pp. 421-431 | Article Number: mathedu.2016.040
Published Online: April 28, 2016
Article Views: 1136 | Article Download: 1150
This study was designed to determine the pre-service teachers’ opinions about three dynamic geometry software (Cabri II Plus, the Geometer's Sketchpad, GeoGebra) and influences of gender and academic achievement to these opinions. The researchers also investigated the most important properties that the pre-service teachers expect from a dynamic geometry software. The study was conducted in the 2011-2012 academic year with 64 prospective teachers who had taken a course about math education software during a year in the university. Results revealed that pre-service teachers found Geometers’ Sketchpad more effective than others in the positive development of the students' attitudes and in teaching high level geometry. However, they think that GeoGebra is easier than Cabri II Plus to use and has wide area of use. According to the pre-service teachers; using a native language, screen clarity, a detailed user manual and the ease of use are the most important properties of a dynamic geometry software.
Keywords: Dynamic Geometry Software, Pre-service Teachers’ Expectations, Cabri II Plus, the Geometer's Sketchpad, GeoGebra
Allison, L. (1995). The status of computer technology in classrooms using the integrated thematic instructional model. International Journal of Instructional Media, 22(1), 33 – 43.
Bielefeld, T.G. (2002). On dynamic geometry software in the regular classroom. Zentralblattfür Didaktikder Mathematik, 34(3), 85-92.
Daher, W. (2009). Pre-service Teachers' Perceptions of Applets for Solving Mathematical Problems: Need, Difficulties and Functions. Educational Technology & Society, 12 (4), 383–395.
Erbas, A. K. & Yenmez, A. A. (2011).The effect of inquiry-based explorations in a dynamic geometry environment on sixth grade students’ achievements in polygons. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2462-2475.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.002
Gomoll, M. (1999). Choosing Contingency Planning Software. The Ease-Of-Use Issue in Software Selection. Disaster Recovery Journal. Vol. 5, 4.
Göktaş, Y, Küçük, S., Aydemir, M., Telli, E., Arpacık, Ö., Yıldırım & G., Reisoğlu, İ. (2012). Educational Technology Research Trends in Turkey: A Content Analysis of the 2000-2009 Decade. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice - 12(1), 191-196, Educational Consultancy and Research Center
Guven, B. (2012).Using dynamic geometry software to improve eight grade students’ understanding of transformation geometry. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(2), 364-382
Hull, A. N., & Brovey, A. J. (2004).The impact of the use of dynamic geometry software on student achievement and attitudes towards mathematics. Action Research Exchange, 3(1), 24-37.
Hohenwarter, M. & Fuchs, K. (2004). Combination of dynamic geometry, algebra and calculus in the software system GeoGebra. ZDM classification: R 20, U 70, Retrieved on 10-November-2014, at URL: http://archive.geogebra.org/static/publications/pecs_2004.pdf
Hohenwarter, M., & Lavicza, Z. (2007). Mathematics teacher development with ICT: towards an International GeoGebra Institute. In D. Küchemann (Ed.), Proceedings of the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics. 27(3):49-54. University of Northampton, UK: BSRLM.
Kortenkamp, U., & Dohrmann, C. (2010). User interface design for dynamic geometry software. Acta Didactica Napocensia, 3(2), 59–66.
Isiksal, M. & Askar, P. (2005): The effect of spreadsheet and dynamic geometry software on the achievement and self-efficacy of 7th-grade students. Educational Research, 47:3, 333-350
Mackrell, K. (2011a). Design decisions in interactive geometry software. ZDM Mathematics Education, 43:373–387 DOI 10.1007/s11858-011-0327-4
Mackrell, K. (2011b). Finding the area of a circle: Affordances and design issues with different IGS programs. Proceedings of the Second North American GeoGebra Conference: Where Mathematics, Education and Technology Meet? University of Toronto, Toronto, ON June 17-18, 2011.
Oldknow, A. (2001). Special group 2: DGS — Dynamic Geometry Software. In M. Borovcnik & H. Kautschitsch (Ed.): Electronic Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching. August, 6-9, 2001 — University of Klagenfurt, Austria.http://wwwg.uniklu.ac.at/stochastik.schule/ICTMT_5/ICTMT_5_CD/Special%20groups/CD_Special2.htm#b9
Oldknow, A. & Tetlow, L. (2008). Using dynamic geometry software to encourage 3D visualisation and modelling. Electronic Journal of Mathematics and Technology.1933-2823 Volume: 2 Source Issue: 1
Petrovici, A. & Sava, A.T. (2010).CABRI 3D-the instrument to make the didactic approach more efficient. Anale. Seria Informatica. Vol 8, 2.
Roberts, D.L. & Stephens, L.J. (1999).The effect of the frequency of usage of computer software in high school geometry. The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 18(1), 23-30.
Sträßer, R. (2002). Research on Dynamic Geometry Software (DGS) - an introduction ZDM, Vol. 34 (3).
Stols, G. & Kriek, J.(2011). Why don't all maths teachers use dynamic geometry software in their classrooms? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(1), 137-151.
Weigand, H.-G. & Weth, T. (2002). Computer im Mathematikunterricht: Neue Wegezualten Zielen. Spektrum, AkademischerVerlag, Heidelberg, Berlin.