Using a Simulator to Help Students with Dyspraxia Learn Geometry
Tóm tắt
This article investigates how a computer simulator for human interactions and a dyadic system in a pencil-and-paper environment can contribute to helping students with poor motor co-ordination, notably those with dyspraxia, to learn geometry. The aim is to design an alternative way to teach the subject, and to explore its effects on the learning processes. Geometric construction is an important element in the curriculum in primary and secondary school, but is not an end in itself. We draw upon Efraim Fischbein’s work, in particular the link between the figural and conceptual aspects of geometric objects, in order to design a simulator that can execute geometrical constructions for students with motor co-ordination problems, who find drawing difficult. Our initial experiment with students with dyspraxia and their peers showcases the potential benefits of alternating human–human and human–avatar dyads. It serves as a proof of concept and highlights the way in which students appropriate the artifact and construct an instrument in the context of drawing.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Arzarello, F. & Robutti, O. (2010). Multimodality in multi-representational environments. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 42(7), 715–731.
Arzarello, F., Paola, D., Robutti, O. & Sabena, C. (2009). Gestures as semiotic resources in the mathematicsclassroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(2), 97–109.
Béguin, P. & Pastré, P. (2002). Working, learning and designing through simulation. In S. Bagnara, S. Pozzi, A. Rizzo, & P. Wright (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on cognitive ergonomics (pp. 5–13). Rome, Italy: Istituto de Scienze e TecnologiedellaCognizione.
Berthelot, R. & Salin, M.-H. (1994). Common spatial representations and their effects upon teaching and learning of space and geometry.In J. da Ponte & J. Matos(Eds), Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on the Psychology of Mathematics Education (vol. 2, pp. 72–80). Lisbon, Portugal: PME.
Brooks, E. (2013). Ludic engagement designs: Creating spaces for playful learning. In C. Stephanidis & M. Antona (Eds.), Universal access in human–computer interaction: Design methods, tools, and interaction techniques for eInclusion (pp. 241–149). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
Clements, D. (1999). Geometric and spatial thinking in young children. In J. Copley (Ed.), Mathematics in the early years (pp. 66–79). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Clements, D. (2003). Teaching and learning geometry. In J. Kilpatrick, W. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 151–178). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Collobert, R., Weston, J., Bottou, L., Karlen, M., Kavukcuoglu, K. & Kuksa, P. (2011). Natural language processing (almost) from scratch. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2493–2537.
Douaire, J. & Emprin, F. (2015). Teaching geometry to students (from five to eight years old). In K. Krainer & N. Vondrová (Eds.), Proceedings of the ninth congress of the European Society for Research in mathematics education (pp. 529–535). Prague, Czech Republic: ERME.
Ebersold, S., Plaisance, E. & Zander, C. (2016). École inclusive pour les élèvesen situation de handicap accessibilité: Réussitescolaire et parcoursindividuels. Rapport du CNESCO.[inclusive school for students with disabilities accessibility: Academic achievement and individual pathways] (https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ee4b/25ee6626e5a8e9965bb5cd8f4484fcb1b459.pdf). Accessed 1 Sept 2019.
Elbasan, B. & Kayihan, H. (2012). Motor performance and activities of daily living in children with developmental coordination disorder. Journal of Novel Physiotherapies, 2(2) (#1000107).
Emprin, F. & Riera, B. (2014). Process of creating educational uses by teachers from a 3D simulation of a house home automation to teach technology. In G. Futschek& C. Kynigos (Eds), Proceedings of the 3rd International Constructionism Conference (pp. 247–257). Vienna, Austria:Ôsterreichische computer Gesellschaft.
Emprin, F. & Sabra, H. (2019). Les simulateurs informatiques: ressources pour la formation des enseignants de mathématiques, Canadian Journal of Science. Mathematics and Technology Education, 19(2), 204–216.
Ewing, A. (2006). Increasing classroom engagement through the use of technology. (http://www.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu/mil/fcontent/2005– 2006/ewing rpt.pdf).
Fischbein, E. (1993). The theory of figural concepts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24(2), 139–162.
Friso-van den Bos, I., van der Ven, S., Kroesbergen, E. & van Luit, J. (2013). Working memory and mathematics in primary school children: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 10, 29 – 44.
Harrowell, I., Hollén, L., Lingam, R. & Emond, A. (2018). The impact of developmental coordination disorder on educational achievement in secondary school. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 72, 13–22.
Maschietto, M. & Soury-Lavergne, S. (2013). Designing a duo of material and digital artifacts: The pascaline and Cabri Elem e-books in primary school mathematics. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(7), 959–971.
Mazeau, M. (2010). Les dyspraxies: Points de repères. Archives de pédiatrie, 17(3), 314–318 [Dyspraxia:Points of reference].
Mencía, B., Pardo, D., Trapote, A. & Gómez, L. (2014). Embodied conversational agents in interactive applications for children with special educational needs. InAssistivetechnologies: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (pp. 811–840). Hershey, PA:IGI global.
