Coursework Coversheet

Students name Wahid Yunianto

Course of study MA Mathematics Education

Module title Digital Technologies for Mathematical Learning

Module code Date work submitted

CPASG671B 5 June 2017

Title of Assignment

Digital Technologies for Learning

Mathematics: A Case of Learning
Triangle Inequality Theorem Using
Scratch Activities
5498
Word length

Any Additional Information

Statement:
I confirm that I have read and understood the Institutes Code on Citing Sources and
Avoidance of Plagiarism. I confirm that this assignment is all my own work and conforms
to this Code. This assignment has not been submitted on another occasion.

Signed: Wahid Yunianto Date: 5 June 2017

Digital Technologies for Learning Mathematics: A Case of Learning Triangle Inequality Theorem
Using Scratch Activities

Introduction
The triangle inequality theorem is usually taught deductively in Indonesia. In other words,
students learn this mathematics concept through traditional approaches. Students perceive it as
a formula such as A+B > C, B+C > A, or A+C > B, often given to students directly and not related
to students experiences. Thus, students may feel alienated from mathematics. Students
experiencing traditional teaching approaches may not see the connection between mathematics
and their daily experiences. This leads to disengagement from mathematics and a perception of
mathematics as entirely cerebral [ CITATION Pra12 \l 1033 ]. To deal with this, students can be
presented with lively exploratory mathematics activities much like they experience real-life
phenomena[ CITATION Pra12 \l 1033 ]. This idea is in line with a constructivist approach where
the knowledge is constructed actively by students. In addition, traditional teaching approach and
constructivist approach result in different outcomes. The latter is better in terms of the
conceptual understanding and students achievements (see Boaler, 2001; Boaler, 2002; Kim,
2005).

One constructivist approach is using hands-on activity. For the triangle inequality theorem,
students explore three numbers or segments to investigate whether or not they make a triangle.
With developments in digital technology, students can play with virtual manipulatives or
mathematical software such as Geogebra or other Dynamic Geometry Software (DMS). Students
can experience mathematics as living and dynamic human endeavour through digital tools and
associated tasks [CITATION Pra12 \p 41 \l 1033 ]. Thus, I have developed interactive activities
using a digital environment allowing students to connect their daily experiences. The activities
were developed using Realistic Mathematics Education (RME) theory, which uses contexts that
students can relate to their experiences and gives opportunities to mathematize their
world[ CITATION Fos01 \l 2057 ].

The activities have been designed with Scratch integrated with Digital Mathematics Environment
(DME), which enabled me to create interactive activities and assessments for students. The
activity is inspired by elephant paths; people creating new paths to find the shortest distance. It
is expected that students will make use of their informal reasoning of shortest distance like in
elephant paths while engaging with Scratch activities. Students have to answers some questions
on the DME and their response will be stored.

This essay will investigate how students experience mathematical activities on the digital
environment. In particular, two questions will be addressed:
1. To what extent will students play or experiment with the designed activities?
 2. How will they transfer their experiences with the digital environment to paper-based
tasks?
In the first part, the literature review will be mainly about the benefits of digital technologies
and realistic mathematics education. The second part will be about the development of the
digital activities with its rationale of using Scratch and DME. Next, the method of collecting data
and how it will be used will be briefly discussed. As the main part, the investigation of
experimentation and play, transfer of knowledge and the benefits of the digital technologies will
be presented. Lastly, I will present my reflection and conclusion.

Literature Review
When teaching mathematics using a traditional approach, students are typically less active and
receive mathematics as ready-made. The instruction is top-down, meaning that teachers explain
the strategies, formulas or algorithms first and then students work on practice tasks. For
instance a distributive law of multiplication, which states that for any number it applies A(B+C) =
AB + AC. Students work on practicing this formula with numbers, 5(7+2) = 5x7 + 5x2. This
traditional approach has been critiqued for dehumanising mathematics[ CITATION Fre91 \l
1033 ]. Freudenthal (1991) argues for mathematics as a human activity. According to him,
mathematics should not be learned as a given ready-made mathematics but through
mathematizing reality. This implies that students have the opportunities to engage actively in
the process and develop mathematical knowledge by themselves.

