ZDM Mathematics Education (2011) 43:325336
DOI 10.1007/s11858-011-0329-2
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
An epistemic model of task design in dynamic geometry
environment
Allen Leung
Accepted: 24 March 2011 / Published online: 11 April 2011
! FIZ Karlsruhe 2011
Abstract Dynamic geometry environment (DGE) has
been a catalytic agent driving a paradigm shift in the
teaching and learning of school geometry in the past two
decades. It opens up a pedagogical space for teachers and
students to engage in mathematical explorations that niche
across the experimental and the theoretical. In particular,
the drag-mode in DGE has been a unique pedagogical tool
that can facilitate and empower students to experiment with
dynamic geometrical objects which can lead to generation
of mathematical conjectures. Furthermore, the drag-mode
seems to open up a new methodology and even a new
discourse to acquire geometrical knowledge alternative to
the traditional Euclidean deductive reasoning paradigm.
This discussion paper proposes an epistemic model of
techno-pedagogic mathematic task design which serves as
a theoretical combined-lens to view mathematics knowl-
edge acquisition. Three epistemic modes for techno-peda-
gogic mathematical task design are proposed. They are
used to conceptualize design of dynamic geometry tasks
capitalizing the unique drag-mode nature in DGE that
opens up an explorative space for learners to acquire
mathematical knowledge.
Keywords Task design ! Dynamic geometry
environment ! Drag-mode
A. Leung (&)
Department of Education Studies, Hong Kong Baptist
University, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong SAR, China
e-mail: aylleung@hkbu.edu.hk; aylleung@hkucc.hku.hk
1 Introduction
A task in a pedagogical setting consists of activities for the
purpose of learning. How a task is designed to carry the
object of learning that is intended for is liken to a potter
who shapes vessels out of clay. It should be creative and
purpose-driven. The most important consideration for
pedagogic task design is the learning that a task is
designed to carry. A pedagogic task is a mean (or a tool) to
bring about meaning for what is targeted to be learnt.
In this discussion paper, I consider pedagogic task
design that is environmentally situated or contextually
oriented; i.e., such a design should be epistemologically
connected to a pedagogical environment. A pedagogical
environment may consist of teacher(s), students, the
physical setting, the tools used for teaching and learning,
and even the pedagogical approaches use in the classroom.
A task that is environmentally situated means that it should
be shaped in ways that make use of the elements which
constituted the pedagogical environment in order to deliver
the knowledge load. In particular, it is didactically fruitful
to be aware of, and to make use of, the possible variations
that could take place for the variable elements in a peda-
gogical environment which are conducive to knowledge
formation. Critical features in a pedagogic task should
consist of activities that can bring about awareness of these
variations. Take an example of a task design that aims to
engage students in paper-folding activities to learn about
line symmetry. A simple pedagogical environment for this
task may consist of pieces of paper and different paper-
folding techniques. A task design could then consider the
variations in the shape and size of the pieces of paper, and
in the ways of folding to bring forth the concept of the axis
of symmetry in terms of these contextual aspects: different
sizes/shapes of paper and different ways of folding.
123
326
This paper will consider technology-rich pedagogical
environments; namely, teaching and learning environments
that are enhanced by the use of Information Communica-
tion Technology (ICT) to carry out the teaching and
learning process, and in particular, the dynamic geometry
environment (DGE). A model of techno-pedagogic task
design in mathematics will be developed and generic epi-
stemic modes for it will be proposed. This task design
model will then be discussed and illustrated in the context
of DGE. Throughout the discussion, different theoretical
perspectives will be used to frame interpretations in
an attempt to regard the techno-pedagogic task framework
as a combined-lens to view mathematical knowledge
acquisition.
2 Pedagogic task design
A mathematics pedagogic task aims to engage learners in
activities that could transform the ways they see and do
mathematics. Mason and Johnston-Wilder expressed this as
The purpose of a task is to initiate mathematically
fruitful activity that leads to a transformation in what
learners are sensitised to notice and competent to
carry out (Mason & Johnston-Wilder, 2006, p. 25)
The point of setting tasks for learners is to get them
actively making sense of phenomena and exercising
their powers and their emerging skills (Mason &
Johnston-Wilder, 2006, p. 69)
Ainley et al. (2006) discussed pedagogic task design in
terms of connecting engagement and focus. In particular,
engagement and focus in pedagogic task design should take
into considerations concerning reality, guidance, contex-
tualization, tools, purpose and utility. A task must be
realistic to learners in the sense that it should be compre-
hensible by them; i.e., learners must have prior suitable
experiences that enable them to relate to the content of the
task. This aligns with the Dutchs Realistic Mathematics
Education framework with Freudenthals mathematization
as foundation (Freudenthal, 1968, 1991). In Freudenthals
theory, learners are guided to re-invent mathematics
through powerful pre-designed means in construction of
mathematical insights. This process of re-invention is ini-
tiated by learners; hence, a pedagogic task should be
realistically imaginable from the learners point of view. A
task guides learners from informal to formal mathematical
knowledge through a gradual process that connects con-
textual understanding and conceptual abstract understand-
ing. Contextualization plays a vital role in mathematics
concept formation in a task. It has to do with situated
cognition which basically says that knowing is inseparable
from doing. A pedagogic task is thus activity-based. An
123
A. Leung
important notion in situated cognition is the idea of affor-
dance. It was introduced by J.J. Gibson as a relational
account of perception. Affordance is about properties in the
environment that present possibilities for action and are
available for an agent to perceive directly and act upon
(Gibson, 1979). For a pedagogic task, it refers to those
inherent epistemic conditions or qualities of the environ-
ment that allow learners to perform certain actions with the
environment to acquire knowledge. Affordance is of par-
ticular importance when considering mathematical tasks
that involve the use of technology since interaction with the
technology should be a critical epistemic element in such
tasks. Brown (2005) did a case study on how affordances
are perceived and enacted by a teacher in a technology-rich
teaching and learning environment. Three conditions were
observed for learning in her research:
an exploratory approach to learning, develop-
ment of multiple strategies to solve and/or check
problems, and promotion of discourse through tech-
nology use to enhance student learning. (Brown,
2005, p. 183)
The qualities of a pedagogical environment not only
enable learners to perform action, but should also empower
learners to construct meaning. In this connection, Noss and
Hoyles (1996) saw the pedagogical potential of ICT as
windows on mathematical meanings and coined the term
situated abstraction
to describe how learners construct mathematical
ideas by drawing on the webbing of a particular
setting which, in turn, shapes the way the ideas are
expressed. (Noss and Hoyles, 1996, p. 122)
By webbing it refers to
the presence of a structure that learners can draw
upon and reconstruct for supportin ways that they
choose as appropriate for their struggle to construct
meaning for some mathematics (Noss and Hoyles,
1996, p. 108).