MENJ (2018). Programme du cycle 3, en vigueur à compter de la rentrée de l’année scolaire 2018–2019. BOEN n°30 du 26 juillet 2018.Paris, France: Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale et de la Jeunesse. [3rd cycle curriculum, in effect as from the beginning of the 2018–2019 schoolyear].
Missiuna, C., Rivard, L. & Pollock, N. (2004). They’re bright but can’t write: Developmental coordination disorder in school-aged children.TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus: 1(1), (#3). (http://escholarship.bc.edu/education/tecplus/vol1/iss1/3). Accessed 1 Mar 2020.
Mithalal, J. & Balacheff, N. (2019). The instrumental deconstruction as a link between drawing and geometrical figure. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 100(2), 161–176.
Nemirovsky, R. (2003). Three conjectures concerning the relationship between body activity and understanding mathematics. In N. Pateman, B. Dougherty & J. Zillox (Eds), Proceedings of the 27th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (vol. 1, pp. 105–109). Honolulu, HI: PME.
Parzysz, B. (1991). Representation of space and students’ conceptions at high school level. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22(6), 575–593.
Petitfour, E. (2015). Enseignement de la géométrie à des élèves dyspraxiques visuo spatiaux inclus en classe ordinaire. Recherches en Éducation, 23, 82–94 [Teaching geometry to students with visual–spatial dyspraxia included in ordinary class].
Petitfour, E. (2016). Teaching geometry to visual–spatial dyspraxic pupils. In Paper presented at the 13th international congress on mathematical education. Germany: Hamburg (https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02119848/document).
Petitfour, E. (2017a). Enseignement de la géométrie à des élèves dyspraxiques en cycle 3: Étude des conditions favorables à des apprentissages. La Nouvelle Revue de l’Adaptation et de la Scolarisation, 78(2), 47–66 [Teaching geometry to dyspraxicstudents: Study of conditions conductive to learning].
Petitfour, E. (2017b). Enseignement de la géométrie en fin de cycle 3: Proposition d’un dispositif de travail endyade. Petit x, 103, 5–31 [Teaching geometry at the end of cycle 3: Proposal of a working device in dyad].
Rabardel, P. (1995). Les hommes et les technologies:Approche cognitive des instruments contemporains. Paris, France: Armand Colin [People and technology: Cognitive approach to contemporary instruments].
Radford, L., Schubring, G. & Seeger, F. (2008). Semiotics in mathematics education: Epistemology, history, classroom, and culture. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: SensePublishers.
Rizzolatti, G. (2006). Mirror neuron system. Réception des Associés étrangers élus en 2005 / 12 décembre 2006. Institut de France, Académie des sciences.
Sarama, J. & Clements, D. (2016). Physical and virtual manipulatives: What is “concrete”? In P. Moyer-Packenham (Ed.), International perspectives on teaching and learning mathematics with virtual manipulatives (pp. 71–93). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Searle, J. (1983). Intentionality. An essay in the philosophy of mind. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Sinclair, N. & Bruce, C. (2015). New opportunities in geometry education at the primary school. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 47(3), 319–329.
Sinclair, N., Moss, J., Hawes, Z. & Stephenson, C. (2019). Learning through and from drawing in early-years geometry. In K. Mix & M. Battista (Eds.), Visualizingmathematics: The role of spatial reasoning in mathematicalthought (pp. 229–3252). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Stansell, D. (2007). Giving a face to a hidden disorder: The impact of dyspraxia. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 4(1) (#2). (http://escholarship.bc.edu/education/tecplus/vol4/iss1/art2).
Stowell, J., & Nelson, J. (2007). Benefits of electronic audience response systems on student participation, learning, and emotion. Teaching of Psychology, 34(4), 253–258.
Trouche, L. (2005). An instrumental approach to mathematics learning in symbolic calculator environments. In D. Guin, K. Ruthven, & L. Trouche (Eds.), The didactical challenge of symbolic calculators: Turning a computational device into a mathematical instrument (pp. 137–162). New York, NY: Springer.
Vaivre-Douret, L., Lalanne, C., Ingster-Moati, I., Boddaert, N., Cabrol, D., Dufier, J.-L., Golse, B. & Falissard, B. (2011). Subtypes of developmental coordination disorder: Research on their nature and etiology. Developmental Neuropsychology, 36(5), 614–643.
Vérillon, P. & Rabardel, P. (1995). Cognition and artifacts: A contribution to the study of thought in relation to instrumented activity. European Journal of Psychology in Education, 10(1), 77–101.
Voltolini, A. (2018). Duo of digital and material artefacts dedicated to the learning of geometry at primary school. In L. Ball, P. Drijvers, S. Ladel, H.-S. Siller, M. Tabach, & C. Vale (Eds.), Uses of technology in primary and secondary mathematics education: Tools, topics and trends (pp. 83–99). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.