• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>International Journal of STEM Education >Exploring differences in primary students’ geometry learning outcomes in two technology-enhanced environments: dynamic geometry and 3D printing
【24h】

Exploring differences in primary students’ geometry learning outcomes in two technology-enhanced environments: dynamic geometry and 3D printing

机译：两种技术增强环境中小学生几何学习成果的差异：动态几何和3D打印

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Background This paper compares the effects of two classroom-based technology-enhanced teaching interventions, conducted in two schools in sixth (age 11–12) grade. In one school, the intervention involves the use of a class set of 3D Printing Pens, and in another school the use of dynamic geometry environments, for inquiry-based learning of the relations among the number of vertices, edges, and faces of prisms and pyramids. An instrument was designed as guided by the van Hiele model of geometric thinking and administered to the two groups in the form of pretests, posttests, and delayed posttests to assess students’ prior knowledge before the intervention started, the learning outcomes obtained immediately after intervention, and the retention of knowledge after the interventions had been completed for a sustained period of time. The purpose of this study is to explore differences in geometry learning outcomes in two technology-enhanced environments, one that involves dynamic, visual representations of geometry and another that involves embodied actions of constructing physical 3D solids. Results The results show that students using dynamic geometry improved at a higher rate than those using 3D Pens. On the other hand, students with the aid of 3D Pens demonstrated better retention of the properties of 3D solids than their dynamic geometry counterparts. Namely, the posttest results show that the dynamic geometry environment (DGE) group generally outperformed the 3D Pen group across categories. The observed outperformance by the DGE group on “advanced” implies that the DGE technology had a stronger effect on higher levels of geometric learning. However, the results from the ANCOVA suggest that the retention effect was more significant with 3D Pens. Conclusions This study has established evidence that the DGE instructions produced strong but relatively temporary geometry learning outcomes, while 3D Pen instructions can help solidify that knowledge. The results of this study further shed light on the effect of visual and sensory-motor experiences on school mathematics learning and corroborate previous work showing that the effects of gesture are particularly good at promoting long-lasting learning.
机译：背景技术本文比较了两所学校（年龄11-12）级的两所学校进行的基于课堂技术增强的教学干预措施的影响。在一所学校，干预涉及使用一组一组3D打印笔，以及在另一个学校使用动态几何环境，用于棱镜的顶点，边缘和面部的关系中的关系的探究学习金字塔。仪器被设计为由van Hiele模型的几何思维模式指导，并以预测试，后塔和延迟后测试的形式给予两组，以评估学生的先验知识，在干预开始之前，干预后立即获得的学习成果，并在干预措施后的持续时间内保留知识。本研究的目的是探讨两个技术增强的环境中的几何学习结果的差异，涉及几何形状的动态，视觉表示，另一个涉及构建物理3D固体的体现的动态。结果结果表明，使用动态几何体的学生以比使用3D笔的速率更高的速率提高。另一方面，借助3D笔的学生表明，比其动态几何对应物更好地保留3D固体的性质。即，后测试结果表明，动态几何环境（DGE）组通常超越了跨类别的3D笔组。 DGE组对“高级”的观察到的表现意味着DGE技术对更高水平的几何学习产生了更强烈的影响。然而，ACCA的结果表明，保留效果与3D笔更为显着。结论本研究建立了证据表明，DGE指示产生了强大但相对临时的几何学学习结果，而3D笔指示可以帮助巩固该知识。本研究的结果进一步阐明了视觉和感官运动体验对学校数学学习的影响，并证实了以前的工作，表明手势的影响特别善于促进持久的学习。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号