Thus, webbing can be interpreted as an affordance to
facilitate mathematical learning. The upshot is: mathe-
matical ideas can be indigenous shaped and expressed with
respect to interactions with the task environment. Shaping
and expressing are resultants of tools. Tools that are
available in a task environment are pivotal to form situated
abstraction. In the process of learning how to use tools in a
mathematics task (e.g., compasses and ruler), learners
gradually build up mathematical ideas that are shaped by
the tool usage that gives rise to tool-dependent concepts,
i.e., concepts that are expressible in terms of tool usage. An
environmentally shaped concept can be regarded as a sit-
uated abstraction. Thus, in pedagogic task design, careful
Task design in DGE
attention should be paid on those chosen tools to direct
learners to the targeted mathematical knowledge.
Ainley et al. proposed two connected constructs purpose
and utility as factors that gauge learners level of engage-
ment and focus in a pedagogic task. A purposeful task is
one that has a meaningful outcome for the pupil, in terms
of an actual or virtual product, or the solution of an
engaging problem (Ainley et al., 2006, p. 29) and utility
means that the learning of mathematics encompasses not
just the ability to carry out procedures, but the construction
of meaning for the ways in which those mathematical ideas
are useful. (Ainley et al., 2006, p. 30) With respect to
these ideas, in a research on designing for mathematical
abstraction, Pratt and Noss drawn on a case study using an
ICT environment to study children understanding about
chance and distribution. They have identified heuristic in
designing for abstraction that requires the intentional
blurring of the key mathematical concepts with the tools
whose use might foster the construction of that abstrac-
tion. (Pratt and Noss, 2010, p. 95) This ascertains that in
an ICT environment, pedagogical usage of tools can
become a part of mathematical concept. In particular, four
design heuristics emerged in their research:
1. Enable the testing by children of their personal
conjectures
2. Seek to enhance the explanatory power of knowledge
that might offer a route to normalized knowledge.
3. Construct a task design that will be likely to generate
purposeful activity and tools that encourage the
construction of utilities for the key mathematical
concepts.
4. Identify or design representations of key mathemat-
ical concepts that can be used as control points needed
by the child to pursue their aim (Pratt and Noss, 2010,
p. 95).
These heuristics coincide with some of the basic ideas in
a task design model to be proposed in the next section.
3 Techno-pedagogic mathematics task design model
A pedagogical reason for using technology is to empower
learners with extended or amplified abilities to acquire
knowledge. That is, learners can do things and see things
that they could not do or see without the technology (or
could do and see in new ways using the technology); hence,
technology can empower their cognitive abilities to reason
in novice ways. I propose a model of task design situated in
a technology-rich pedagogical environment that tracks the
327
process of acquiring knowledge in mathematics. It begins
with the following basic idea:
Techno-pedagogic Task Design in Mathematics
Task design that focuses on pedagogical processes in
which learners are empowered with amplified abili-
ties to explore, re-construct (or re-invent) and explain
mathematical concepts using tools embedded in a
technology-rich environment.
This description echoes Freudenthals idea of mathe-
matization in which mathematical concepts are re-invented
in processes of exploration from intuitive mathematics to
sophisticated mathematics using tools that are more pow-
erful than our predecessors possessed. Children should
repeat the learning process of mankind, not as factually
took place but rather as it would have done if people in the
past had known a bit more of what we know now.
(Freudenthal, 1991, p. 48) Exploration, re-construction and
explanation are three important aspects in mathematics
knowledge acquisition. These shall form the core of the
guiding principles for the techno-pedagogic task design
model. In a particular task, learners should engage in
activities that blend these aspects in proportion that is
conducive to the purpose and utility of the task.
Three epistemic modes that characterize mathematics
knowledge acquisition process are put forward as the
foundation of the techno-pedagogic task design model.
They are: Establishing Practices Mode, Critical Discern-
ment Mode, Situated Discourse Mode.
