Running head: STUDENTS USE OF DYNAMIC SOFTWARE

Reflection of Students Use of Dynamic Software to Teacher Preparation and Training Cetin Kursat Bilir Purdue Univeristy

STUDENTS USE OF DYNAMIC SOFTWARE

Power of dynamic software in students learning is increase day to day. The dynamic learning environments can enable students to act mathematically, to seek relationship between object that would not be as intuitive with a static paper and pen representations (AizikovitshUdi, 2012; p.4944). Even though dynamic software has the power, role of teacher in student learning is also important because teacher is a significant key to integrate technology in teaching and learning (Teo, 2011; Zbiek & Hollebrands, 2008). Joves (2000) has noted that teacher input contributes students study with software. Therefore, we need to examine what new ways of pedagogies and curriculum are appropriate for a new generation working with new tools (Saha, Ayub, & Tarmizi, 2010; p.636). To produce new ways of pedagogies and curriculum, we first need to determine what kinds of relations students have with dynamic software because gaps and needs in student learning can be found after analyzing of students current situation. Therefore, this study is a synthesis of current literature to investigate students strategies when they use dynamic software. Specifically, this paper was an effort to answer the questions: In which way do students use dynamic software programs in Geometry learning? Theoretical Framework This study was used constructivist perspective to answer the research questions. According to Von Glasersfeld (1995), students need to interact with tools to improve their mathematical understanding. In addition, Piagets cognitive development process should be known to explain how or in which way dynamic software effect students. Piaget () has stated that understanding or changing idea involves two main factors which are assimilation and accommodation. For occurring these students current schema should be appropriate to get new information. When people meet with a new information or unfamiliar situation then assimilation

STUDENTS USE OF DYNAMIC SOFTWARE

is occur. A change which assimilation is made to peoples mind is an accommodation. In light of these, students studies should be presented in the studies to answer our questions. Methods Data Sources A search of several databases (DOAJ, EBSCO, JSTOR, ProQuest, ScienceDirect, and SPRINGER) and journals (Asian Social Science, Educational Studies in Mathematics, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, International Journal for Teaching in Mathematics Education, and Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences) was conducted using the key terms GeoGebra, Effect of GeoGebra, using GeoGebra, and student understanding with GeoGebra to identify reports relevant to the research question. One of Journals except others are peer reviewed. I do not decide a specific grade to get more data. Data Analysis To analysis data, coding is used in this study. According to grounded theory process of coding, the researcher will use line by line or segment coding to name the data (Charmaz, 2011). For example, the sentence, a point is like a variableit is assigned different coordinates (Hollebrands, 2007; p.175) coding as a dragging because of variable and different coordinates words. Patterns will be decided (Boyatzis, 1998) and the data grouped together if they are similar to each other. Then, coded data will compare and contrast with the research question to find related results. Since I have constructivist perspective, any created coding schemas were not used. On the contrary, a coding scheme was created according to identified articles which are drawing, dragging, and measurement. Results

STUDENTS USE OF DYNAMIC SOFTWARE

According to analysis of identified articles, two factors were found to answer the research question. First factor is what kinds of dynamic softwares tools were used by students and second factor is what kind of strategies students had to use the tools. Three tools related to the first part are reported: drawing, dragging, and measurement. In addition, two themes related to the second part are described: sure-active and doubt-active. Based on constructivist idea, these themes were created from identified articles. Herceg and Herceg (2010) have emphasized that importance of visualization to solve area problems by using integral. They have reported that GeoGebra enabled students to draw a shape which was understandable. For example, Garber and Picking (2010) have noted that students can graph both linear and nonlinear of equations by using dynamic software. Drawing a shape and observation of these drawing objects develop students critical thinking process (Aizikovitsh-Udi & Radakovic, 2012). Zulnaidi and Zakaria (2012) have contended that the use of graphical representation may make it easier for students to learn about the topics of function (p.105). Dragging evoke to create a relation between abstract meaning of mathematics entities and virtual objects of the world. Therefore, dragging has been a famous topic for research in dynamic software (Leung & Lee, 2012). Students used dragging to test a construction, verify a conjecture, observe behaviors of points under the drag mode, and search for

invariances(Hollebrands, 2007; p. 174). For instance, Jones (2000) has noted that students use dragging to show validity of the solution and this process is named drag test. Students are not just drag a point, but they can also drag lines and figures to find solution. Dragging fosters students to sophistically investigate and deeply understand definition and feature of shapes. According to Holebrands (2007), student dragged points to figure out what kind of changes occurs and how these changes affect properties, such as area and length of side, of the shape.

