This study shows that using carefully designed DGS tasks enhance students‟
geometric reasoning abilities. In order to be able to generalize the results of this study, further studies are needed to apply on this research or similar ones including selecting larger sample for having a better input in addition to structuring the interview with teachers in a different way to get better feedback without doubting their teaching style. Moreover, similar studies that investigate the effects of DGS need to be done for a longer period of time in which students will have the chance to spend more time working on DGS. Additionally, studies in the literature are about conjecturing but not about locus topic. More studies need to examine the effect of DGS on students‟ learning
111
REFERENCES
Arzarello, F., Andriano, V., Olivero, F. & Robutti, O. (1998). Abduction and
conjecturing in mathematics. Paper presented at the Symposium: Model Based Reasoning in Scientific Discovery, Pavia.
Balacheff, N. (1988). Aspects of proof in pupils' practice of school mathematics. In D. Pimm (Ed.), Mathematics, teachers and children (pp. 216-235). London: Hodder & Stoughton.
Balacheff, N. (1991). The benefits and limits of social interaction: The case of
mathematical proof. In A. J. Bishop, E. Mellin-Olsen, & J. van Dormolen (Eds.), Mathematical knowledge: Its growth through teaching (pp. 175-192). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Bell, A. (1976). A study of pupils‟ proof-explanations in mathematical situations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 7, 23-40.
Biza, I., Nardi, E. & Zachariades, T. (2009, January). Teachers’ views on the role of visualization and didactical intentions regarding proof. Paper presented at the 6th Conference of European Research in Mathematics Education, Lyon, France. Borba, M. C., & Villarreal, M. E. (2005). Humans-with-media and the reorganization of
mathematical thinking. Information and communication technologies, modeling, visualization and experimentation (Vol. 39). New York: Springer.
Calder, N.S. (2004). Spreadsheets with 8 year olds: Easy to visualize? Teachers and Curriculum, 1, 125-143.
Christou, C., Mousoulides, N., Pittalis, M., & Pitta-Pantazi, D. (2004, July 14-18). Proofs through exploration in dynamic geometry environments. Paper presented at the 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of
Mathematics Education, Bergen, Norway.
Davis, R. (1991). Constructivist views on the teaching and learning of mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 4, 195-210.
De Villiers, M. (1999). Rethinking proof with the geometer’s sketchpad. Emeryville, CA: Key Curriculum Press.
De Villiers, M. (2004). Using dynamic geometry to expand mathematics teachers‟ understanding of proof. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 35(5), 703-724.
112
Dreyfus, T. (1991, June 29 - July 4). On the state of visual reasoning in mathematics and mathematics education. Paper presented at the 15th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Assisi, Italy. Dreyfus, T., & Hadas, N. (1996). Proof as an answer to the question why. Zentralblatt
fur Didaktik der Mathematik (International Reviews on Mathematical Education), 96(1), 1-5.
Furinghetti, F., Morselli, F. & Paola, D. (2005, July 10-15). Interaction of modalities in cabri: A case study. Paper presented at the 29th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Melbourn, Australia. Frank, A. & Mariotti, M. (2009, January). Conjecturing and proving in dynamic
geometry: The elaboration of some research hypotheses. Paper presented at the 6th Conference of European Research in Mathematics Education, Lyon, France. Frank, A. & Mariotti, M. (2010). Generating conjectures in dynamic geometry: The
maintaining dragging model. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 15, 225–253. Doi: 10.1007/s10758-010-9169-3. Gallo, E. (1994). Control and solution of algebraic problems. Retrieved from
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:C9YIKSkhGBkJ:semin ariomatematico.dm.unito.it/rendiconti/cartaceo/52-3/263.pdf.
Ginsburg, H. (1981). The clinical interview in psychological research on mathematical thinking: Aims, rationales, techniques. For The Learning of Mathematics, 1(3), 4-11.
Hanna, G. (1989). More than formal proof. For the Learning of Mathematics, 9(1), 20- 23.
Hanna, G., & Jahnke, H.N. (1996). Proof and proving. In A. Bishop, K. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & C. Laborde (Eds), International handbook of mathematics education (pp. 877-908). Dordrecht: Kluwer Acadamic Publishers.