When one is faced with a new tool, one has to learn how
to use it and in doing so, gradually realizes the knowledge
potential that is embedded in it. That is, learners need to
establish practices (sometime personal) for the tool. For
mathematical exploration, these practices could be estab-
lished via construction or manipulative tasks where modes
of interaction between learners and the technology-rich
environment can be developed. Constructing or manipu-
lating virtual mathematical objects is a meaningful way to
learn to turn virtual tools into pedagogical instruments. In
doing so, modes of interaction in terms of skill (tacit
knowledge), modalities of behaviour and even situated
dialogue (linguistic or a-linguistic) with the environment
could emerge.
Establishing Practices Mode (PM)
PM1 Construct mathematical objects or manipulate
pre-designed mathematical objects using tools
embedded in a technology-rich environment
PM2 Interact with the tools in a technology-rich
environment to develop (a) skill-based routines;
(b) modalities of behaviour; (c) modes of
situated dialogue
123
328
In the Establishing Practices Mode, a process of
instrumental genesis begins. In the theory of instrumental
genesis, a tool turns into an instrument by associating with
it a utility scheme. A utility scheme is a systematic pro-
cedure on how to use certain tool to achieve a certain
purpose. An instrument can be considered as a psycho-
logical construct in the cognitive ergonomic domain
(Verillon and Rabardel, 1995). This is the user-oriented
micro-genetic process of instrumentation in instrumental
genesis. At the same time, specific functionalities, even
purposes, are attributed by the user to the tool (not nec-
essarily intended by the designer of the tool) in the
instrumental genesis process. This is the instrumentaliza-
tion of the artefact. Hence, an instrument can be a dual
entityartefactual and psychological.
PM acts as a precursor of a mode in which critical
discernment plays a pivotal role. In this mode, learners
need to make critical judgement on how to instrument the
tools in order to observe patterns of variation and invariant
(see, e.g., Leung, 2003, 2008) which may form kernels of
mathematical concepts. In particular, the task should con-
tain activities asking learners to record and to re-present the
discovered patterns via construction or other situated
means, and if possible to visualize the process of the cor-
responding pattern formation.
Critical Discernment Mode (CDM)
Observe, record, re-present (re-construct) patterns of
variation and invariant
In connection of a tool to become a psychological
entity, one shifts the focus of attention from establishing
routine tool usage to meaning construction. In semiotic
mediation (Mariotti, 2002), attention is paid to the pro-
cess of internalization where technical tools are being
transformed into psychological tools for the purpose of
shaping new meanings. In particular, the focus is not on
distinction between (physical) artefact and instrument;
rather it is on the externally or internally oriented usage
of the tool that could bring about the construction of
mathematical meanings. This shift of attention occurs in
the transition between the Establishing Practices Mode
and the Critical Discernment Mode where utilization
schemes are becoming schemes for discernment. Thus, in
the Critical Discernment Mode, construction of mathe-
matical meaning mediated by the instruments shaped
in the Establishing Practices Mode takes centre stage,
in another word, empirical experiences are being
mathematized.
A meaningful mathematical explorative task should be
one that involves conjecturing and explanation activities.
Such conjectures made are situated in the technology-rich
environment with respect to the tools that instrument the
generalization process; thus, a task mode should encourage
123
A. Leung
SDM1, SDM2
CDM
PM1, PM2
Fig. 1 An expanding pedagogic task exploration space in a technol-
ogy-rich environment with a nested structure sequenced by the three
epistemic modes
learners to develop situated discourses to communicate
their mathematical reasoning and argumentation.
Establishing Situated Discourses Mode (SDM)
SD1 Develop inductive reasoning leading to making
generalized conjecture
SD2 Develop discourses and modes of reasoning to
explain or prove
SD1 and SD2 may serve as connections to theoretical
reasoning in mathematics like deduction, thus bridging
learners to formal mathematics discourse. The design of a
techno-pedagogic task should take into consideration the
three epistemic modes in weighted relative proportion that
shapes the task to carry its target knowledge.
One way to organize these three task modes is to
understand them as a nested sequence in the sense that
CDM is a cognitive extension of PM and SDM is a cog-
nitive extension of CDM. Such an arrangement can open
up for learners an exploration space in which they can
construct first-hand understanding of the mathematical
knowledge carried by the task. It is a nested expanding
space where practices evolve into discernment followed by
discernment evolving into discourses; i.e., practice brings
about discernment, and discernment brings about reasoning
(Fig. 1).
The pedagogical exploration space opened up by the
three epistemic modes is where learners can develop their
situated mathematical knowledge (situated abstraction) and
mark their learning trajectories. Thus, this task design
model can be seen as a vehicle to carry the acquisition of
mathematics knowledge.
4 Drag-based dynamic geometry techno-pedagogic task
DGE has been a catalytic agent driving a paradigm shift in
the teaching and learning of school geometry (see, e.g.,
Educational Studies in Mathematics 44:1161, 2000;
Task design in DGE
International Journal of Computers for Mathematical
Learning 6:229333, 2001; ZDM 34(3), 2002). It opens up
a pedagogical space for teachers and students to engage in
geometrical explorations that niche across the experimental
and the theoretical (Lopez-Real and Leung, 2006). In
particular, the drag-mode in DGE has been a unique ped-
agogical tool that facilitates students to experiment with
dynamic geometrical objects which can lead to generation
of mathematical conjectures (see, e.g., Arzarello et al.,
2002; Leung, 2008; Baccaglini-Frank et al., 2009; Bac-
caglini-Frank and Mariotti, 2010). Furthermore, the drag-
mode seems to open up a new methodology and even a new
discourse to acquire geometrical knowledge alternative (or
compatible) to the traditional Euclidean deductive reason-
ing paradigm (Lopez-Real and Leung 2006; Leung, 2009;
Talmon and Yerushalmy, 2004).