In learning geometry, Van Hiele [CITATION van84 \n \l 1033 ] presented the different level of
students geometric thinking. He categorised the levels of geometric thinking as the following:
Level 0. Students use visual perception and non-verbal thinking. Thus, appearance plays
a significant role in students thinking.
Level 1. Students make use of the properties embedded on the figures presented to
them. They could list all the properties but are not yet able to order or relate the
properties.
Level 2. Students are able to order properties and identify the relationship of those
properties.
Level 3. When thinking, students are concerned with deduction, theorems, axioms and
necessary and sufficient conditions.

He argues that students who reason at different levels cannot understand each other. It might
be true if students at higher level did not go through the lower one. Students have difficulties
understanding geometrical proofs since they are at a different level of geometric thinking
compared to the teacher [CITATION van84 \l 1033 ]. This is reasonable since the teacher explains
the mathematics in a formal manner, which does not connect to how students view and think of
geometry. Thus, students who are still at low levels might not fully understand the formal or
abstract mathematics given by teachers. In traditional teaching approaches, teachers usually
teach mathematics in that way; deductively. The formal mathematics is introduced to students
first while they might not yet be ready. I would show students Van-Hieles level of geometric in
this paper.

The development of Van Hieles levels of geometric thinking can be supported through
technology (see Meng & Sam, 2013; Meng & Idris, 2012). Information and Communication
Technology (ICT) is used as a tool to make student become more familiar with new technology as
well as to do investigation and communication[ CITATION Zar14 \l 1033 ]. Digital technology is
another name for ICT, referring to
a wide range of devices which combine the traditional elements of hardware and
software to perform a wide range of tasks including technical applications; communication
applications; consumer applications and educational applications [CITATION JMC11 \p 4 \l
1033 ]
Computers or similar devices can provide students with a greater possibility for experimentation
if they have access to it [ CITATION God03 \l 1033 ]. Boon [CITATION Boo06 \n \l 2057 ] reported
some applets which can offer the virtual reality and facilitate the use of mathematical models.
These digital environments (applets) have been developed and resulted in well-tested didactical
tools (ibid).

Research has shown that digital technology contributes to success of mathematics teaching and
learning[CITATION Bec03 \l 1033 ]. Technology is essential in teaching and learning
mathematics; it influences the mathematics that is taught and enhances students
learning[CITATION NCT00 \p 24 \l 1033 ]. Integrating digital technology can benefit students
learning of mathematics. Students who experienced computer-assisted learning develop proper
mathematical skills and gain deeper conceptual thinking compared to those who experienced
traditional teaching approaches (Dimakos & Zaranis, 2010; Hardman, 2005; Keong, et al., 2005).
An experimental study on geometry using digital technology (geometers sketchpad) has shown
significant improvement on students conceptual understanding on geometry [ CITATION
Dim10 \l 1033 ]. Wertheimer [CITATION Wer90 \n \l 2057 ] used digital technology focusing on
geometry and came up with six positive outcomes of integrating digital technology in his
classroom:
1. Students are motivated in exploration, investigation, creation, and generalisation.
2. It supports students to make connection with other branches of mathematics
3. It supports students to be a mathematical problem solver
4. It enhances students conceptual understanding of geometry
5. It leads to differentiated instruction to facilitate learning
6. It helps teachers to focus on students needs.

In addition, Ruthven & Hennessy[CITATION Rut02 \n \l 2057 ] interviewed students and teachers
about the use of ICT that they felt successful in supporting learning mathematics. The following
are the successful themes of using technology to teach mathematics [CITATION Rut09 \p 280 \l
1033 ]:
1. Effecting working process and improving production
2. Supporting processes of checking , trialling and refinement
3. Overcoming pupil difficulties and building assurance
4. Focusing on overarching issues and accentuating important features
5. Enhancing the variety and appeal of classroom activity
6. Fostering pupil independence and peer exchange

In addition, Geraniou & Mavrikis [CITATION Ger15 \n \l 2057 ] believe that strategies that are
difficult to be developed in paper-based tasks can be fostered through digital activities. They
also argue that bridging activities should be considered to support and sustain mathematical
strategies students have developed through their digital experience.

