1. Home
  2. Vol 6, No 1 (2022)
  3. Baya'a

Technology-Based Collaborative Learning for Developing the Dynamic Concept of the Angle

Nimer Baya'a, Wajeeh Daher, Samah Mahagna

Abstract


This research intends to investigate the effect of collaborative computerized learning using GeoGebra on the development of the concept images of angle among seventh graders who were engaged in computerized collaborative activities that encouraged the development of five types of angle concept images: verbal, authentic-life, graphical, numeric, and dynamic. The research sample consisted of eight seventh grade students who worked collaboratively in groups of two. Two tests (a pre-test and a post-test) were administered to examine the development of students’ conceptual images of the angle. In addition, interviews were held with the participants to study this development. The Constant Comparison Method was used to analyze the data. The results showed positive effects of the visual and dynamic use of GeoGebra, as well as of the collaborative learning, on the development of participants' concept images of the angle, especially the dynamic one. The research results point to the importance of integrating dynamic tools into the teaching and learning of mathematics.

 

Doi: 10.28991/ESJ-2022-06-01-09

Full Text: PDF


Keywords


Angle; Dynamic Concept; Collaborative Learning; Computerized Learning; Technological Environment; GeoGebra; Mathematics.

References


Alkan, H., & Altun, M. (1998). Mathematics teaching”. Eskiúehir, Open Education Faculty Publications.

Daher, W., Sabbah, K., & Abuzant, M. (2021). Affective engagement of higher education students in an online course. Emerging Science Journal, 5(4), 545–558. doi:10.28991/esj-2021-01296.

Edward A. Silver (1989). NCTM Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics: Responses from the Research Community. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19(4), 338. doi:10.2307/749544.

Daher, W., & Baya’a, N. (2012). Characteristics of middle school students learning actions in outdoor mathematical activities with the cellular phone. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications, 31(3), 133–152. doi:10.1093/teamat/hrr018.

Shahbari, J. A., Daher, W., Baya’a, N., & Jaber, O. (2020). Prospective teachers’ development of meta-cognitive functions in solving mathematical-based programming problems with scratch. Symmetry, 12(9), 1569. doi:10.3390/SYM12091569.

Baya'a, N., & Daher, W. (2010). Middle school students' learning of mathematics using mobile phones: Conditions and consequences. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 21(2), 165-185.

Sas, M., Bendixen, L., Crippen, K., & Saddler, S. (2017). Research and Teaching: Online Collaborative Misconception Mapping Strategy Enhanced Health Science Students’ Discussion and Knowledge of Basic Statistical Concepts. Journal of College Science Teaching, 046(06), 88. doi:10.2505/4/jcst17_046_06_88.

Tall, D., & Vinner, S. (1981). Concept image and concept definition in mathematics with particular reference to limits and continuity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12(2), 151–169. doi:10.1007/BF00305619.

Lambertus, A. J. (2007). Students’ Understanding of the Function Concept: Concept Images and Concept Definitions. MSc Thesis In Mathematics Education, North Carolina State University, United States.

Vinner, S., & Dreyfus, T. (2020). Images and Definitions for the Concept of Function. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(4), 356–366. doi:10.5951/jresematheduc.20.4.0356.

Tall, D. (1992). The Transition to Advanced Mathematical Thinking : In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of Research on MathematicsTeaching and Learning. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (pp. 495–511).

Sulastri, R., Suryadi, D., Prabawanto, S., Cahya, E., Siagian, M. D., & Tamur, M. (2021). Prospective mathematics teachers’ concept image on the limit of a function. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1882(1). doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1882/1/012068.

Vinner, S. (2002). The Role of Definitions in the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced Mathematical Thinking (pp. 65–81). doi:10.1007/0-306-47203-1_5.

Battista, M. T. (2020). Learning Geometry in a Dynamic Computer Environment. Teaching Children Mathematics, 8(6), 333–339. doi:10.5951/tcm.8.6.0333.

Choi-Koh, S. S. (1999). A student’s learning of geometry using the computer. Journal of Educational Research, 92(5), 301–311. doi:10.1080/00220679909597611.

Dixon, J. K. (1997). Computer Use and Visualization in Students’ Construction of Reflection and Rotation Concepts. School Science and Mathematics, 97(7), 352–358. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.1997.tb17376.x.

Lo, J.-J., Gaddis, K., & Henderson, D. (1996). Building upon Student Experience in a College Geometry Course. For the Learning of Mathematics - An International Journal of Mathematics Education, 16(1), 34–40.

Clements, D. H., & Battista, M. T. (1992). Geometry and spatial reasoning. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 420–464). Macmillan Publishing Co, Inc.

