Clements, D. , & Battista, M. (1992). Geometry and Spatial Reasoning. In D. Grouws, (Eds.) Handbook
of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning, NewYork: Macmillan Publishing.
Hill, H. C., Ball, D. L. & Schilling, S. G. (2008). Unpacking pedagogical content knowledge:
Conceptualizing and measuring teachers’ topic-specific knowledge of students. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 39(4), 372-400.
Medley, D. M. (1987). Evolution of research on teaching. In M. Dunkin (Ed.), The international
encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education (pp. 105- 113). New York: Pergamon.
Noeth, R., & Volkov, B. (2004). ACT Policy Repot. Retrieved May 14, 2010 from
http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/school_tech.pdf
Oliver, M., (2000). An introduction to the evaluation of learning technology. Educational Technology and
Society 3(4).
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1967). The child’s conception of space (F. J. Langodon & J.L. Lunzer, Trans.).
New York: W.W. Norton.
Piaget, J., Inhelder, B., & Szeminska, A. (1960). The child’s conception of geometry. London: Routledge
& Kegan Paul.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher,
15(2), 4-14. doi: 10.3102/0013189x015002004
Silverman, J. &Thompson, P.W. (2008). Toward a framework for the development of mathematical
knowledge for teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11, 499-511.
Simon, M. (2006). Key developmental understandings in mathematics: A direction for investigating and
establishing learning goals. Mathematical Thinking & Learning, 8(4), 359–371.
Simon, M. A. (1997). Developing new models of mathematics teaching: An imperative for research on
mathematics teacher development. In E. Fennema & B.S. Nelson, (Eds.), Mathematics teachers in
transition (pp. 55-87). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
217
Sowder, J. T., Philipp, A. R., Armstrong, B. E., & Schappelle, B. P. (1998). Middle- grade teachers'
mathematical knowledge and its relationship to instruction: A research monograph. New York:
State University of New York Press.
Tirosh, D. (2000). Enhancing prospective teachers' knowledge of children's conceptions: The case of
division of fractions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31, 5-25.
doi:10.2307/749817.
Van Hiele, P.M. (1959). Development and learning process. Acta Paedagogica Ultrajectina, 17.
Van Hiele-Geldof, D. (Ed.). (1984). The didactics of geometry in the lowest class of secondary school.
Brooklyn, NY: Brooklyn College.
218
View publication stats

Ogebra 2010

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Ogebra 2010

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

GeoGebraintegrated professional development: The experience of rural

Conference Paper · July 2010

Frackson Mumba Yazan Alghazo

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

New trends In Higher Education View project

psychological influences on the Learning of Mathematics View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

First North American

July 27-28, 2010

Ithaca College, Ithaca, NY

Martinovic, Dragana. University of Windsor, Ontario / Canada

Karadag, Zekeriya. University of Toronto, Ontario / Canada

• Embedding GeoGebra applets in WeBWorK homework 11

• Using virtual manipulatives to support teaching and

• Integrating technology into mathematics education teacher courses 27

• Analyzing the discourse of GeoGebra collaborations 33

• Using GeoGebra’s randomization and JavaScript to

• A snapshot of GeoGebra community endeavors:

• Using Google Docs with GeoGebra 63

• The Pythagorean group Wiki 69

• GeoGebra, Jing, and classroom Wikis 74

• Dot-2-Dot, basic graphing, and GeoGebra 81

• Mystery plots: motivating algbraic model building

• A composition of technologies - GeoGebra and distance learning 106

• GeoGebra as an instructional tool to promote students’ operational

• Multi-user support for virtual GeoGebra teams 123

• Using GeoGebra to create resources for teachers in high needs areas:

• GeoGebra and process-oriented assessment:

• GeoGebra in the college classroom:

• Polar and parametric functions with GeoGebra 154

• Factoring with GeoGebra 156

• Fun and diversions with GeoGebra 162

• GeoGebra as a component of online collaborative mathematics

• The effect of the GeoGebra use in mathematics education:

• The effects of GeoGebra in conjectures and proofs 190

• Supporting group math cognition in virtual math teams

• A conceptual framework for using GeoGebra with

• Choosing GeoGebra applications most appropriate for teacher’s

Practical Pedagogy-Building and Maintaining a Resource Base of

GEOGEBRA-INTEGRATED PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT:

Lingguo Bu1, Frackson Mumba2, Harvey Henson3

Keywords: GeoGebra, professional development, online learning, problem solving

3.3 Instructional Procedures and Interventions

3.3.1 Video-Based Demonstrations

3.3.2 Emotional Intervention

3.3.3 Scaffolding Problem Solving

3.3.4 Mathematical Content

3.3.5 Data Collection

Very Strongly Strongly Very

Figure 1: Attitudes toward GeoGebra use

Very Strongly Strongly Very

Figure 2: Curricular issues related to GeoGebra use

5.3. Mathematical Content

5.4. Pedagogical Issues

Figure 3: Mathematical content related to GeoGebra use

Very Strongly Strongly Very

Figure 4: Pedagogical issues related to GeoGebra use

Communicating Effective Ways of Teaching and Learning Dynamic Mathematics –

EMBEDDING GEOGEBRA APPLETS IN WEBWORK HOMEWORK

Keywords: GeoGebra, WeBWorK, homework

EMBEDDING GEOGEBRA IN WEBWORK QUESTIONS

INSERTING THE GEOGEBRA PARAMETERS