Even though technologies can support students learning mathematics, the success depends on
the design of the activities and how it is used by the teachers, and the educational
contexts[ CITATION Djr12 \l 1033 ]. Thus, it is possible to have a good design activity on digital
technology that did not work optimally due to teachers lack of technological pedagogical
content knowledge (see Mishra & Koehler, 2006). In addition, the way a student engages with
digital activities will not be uniform and students might use it differently[ CITATION God03 \l
1033 ]. They either can play or experiment or do both with the activities. Play is defined as an
exercise or activity student engage in for enjoyment or recreation rather than for a serious or
practical purpose while experiment is to be ascertained or established by trial [CITATION
OED06 \l 1033 ].

In developing my designed mathematics activities using technology, I use the framework by

Mishra & Koehler (2006). In this part, I will only focus on the technological content knowledge
(TCK). Mishra & Koehler [CITATION Mis06 \p 65 \n \l 1033 ] argue that
Teachers need to master more than the subject matter they teach; they must also
have a deep understanding of the manner in which the subject matter (or the
kinds of representations that can be constructed) can be changed by the
application of particular technologies.
Thus, I must understand the content or topic that I am going to create using Scratch and DME. I
have sufficient knowledge of triangle inequalities, Scratch and DME. Thus, combining my
knowledge on triangle inequalities and technology (Scratch, DME, internet connection,
browsers, java, etc) allow me to produce digital mathematics activities of that topic.

The development of my digital activities is based on realistic mathematics education framework.

Freudenthal (1991) developed the realistic mathematics education (RME) theory in the
Netherlands to reform mathematics education in that country. RME has five characteristics as
the following[ CITATION Tre87 \l 1033 ]:
Starting with contexts
Using students contributions
Students collaboration
Guided reinvention
Intertwinement

Students develop mathematical understanding by working on contexts that make sense to them.
Van den Heuvel Panhuizen (2003) states that realistic in RME is derived from Dutch realiseren
that something students can imagine or real in their mind. Thus, contexts are not always from a
real-life situation. Using an RME approach, students can make use of their prior knowledge and
students creations are fostered and appreciated. Students develop from informal to formal
mathematics by dealing with different contexts and stages. In RME, students progress from
horizontal mathematization to vertical mathematization (see Treffers, 1987), depicted as an
iceberg where the summit is formal mathematics. This progression takes not only one activity
and or lesson. My designed activities are just the starting point to support students horizontal
mathematization.

Students may come up with various ways to solve the same problem. Having a problem that can
be approached in different ways is a powerful part of the RME approach. Students have the
opportunities to make use of informal strategies and to experience different ways of solving a
problem that come from other friends or groups. The activities are designed to help (guide)
students reinvent the mathematics behind it. Lastly, in the RME approach, students do not learn
mathematics topics in a separated way, but an integrated and connected way. For instance,
students can learn geometry as well as algebra at the same time. Geometry helps the
visualisation and proof of algebra. The distributive law of multiplication, A(B+C) can be visualised
with a geometrical figure; i.e. a rectangle with length A and width B+C. Since the activities were
developed using RME framework, I will use RME tenets to support my analysis.

Scratch, DME and the design activities

In the place where RME theory has been developed; the Freudenthal Institute, digital
environments for mathematics have been developed to support students learning. Contexts and
activities are presented in a digital environment. Students can play or do the tasks and get
instant feedback. If the teachers use the Digital Mathematics Environment (DME), they can
create classes, tasks, activities and assessment. Therefore, in this paper, I use DME by Numwork
Freudental Institute and Scratch from scratch.mit.edu for students to learn the triangle
inequality theorem because Scracth and DME allowing me to program activities and problems
for students. The activities, if it is carried out on paper will probably take longer time, tedious
and messy. I used Scratch because I found it difficult to program activities using the syntaxes on
other tools. Scratch is relatively easy for me as a beginner to do programing. I could drag and
drop the commands that I wanted to use instead of typing it.

As for the DME, I chose it because other platforms cannot accommodate the type of questions
and responses needed, nor can they embed webpage activities. Use of DME will help me to
create activities and questions. It enables me to make different types of questions (multiple
choices, short response, etc.) and indicate how students should respond (click, fill out). For
instance, I ask students to fill out the answer boxes with numbers they produced from the
activity (engaging with the scratch game). In addition, I can also ask them to provide their
reasoning. In making responses, students can easily use equations or symbols. In this DME,
students work is stored allowing me to view their answers or responses. Thus, the DME here is
the platform for students to provide their responses. The main activities are done in the scratch
environment.