The three epistemic task modes are now interpreted in
the context of explorative task design in DGE. In particu-
lar, the drag-mode in DGE is regarded as a DGE tool to
empower learners with amplified abilities to explore.
A DGE pedagogic task should start with activities which
involve learners either to construct geometric objects or to
manipulate pre-designed geometric objects. By getting to
know how to literally move around in DGE, learners
begin the process of accommodation and/or assimilation in
DGE. Learners are empowered by the drag-mode in DGE
to vary the shape and size of geometric objects at will
while intended intrinsic properties of the objects can be
kept invariant or approximately invariant (depending on
the tools and the construction procedures) under dragging.
This visual variation initiated by learners and the conse-
quential moving images appear on the screen constitute
epistemic interactions between the learners and DGE. A
task should allow this learnerDGE interaction to happen
and not restrict learners to experience only delimited var-
iation set by teachers. By simultaneous awareness of co-
varying aspects via dragging, learners respond to the
moving geometric objects by different dragging modalities
(see, e.g., the dragging modalities discussed in Arzarello
et al., 2002; Leung, 2008; Baccaglini-Frank and Mariotti,
2010). These modalities may be regarded as the beginning
of establishing a dragging dialogue with DGE. Dragging
dialogue is the feedback patterns between a learners
dragging behaviour and the DGE environment. It usually
takes a while for learners to become operative in a dragging
dialogue.
PM: Establishing Dragging Practices
PM1 Construct geometric objects or manipulate pre-
designed geometric objects using the tools
embedded in a DGE
PM2 Interact with DGE via dragging. Types of
dragging interaction:
329
(a) Skill-based dragging routines (learn to drag)
(b) Dragging modalities (learn to strategize)
(c) Mode of feedback dialogue (learn to con-
verse): simultaneous awareness of varying
DGE objects during dragging and respond
with different dragging modalities
Once learners are comfortable to a dragging dialogue,
they can shift their focus of attention to look for drag-
invariant features of the geometrical situation under
exploration. This is a critical stage in which formation of
mathematical concepts can take place. Once these features
are observed and discerned, the task should give room for
the learners to record and re-present them by encouraging
the construction of drag-sensitive soft objects as transition
objects to support conceptual development, thus providing
learners a dynamic flexible setting for systematic explora-
tion (Laborde, 2005; Leung, 2008). A re-construction of
discerned invariant features can become a seeding for
proto-concepts and conjecture formation.
CDM: Focus on drag-invariant features
Observe, record, re-present patterns of variation and
invariant
(a) Look for drag-invariant features of the geometrical
situation under exploration
(b) Construct drag sensitive soft object (making use of
PM2) to re-construct the invariant features
Maintaining dragging model (Baccaglini-Frank and
Mariotti, 2010), dragging via a lens of variation (Leung,
2008) and instrumental genesis of dragging (Restrepo,
2008) are a few theoretical perspectives that can be used to
organize PM and CDM in a task design.
Learners now need to express what they have discovered
in the DGE setting. The dragging dialogue developed in
PM and CDM serves as a pseudo-linguistic tool to develop
inductive (and even deductive) reasoning in DGE. Drag-
ging explorations in PM and CDM support an inductive
approach for learners to hypothesize and to postulate
conjectures. In particular, learners drag to separate out
invariant features in DGE phenomena and drag to specu-
late generalization about these features. Soft construction
(Laborde, 2005) using a drag-to-fit strategy to satisfy
intended condition becomes a powerful epistemic means to
achieve this purpose. Constructing robust figures is another
way to manifest reasoning and argumentation. A robust
construction in DGE is a constructed figure that passes the
drag test (Arzarello et al., 2002). Such construction is
conducive to developing deductive reasoning since a robust
construction is a visual embodiment of an attempt to show
that a conclusion necessarily follows from a set of
123
330
geometrical premises. Developing a drag-based discourse
is favourable to guide this discernment process and to
explain (even prove) DGE phenomena (see, e.g., a stu-
dents written DGE proof in Leung, 2009).
DSM: Establishing DGE Discourses
DSM1 Make generalized DGE conjecture
(a) Inductive dragging: drag to see the same
invariant feature in different situations
(b) Construct soft object
(c) Perform drag-to-fit.
DSM2 Develop modes of discourse to explain or
prove DGE phenomena
(a) Construct robust object (via inductive and
deduction reasoning) for conjecture made
in DSM1
(b) Perform drag test
(c) Develop a drag-based discourse to
explain or prove.
A DGE discourse may open up a new knowledge
domain in geometry that is either supplementary or com-
plementary to traditional Euclidean geometry (see the
discussion in Lopez-Real and Leung, 2006; Leung, 2009);
this is where techno-pedagogic task design can become
a window for alternative mathematics knowledge
acquisition.
The nature of the model is basically an evolution model
of students dragging strategy from the primitive to the
sophisticated. In the next section, concrete examples from
2D and 3D DGEs will be used to discuss the knowledge
potential of the three epistemic modes in techno-pedagogic
task designs.