Mitchelmore, M. C., & White, P. (2000). Development of angee concepts by progressive abstraction and generalisation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 41(3), 209–238. doi:10.1023/A:1003927811079.

Kaur, H. (2020). Introducing the concept of angle to young children in a dynamic geometry environment. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 51(2), 161–182. doi:10.1080/0020739X.2020.1717657.

Kakihana, K., & Shimizu, K. (1994). The Roles of Measurement in Proof Problems Analysis of Students’ Activities in Geometric Computer Environment. In Proceeding of the 18th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 81-88).

Hohenwarter, M., & Fuchs, K. (2004,). Combination of dynamic geometry, algebra and calculus in the software system GeoGebra. In Computer algebra systems and dynamic geometry systems in mathematics teaching conference (pp. 1-6).

Anabousy, A., Daher, W., Baya’a, N., & Abu-Naja, M. (2014). Conceiving Function Transformations in Different Representations: Middle School Students Working with Technology. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 9(2), 97–112. doi:10.29333/iejme/284.

Fahlberg-Stojanovska, L., & Trifunov, Z. (2010). Constructing and exploring triangles with GeoGebra. Annals. Computer Science Series (Anale. Seria Informatică), 8(2), 45-54.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. In School Science and Mathematics (Vol. 47, Issue 8). NCTM.

Daher, W. (2010). Mathematics Learning Community Flourishes in the Cellular Phone Environment. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 2(2), 1–17. doi:10.4018/jmbl.2010040101.

Daher, W. (2014). Students’ adoption of social networks as environments for learning and teaching: The case of the facebook. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 9(8), 16–24. doi:10.3991/ijet.v9i8.3722.

Baya’a, N., & Daher, W. (2013). Facebook as an educational environment for mathematics learning. In Ġ. Mallia (Ed.), The Social Classroom: Integrating Social Network Use in Education (pp. 171–190). IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-4904-0.ch009.

Daher, W. M., & Shahbari, J. A. (2015). Pre-Service Teachers’ Modelling Processes through Engagement With Model Eliciting Activities With a Technological Tool. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(1), 25–46. doi:10.1007/s10763-013-9464-2.

Swidan, O., & Daher, W. M. (2019). Low achieving students’ realization of the notion of mathematical equality with an interactive technological artifacts. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(4). doi:10.29333/ejmste/103073.

NCTM. (2015) “Strategic use of technology in teaching and learning mathematics: A position of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics”, USA.

Parwati, N. N., & Suharta, I. G. P. (2020). Effectiveness of the implementation of cognitive conflict strategy assisted by e-service learning to reduce students’ mathematical misconceptions. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 15(11), 102–118. doi:10.3991/IJET.V15I11.11802.

González, G., & Herbst, P. G. (2009). Students" conceptions of congruency through the use of dynamic geometry software. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 14(2), 153–182. doi:10.1007/s10758-009-9152-z.

Biber, Ç, Tuna, A., & Korkmaz, S. (2013). The Mistakes and the Misconceptions of the Eighth Grade Students on the Subject of Angles. European Journal of science and mathematics education, 1(2), 50-59.

Chazan, D. (1988). Similarity: Exploring the understanding of a geometric concept. (Technical Report No. 88-15). Educational Technology Center, Cambridge, MA.

Gellert, A. (2014). Students discussing mathematics in small-group interactions: opportunities for discursive negotiation processes focused on contentious mathematical issues. ZDM - Mathematics Education, 46(6), 855–869. doi:10.1007/s11858-014-0594-y.

Wahyuningtyas, N., & Idris. (2020). Increasing geographic literacy through the development of computer supported collaborative learning. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 15(7), 74–85. doi:10.3991/IJET.V15I07.13255.

Sumtsova, O. V., Aikina, T. Y., Bolsunovskaya, L. M., Phillips, C., Zubkova, O. M., & Mitchell, P. J. (2018). Collaborative learning at engineering universities: Benefits and challenges. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 13(1), 160–177. doi:10.3991/ijet.v13i01.7811.

Herbst, P., Gonzalez, G., & Macke, M. (2005). How Can Geometry Students Understand What It Means to Define in Mathematics? Mathematics Educator, 15(2), 17–24.

Beňo, M. (2021). The advantages and disadvantages of e-working: An examination using an aldine analysis. Emerging Science Journal, 5(Special issue), 11–20. doi:10.28991/esj-2021-SPER-02.

Daher, W., Anabousy, A., & Jabarin, R. (2018). Metacognition, positioning and emotions in mathematical activities. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 4(1), 292–303. doi:10.21890/ijres.383184.


Full Text: PDF

DOI: 10.28991/ESJ-2022-06-01-09

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.