The development of ladybug activities are based on RME framework, starting with contexts and
will be guided to reinvent the mathematics behind it. The activity is inspired by the idea of
elephant path where, as mentioned earlier, humans create shortcuts. It is common sense which
path is the shortest. In mathematics, Archimedes law states that the shortest distance between
two points is a straight line. The walking paths when viewed from above look like a side of a
triangle (Figure 2). The peoples intention is to get the destination point as quick as possible; the
people walk straightly to it. Thus, the elephant path inspired me to develop the ladybug mating
context, which requires the male ladybug to find the shortcut to meet female ladybug.

I have been using an outdoor activity using this context but I found it difficult to create the
traces, especially on the floor. Indeed, the elephant path is created by many people or by walks
regularly leaving the grass died or cannot grow. Thus, it led me to find an interactive activity that
can help me to do this. I found it hard to find a suitable activity using manipulatives as it did not
fit my expectations or goals. After being introduced to Scratch, I decided to create a suitable
activity with this programming platform. It went through some developments and trials until it
reached this last version.

The use of a digital environment for this activity is to develop mathematical concepts; (see
Figure 1), in this case the concept of the triangle inequality theorem.
Figure 1 Didactical function of technology in mathematics education[CITATION Djr12 \p 137 \l
1033 ]

Students are expected to develop an understanding (progression) of the concept of the triangle
inequality theorem through the activities on Scratch. It can also be used to reintroduce the
concepts if they have been previously learned them using non-digital, traditional mathematics.

Figure 2 Elephant path (http://www.cloudcuckoo.nl/olifantenpaadjes/)

I created Ladybug activities on Scratch. Students will work on Ladybug contexts where the male
ladybug needs help to approach the female ladybug as quick as possible.

Figure 3 The story of insect mating as a context

After clicking the Help Tom link, they will be directed to the Scratch activity 1 (Figure 4).
 Figure 4 Helping Tom level 1
Initially, students should help the red ladybug reach the pink ladybug. The learning goal is that
students can find the shortest distance; direct straight line and then the lines closest to a straight
line. I predicted that some students may have got it correctly on their first try. It is also possible
that students experiment with the scratch activities or play it for entertainment.

Figure 5 Helping Tom questions on DME

The next activity is to work on another Scratch activity. This activity 2 is aimed at relating the
shortest path (direct straight line) as one side of a triangle and comparing it to the sum of the
other sides. Now, students would find the shortest path for the male ladybug but he is seen
much smaller like a dot. This was intented to make a visual representation resembling a triangle.
They could select the point they want the male ladybug to travel and he will go there leaving a
trace. Students first click the starting point Start Here and then click to the point they want to
go. I predicted that most students would directly point to the female ladybug (yellow point).
However, I programmed it so that the first trial might not get the shortest distance. Thus,
students would carefully point out the female point.
 Figure 6 Tom far from above story

Figure 7 Tom from far above questions on DME

After experiencing activities on the digital environment, students would do a paper based task
as the bridging activity (Appendix 1).

The plan and research method

This topic was intended for lower secondary students, grade 7. However, due to the national
school examination period for lower secondary students, it was difficult to arrange it for grade 7
students. Grade 9 students were having a national exam while grade 7 and 8 were having
holidays. Thus, uppers secondary students, Grade 10, participated in this activity. In addition,
based on the teacher, these grade 10 students experienced triangle inequalities in traditional
teaching approach. They might not understand fully the triangle inequality theorem. Therefore,
it might worth investigating how grade 10 students experience a different way of learning this
topic using digital technologies. I contacted an upper secondary mathematics teacher and asked
for her help. She agreed to help and we had a discussion to execute the plan. Due to the busy
schedule at school, the ladybug activities would be done online. The instructions were given to
students and they had to go to the given link and work on it. Students were from a private
school in Yogyakarta where English is often used as a medium of instruction. Following students'
preference, the DME and Scratch activities were carried out in English.