5 Knowledge potential of techno-pedagogic DGE task
design
The three epistemic modes in techno-pedagogic DGE task
design form progressive phases where geometrical
knowledge can take shape out of interactions between the
learner and DGE. The potential knowledge acquired will
depend on the initial assumptions and the tool utilization
set by the task. In the following two sections, cyclic
quadrilateral and symmetry of solid will be used as objects
of investigation to discuss how the nature of a task can
sieve out the knowledge content of the object of investi-
gation while a learner progresses the three epistemic
modes. These two topics are in most of the school geom-
etry curricula from Grade 10 to Grade 12; hence, the tasks
below can be suited in these student groups.
123
A. Leung
5.1 Investigating cyclic quadrilateral
Design a task starting with a general quadrilateral whose
vertices can be dragged to any position without any con-
straint. A non-embedded assumption (it exists only in the
mind of the learner, not in the DGE) is imposed to this
general quadrilateral: two opposite interior angles are
required to add up to 180". Use the Angle Measure, Cal-
culation and Trace tools to open up a cognitive working
space for learners to conceptualize the existence of a cyclic
quadrilateral under the given constraint. Below is an eight-
step task sequence structured by the three epistemic modes
with an explicated potential learning trajectory:
PM: Establishing Dragging Practices
PM1 (Constructing and measuring)
1. Construct a quadrilateral ABCD
2. Measure two opposite interior angles, say
\ABC and \CDA
3. Calculate \ABC ? \CDA.
Learners are asked to perform simple construction,
measurement and calculation activities. This focuses the
learners attention to the sum of two interior opposite
angles of an arbitrary quadrilateral.
PM2 (Developing dragging routine)
4. Turn the Trace function on for point C
5. Drag point C continuously to keep
\ABC ? \CDA as close to 180" as
possible (Fig. 2).
This begins a process of instrumental genesis for drag-
ging. Different dragging activities may result in different
instrumental action schemes (Restrepo, 2008). In this case,
a learner drags point C to see constant variation of the
moving quadrilateral while maintaining the angle sum as
close to 180" as possible (PM2(a)). With respect to the
B
m ABC = 86.44
m CDA = 94.10
m ABC+m CDA = 180.54
C
A
D
Fig. 2 Tracing the assumption \ABC ? \CDA = 180"
Task design in DGE
framework of Baccaglini-Frank and Mariotti (2010), the
learner begins to develop a Maintaining Dragging Scheme
of his/her own in this epistemic mode by dragging to keep
an intended invariant (angle sum equals to 180") (PM2(b)).
The traced path that visually appears in a continuous
manner under dragging feedbacks to the learners main-
taining dragging modality, thus shifts the learners aware-
ness to pay attention to simultaneous variation of the
different components of the figure (PM2(c)).
CDM: Discerning drag-invariant feature
6. Investigate the shape of the path that point C traces
out
As the learners maintaining dragging skill improved,
the traced path gradually takes shape and the learner dis-
cerns the circular-like path as an observed invariant
(CDM(a)). Thus, the Trace function made possible the
appearance of locus of validity, a powerful visual concept
in DGE (Leung and Lopez-Real, 2002; Leung, 2003). The
learner constructs a circle passing through the vertices A, B
and D such that when C is being dragged on and along it,
the intended invariant is realized (Fig. 3, CDM(b)). That is,
ABCD becomes a soft cyclic quadrilateral obtainable by a
drag-to-fit strategy (Laborde, 2005; Lopez-Real and Leung,
2006). In this way, the learner has developed a Maintaining
Dragging Scheme for this task that instrumented the
dragging tool in DGE.
DSM: Establishing a DGE discourse
DMS1
7. Make a conjecture on the shape of the path
The learner postulates the following conjecture as a
result of the discernment in CDM:
For a quadrilateral to satisfy the condition a pair of
interior opposite angles adds up to 180", the vertices
of the quadrilateral must lie on a circle.
DMS2
8. Explain (or prove) why the conjecture is true
Leung and Lopez-Real (2002) discussed how a DGE
discourse can be developed to give a DGE proof by
Fig. 3 A circle passing through
the vertices A, B and D such
m ABC = 96.07
that when C is being dragged on
m CDA = 101.57
and along it, \ABC ? \CDA
m ABC+m CDA = 197.65
is approximately equal to 180"
A A
331
contradiction for this conjecture based on the work of two
Hong Kong Form 4 (Grade 10) students.
The epistemic focus of the above task design is to guide
learners to conceptualize an invariant path that satisfied a
preset invariant condition via the dragging instrument. The
task sequence is a process of instrumentation for the dragging
tool. It paves a way for the learner to develop a scheme of
usage (e.g., a Maintaining Dragging Scheme) associated
with the dragging tool. This DGE task design shows that a
dragging scheme in the process of instrumental genesis (or
semiotic mediation) can become a vessel that carries the
learning of geometry (see another example of a DGE vari-
ational dragging scheme in Leung, Chan & Lopez-Real,
2006). If a task design has a different epistemic focus, then
the knowledge conceptualized for cyclic quadrilateral may
be different from the above task design.
Suppose the task starts with asking learners first to find a
way to construct a circle passing two points, second pass-
ing three points and finally passing four points. The epi-
stemic focus of this design is to learn about cyclic
quadrilateral via robust and soft constructions. Since there
are three sub-tasks, each sub-task can be regarded as a unit
that comprises the three epistemic modes which takes the
generic form:
PM: Explore how to construct a circle that passes
through a given number of points
CDM: Discern how many circles can pass through the
given number of points
SDM: Make a conjecture about circum-circle and
explain (or prove) why the construction
procedure works
This task design guides learners to progressively and
cognitively construct a situated pedagogical instrument (a
utility scheme):
Use perpendicular bisector as a cognitive tool to
investigate circum-circle in DGE
This is an instrumentalization process in instrumental
genesis. For the four points (quadrilateral) case, the learner
could employ a drag-to-fit strategy (soft construction) to
arrive at a conjecture that may be read like:
B B
m ABC = 101.13
C
mCDA = 78.58
C m ABC+m CDA = 179.71
D D
123
332
If the four perpendicular bisectors of the sides of a
quadrilateral are concurrent, then the quadrilateral
can be inscribed in a circle (Fig. 4).
