A New Graphical Logo Design: LOGOTURK
Erol Karakirik 1  
,  
Soner Durmus 1  
 
 
More details
Hide details
1
Abant Izzet Baysal University, Bolu / Turkey
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Erol Karakirik   

Faculty of Education, Abant Izzet Baysal University, Bolu / Turkey.
Soner Durmus   

Faculty of Education, Abant Izzet Baysal University, Bolu / Turkey.
Publish date: 2005-11-22
 
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2005;1(1):61–75
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
The development of abstract mathematical thinking is an essential part of mathematics and the geometry is regarded as a suitable domain to serve this purpose. As different technologies such as computers and graphing calculators are widely being used, curriculum developers on geometry should take these technologies into consideration. Several Logo-based computer environments have been designed to develop conceptual understanding and abstract thinking in geometry. A new graphical logo environment, LogoTurk, have been designed to eliminate some deficiencies in these environments and to provide a graphical environment in which students could explore geometric concepts and relations in different ways. The purpose of this paper is i) to present the pedagogical needs to develop a new graphical logo design, ii) to introduce the graphical features of LogoTurk meeting these needs, iii) to evaluate this new design.
 
REFERENCES (13)
1.
Burger, W. F., & Shaughnessy, J. M. (1986). Characterizing the van Hiele levels of development in geometry. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 17: 31-48.
 
2.
Clements, D. H., & McMillen, S. (2001). Logo and Geometry. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education Monograph Series, Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
 
3.
Clements, Douglas H., & Battista, Michael T. (1992). Geometry and Spatial Reasoning. In Douglas A. Grouws (ed.), Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 420-64. New York: Macmillan.
 
4.
Carpenter, Thomas P., Mary, K., Corbitt, Henry S., Kepner, Mary M. Lindquist & Robert, E. Reys. (1980). National Assessment. In Elizabeth Fennema (ed.), Mathematics education Research: Implications for the 80s, Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
 
5.
Fey, James, Atchison,William F., Richard, A. Good, Heid, M. Kathleen, Johnson, Jerry; et al. (1984). Computing and Mathematics: The Impact on Secondary School Curricula. College Park, Md.: University of Maryland.
 
6.
Flanders, James R. (1987). How Much of the Content in Mathematics Textbooks is New. Arithmetic Teacher 35: 18-23.
 
7.
Feurzeig, Wallace & Lucas, George. (1972). Logo--A Programming Language for Teaching Mathematics. Educational Technology 12: 39-46.
 
8.
Hoffer, Alan. (1981). Geometry Is More than Proof. Mathematics Teacher 74: 11-18.
 
9.
Howe, J. A. M., O'Shea, T., & Plane, F. (1980). Teaching mathematics through Logo programming: An evaluation study. In R. Lewis & E. D. Tagg (Eds.), Computer assisted learning: Scope, progress and limits, pp. 85-102. Amsterdam NY: North-Holland.
 
10.
Karakirik, E. & Durmus, S. (2005). An Alternative Approach To Logo-Based Geometry. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology - TOJET, 4 (1):1-14.
 
11.
Kieran, C., & Hillel, J. (1990). It's though when you have to make the triangles: Insights from a computer-based geometry environment. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 9: 99-127. .
 
12.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics, Reston: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Inc.
 
13.
Nielsen, J. (1994). Heuristic evaluation. In Nielsen, J., and Mack, R.L. (Eds.), Usability Inspection Methods.
 
eISSN:1305-8223
ISSN:1305-8215