The teacher offered the activities to her students through their group chat. Four students
voluntarily participated on this activity. The teacher sent the link, usernames and passwords to
interested students. The usernames were a pseudonym, such as BMD1, BMD2, BMD3, and
BMD4. Before doing the activity, participating students had to prepare the screen recording
software to record their activities on the laptop or computer. Bandicam and Camtasia were used
by students to record their screen. After that, students sent the recording either to the teacher
or to me. Three days after the activities on DME, students were given a paper-based task
(bridging activity).The bridging activity was aimed at investigating whether or not students
benefit from the ladybug activity when doing paper based task or related tasks. They worked on
it after the school ends. They sent the photo of their paper-based task to the teacher. Thus, the
data collected from this investigation are videos, students work on paper, and stored data on
DME.

From the videos, I got information on how the student engaged and explored the activities. How
many trials they were executed was captured by the screen recordings. The students responses
could be seen on the DME result activities. All the input data were stored there allowing me to
get their responses quickly and accurately. The work on the paper-based task was used to see
how students made use of their strategies from the digital activities to solve the paper task.

Results and Discussion

In this part, I will present the results of the students work. This will be used to address two
questions. Firstly, to what extent did students engage with the Scratch activities, play or
experiment? Secondly, how did students benefit from the digital activities when doing paper-
based tasks?

The Scratch activities were designed like a game where there was a task to be accomplished and
the winner would get a compliment such as Great, Gorgeous, and Marvellous. If they did not
succeed the prompt question would appear: Can you come quicker?. The RedBug1: direction
shows the direction when the red ladybug (Tom) is navigated. Error: Reference source not found
shows that this student experimented with the Scratch activity 1. This student tried several
approaches. In the first trial, the BMD4 student navigated to horizontal direction first and turned
to the pink ladybug direction. In the second trial, he tried to direct it to the destination with
various degrees so that it looked curvy.
 Figure 8 Student's first and second trial on Activity 1 Level 1

The third trial, he used only two degrees to go to the destination (46 and 44). What he did later
is surprising; he tried to move horizontally and then started it over. It seems that he realised that
moving away from the destination would result in the longer distance. He cancelled it in halfway
to start over.

Figure 9 Student's 3rd and 4th trial on Activity 2 Level 1

For the next trial, he used some different degrees (53 & 49) and significantly turned just before
the destination. Interestingly, he moved it again by directing it to the wall and the feedback
came out Ouch!!! You cannot go there!.
 Figure 10 Student's next trials

Finally, he just used a single degree navigation to reach the pink ladybug (48), which is still not
the shortest. Next, he used different single degree navigation (43).

Figure 11 Student' next trials with one degree

In the end, he did not successfully find the shortest distance and moved to the next activity. The
correct answer is by having a single degree navigation 44 or 45 or 46 degree. However, he has
developed the idea of straight line as the shortest distance. On level 1 Tom from far above, he
could find the shortest distance by making a straight line. It seems that he benefited from the
previous activity (making straight path). On the next activity (level 2), he did some
experimentation and some play (Figure 12).
 Figure 12 Student's experimentation and play

The following figures show how another student experimented and developed a strategy.
Initially, on level 2, he approached the black hole and went to the yellow point. Then, he made a
long straight line to the corner and approached the yellow point (the most left line). Next, he
approached the black hole from the other side and went to the destination. Again, the prompt
question says that it needs a shorter distance. It seems that he realised the black hole is
asymmetrical and the left side might be a better approach. From Figure 13, the distance also is
clearly shorter (from 407.209 to 402.646).

Figure 13 Student's development strategy

As students had to fill out the questions on DME, they went back to the DME page and provided
responses. Even though this student did not successfully get the shortest distance for level 2, he
input the distances he travelled. On his first three trials, he input 403.41, 450.82 and 407.20.
However, after another final trial, he got the shortest distance, 402.64 and replaced the 450.82
in the box. Therefore, in answering the shortest distance, he put 402.64 (see Figure 14)
 Figure 14 Student's responses on DME

The evidence presented shows that students did more experimentation than playing with the
activities. Experimentation is more dominant than the play. If students just wanted to play, they
could strike the red ladybug either to the wall or to the black holes. Or they could make any
drawing from the lines they can create. Little evidence showed students tended to play.