The explanation (or proof) of this conjecture depends on
the findings of the second sub-task. Thus, this task design
structures as an expanding spiral with each turn composed
of a unit of PMCDMSDM sequence. Compared to the
previous task, this task reaches a different defining condi-
tion for cyclic quadrilateral. The two-task designs have
different initial foci of attention; therefore, they should
naturally arrive at different critical aspects of cyclic
quadrilateral.
5.2 Investigating symmetry of solid
In this section, a Cabri-3D exploration task is presented to
illustrate how situated discourse (SDM) can be developed
in terms of dragging modalities. This discourse depends
heavily on learner action and visualization.
Leung and Or (2009) reported an experimental virtual
task given to a group of Form 6 (Grade 12) students in
Hong Kong to explore symmetry of solid based on two
dragging modalities in the Cabri-3D environment. Object
dragging refers to dragging components (e.g., points,
lines) of a Cabri-3D object, just like the drag-mode in
two-dimensional DGE. Perspective dragging is dragging
to change the perspective of a Cabri-3D object, a unique
feature of the Cabri-3D environment. Dragging strategies
that combine these two modalities empower learners to
simulate the seeing and manipulation of a 3D object
from all possible spatial perspectives. This opens up a
very rich epistemic space to acquire geometric knowl-
edge for 3D solids. In contrast to two DGE tasks of last
section, this task ask learners to manipulate a pre-con-
structed Cabri-3D object using object dragging and per-
spective dragging.
Fig. 4 The concurrency of all
four perpendicular bisectors as a
defining condition for cyclic
B B
quadrilateral
A A
123
A. Leung
The pre-constructed object is a robust 3D solid (say a cube)
that can be rotated. The rotation is controlled by a circular dial
that has angular demarcation and by an axis of rotation that can
be freely moved via dragging a point on it that is constrained
on the solid. A fixed (unmovable with respect to object
dragging) wire frame congruent to the solid is attached to
the movable solid. It stays fix as the solid rotates (Fig. 5).
The design of this pre-constructed Cabri-3D object is
supple enough to accommodate the practices, discernment
and discourse modes in techno-pedagogic task design.
Learners need to practice how to manipulate the various
components of the pre-constructed object together with
strategic use of the two dragging modalities to facilitate the
discernment of invariant symmetry patterns and to develop
a dragging dialogue to talk about the symmetry of the solid.
The transition between the epistemic modes are blurry
since the knowledge content of the symmetry of solid is
richly embedded in the pre-constructed object, a shift of
visual attention by the learner could posit him/her in the
next epistemic mode. Manipulation, discernment and dis-
course could all take place quickly in any micro-dragging
episode. In the experiment reported in Leung and Or
(2009), the task was designed as follows:
PM (Exploring how to manipulate the pre-designed
object)
1. Drag S to move the axis of rotation to a desired
position on the cube
2. Drag P to rotate the cube about the axis (Object
Dragging)
3. To change the view angle, click the figure, hold down
the right mouse button and drag (Perspective
Dragging)
PM ? CDM (From exploration to discernment)
4. Visualize and investigate the rotational symmetry of
the figure by
C C
Task design in DGE
Fig. 5 A Cabri-3D rotatable
cube
The solid under
rotation about the
chosen axis
(i) drag the axis of rotation to different positions
(ii) rotate the figure
(iii) drag to change the perspective
CDM ? SDM (Establishing a Cabri-3D discourse)
5. Talk about how to find out the rotational symmetry of
the solid using these two dragging modalities and the
location of all possible axes of rotation for the solid
This task can be repeated for other 3D solids (Fig. 6):
A small-scale pilot study was done using these tasks
(Leung and Or, 2009). Students were able to make the
following conjectures (or talking about how to do it), one
made use of object dragging, while the other made use of
perspective dragging.
Conjecture One (object dragging strategy)
Rotational symmetries were observed when the axis
is dragged to positions on the solid that pass through
opposite vertices, centres of opposite faces, or mid-
points of opposite edges. The order of rotational
symmetries can be determined by rotating the solid
about the axis at these positions.
Conjecture Two (perspective dragging strategy)
Use perspective dragging to drag the solid to a suit-
able perspective which visually resembles a two
dimensional plane figure with rotational symmetry.
The rotational symmetry of this plane figure
Fig. 6 Rotatable Cabri-3D
solids
333
Axis of rotation
Point S controls the
S
position of the axis
P
Point P on the circular
dial controls the rotation
of the solid
Fixed wire frame
coincides with the rotational symmetry of the solid
with the axis of rotation passes the centre (perpen-
dicularly) of the two dimensional figure.
For example, suppose the 3D solid is a dodecahedron (a
solid whose faces are regular pentagons), use perspective
dragging to find a position at which the view of the solid
appears as a plane hexagon (Fig. 7a).
Then the axis that goes through the centre of this plane
perspective and perpendicular to the plane is an axis of
rotation for the dodecahedron that gives rotational sym-
metry. The plane figure has a twofold rotational symmetry,
so would the solid with respect to this axis of rotation. The
centre is in fact the orthogonal projection of an axis that
goes through the mid-points of two opposite edges
(Fig. 7b).
