FOR WHAT PURPOSE DO THE STUDENT TEACHERS USE DGS? A QUALITATIVE STUDY ON THE CASE OF CONTINUITY

Gürsoy, Kadir; Güler, Mustafa; Güven, Bülent; BÜLBÜL, Buket Özüm

FOR WHAT PURPOSE DO THE STUDENT TEACHERS USE DGS? A QUALITATIVE STUDY ON THE CASE OF CONTINUITY

Buket ÖZÜM BÜLBÜL, (Manisa Celal Bayar Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi, Matematik Bölümü, Manisa, Türkiye)

Mustafa GÜLER, (Trabzon Üniversitesi, Fatih Eğitim Fakültesi, Matematik Bölümü, Trabzon, Türkiye)

Kadir GÜRSOY, (Trabzon Üniversitesi, Fatih Eğitim Fakültesi, Matematik Bölümü, Trabzon, Türkiye)

Bülent GÜVEN (Trabzon Üniversitesi, Fatih Eğitim Fakültesi, Matematik Bölümü, Trabzon, Türkiye)

IOJET

13 3

Yıl: 2020 Cilt: 7 Sayı: 3 Sayfa Aralığı: 785 - 801 Metin Dili: İngilizce İndeks Tarihi: 14-11-2020

FOR WHAT PURPOSE DO THE STUDENT TEACHERS USE DGS? A QUALITATIVE STUDY ON THE CASE OF CONTINUITY

Öz:

Although numerous studies have investigated how technology affects academicachievement, very few have focused on the purpose of the use of technology in mathematicseducation. This current study examines how student teachers (STs) benefit from GeoGebra asone of the Dynamic Geometry Software (DGS) while solving continuity problems. In orderto have deeper insights and a better understanding of the intended purposes, a case studyresearch design was adopted for this study. Participants in the study were seven mathematicsSTs. Six open-ended problems were used to collect data. Three themes were found to berelevant for understanding how STs use DGS in a problem solving process: visualize, verify,and calculate. The paper also shows the potential misconceptions of the STs.

Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık

Açıkgül, K., & Aslaner, R. (2015). Investigation of TPACK confidence perception of prospective elementary mathematics teachers. Erzincan University Journal of Education Faculty, 17(1), 118-152.
Açıkyıldız, G. (2013). Mathematics candidate teachers’ understanding of derivative concept and their mistakes (Unpublished master’s thesis). Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon.
Alqahtani, M. M., & Powell, A. B. (2016). Instrumental appropriation of a collaborative, dynamic-geometry environment and geometrical understanding. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 4(2), 72-83.
Aydın, M. & Köğce, D. (2008). Preservice teachers’ perceptions of “equation and function” conceptions. Yüzüncü Yıl University Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(1), 46-58.
Baki, A. (2002). Öğrenen ve öğretenler için bilgisayar destekli matematik. Trabzon: Ceren Yayın Dağıtım.
Baki, A. (2006). Kuramdan uygulamaya matematik eğitimi [Mathematics education from theory to practice]. Trabzon: Derya Kitabevi.
Barrera-Mora, F. & Reyes-Rodrigues, A. (2013). Cognitive processes developed by students when solving mathematical problems within technological environments. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 10(1), 109-136.
Baştürk, S., & Dönmez, G. (2011). Investigating mathematics student teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge in the context of knowledge of assessment. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(3), 17-37.
Beery, S. K. (1975). The effect of teaching continuity via open intervals and of approaching the limit of a function as a generalization of continutiy. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, The Florida State University.
Bezuidenhout, J. (2001). Limits and continuity: Some conceptions of first-year students. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 32(4), 487-500.
Biza, I., & Zachariades, T. (2007). Using dynamic geometry to introduce calculus concepts: CalGeo and the case of derivative. In Proceedings of the Conference of the British Society for Research into the Learning of Mathematics. (pp. 7-12). Sheffield, UK, BSLRM.
Breidenbach, D., Dubinsky, E., Hawks, J., & Nichols, D. (1992). Development of the process conception of function. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23(3), 247-285.
Bridgers, L. C. (2007). Conceptions of continuity: an investigation of high school calculus teachers and their students. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Syracuse University, Hamilton College.
Camargo, L., Samper, C., & Perry, P. (2007). Cabri's role in the task of proving within the activity of building part of an axiomatic system. In D. Pitta-Pantazi & G. Philippou (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth conference of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education – CERME-5 (pp.571-580). Larnaca, Cyprus: CERME.
Choi, K. S. (2010). Motivating students in learning mathematics with GeoGebra. Annals Computer Science Series, 8(2), 65-76.
Clement, L. (2001). What do students really know about functions? Mathematics Teacher, 94(9), 745-748.
Cornu, B. (1991). Limits. In D. Tall (Eds.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp.153-166). Dordrect, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Çekmez, E. (2013). The effect of using dynamic mathematics software on students understanding of the geometric meaning of the derivative concept (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon.
Çekmez, E. (2016). The potential of dynamic geometry software in bridging the link between experimental verification and formal proof. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 7(1), 24-34.
Çekmez, E. & Güler, M. (2019). One problem, multiple solutions: The contribution of DGS to heuristics in the problem-solving process. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 38(3), 231-247.
Diković, L. (2009). Applications GeoGebra into teaching some topics of mathematics at the college level. Computer Science and Information Systems, 6(2), 191-203.
Doerr, H. M., & Zangor, R. (2000). Creating meaning for and with the graphing calculator. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 41(2), 143-163.
Fey, J. T., Hollenbeck, R. M., & Wray, J. A. (2010). Technology and the mathematics curriculum. In B. J. Reys, R. E. Reys, & R. Rubenstein (Eds.), Mathematics curriculum: Issues, trends, and future directions (pp. 41–49). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Filiz, M. (2009). The effect of using Geogebra and Cabri geometry II dynamic geometry softwares in a web-based setting on students’ achievement. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon.
Goos, M., Galbraith, P., Renshaw, P., & Geiger, V. (2000). Reshaping teacher and student roles in technology-enriched classrooms. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 12(3), 303–320.
Gough, J. (2007). Conceptual complexity and apparent contradictions in mathematics language. Australian Mathematics Teachers, 63(2), 8-16.
Güven, B. (2006). Characterizing student mathematics teachers' levels of understanding of spherical geometry (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon.
Healy, L., Hoyles, C., & Laborde, J. M. (2001). Teaching and learning dynamic geometry. Editorial in the special issue on the subject in the IJCML, 6(3).
Hohenwarter, M. & Fuchs, K. (2004). Combination of dynamic geometry, algebra and calculus in the software system GeoGebra. In: Proceedings of Computer Algebra Systems and Dynamic Geometry Systems in Mathematics Teaching Conference. Online at: https://archive.geogebra.org/static/publications/pecs_2004.pdf
Hollebrands, K., & Okumus, S. (2017). Prospective mathematics teachers’ processes for solving optimization problems using Cabri 3D. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 3(3), 206-232.
Hoyles, C. & Jones, K. (1998). Proof in dynamic geometry contexts. In: C. Mammana and V. Villani (Eds), Perspectives on the Teaching of Geometry for the 21st Century. (pp. 121- 128). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Karakuş, F., & Peker, M. (2015). The effects of dynamic geometry software and physical manipulatives on pre-service primary teachers’ van Hiele levels and spatial abilities. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 6(3), 338-365.
Keele, L. (2008). Theories of continuity and infitesimals four philosophers of the nineteenth century, (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University.
Kepçeoğlu, İ. (2010). The effect of using geogebra in teaching limit and continuity on preservice teachers' academic achievement and conceptual learning. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Marmara University, İstanbul..
Kuzle, A. (2012). Investigating and communicating technology mathematics problem solving experience of two preservice teachers. Acta Didactica Napocensia, 5(1), 1-10.
Lee, H., & Hollebrands, K. (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.
Maddux, C. D. & Johnson, D. L. (2005). Classroom Integration of Type II Uses of Technology in Education. New York: The Haworth Press.
Mariotti, M. A. (2000). Introduction to proof: The mediation of a dynamic software environment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44, 25-53.
Marrades, R., & Gutiérrez, Á. (2000). Proofs produced by secondary school students learning geometry in a dynamic computer environment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44 (1-2), 87-125.
Mastorides, E. & Zachariades, T. (2004). Secondary Mathematics Teachers’ Knowledge Concerning the Concept of Limit and Continuity. Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Vol 4 pp 481–488.
Monaghan, J., Sun, S., & Tall, D. (1994). Construction of the Limit Concept with a Computer Algebra System, Proceedings of the Eighteenth 74 Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Lisbon: Program Committee of the 18th PME Conference.
Nair, G. S. (2010). College students’ concept images of asymptotes, limits, and continuity of rational functions (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Ohio State University.
NCTM. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Alexandria, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Olive, J., Makar, K., Hoyos, V., Kor, L. K., Kosheleva, O., & Sträßer, R. (2010). Mathematical knowledge and practices resulting from access to digital technologies. In C. Hoyles & J.- B. Lagrange (Eds.), Mathematics Education and TechnologyRethinking the Terrain (pp. 133–177). Springer US. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1- 4419-0146-0_8
Rowley, J. (2002). Using case studies in research. Management research news, 25(1), 16-27.
Rösken, B., & Rolka, K. (2007). Integrating intuition: The role of concept image and concept definition for students’ learning of integral calculus. The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, 3, 181-204.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. NewYork:Macmilan.
Seldon, J., Seldon, A., & Mason, A. A. (1994). Even good calculus students can’t solve nonroutine problems. In J. J. Kaput & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), Research issues in undergraduate mathematics learning: Preliminary analyses and results. MAA Notes Number 33 (pp. 19–26). Washington, DC: Mathematics Association of America.
Tall, D. (2002). The psychology of advanced mathematical thinking. In Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 3-21). Springer, Dordrecht.
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.
Vinner, S., & Dreyfus, T. (1989). Images and definitions for the concept of function. Journal for research in mathematics education, 20(4), 356-366.
Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Does it compute? The relationship between educational technology and student achievement in mathematics [Adobe Digital Editions version]. Retrieved from https://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/PICTECHNOLOG.pdf
Williams, S. (1991). Models of limit held by college calculus students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(3), 219-236.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (applied social research methods). London and Singapore: Sage.