Students had to answer the question on the DME based on the finding from their engagement
with the activities. Their short responses were taken from the stored data in DME and
summarised in Table 1.

Figure 15 Student's responses on DME

The students responses demonstrate they learned something from the Scratch activities.
Students did not only operate the ladybug but could also make inferences. They mostly
approached the black hole. This was also seen in their recorded activities. In making the relation
to a triangle, one student made a good statement that in a triangle, one side is always shorter
compared to the other two sides combined. This is the intended learning goal from the
designed activities.

Table 1 Students' responses on DME

I wanted to check whether students could make use of strategies they had developed from the
digital activities when doing paper-based tasks. Therefore, these students would work on a
paper-based task to allow me to observe the transfer of knowledge. That is, whether or not
students could make use of the knowledge of shortest distance and the distance closest to the
shortest distance and make its relation to triangle inequalities. Three days after engaging in the
Scratch activities and DME, they had a paper-based task to do. Only three students sent back
their work to the teachers. Students were able to find the shortest path to get to the destination
by drawing a straight path (Figure 16). I put a tree in the task 1 so that students could not create
a straight path. However, students made the line from Andis head, not from Andis feet. What I
wanted to see is whether students would go directly or not (making a straight line). From their
work, it shows that students made a straight line to the house in the corner (Andis house).
 Figure 16 Students work on paper-based task question 1

For the next question, one student stated that the fastest way is the straight line. She concluded
that the more obtuse the angle closest to the straight line would be the fastest way (Figure 17).
She concluded that to get the shortest one she made the obtuse angle closest to the black hole
(Table 1). On this task, no numbers were attached to the lines (only a diagram). This is the
evidence that she made use of the strategy she had developed from Scratch activities. Related to
Van Hieles level of geometry, this student shows levels 1 and 2. In Van Hieles Level 1, it shows
that this student made use of the properties embedded in the paths from experiments. The
properties of these paths are angles created from two segments. This student made relation of
the properties (angles created) to the distance (see Table 1). However, this obtuse angle should
be made by approaching the black hole, it is not just a random obtuse angle. This making of
relationship to properties belongs to level 2. For this case, it is true for two line segments that
the more obtuse the angle created between the lines, the shorter the lines. It can be seen also
on Figure 17 where the most obtuse is path ABD.
 Figure 17 Student's answer on paper-based task

Another student gave a very interesting response. This student drew the direct line (straight line
from A to B).

Figure 18 Student's reasoning on paper-based task

He might not draw a straight line if he had not yet experienced the Scratch activities. Thus, it is
also evident that students could make use of what they had learned previously on the digital
activities. Further, he worked on the next question and provided a reasonable justification.

Figure 19 Student's reasoning on paper-based task

He could make reference to the idea of the direct distance between two points to his reasoning.
Thus, for other cases on the triangle, a direct line (one side) will be shorter than the sum of the
remaining sides.

Due to the limitation of space only some RME characteristics will be discussed. In RME, students
start with a contextual problem. It seems that the activities could help students relate it with
their walking or navigating experiences. By experimenting with the ladybug activity 1, students
could realize the shortcut is the straight line direct to the destination. A student could make it
for her first attempt on this activity. She navigated the red ladybug to the pink ladybug and made
a straight line. It is like what common people do; going to a destination directly if there are no
obstacles. On level 2 activity 1, this student also navigated the ladybug by approaching the black
hole first. This seems that she brought the experiences or familiarities with a related event.

Figure 20 Student made use of the daily experience

We have observed that students contributions were accommodated through the ladybug
activities. They could create the paths using their ideas and ways with no interferes from the
teacher. They independently worked on the activities. In addition, they could make anything
and could redo it if they felt wrong. They made use of the feature on the ladybug activities to
help themselves accomplish the tasks. From the students work, we could see many different
students drawing paths (Figure 8 to 13). To some extent, their ideas could be carried out on the
activities.

The guided reinvention might be related to the feature of the ladybug activities and DME
questions. Students might realize the shortest distance if they have got the complementary
response and seen in from the distance box. The DME questions such as True-False-Not Sure
helped students find the shortest path (Figure 14). At the end all students could make the
straight line to the female ladybug and the next shortest distance. Even though they might have
experienced the shortest path in their daily experiences, they might not understand the
mathematics behind it. Through the ladybug activities, they could reinvent that the shortest
distance is the straight line to the destination and the next closest distance.

