This study investigated the effects of computer and noncomputer environments on learning of geometric motions. Two treatment groups, one of which used specially designed Logo computer environments, and one of which used manipulatives and paper and pencil, received eight lessons on geometric motions. Interviews revealed that both treatment groups, especially the Logo group, performed at a higher level of geometric thinking than did a control group. Both treatment groups outperformed the control group on immediate and delayed posttests; though the two treatment groups did not significantly differ on the immediate posttest, the Logo group outperformed the nonLogo group on the delayed posttest. Thus, there was support for the effectiveness of the curriculum and for the notion that the Logo-based version enhanced the construction of higher-level conceptualizations of motion geometry.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ClementsD. H. and BattistaM. T., Geometry and Spatial Reasoning, in Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning, GrouwsD. A. (ed.), Macmillan, New York, pp. 420–464, 1992.
2.
KoubaV. L., Results of the Fourth NAEP Assessment of Mathematics: Measurement, Geometry, Data Interpretation, Attitudes, and Other Topics, Arithmetic Teacher, 33, pp. 10–16, 1988.
3.
PorterA., A Curriculum Out of Balance: The Case of Elementary School Mathematics, Educational Researcher, 18, pp. 9–15, 1989.
4.
BattistaM. T. and ClementsD. H., Logo Geometry, Silver Burdett & Ginn, Morristown, New Jersey, 1991.
5.
ClementsD. H. and BattistaM. T., The Development of a Logo-based Elementary School Geometry Curriculum (Final Report: NSF Grant No.: MDR-8651668), State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York/Kent State University, Kent, Ohio, 1991.
6.
SchultzK. A. and AustinJ. D., Directional Effects in Transformational Tasks, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 14, pp. 95–101, 1983.
7.
Del GrandeJ. J., Can Grade Two Children's Spatial Perception be Improved by Inserting a Transformation Geometry Component into their Mathematics Program?, Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, p. 3689A, 1986.
8.
ShahS. A., Selected Geometric Concepts Taught to Children Ages Seven to Eleven, Arithmetic Teacher, 16, pp. 119–128, 1969.
9.
KidderF. R., Elementary and Middle School Children's Comprehension of Euclidean Transformations, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 7, pp. 40–52, 1976.
10.
WillifordH. J., A Study of Transformational Geometry Instruction in the Primary Grades, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 3, pp. 260–271, 1972.
11.
MoyerJ. C., The Relationship between the Mathematical Structure of Euclidean Transformations and the Spontaneously Developed Cognitive Structures of Young Children, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 9, pp. 83–92, 1978.
12.
van HieleP. M., Structure and Insight, Academic Press, Orlando, Florida, 1986.
13.
ClarkeR. E., Reconsidering Research on Learning from Media, Review of Educational Research, 53, pp. 445–459, 1983.
14.
HoylesC. and NossR., Formalizing Intuitive Descriptions in a Parallelogram Logo Microworld, in Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Veszprem, Hungary, pp. 417–424, 1988.
15.
NossR. and HoylesC., Afterword: Looking Back and Looking Forward, in Learning Mathematics and Logo, HoylesC. and NossR., (eds.), MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 427–468, 1992.
16.
ClementsD. H. and BattistaM. T., Learning of Geometric Concepts in a Logo Environment, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20, pp. 450–467, 1989.
17.
ClementsD. H. and BattistaM. T., The Effects of Logo on Children's Conceptualizations of Angle and Polygons, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21, pp. 356–371, 1990.
18.
FindlaysonH. M., What do Children Learn Through Using Logo? D.A.I. Research Paper No. 237, British Logo Users Group Conference: Loughborough, U.K., 1984.
19.
NossR., Children's Learning of Geometrical Concepts through Logo, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 18, pp. 343–362, 1987.
20.
OliveJ.LankenauC. A., and ScallyS. P., Teaching and Understanding Geometric Relationships through Logo: Phase II. Interim Report: The Atlanta-Emory Logo Project, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, 1986.
21.
EdwardsL. D., Children's Learning in a Computer Microworld for Transformation Geometry, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, pp. 122–137, 1991.
22.
OlsonA. T.KieranT. E., and LudwigS., Linking Logo, Levels, and Language in Mathematics, Educational Studies in Mathematics, 18, pp. 359–370, 1987.
23.
FeurzeigW. and LukasG., LOGO—A Programming Language for Teaching Mathematics, Educational Technology, 12, pp. 39–46, 1971.
24.
BattistaM. T. and ClementsD. H., Using Logo Pseudoprimitives for Geometric Investigations, Mathematics Teacher, 81, pp. 166–174, 1988.
25.
BurgerW. and ShaughnessyJ. M., Characterizing the van Hiele Levels of Development in Geometry, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 17, pp. 31–48, 1986.
26.
FuysD.GeddesD., and TischlerR., The van Hiele Model of Thinking in Geometry among Adolescents, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education Monograph, 3, 1988.
27.
SoonY. P. and FlakeJ. L., The Understanding of Transformation Geometry Concepts of Secondary School Students in Singapore, in Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting, North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, MaherC. A.GoldinG. A., and DavisR. B., (eds.), Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, pp. 172–177, 1989.
28.
WirszupI., Breakthroughs in the Psychology of Learning and Teaching Geometry, in Space and Geometry, Papers from a Research Workshop, MartinJ. L. and BradbardD. A., (eds.), University of Georgia, Georgia Center for the Study of Learning and Teaching Mathematics. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 132 033), Athens, Georgia, pp. 75–97, 1976.
29.
EriksonE. H., Childhood and Society, Norton, New York, 1963.
30.
TartreL. A., Spatial Skills, Gender, and Mathematics, in Mathematics and Gender: Influences on teachers and students, FennemaE. and LederG., (eds.), Teachers College Press, New York, pp. 27–59, 1990.
31.
BobangoJ. C., P. M. Van Hiele Levels of Geometric Thought and Student Achievement in Standard Content and Proof Writing: The Effect of Phase-based Instruction, Dissertation Abstracts International, p. 2566A, 1988.
32.
PapertS., Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas, Basic Books, New York, 1980.
33.
BattistaM. T. and ClementsD. H., The Effects of Logo and CAI Problem-solving Environments on Problem-solving Abilities and Mathematics Achievement, Computers in Human Behavior, 2, pp. 183–193, 1986.
34.
ClementsD. H., Metacomponential Development in a Logo Programming Environment, Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, pp. 141–149, 1990.
35.
MinskyM., The Society of Mind, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1986.
36.
ClementsD. H., Longitudinal Study of the Effects of Logo Programming on Cognitive Abilities and Achievement, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 3, pp. 73–94, 1987.
37.
Gallou-DumielE., Reflections, Point Symmetry and Logo, in Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting, North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, MaherC. A.GodinG. A., and DavisR. B., (eds.), Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, pp. 149–157, 1989.
38.
LehrerR. and SmithP. C., Logo Learning: Are Two Heads Better than One?, paper presented at the American Educational Research Association: San Francisco, California, 1986.
