Inquiring and learning with DGS Cui-Rods: a proposal for managing the complexity of how primary-school pupils mathematically structure odd-even numbers

Stavroula Patsiomitou
Greek Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs
PhD, University of Ioannina
MEd, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece
DOI – http://doi.org/10.37502/IJSMR.2022.5813

Abstract

Inquiry approaches using coloured manipulatives are a fruitful field for the investigation of mathematical concepts, embedded in a re-conceptualized, research-based curriculum. Manipulatives are designed to mediate between a particular mathematical concept and the way pupils learn that concept. Many researchers highlight the advantages of computer manipulatives including DGS manipulatives for teaching and learning. Moreover, the effectiveness of the Cuisenaire–Gattegno approach in the teaching and learning of mathematics in primary schools has been the subject of many math-investigations, supporting positive outcomes. In terms of the present study, it is interesting to mention the introduction of DGS Cui-Rods that I created in the Geometer’s Sketchpad dynamic geometry environment. The main focus of the current study is a fundamental pattern structure of our number system: odd and even numbers. The study will propose a multiple representation approach to aid pupils understanding odd and even numbers. The proposed DGS material can be displayed, inquired and managed through properly set-up tasks, using linking representations. Finally, it is important to continue teaching concepts through activities, tasks and problems that involve children in the inquiring and learning process; it is the best route for them to how to develop, interpret, and make sense of mathematical concepts.

Keywords: Computer manipulatives, Cuisenaire-Gattegno rods, DGS Cui-Rods, even and odd numbers, number zero.

References

  • Ainsworth, S. (1999a). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, (33), 131-152.
  • Ainsworth, S. E. (1999b). Designing effective multi-representational learning environments (Tech. Rep. No. 58). Nottingham, UK: University of Nottingham, ESRC Centre for Research in Development, Instruction, and Training.
  • Ainsworth, S. E. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183-198.
  • Baroody, A.J. (1989). Manipulatives don’t come with guarantees. Arithmetic Teacher 37(2), 4–5.
  • Bayram, S. (2004). The effect of instruction with concrete models on eighth grade students’ geometry achievement and attitudes toward geometry. Master of Science in Secondary Science and Mathematics Middle East Technical University.
  • Benson I, Marriott N and McCandliss BD (2022) Equational reasoning: A systematic review of the Cuisenaire–Gattegno approach. Educ. 7:902899. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.902899
  • M., Lesh, R., Post, T., & Silver, E. (1983). Rational number concepts. In R. Lesh & M. Landau (Eds.). The acquisition of mathematical concepts and processes. New York: Academic Press
  • Bruner, J.S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31(1), 2132.
  • Bruner, J. S. (1966). Towards a Theory of Instruction, New York: Norton.
  • Bruner, J.S., Olver, R.R., & Greenfield, P.M. (1966). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Clements, D. H., & McMillen, S. (1996). Rethinking “concrete” manipulatives. Teaching Children Mathematics, 2(5), 270-279.
  • Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2007). Effects of a preschool mathematics curriculum: Summative research on the Building Blocks project. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(2), 136-163.
  • Cobb, Paul. (1988). The tension between theories of learning and instruction in mathematics education. Educational Psychologist, 23(2), 87-103.
  • Littlefield-Cook, Joan and Cook, Greg (2005) Child development: principles and perspectives, Boston, Mass: Pearson
  • Dewey, J. (1902/1990) The School and Society and The Child and the Curriculum. London: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Dienes, Zoltan (1960). Building up Mathematics, Hutchinson Educational: London.
  • Duval, R. (1996). Quel Cognitif Retenir en Didactique des Mathématiques? Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques. 16, No. 3, pp. 349-382.
  • Duval, R. (1999). Representation, vision and visualization: Cognitive functions in mathematical thinking. Basic issues for learning. In F. Hitt & M. Santos (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Volume 1 (pp. 3-26). Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico.
  • Fey, J. (1989). Technology and Mathematics Education: A Survey of Recent Developments and Important Problems. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 20, 3, 237-272.
  • Fangchun Zhu (2020). Teachers’ Knowledge for Integrating Dynamic Geometry Software into Mathematics Lessons: contrasting Chinese and French Cases. Université de Lyon; East China normal university (Shanghai).
  • Gattegno, C. (2011a). Modern Mathematics with Numbers in Colour. Fishguard: Cuisenaire Company Ltd.
  • Gattegno, C. (2011b). A Teacher’s Introduction to the Cuisenaire-Gattegno Method of Teaching Arithmetic. New York, NY: Educational Solutions.
  • Goldin, G. A. (1998). Representational systems, learning, and problem solving in mathematics. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17(2), 137–165.
  • Goldin, G., & Kaput J. (1996). A joint perspective on the idea of representation in learning and doing mathematics. In L. Steffe, P. Nesher, P. Cobb, G. Goldin, & B. Greer (Eds.). Theories of mathematical learning (pp. 397-430). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Jackiw, N. (1991). The Geometer’s Sketchpad [Computer Software]. Berkeley, CA: Key Curriculum Press
  • Janvier, C. (1987a). Representations and Understanding: The notion of function as an example. In C. Janvier (Ed.) Problems of Representations in the Learning and Teaching of Mathematics. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Janvier, C. (1987b). Problems of Representations in the Learning and Teaching of Mathematics. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Janvier, C. (1987c). Translation Processes in Mathematics Education. In Janvier C. (Ed.) Problems of Representation in the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics, Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 27-32,
  • Jaworski, B. (2003). Inquiry as a pervasive pedagogic process in mathematics education development’, CERME3, Bellaria, Italy. http://www.dm.unipi.it/~didattica/CERME3
  • Kant, I. (1929/1965). The Critique of Pure Reason, translated by N. Kemp Smith, Macmillan, London.
  • Kaput, J. J. (1989). Linking representations in the symbol systems of algebra. In S. Wagner & C. Kieran, Research issues in the learning and teaching of algebra (pp. 167-194). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
  • Kaput, J., Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (2002). Developing new notations for a learnable mathematics in the Computational Era. In L. English (Ed.), Handbook of International Research in Mathematics Education(pp. 51–75). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Kosslyn, S.: 1983, Ghosts in the Mind’s Machine. W. Norton & Co., New York
  • Krajcsi A, Kojouharova, P. and Lengyel, G. (2021) Development of Preschoolers’ Understanding of Zero. Front. Psychol. 12:583734. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.583734
  • Laborde, C. (2003). Technology used as a tool for mediating knowledge in the teaching of mathematics: the case of Cabri-geometry. Plenary speech delivered at the Asian Technology Conference in Mathematics. Chung Hau University, Taiwan.
  • Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. New York, NY: Basic Books.
  • Lamon, S. J. (1996). The development of unitizing: Its role in children’s partitioning strategies. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(2), 170-193.
  • Lesh, R. (1979). Mathematical learning disabilities: considerations for identification, diagnosis and remediation. In R. Lesh, D. Mierkiewicz, & M.G. Kantowski (Eds), Applied Mathematical Problem Solving. Ohio: ERIC/SMEAC