The Scratch activities were designed to provide feedback to students, to show the distance,
degree. They helped students refine and improve their strategies. The ladybug activities on
Scratch seemed to support the process of checking, trialling, and refinement (benefit 2). If
students made mistakes, they could retry. If they were not successful, the prompt question
would appear to make students reflect and refine their strategies. In addition, with the help of
the display, students could observe the distance travelled. Thus, it allows students to notice
whether their new travelled distance is longer or shorter.

The next benefit observed is that the Scratch and DME made students focus on the overarching
issues and accentuating important features. The outcomes for the ladybug activities are the
direct distance Archimedes, the next shortest distance, the inequalities theorem. The next
shortest distance will be a path close to the direct straight line. The Helping Tom and Tom from
far above are designed to let students reinvent the direct distance and the next shortest
distance. The inequality theorem was successfully perceived by some students.Thus students
focused on those overarching issues (benefit 4).

Conclusion
This essay tried to investigate what students experienced and the benefits gained by using the
authors designed activities on Scratch and DME. Even though the tasks might not be
appropriate for grade 10 students, it was still worth investigating to see how Grade 10 students
engaged in the activities. From this small-scale research, the results showed evidence that
students did more meaningful experimentation and developed new strategies. Experiments
were more apparent than play. Secondly, the transfer of knowledge was observable when
students worked on the paper-based task.

Regarding the benefits of digital technology in learning mathematics, the Scratch and DME
activities benefitted these students in a number of ways. It is observable that it helped students
refine and improve their strategies from the instant feedback. Students could focus on the
overarching issues on this mathematical topic and successfully accomplished it. Students daily
experiences could be connected through the ladybug activities. Their contributions were
accommodated and they could reinvent the shortest distance and relate it to triangle
inequalities theorem. To some extent, students showed level 2 on Van Hiele level of geometric
thinking. Students showed the properties and relationship of the shortest distance and the sides
of triangle.

The digital activity was conducted online without any interferences or the presence of the
teacher. The result might be different if the teacher was present. The designed activities in
Scratch and DME are still far from perfect. Thus, the author believes that they can be improved
and refined for future use. Also, I personally think that it will be more useful if they were used
for the targeted grade, which was grade 7, or even lower grades in elementary school. However,
since grade 10 students have perceived it in traditional teaching, it is still good for them to refine
their understanding of this topic or to see how the work on it.

References

Becta, 2003. What Research Says about Using ICT in Maths, Conventry: British Educational
Communications.

Boaler, J., 2001. Mathematical modeling and new theories of learning. Teaching Mathematics and its
Applications, 20(3), pp. 121-128.

Boaler, J., 2002. Experiencing School Mathematics: Traditional and Reform Approaches to Teaching and
Their Impact on Student Learning. Revised and Expanded Edition ed. London: Lawrence Elbraum.

Boon, P., 2006. Designing Didactical Tools and Microworlds for Mathematics Educations. In: C. Hoyles, J.
B. Lagrange, L. H. Son & N. Sinclair, eds. Proceeding of 17th ICMI Study Conference. Hanoi: Hanoi
University of Technology.

Clark-Wilson, A., Oldknow, A. & Sutherland, R., 2011. Digital technologies and mathematics education: A
report from a working group of the Joint Mathematical Council of the United Kingdom. [Online]
Available at: https://www.ncetm.org.uk/files/9793653/JMC_Digital_Technologies_Report_2011.pdf
[Accessed 25 April 2017].

Dimakos, G. & Zaranis, N., 2010. The Influence of the Geometer's Sketchpad on the Geometry
Achievement of Greel School Students. The Teaching of Mathematics, 13(2), pp. 113-124.

Drijvers, P., 2012. Digital Technology in Mathematics Education: Why It Works (or Doesn't). In: S. J. Cho,
ed. Selected Regular Lectures from 12th International Congress on Mathematical Education. London:
Springer, pp. 135-151.

Fosnot, C. T. & Dolk, M., 2001. Young Mathematicians at Work: Constructing Multiplication and Division.
Portsmouth: Heinemann.