These two student-generated conjectures (in particular
the second one which was unexpected) show that the
design of this task did provide an open exploration space
for students to visualize, manipulate and express geomet-
rical ideas that were generated out of the Cabri-3D
environment.
Furthermore, the two conjectures can actually be
regarded as utilization scheme in instrumental genesis
since they are organized strategies developed by learners
employing different dragging modalities to investigate
geometrical situation. In the second conjecture, perspective
dragging is used as a tool to deconstruct a 3D solid into a
pseudo-2D object to search for symmetry; thus, an
123
334
Mid-point of an edge
a b
Fig. 7 Using perspective dragging strategy to generate symmetry of
dodecahedron in Cabri-3D
instrumentalization process was taking place by assigning a
purpose to a dragging modality.
This section uses DGE as a context to discuss the
knowledge potential that techno-pedagogic task can carry.
Such potential is dependent on the nature of the environ-
ment and the tool embedded in it. The three epistemic
modes are like threads that connect and weave the
knowledge patterns situated in the environment using
appropriate tools as needles. To design a techno-pedagogic
task is then to create a setting to train learners how to
use these threads to discover or invent mathematical
patterns.
6 Remarks on variation and visualization
Dynamic variation and visualization are major aspects in a
technology-rich pedagogical environment under which
learners epistemic abilities can be amplified and empow-
ered. These two aspects are inter-mingled and mutually
enhancing, and they permeate in the three modes of techno-
pedagogic task design. In DGE, recognizing geometric
invariants and subsequently constructing soft figures to
represent those invariants under the drag-mode instrument
is a sign of meaning construction.
DGE objects constructed under different dragging
strategies undergo an evolution in meanings and in
relation to each other. They can be regarded as
dynamic signs in the process of concept formation
In this vein of thought, the nature of the Dragging
tool in DGE makes possible the construction of
transient signs that are not intrinsically stable but can
point to critical features of the phenomenon at hand.
These dragging signs evolved as the awareness
of critical features deepened. (Leung, 2008, p. 154)
Furthermore, in the Critical Discernment Mode, con-
struction activities instrumented by dragging modalities
can be structured by variation. The drag-mode in DGE is
123
A. Leung
rooted in variation in its design. It is an instrument which
enables geometrical concepts to take visual dynamic forms
subject to learner actions through experiencing invariant
under different dimensions of variation mediated by drag-
ging. Thus, an understanding on how the drag-mode
functions under variation would inform the discernment
process in concept formation. Work has been done by
Leung (2003, 2008) to study the epistemic relation between
variation and the drag-mode in DGE.
A DGE exploration task should motivate learners to
make mathematical conjectures and even to arrive at
mathematical proofs. A perspective of proof in DGE can
be developed from a drag-dependent discourse that seeks
to explain DGE phenomena in a systemic fashion (see
work by Leung, 2009; Baccaglini-Frank et al., 2009;
Leung and Or, 2009). In the Situated Discourse Mode,
learners focus on developing a dynamic visual reasoning
based on a dragging dialogue established in the other two
modes. In this connection to visualization, Duvals cog-
nitive apprehension framework on the visualization of
geometric (static) drawings (Duval, 1995) may be ger-
mane to the techno-pedagogic task design framework.
There are four types of cognitive apprehension of geo-
metric figures (Duval, 1995) which are summarized as
follows:
1. Perceptual apprehension: what is recognized at first
glance for a figure;
2. Sequential apprehension: construct a figure or describe
its construction;
3. Discursive apprehension: discursive statements or
descriptions giving mathematical properties for a
figure;
4. Operative apprehension: operating on the figure for
insights.
Referring back to the three task modes, these cognitive
apprehensions can be taken as principal threads to weave
the task design. The dragging activities in each mode can
be utilized to realize different apprehensions. In the
Establishing Practices Mode, dragging starts as a percep-
tual exercise, letting learners visualize changes in DGE
figures. This evolves into construction or manipulation
activities that depend on steps or sequences of action, and
eventually into formation of primitive dragging dialogue
(discourse). In the Critical Discernment Mode, dragging
strategies are employed to operate on DGE figures
searching for meaning and insight along with a refinement
of the dragging discourse. In the Situated Discourse Mode,
learners express and explain geometrical knowledge in
terms of a dragging discourse and/or construction
sequence. Thus, task design in Establishing Practices Mode
concerns mainly with perceptual and sequential apprehen-
sion, in Critical Discernment Mode mainly with operative
Task design in DGE 335

Fig. 8 A nested expanding SDM 1, 2

DGE pedagogic task
exploration space structured by
different theoretical constructs
Mainly Discursive and Sequential Apprehensions; Development of Drag-based Discourse
incorporating Visual Reasoning; Appropriation of different Theoretical Perspectives (e.g.
Instrumental Genesis, Semiotic Mediation, Discernment through Variation)

CDM
Mainly Operative Apprehension; Semiotic Mediation; Discernment through Variation
under the Drag-Mode; Appropriation of Dragging Instrumental Scheme

PM 1, 2
Mainly Perceptual and Sequential Apprehensions; Development of
Dragging Instrumental Scheme and Dragging Dialogue

apprehension and in Situated Discourse Mode mainly with
discursive and sequential apprehensions.
