2008
DOI: 10.1007/s10649-008-9116-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

From static to dynamic mathematics: historical and representational perspectives

Abstract: The nature of mathematical reference fields has substantially evolved with the advent of new types of digital technologies enabling students greater access to understanding the use and application of mathematical ideas and procedures. We analyze the evolution of symbolic thinking over time, from static notations to dynamic inscriptions in new technologies. We conclude with new perspectives on Kaput's theory of notations and representations as mediators of constructive processes.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
37
0
4

Year Published

2009
2009
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 105 publications
(41 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
37
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…Authors Luis Moreno-Armella, Stephen J. Hegedus, and James J. Kaput provide in [4], p. 103 an historical overview of symbolization, which can be considered as a kind of the evolution of cognitive tools. They identify five stages of the evolution of symbolization "from static, inert inscriptions to dynamic objects or diagrams that are constructible, able to be manipulated and interactive".…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Authors Luis Moreno-Armella, Stephen J. Hegedus, and James J. Kaput provide in [4], p. 103 an historical overview of symbolization, which can be considered as a kind of the evolution of cognitive tools. They identify five stages of the evolution of symbolization "from static, inert inscriptions to dynamic objects or diagrams that are constructible, able to be manipulated and interactive".…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…L'utilisation des technologies aurait, selon certains d'entre eux, aidé à améliorer leurs compé-tences dans certains domaines, dont celui des apprentissages autorégulés, ainsi que le suggèrent Depover, Karsenti et Komis (2008). Le logiciel semble être perçu par certains élèves comme une aide dans la résolution du problème, tout en étant utilisé à des stades dynamiques, tels que définis par Moreno-Armella, Hegedus et Kaput (2008).…”
Section: Resultsunclassified
“…Research has often put forward the fact that dynamic software allows students to create their own dynamic mathematical objects as references to the task at hand (Moreno-Armella, Hegedus & Kaput, 2008). That is, instead of referring to static objects created by pen and paper or presented by teachers or textbooks, students can create and manipulate mathematical objects tailored to provide exactly the information they think they need to have in order for them to proceed with solving the task at hand (Mariotti, 2000;Moreno-Armella et al, 2008). Furthermore, the creation of mathematical objects in an environment of dynamic software such as GeoGebra and Cabri can be carried out stepwise.…”
Section: Dynamic Software Supporting Problem-solving and Reasoningmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…That means that every step is associated with an activity resulting in a response from the software, which in turn may guide the next step in task solving. Working with dynamic software means both guiding the software and being guided by the software (Moreno-Armella et al, 2008).…”
Section: Dynamic Software Supporting Problem-solving and Reasoningmentioning
confidence: 99%