Working Group D Notes of Day 2. Participants 27 person 12 countries 3 continents.

12
Working Group D Notes of Day 2

Transcript of Working Group D Notes of Day 2. Participants 27 person 12 countries 3 continents.

Page 1: Working Group D Notes of Day 2. Participants 27 person 12 countries 3 continents.

Working Group D

Notes of Day 2

Page 2: Working Group D Notes of Day 2. Participants 27 person 12 countries 3 continents.

Participants

• 27 person• 12 countries• 3 continents

Page 3: Working Group D Notes of Day 2. Participants 27 person 12 countries 3 continents.

Materials

• Topics– Solid geometry– Model of the solar system created by students– Investigating transformations and trig functions,

inverse trig functions– Locus lines

• Shear– Local solution “Naver café” as a temporary solution

before GeoGebra wiki and forum– Embedding GeoGebra applets in online classes

Page 4: Working Group D Notes of Day 2. Participants 27 person 12 countries 3 continents.

Methodology

• Prerequisites for Teaching with GeoGebra• Need to change the curriculum for new, technology-

supported mathematics• Groups of students of different skill levels / ages in

one class, different ways of “understanding” and “explaining”

Page 5: Working Group D Notes of Day 2. Participants 27 person 12 countries 3 continents.

Trainings

• How do we teachers make want to use GeoGebra?• Using videos / screen recordings of best practice

examples• Creating files “live” during teaching, instead of black-

box principle (e.g. applets)• GeoGebra workshops with Interactive White Boards• Design of workshop materials• Assess local accomodations (computer labe vs.

laptop computers, IWB or not, Internet connection?,…)

Page 6: Working Group D Notes of Day 2. Participants 27 person 12 countries 3 continents.

Group 1

• Compare GeoGebra with painting, – tool like a brush to make pictures, – teacher makes an ornament and pupils color it,– or they use the tool to be creative

Page 7: Working Group D Notes of Day 2. Participants 27 person 12 countries 3 continents.

Group 2 – I.

• Design Features• Consistency – doing things for students consistent across

applets• Not too much in each applet (1 idea per applet)• Simple to work with• Clear purpose• Multiple formats• Issues of range of tools features, open vs. closed• option as a teacher tool, student tool purpose and

learner developmental needs are important

Page 8: Working Group D Notes of Day 2. Participants 27 person 12 countries 3 continents.

Group 2 – II.• Wiki – difficult to find items, categories like use, teacher use,

student use, topic• Need list of tags – standard list plus other• Liked the solar system applet because students needed to find

information as background to create tool• Needs to be annotation, explanation to help deconstruct/construct• Brings up the issue of when is a proof a proof?• Some way of capturing explanation/”proof”, steps• Many teachers do accept the “black box”, don’t have time to think

about what is under the hood• How much scaffolding vs. how much challenge, what specific skills

are needed (or combination of skills)

Page 9: Working Group D Notes of Day 2. Participants 27 person 12 countries 3 continents.

Group 3What is most important in the creation of

resources?

•Randomisation of examples (now we can use command ‘RandomBetween[a,b]’ where a and b are integers)•Use of checkboxes to show answers (graph or algebra)•Whole lesson for students, with text and applets, as a webpage•Get students to use GeoGebra application for themselves (as quickly as possible) (Allow them to teach you!) This depends on the particular class/students•Video tutorials – learn maths in English as a foreign language!•There is a lot of work for us to do over the next month.

Page 10: Working Group D Notes of Day 2. Participants 27 person 12 countries 3 continents.

Group 4 I• Wish list: Can Locus interact with other objects and tools, e.g.

Intersect, Tangent,…• Concern with simple v. elaborate applets, which are better for what

puprose?• Essential to think o the objective of a particular applet in its

design / motivatin factors for students– Autnonomy– Collaboration– Competence

(Andreas Krapp)• Give students a variety of different types of applets (simple to

elaborate). Need to consider assessment, What did students actually learn from an applet? Objectives of a particular applet

Page 11: Working Group D Notes of Day 2. Participants 27 person 12 countries 3 continents.

Group 4 II

• Questions to ensure that students slow down with experimenting and use the applet the way it’s intended to be used.

• Use of prepared applets vs. GeoGebra as a tool• Designing applets with open questions for students to

explore, even if hey cannot make a formal proof at this stage

• What will happen to the quality of GeoGebra applet once text books are going to include them?

• Allow for student discovery

Page 12: Working Group D Notes of Day 2. Participants 27 person 12 countries 3 continents.

Wish List• IWB

• Presentation mode: increase sensitive area of sliders and checkboxes• Alternative way of right-clicking , since it is not supported by all white boards

• Wishlist for GeoGebra • 3D wish list directly to Matthieu (Temel Kösa, Turkey)• Grid for Polar coordinates• Intersection of locus wit geometric objects• Constructions protocol should include the toolbar icons

• Different kinds of toolbars for different math topics• Creation of dynamic applets

• Print buttons for applets• Possibility to change font size of html page• Include a back and next button to create a series of dynamic worksheets• Templates for dynamic worksheets (e.g. text next to applet,…)• Ability to take notes within an applet (e.g. explanations, proof,…), maybe having a formula

editor (e.g., Formulator MathML Weaver) available as well