  • Lesh,, Post, T. & Behr, M. (1987). Representations and translations among representations in mathematics learning and problem solving. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of Representation in the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics (pp. 33-40) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. http://wayback.archive-it.org/org-121/20190122153733/http://www.cehd.umn.edu/ci/rationalnumberproject/87_5.html
  • Lesh, R. A., & Doerr, H. M. (2003). Foundations of a models and modeling perspective on mathematics teaching, learning, and problem solving. In R. A. Lesh & H. M. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching (pp. 3–33). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Moyer, P. S., Bolyard, J.J., & Spikell, M.A. (2002). What are virtual manipulatives? Teaching Children Mathematics, 8(6), 372-377.
  • Naim El Rouadi & Noha Al Husni (2014) A new Reading to Scaffolding in Geometry. International Journal of Arts and Commerce. Vol. 3 No. 5,pp. 127-141
  • Nemirovsky, R. & Sinclair, N. (2020). On the Intertwined Contributions of Physical and Digital Tools for the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education. 6:107–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-020-00075-3
  • Ng, O. L., & Sinclair, N. (2015). Young children reasoning about symmetry in a dynamic geometry environment. ZDM, 47(3), 421-434.
  • Nunes, T., & Bryant. P. (2007). Key Understandings in Mathematics Learning: Paper 2: Understanding   Whole Numbers. (Review commissioned by the Nuffield Foundation). https://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/project/key-understandings-in-mathematics-learning
  • Papert, S. (1984). Microworlds: Transforming Education. ITT Key Issues Conference, Annennberg School of Communication, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Patsiomitou, S., (2008). The development of students’ geometrical thinking through transformational processes and interaction techniques in a dynamic geometry environment. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology journal. Book Chapter. Vol.5 pp.353-393.http://iisit.org/IssuesVol5.htm
  • Patsiomitou, S. (2011). Theoretical dragging: A non-linguistic warrant leading to dynamic propositions. In Ubuz, B (Ed.). Proceedings of the 35th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, ISBN 987 -975-429-297-8. 3, pp. 361-368. Ankara, Turkey: PME.
  • Patsiomitou, S. (2019a). A Trajectory for the Teaching and Learning of the Didactics of Mathematics [using ICT]: Linking Visual Active Representations. Monograph. Published by Global Journal Incorporated. United States. (September 5, 2019) . ISBN: 978-1-7340132-0-7. http://doi.org/10.34257/SPatTrajICT
  • Patsiomitou, S. (2019b). Hybrid-dynamic objects: DGS environments and conceptual transformations. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Studies. 1, No. 1, May 2019, pp. 31-46. https://doi.org/10.29103/ijevs.v1i1.1416.
  • Patsiomitou, S. (2021). A Research Synthesis Using Instrumental Learning Trajectories: Knowing How and Knowing Why. Information and Knowledge Management. ISSN 2224-5758 (Paper) ISSN 2224-896X (Online). 11(3). DOI: 7176/IKM/11-3-02.
  • Patsiomitou, S. (2022). DGS Cui-Rods: Reinventing Mathematical Concepts. GPH-International Journal of Educational Research, 5(09), 01-11. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7036045
  • Piaget, J. (1937/1971). The construction of reality in the child (M. Cook, Trans.). New York: Basic Books.
  • Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1967). The child’s conception of space. New York: W. W. Norton
  • Post, T. (1988). Some notes on the nature of mathematics learning. In T. Post (Ed.), Teaching Mathematics in Grades K-8: Research Based Methods (pp. 1-19). Boston: Allyn & Bacon
  • Ross, C. J. (2004) The effect of mathematical manipulative materials on third grade students’ participation, engagement, and academic performance. Master of Education in K-8 Mathematics and Science. University of Central Florida
  • Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2016). Physical and virtual manipulatives: What is “concrete”? In P. S. Moyer-Packenham (Ed.), International perspectives on teaching and learning mathematics with virtual manipulatives (Vol. 3, pp. 71–93). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
  • Sedig, K., Sumner, M. (2006) Characterizing interaction with visual mathematical representations. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning,11:1-55. New York: Springer.
  • Schoenfeld, A. H., & Kilpatrick, J. (2008). Toward a Theory of Proficiency in Teaching Mathematics. International Handbook of Mathematics Teacher Education, 2, 1-35.
  • Sfard, A. (1994). ‘Reification as the birth of metaphor’. For the Learning of Mathematics 14(1), 44–55.
  • Shriki, Atara; Barkai, Ruthi; and Patkin, Dorit (2017) “Developing mental rotation ability through engagement in assignments that involve solids of revolution,” The Mathematics Enthusiast: 14: No. 1, Article 28.
  • Sinclair, N., & Crespo, S. (2006). Learning mathematics in dynamic computer environments. Teaching Children Mathematics, 12(9), 436-444.
  • Steffe, L., von Glasersfeld, E., Richards, J., and Cobb, P. (1983). Children’s Counting Types: Philosophy, Theory and Application., Praegar Scientific, New York
  • Van de Walle, J., & L.H. Lovin. (2005). Teaching Student-Centered Mathematics: Grades K-3. Allyn & Bacon.
  • Vergnaud, G. (1988). Multiplicative structures. In J. Hiebert & M. Behr (Eds.), Number concepts and operations in the middle grades. Hillsdale, NJ: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  • Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
  • Wheatley, G. & Reynolds, A. (1996). The construction of abstract units in geometric and numeric settings. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 30(1), 67-83.
  • Wheatley, G. (1990) ‘One point of view: Spatial sense and mathematics learning’, Arithmetic Teacher 37, 10-11.
  • Yanik, H. B., Helding, B. & Flores, A. (2008). Teaching the concept of unit in measurement interpretation of rational numbers. Elementary Education Online, 7(3), 693-705. http://ilkogretim-online.org.tr/vol7say3/v7s3m12.pdf