APA	BÜLBÜL B, Güler M, Gürsoy K, Güven B (2020). FOR WHAT PURPOSE DO THE STUDENT TEACHERS USE DGS? A QUALITATIVE STUDY ON THE CASE OF CONTINUITY. , 785 - 801.
Chicago	BÜLBÜL Buket Özüm,Güler Mustafa,Gürsoy Kadir,Güven Bülent FOR WHAT PURPOSE DO THE STUDENT TEACHERS USE DGS? A QUALITATIVE STUDY ON THE CASE OF CONTINUITY. (2020): 785 - 801.
MLA	BÜLBÜL Buket Özüm,Güler Mustafa,Gürsoy Kadir,Güven Bülent FOR WHAT PURPOSE DO THE STUDENT TEACHERS USE DGS? A QUALITATIVE STUDY ON THE CASE OF CONTINUITY. , 2020, ss.785 - 801.
AMA	BÜLBÜL B,Güler M,Gürsoy K,Güven B FOR WHAT PURPOSE DO THE STUDENT TEACHERS USE DGS? A QUALITATIVE STUDY ON THE CASE OF CONTINUITY. . 2020; 785 - 801.
Vancouver	BÜLBÜL B,Güler M,Gürsoy K,Güven B FOR WHAT PURPOSE DO THE STUDENT TEACHERS USE DGS? A QUALITATIVE STUDY ON THE CASE OF CONTINUITY. . 2020; 785 - 801.
IEEE	BÜLBÜL B,Güler M,Gürsoy K,Güven B "FOR WHAT PURPOSE DO THE STUDENT TEACHERS USE DGS? A QUALITATIVE STUDY ON THE CASE OF CONTINUITY." , ss.785 - 801, 2020.
ISNAD	BÜLBÜL, Buket Özüm vd. "FOR WHAT PURPOSE DO THE STUDENT TEACHERS USE DGS? A QUALITATIVE STUDY ON THE CASE OF CONTINUITY". (2020), 785-801.

APA	BÜLBÜL B, Güler M, Gürsoy K, Güven B (2020). FOR WHAT PURPOSE DO THE STUDENT TEACHERS USE DGS? A QUALITATIVE STUDY ON THE CASE OF CONTINUITY. IOJET, 7(3), 785 - 801.
Chicago	BÜLBÜL Buket Özüm,Güler Mustafa,Gürsoy Kadir,Güven Bülent FOR WHAT PURPOSE DO THE STUDENT TEACHERS USE DGS? A QUALITATIVE STUDY ON THE CASE OF CONTINUITY. IOJET 7, no.3 (2020): 785 - 801.
MLA	BÜLBÜL Buket Özüm,Güler Mustafa,Gürsoy Kadir,Güven Bülent FOR WHAT PURPOSE DO THE STUDENT TEACHERS USE DGS? A QUALITATIVE STUDY ON THE CASE OF CONTINUITY. IOJET, vol.7, no.3, 2020, ss.785 - 801.
AMA	BÜLBÜL B,Güler M,Gürsoy K,Güven B FOR WHAT PURPOSE DO THE STUDENT TEACHERS USE DGS? A QUALITATIVE STUDY ON THE CASE OF CONTINUITY. IOJET. 2020; 7(3): 785 - 801.
Vancouver	BÜLBÜL B,Güler M,Gürsoy K,Güven B FOR WHAT PURPOSE DO THE STUDENT TEACHERS USE DGS? A QUALITATIVE STUDY ON THE CASE OF CONTINUITY. IOJET. 2020; 7(3): 785 - 801.
IEEE	BÜLBÜL B,Güler M,Gürsoy K,Güven B "FOR WHAT PURPOSE DO THE STUDENT TEACHERS USE DGS? A QUALITATIVE STUDY ON THE CASE OF CONTINUITY." IOJET, 7, ss.785 - 801, 2020.
ISNAD	BÜLBÜL, Buket Özüm vd. "FOR WHAT PURPOSE DO THE STUDENT TEACHERS USE DGS? A QUALITATIVE STUDY ON THE CASE OF CONTINUITY". IOJET 7/3 (2020), 785-801.