STUDENTS USE OF DYNAMIC SOFTWARE

Measurement may allow students to move from reasoning about the drawing to reasoning about properties of the geometric object (Hollebrands, 2007; p. 180). Even if this tool seem unhelpful for basic shapes, such as square, students actively investigation is necessary for cognitive development (Piaget). In addition, Herceg and Herceg (2010) have noted that measurement and calculation tools contributed students as illustrate solution processes of integral problems. Sure-active means students know what kind of strategies should be used to solve problems. Conversely, doubt-active means students do not have any strategies about solution of problem. In doubt-active theme, students are playing with software tools to find a way to get solution. Hollebrands (2007) has also named these strategies reactive and proactive. However, these words do not clearly explain process of strategy development. Sure-active is used because if students have any idea to solve problem, that means they experienced that kind of problems before. Then, they will make stronger their understanding with new problems. This process is appropriate with Piagets ideas for cognitive development process. Therefore I choose to use my own terms to define the situation. Most of identified articles reported quantitative data, such as results of pretests and posttests of control and active groups, to explain effects of dynamic software to students achievement. Some of them have reported a high level differences between groups whereas some of article have stated that achievement difference between groups is not as much as researchers expected. For instance, Bakar, Ayup, and Tarmizi (2010) have contend that findings indicated that both groups had significant differences between the pre and posttests, but not significant on the posttest performance between both groups (p.20) whereas Zengin, Furkan, and Kutluca

STUDENTS USE OF DYNAMIC SOFTWARE

(2012) have noted that there is a statistically meaningful evidence which show GeoGebra is increase studentss achievement. Discussion and Conclusion This study investigated background of dynamic softwares effectiveness to students achievements. My initial interest for the study stemmed from an awareness of students inadequate knowledge despite technological improvement. Especially, my previous readings have suggested redesign teacher preparation programs and training for in-service teachers. Therefore, I wonder what we should change or redesign to educate future teacher. Specifically, my interest is understanding students current relation with technology and produce new programs for teacher in light of this analysis. Identified articles presentation type of data and doing suggestions according to these data will be discussed as the first step. Many of articles about dynamic softwares effectiveness, even if I used or did not use in this study, are quantitative study. They used statistical data, such as results of pretests and posttest of control and treatment groups, to show effectiveness of dynamic software. Even if their data show variation of students achievements, their suggestions are still remain weak. I make no claim that their studies are trivial, but I emphasized importance of using qualitative and quantitative studies together to reveal helpful results. The analysis provided two main factors. Even though dynamic software has many different tools, students generally use drawing, dragging, and measurement. Wei and Ismail (2010) have contended that students can have better understanding of certain mathematics concepts by using these tools. The results show each student needs strategies to use these tools. Some of them have strategies whereas others do not know where and how they should start. While students are learning how they can use these tools, they should also have enough

STUDENTS USE OF DYNAMIC SOFTWARE

mathematical content background to use dynamic software. Besides of enough mathematical knowledge, teachers should also be confident with the software. In addition, teachers need enough pedagogical content knowledge to teach with GeoGebra. Joves (2000) has also noted that care-fully designed tasks, sensitive teacher input, and a classroom environment that encourages conjecturing Without such factors, the mediational impact of the software could be such that it may distract students from the geometry of the problem situation (p.81). In conclusion, technology revolution increases teacher responsibility in education. Mathematics teachers should spend more time to find ways in which encourage students to study as well as care their personal development. This study provided specific suggestions which can be used to redesign teacher preparation and training programs. In the future studies, researchers should consider how these factors can be taught teachers.

STUDENTS USE OF DYNAMIC SOFTWARE

There have been studies about dynamic computer software programs for last decade and these programs, such as GeoGebra, allow students to create objects, make measurements, and drag these objects (Hollebrands, 2007; Aizikovitsh-Udi, 2012). References Aizikovitsh-Udi, E., & Radakovic, N. (2012). Teaching probability by using geogebra dynamic tool and implemanting critical thinking skills. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, pp.4943-4947. Bakar, K.A., Ayub, A.F. M., Luan, W. S., & Tarmizi, R.A. (2010). Exploring the effectiveness of using GeoGebra and e-transformation in teaching and learning Mathematics. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2 (2), pp.4650-4654. Garber, K., Picking, D. (2010).Exploring Algebra and Geometry Concepts with GeoGebra. Mathematics Teacher, 104(3). Herceg, D., & Herceg, D. (2010). Numerical Integration with GeoGebra in High School. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 17(4), p.205-210. Hollebrands, K.F. (2007). The Role of a Dynamic Software Program for Geometry in the Strategies High SchoolMathematics Students Employ. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(2), p.164-192. 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(1/2), p. 55-85. Leung, A., & Lee, A. (2013). Students geometrical perception on a task-based dynamic geometry platform. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 82(3), pp.361-377. Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic Epistemology. (E. Duckworth, Trans.). New York: Columbia University Press. Saha, R.A., Ayub, A. F. M., & Tarmizi, R.A. (2010). The Effects of GeoGebra on Mathematics Achievement: Enlightening Coordinate Geometry Learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 8, pp.686-693. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. London: The Falmer Press. Wei, C.S., & Zaleha, I. (2010). Peer Interactions in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning using Dynamic Mathematics Software. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 8, 600-608. Zengin, Y., Furkan, H., & Kutluca, T. (2012). The effect of dynamic mathematics software geogebra on student achievement in teaching of trigonometry. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, p.183-187.

STUDENTS USE OF DYNAMIC SOFTWARE

Zulnaidi, H., & Zakaria, E. (2012). The Effect of Using GeoGebra on Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge of High School Mathematics Students. Asian Social Science, 8(11).