Freudenthal, H., 1991. Revisiting Mathematics Education: China Lectures. Dordrecht: Kluwer Publishers.

Geraniou, E. & Mavrikis, M., 2015. Building Bridges to Algebra through a Constructionist Learning
Environment. Constructivist Foundations, 10(3), pp. 321-337.
Godwin, S. & Beswetherick, R., 2003. An Investigration into the Balance of Prescription, Experiment, and
Play when Learning about the Properties of Quadratic Functions with ICT. Research in Mathematics
Education, 5(1), pp. 79-95.

Hardman, J., 2005. An exploratory case study of computer use in a primary school mathematics: New
technology, new pedagogy?. Perspectives in Education, 23(4), pp. 99-111.

Keong, C. C., Horani, S. & Daniel, J., 2005. A Study on the Use of ICT in Mathematics Teaching. Malaysian
Online Journal of Instructional Technology, 2(3), pp. 43-51.

Kim, J. S., 2005. The Effects of A Constructivist Teaching Approach on Student Academic Achievement,
Self-concept, and Learning Strategies. Asia Pasific Education Review, 6(1), pp. 7-19.

Meng, C. C. & Idris, N., 2012. Enhancing Students' Geometric Thinking and Achievement in Solid
Geometry. Journal of Mathematics Education, 5(1), pp. 15-33.

Meng, C. C. & Sam, L. C., 2013. Enhancing Primary Pupils' Geometric Thinking through Phase-Based
Instruction Using The Geometer's Sketchpad. Asia Pacific Journal of Educators and Education, Volume 28,
pp. 33-51.

Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. J., 2006. Technological Pedagigical Content Knowledge: A framework for Teacher
Knowledge. Teacher College Record, 108(6), pp. 1017-1054.

NCTM, 2000. Principles and Standards for Mathematics. 1st ed. VA: Reston.

OED, 2006. Oxford English Dictionary (OED) Online. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford Univesrity Press.

Pratt, D., 2012. Mathematics can be phenomenal!. School Leadership Today, June, p. 140.

Ruthven, K., Deaney, R. & Hennessy, S., 2009. Using Graphing Software to Teach about Algebraic Forms: A
study of Technology-Supported Practice in Secondary-School Mathematics. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 71(3), pp. 279-297.

Ruthven, K. & Hennessy, S., 2002. A practioner model of the use of computer-based tools and resources
to support mathematics teaching and learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 19(2), pp. 47-88.

Treffers, A., 1987. Three Dimensions: A Model of Goal and Theory Description in Mathematics Instruction-
the Wiskobas Project. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing.

van den Heuvel Panhuizen, M., 2003. The didactical use of models in realistic mathematics education: an
example from a longitudinal trajectory on percentage. Educational Studies in Mathematics Education,
Volume 54, pp. 9-35.

Van Hiele, P. M., 1984. The Child's Thought and Geometry. In: D. Fuys, D. Geddes & R. Tischler, eds.
English Translation of Selected Writings of Dina van Hiele-Geldof and Pierre M. van Hiele. Brooklyn:
Brooklyn College, pp. 243-252.
Wertheimer, R., 1990. The Geometry Proof Tutor: An "Intelligent" Computer-based Tutor in the
Classroom. The Mathematics Teachers, 83(4), pp. 308-317.

Zaranis, N., 2014. Geometry Teaching through ICT in Primary School. In: C. Karagiannidis, P. Politis & I.
Karasavvidis, eds. Research on e-learning and ICT in Education. London: Springer, pp. 59-71.
 Appendix 1 (Bridging Activity)

Andi walks to school everyday. Now,

he has finished school and wants to
go back home. His house is located on
the corner of Orchard Rd with yellow
painted fence.

Andi wants to go home as quick as

possible.

How would he go home?

(draw his path!)

Andi
Andi

If you are on point A and want to go to point B,

Which route would you take? Why?
Answer:

Look at the following figures.

Is the distance from A to B shorter than the distance from A to C then C to B?

Is the distance from B to C shorter than the distance from B to A then A to C?

Is the distance from A to C shorter than the distance from A to B then B to C?

The sum of the lengths of any two sides of a triangle is greater than the length of the remaining
side
Choose one of the following and Explain why?
True /False/Not sure