Hanna, G. (2000), Proof, explanation, and exploration: An overview. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44(1-3), 5-23.
Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1990). Software design as a learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 1(1), 1-33.
Harel, G., & Sowder, L. (1996, July). Classifying processes of proving. Paper presented at the 20th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of
Mathematics Education, Valencia, Spain.
Hoyles, C. & Jones, K. (1998). Proof in dynamic geometry contexts. In C. Mammana, & V. Villani (Eds.), Perspectives on the teaching of geometry for the 21st century (pp. 121-128). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
113
Hull, A. & Brovery, A. (2008). The impact of the use of dynamic geometry software on student achievement and attitudes towards mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 48, 45-56.
Jaffe, A. (1997). Proof and the evolution of mathematics. Synthese, 3(2), 133-146. Kleiner, I. (1991). Rigor and proof in mathematics: A historical perspective.
Mathematics Magazine, 64, 291-314.
Magnani, L. (2001). Abduction, reason, and science: Processes of discovery and explanation. New York: Kluwer Academic Plenum Publisher.
Manin, Y. (1998). Truth, rigour, and common sense. In H.G. Dales & G. Oliveri (Eds.), Truth in mathematics (pp. 147-159). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Malaty, G. (2006). The role of visualization in mathematics education: Can visualization promote the casual thinking? In V. Anis'kin et al. (Eds), Strategies for effective teaching of mathematics (pp.1-4). Finland: University of Joensuu.
Mariotti, M. (2000). Introduction to proof: The mediation of a dynamic software environment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44(1/2), 25-53.
Marrades, R. & Gutiérrez, A. (2000). Proofs produced by secondary school students learning geometry in a dynamic computer environment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44(1/2), 87-125.
Mogetta, C., Olivero, F., & Jones, K. (1999). Providing the motivation to prove in a dynamic geometry environment. In The british society for research into learning mathematics (pp. 91–96). Lancaster: St Martin‟s University College.
Moore, R. C. (1994). Making the transition to formal proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27(3), 249-266.
Morselli, F. (2006, July 16-21). Use of examples in conjecturing and proving: an exploratory study. Paper presented at the 30th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Prague, Czech Republic. Olive, J., & Leatham, K. (2000, December 11-14). Using technology as a learning tool
is not enough. Paper presented at TIME 2000 International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Education, Auckland, New Zealand.
Olivero, F. (1999). Cabri-geometre as a mediator in the process of transition to proofs in open geometric situations: An exploratory study. Paper presented at the 4th International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching, Plymouth, UK.
114
Roschelle, J.M., Pea, R.D., Hoadley, C.M., Gordin, D.M., & Means, B.M. (2000). Changing how and what children learn in school with computer-based technologies. The Future of Children, 10(2), 76-101.
Rota, G.C. (1997). The phenomenology of mathematical proof. Synthese, 3(2), 183-197. Sacristán, A., Rojano, T., Santos-Trigo, M., Calder, N., Friedlander, A. & Meissner, H.
(2010). The influence and shaping of digital technologies on the learning – and learning trajectories – of mathematical concepts. In C. Hoyles & J. B. Lagrange (Eds.), Mathematics education and technology-rethinking the terrain (pp.179- 226). US: Springer.
Serra, M. (1997). Discovering geometry: An inductive approach (2nd ed.). Berkeley: Key Curriculum Press.
Simpson, A. (1995). Developing a proving attitude. Conference Proceedings: Justifying and Proving in School Mathematics. Retrieved from
http://www.academia.edu/1371390/Developing_a_proving_attitude.
Sowder, L. & Harel, G. (1998). Types of students' justifications. The Mathematics Teacher, 91(8), 670-675.
Talmon, V. & Yerushalmy, M. (2004). Understanding dynamic behavior: Parent-child relations in dynamic geometry environments. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 57, 91-119.
Thurson, W. (1994). On proof and progress in mathematics. American Mathematical Society, 30(2), 161-177.
Yackel, E. & Hanna, G. (2003). Reasoning and proof. In J. Kilpatrick, G. Martin, & D. E. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 227-236). Reston, V.A.: NCTM.
Zbiek, M. (1998). Prospective teachers‟ use of computing tools to develop and validate functions as mathematical models. Journal for Research in Mathematics
115
116