In summary, Fig. 8 depicts a nested expanding DGE
pedagogic task exploration space structured by different
theoretical constructs.
Epistemologically, the three task modes can be regarded
as a sequence of mathematics knowledge acquisition stages
shaped by tools in a technological environment where
practices evolve into discernment, and discernment evolves
into discourse.
7 Conclusion
The purpose of this discussion paper is to propose a
techno-pedagogic task design model that may serve as a
heuristic to design mathematics teaching and learning
task in a technology-rich environment. DGE is just an
example. Such tasks are potent to empower learners to
see mathematics in a situated abstract way and hence
may enlighten their understanding of traditional mathe-
matics by serving as alternative passages to mathematical
knowledge. The conceptualization of this design model is
an initial attempt to put together different theoretical
perspectives into a combined-lens. The reliability and
applicability of this lens is susceptible to challenges from
mathematics task design research and is anticipating
further refinement.
References
Ainley, J., Pratt, D., & Hansen, A. (2006). Connecting engagement
and focus in pedagogic task design. British Educational
Research Journal, 32(1), 2136.
Arzarello, F., Olivero, F., Paola, D., & Robutti, O. (2002). A cognitive
analysis of dragging practices in Cabri environments. Zentralbl-
att fur Didaktik der Mathematik, 34(3), 6672.
Baccaglini-Frank, A., & Mariotti, M. A. (2010). Generating conjec-
tures in dynamic geometry: The maintaining dragging model.
International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning,
15, 225253.
Baccaglini-Frank, A., Mariotti, M. A., & Antinini, S. (2009).
Different perceptions of invariants and generality of proof in
dynamic geometry. In M. Tzekaki, M. Kaldrimidou, & H.
Sakonidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Conference of the
International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Educa-
tion (Vol. 2, pp. 8996). Thessaloniki, Greece: PME.
Brown, J. (2005). Affordances of a technology-rich teaching and
learning environment. In P. Clarkson, A. Downton, D. Gronn, M.
Horne, A. McDonough, R. Pierce, M. Horne, & A. Roche (Eds.),
Building connections: Theory, research, and practice, Proceed-
ings of the 28th annual conference of the Mathematics Education
Research Group of Australasia, Melbourne (Vol. 1,
pp. 177184). Sydney: MERGA.
Duval, R. (1995). Geometrical pictures: Kinds of representation and
specific processing. In R. Sutherland & J. Mason (Eds.),
Exploiting mental imagery with computers in mathematics
education (pp. 142157). New York: Springer.
Freudenthal, H. (1968). Why to teach mathematics so as to be useful.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 1, 38.
Freudenthal, H. (1991). Revisiting mathematics education. Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Laborde, C. (2005). Robust and soft constructions: Two sides of the
use of dynamics geometry environments. In Proceedings of the
Tenth Asian Technology Conference in Mathematics (pp.
2235). Korea National University of Education, Cheong-Ju,
South Korea.
Leung, A. (2003) Dynamic geometry and the theory of variation. In
N. A. Pateman, B. J. Dougherty, & J. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings
of PME 27: Psychology of Mathematics Education 27th
International Conference (Vol. 3, pp. 197204). Honolulu, USA.
Leung, A. (2008). Dragging in a dynamic geometry environment
through the lens of variation. International Journal of Computers
for Mathematical Learning, 13, 135157.
Leung, A. (2009). Written proof in dynamic geometry environment:
Inspiration from a students work. In Proceedings of the ICMI 19

123
336
Study Conference: Proof and Proving in Mathematics Education
(Vol. 2, pp. 1520). Taipei, Taiwan.
Leung, A., Chan, Y. C., & Lopez-Real, F. (2006). Instrumental
genesis in dynamic geometry environments. In Proceedings of
the ICMI 17 Study Conference: Technology Revisited, Part 2
(pp. 346353). Hanoi, Vietnam.
Leung, A., & Lopez-Real, F. (2002). Theorem justification and
acquisition in dynamic geometry: A case of proof by contradic-
tion. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical
Learning, 7, 145165.
Leung, A., & Or, A. (2009). Cognitive apprehension in Cabri 3D
environment. In M. Tzekaki, M. Kaldrimidou, & H. Sakonidis
(Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Conference of the International
Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1,
p. 417). Thessaloniki, Greece: PME.
Lopez-Real, F., & Leung, A. (2006). Dragging as a conceptual tool in
dynamic geometry environments. International Journal of
Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 37(6),
665679.
Mariotti, M. A. (2002). Influence of technologies advances on
students maths learning. In L. English, M. Bartolini Bussi, G.
123
A. Leung
Jones, R. Lesh, & D. Tirosh (Eds.), Handbook of international
research in mathematics education (pp. 695721). New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mason, J., & Johnston-Wilder, S. (2006). Designing and using
mathematical tasks. St. Albans: Tarquin Publications.
Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (1996). Windows on mathematical meanings.
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Pratt, D., & Noss, R. (2010). Designing for mathematical abstraction.
International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning,
15, 8197.
Restrepo, A. M. (2008). Genese instrumentale du deplacement en
geometrie dynamique chez des eleves de 6eme. Unpublished
Ph.D. Thesis. Universite Joseph Fourier.
Talmon, V., & Yerushalmy, M. (2004). Understanding dynamic
behaviour: Parentchild relations in dynamic geometry environ-
ments. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 57, 91119.
Verillon, P., & Rabardel, P. (1995). Cognition and artifacts: A
contribution to the study of thought in relation to instrumented
activity. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10(1),
77101.