Pre-Service Math Teachers’ Opinions about Dynamic Geometry Softwares and Their Expectations from Them

Hakan Şandır,Serdar Aztekin

doi:10.29333/iejme/342

Abstract

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.

Highlights

Educators and teachers have often struggled with technology as a means of educational development
This study was conducted in the 2011-2012 academic year with 64 pre-service teachers who had taken a course about mathematics education softwares during a year in the university which is located in Ankara, Turkey
The descriptive and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) statistics related to the results of Dynamic Geometry Software Evaluation Scale (DGSES) are summarized

Summary

Introduction

Educators and teachers have often struggled with technology as a means of educational development With this problem in mind, an increase in software development for teaching and learning of Geometry has lead to a growing number of dynamic geometry software products in education. There has been much research dedicated to studying the effect of DGS on students’ progress along with their attitudes in geometry. They have shown mixed results; most of them emphasized that the use of DGS improved students’ achievement, interest and participation in geometry (e.g., Bielefeld, 2002; Erbas &Yenmez, 2011; Guven, 2012; Roberts & Stephens, 1999).

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion