See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/341774766

OSNE SIMETRIJE RAVNI U PRVOM RAZREDU SREDNJE ŠKOLE IZMEĐU

NAMJERA I PRAKSE AXIAL SYMMETRY OF PLANE IN THE FIRST GRADE OF
SECONDARY SCHOOL BETWEEN CURRICULUM DESIGN AND EFECTICE TEA...

Article · May 2020

DOI: 10.7251/IMO1901011H

CITATIONS READS

0 43

2 authors:

Amor Hasić Daniel Romano

Hing school of Montenegro Scientific Society of Mathematicians Banja Luka
9 PUBLICATIONS   15 CITATIONS    358 PUBLICATIONS   1,279 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

constractive semigroups, bivariate polynomials, semirings, the work of Kurt Godel View project

Studying contemporary anti-Semitism View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Daniel Romano on 31 May 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ISSN (p) 2303-4890, ISSN (o) 1986–518X ISTRAŽIVANJE MATEMATIČKOG OBRAZOVANJA
DOI: 10.7251/IMO1901011H http://www.imvibl.org/dmbl/meso/imo/imo2.htm
Vol. XI (2019), Broj 20, 25–35

OSNE SIMETRIJE RAVNI U PRVOM RAZREDU SREDNJE ŠKOLE

IZMEĐU NAMJERA I PRAKSE

Amor Hasić Daniel A. Romano

Mixed High School, International Mathematical Virtual Institute,
Petnjica, Montenegro Banja Luka, Bosnia and Herzegovina
E-mail: amorhasic@gmail.com Contact E-mail: bato49@hotmail.com

Sažetak. Osna sietrija je jedna od izometrisjkih transformacija. Učenici se podučavaju ovom geometrijskom
konceptu u prvom razredu srednje skole. Ovdje smo izližili jedan od mogućih načina gledanja na ovaj
geometrijski koncept unutar teorijskih namjera i efektivne prakse u matematičkoj učionici.

AXIAL SYMMETRY OF PLANE

IN THE FIRST GRADE OF SECONDARY SCHOOL
BETWEEN CURRICULUM DESIGN AND EFECTIVE TEACHING

Abstract. Axial syetry is one of the isometric transformations. Students are taught this geometric concept in the
first grade of high school. Here we have outlined one of the possible ways of looking at this geometric concept
within theoretical intentions and effective practice in the mathematics classroom.

UVOD
U prvom razredu gimnazije u Republici Srpskoj (jedan od entiteta u Bosni i Herzegovini) unutar
predmeta Matematika učenici se podučavaju izometrijskim transformacijama. Temom 2 „Geometrija
u ravni“ dizajner Nastavnog plana i programa predvidio je kao jedan od tzv. Posebnih ciljeva
programa „... da se učenici upoznaju sa osnovnim izometrijskim transformacijama“ (NpiP11, pp.
156). U okvirima onog što je nazvano "Sadržaji i operativni ciljevi (ishodi) programa", zakonodavac je
planirao ''učenici treba da razlikuju izometrijske transformacije i određuju izometrijske slike
jednostavnih geometrijskih figura (duži, prave, trougla, kružnice, ...)“ (NpiP11, pp. 158). U
obrazloženju pod naslovom „Didaktička upitstva i preporuke“, dizajner NPiP implicitno poentira da
pod izometrijskim trasformacijama podrazumijevaju osnu simetriju, rotaciju, centralnu simetriju i
translaciju i eksplicitno kažu: „Osnovne pojmove ne treba uvoditi aksiomatski niti putem preciznih
definicija.“ Dodatno k tome, u dokumentu ZJNPiPBiH (pp. 91), piše da bi ishodi učenja u „oblasti 3.
Geometrija i mjerenja“ trebalo da budu „Učenik će moći da koristi geometrijske transformacije ...“ a
da indikator u vezi sa prethodnim je da učenik će moći da „ 4.a Rješava geometrijske probleme i
IMO, XI (2019), Broj 20 A. Hasić and D. A. Romano

donosi zaključke koristeći izometrijske transformacije i homotetiju.” Budući da se u pomenutim

oficijelnim dokumentima ne pominje razvoj geometrijskog mišljenja kod učenika niti učeničko
sticanje matematičkih kompetencija u geometriji, sasvim opravdano je postaviti sledeća pitanja:
Pitanje 1: Koja su društveno-principijelna opredjeljenja lokalne akademske zajednice inkorporirana u
nastavni program matematike uvrštavanjem izometrijskih transformacija u nastavni program?
Prethodno pitanje povezano je sa izborom teorije (ili teorija) matematičkog obrazovanja iz koje
proizlaze ta društveno-politička opredjeljenja. Takođe, prethodno pitanje je povezano sa
izvorom društveno-matematičkih normi za koje se očekuje da će ih učenici usvojiti kada budu
podučavani izometrijskim transformacijama u prvom razredu gimnazije.

Pitanje 2: Šta su ciljevi nastave matematike (posebno: kognitivni a posebno afektvni u skladu sa
Bloom'ovom taksonomijom) kada se učenici podučavaju izometrijskim transformacijama?
Pitanje 3: Kako sagledati podučavanje izometrisjkim transformacijama sa aspekta van Hieleove teorije o
podučavanju geometrije?
Pitanje 4: Koje matematičke kompetencije (prema standardnom razumijevanju ovog pojma u skladu sa
knjigom „Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics.”) se razvijaju kod učenika kada se oni
podučavanju ovoj temi?
U posljednjih nekoliko desetljeća u međunarodnoj zajenici istraživača matematičkog obrazovanja
sve je veći naglasak na podučavanju geometrije i na osnovnom i na srednjem nivoa (pogledati na
primjer, H. B. Yanika and A. Flores, 2009 (page 41)). Nacionalno vijeće nastavnika matematike
(NCTM) (1989, 2000) preporučilo je da geometrija bude sastavni dio školskog programa matematike
na svim nivoima. Geometrija transformacija figura u ravni jedna je od tema koja je bila zagovarana
kao važan dio nastavnog programa geometrije. Prema principima i standardima NCTM20-a za
matematika (2000), „Nastavni programi od predškolskog vrtića do 12. razreda trebali bi omogućiti da
svi učenici razumiju geometrijske transformacije i koriste ih za analizu matematičkih situacija ”(str.
41). Da bi postigli ovaj cilj, nastavnici bi trebalo da imaju snažanu pozadinu kao u vlastitiom znanju
tako i u didaktičkoj podršci koju obezbjeđuje stvaraoci politike matematičkog obrazovanja (Parsons,
1993). Dakle, u ovom tekstu neće biti riječ samo o neophodnim nastavničkim znanjima o
izometrisjkim transformacijama (kako o znanju matematičkog sadržaja tako i o metodičkim
znanjima u vezi sa tim sadržajim), već prevashodno o aktivnostima koje je trebalo da prethodno
urade kreatori obrazovne politike matematičkog obrazovanja, dizajneri matematičkog kurikuluma za
gimnaziju i školske vlasti da bi se nastavnicima obezbijedio najbolji mogući support za realizaciju
ovog geometrijskog sadržaja.

References.
[1] E. E. Arkogan. Exploring the development of high school students’ mathematical discourses on geometric
transformations. Ph.D. Thesis. Gazi University, Institute of educational sciences, Aralik 2015.
[2] S. Avcu and B. Çetinkaya. An instructional unit for prospective teachers’ conceptualization of geometric
transformations as functions. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and
Technology, https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2019.1699966
[3] D. L. Ball, M. H. Thames and G. Phelps. Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of
Teacher Education, 59(5)(2008), 389-407.
IMO, XI (2019), Broj 20 A. Hasić and D. A. Romano

[4] J. Baumert, M. Kunter, W. Blum, M. Bruner, T. Voss, A. Jordan, U. Klusmann, S. Krauss, M. Neubrand and
Y.-M. Tsai. Teachers’ mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and
student progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1)(2010), 133-180.
[5] G. Brousseau. Theory of didactical situations in mathematics 1970-1990. (Translation from French by M Cooper,
N. Balacheff, R. Sutherland, & V. Warfield). Dodrecht, !e Netherlands: Kluwer Academic
Publishers, 1997.
[6] F. Depaepe, L. Verschaffel and G. Kelchtermans. Pedagogical content knowledge: A systematic review of
the way in which the concept has pervaded mathematics educational research. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 34(2013), 12-25.
[7] E. Emre-Akdoğan, B. Güçler and Z. Argün. The development of two high school students’ discourses on
geometric translation in relation to the teacher’s discourse in the classroom. Eurasia Journal
of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(5) (2018), 1605-1619.
[8] E. Emre-Akdoğan, B. Güçler and Z. Argün. One student’s discurse development on rotation in relation to
instruction from a commognitive perspective. In E. Bergqvist, M. Österholm, C. Granberg, &
L. Sumpter (Eds.). Proceedings of the 42nd Conference of the International Group for the
Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 403-410). Umeå, Sweden: PME, 2018.
[9] K. A. Flanagen. High student’s understanding of geometric transformation in the context of technological
environment. Ph.D. Thesis. College of Education, Pennsylvania State University, 2001.
[10] L. M. Frazee. The interaction of geometric and spatial reasoning: Student learning of 2D isometries in a special
dynamic geometry environment. Ph.D.Thesis. The Ohio State University, 2018.
[11] M. Ju. Hevsokova. Current issues of teaching methodology of geometry space transformations in
conditions of differentiated teaching of geometry in secondary school [Актуальные
проблемы метододики изучения геометрических преобразований пространства у
условиах дифференцированного обучения геометрии в средней школе]. Teacher of the
21st Century, 1(2010), 68-72.
[12] H. C. Hill. The nature and predictors of elementary teachers‘ mathematical knowledge for teaching.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(5)(2010), 513-545.
[13] H. C. Hill, D. L. Ball and S. G. Schilling. Unpacking pedagogical content knowledge: Conceptualizing and
measuring teachers‘ topic-specific knowledge of students. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 39(4)(2008), 372-400.
[14] K. F. Hollebrands. High school students’ understandings of geometric transformations in the context of a
technological environment. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 22(1)(2003), 55–72.
[15] K. F. Hollebrands. High school students’ intuitive understandings of geometric transformations.
Mathematics Teacher, 97(3)(2004), 207-214.
[16] A. Jaime and A. Gutierrez. Guidelines for teaching plane isometries in secondary school. Mathematics
Teacher, 88(7)(1995), 591-597.
[17] J. Kilpatrick, J. Swafford and B. R. Findell . Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001.
[18] S. Krauss, M. Brunner, M. Kunter, J. Baumert, W. Blum, M. Neubrand and A. Jordan. Pedagogical content
knowledge and content knowledge of secondary mathematics teachers. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 100(3)(2008), 716-725.
[19] C. Lewis, R. Perry and A. Murata. How should research contribute to instructional improvement? T!e
case of lesson study. Educational Researcher, 35(3)(2006), 3--14.
[20] C. Margolinas. Situations, backgrounds, knowledge: Analysis of the teacher's activity. [Situations,
milieux, connaissances: Analyse de l‘activité du professeur]. In J.-L. Dorier, M. Artaud, M.
IMO, XI (2019), Broj 20 A. Hasić and D. A. Romano

Artigue, R. Berthelot and R. Floris (Eds.). Proceedings of the 11th summer school of didactics of
mathematics [Actes de la 11e école d‘été de didactique des mathématiques] (pp. 141-155). Grenoble:
La Pensée Sauvage, 2002.
[21] C. Margolinas, L. Coulange and A. Bessot. What can the teacher learn in the classroom? Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 59(2005), 205-234.
[22] S. Mashingaidze. The teaching of geometric (isometric) transformations at secondary school level: What
approach to use and why? Asian Social Science; 8(15)(2012), 197-210.
[23] NCTM89. Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM, 1989.
[24] NCTM20. Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM, 2000.
[25] NGA/CCSSO10. Common Core state standards for mathematics. Retrieved from www.corestandards.org
[26] NPIP80. Curriculum for high school [Nastavni plan i program]. Republički prosvjetno-pedagoški zavod,
Sarajevo 1980.
[27] NPIP11. Curriculum for the first grade of high school [Nastavni plan i program za prvi razred gimnazije].
Ministry of Education and Culture of the Republ of Srpska. Banja Luka, 2011.
[28] R. R. Parsons.Teacher beliefs and content knowledge: influences on lesson crafting of pre-service teachers during
geometry instruction. Ph. D. Thesis. Washington State University, 1993.
[29] M. Petrou and M. Goulding. Conceptualising teachers‘ mathematical knowledge in teaching. In T.
Rowland and K. Ruthven (Eds.). Mathematical knowledge in teaching (pp. 9-26). London:
Springer, 2011
[30] S. Prediger, A. Bikner-Ahsbahs and F. Arzarello. Networking strategies and methods for connecting
theoretical approaches: first steps towards a conceptual framework. ZDM Mathematics
Education, 40(2)(2008), 165-178.
[31] T. Rowland and K. Ruthven (Eds.). Mathematical knowledge in teaching. London: Springer, 2011
[32] L. S. Shulman . Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review,
57(1)(1987), 1-22.
[33] A. N. Shuilleabhain and S. Clivaz. Analyzing teacher learning in lesson study: mathematical knowledge
for teaching and levels of teacher activity. Quadrante: Revista de Investigacao em Educacao
Matematica, 26(2)(2017), 99-125.
[34] N. M. Speer, K. D. King and H. Howell. Definitions of mathematical knowledge for teaching: Using these
constructs in research on secondary and college mathematics teachers. Journal of Mathematics
Teacher Education, 18(2)(2015), 105-122.
[35] X. Thaqi, J. Giménez and N. Rosich. Geometric transformations as viewed by prospective teachers. In
Pytlak, M., Rowland, T., & Swoboda, E. (Eds.). (2011). Proceedings of the Seventh Congress of
the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CERME 7, February 9- 13, 2011)
(pp. ). Rzeszów, Poland: University of Rzeszów and ERME.
[36] X. Thaqi, J. Gimenez and E. Aljimi. The meaning of isometries as function of a set of points and the process
of understanding of geometric transformation. In: K. Krainer and N. Vondrov´a. Proceedings
of the Ninth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CERME 9,
February 4 – 8, 2015) (pp. 591-597). Prague, Czech Republic: Charles University in Prague,
Faculty of Education and ERME.
[37] X. Thaqi and J. Gimenez. The process of understanding of geometrical transformation as a function. 13th
International Congress on Mathematical Education Hamburg, 24-31 July 2016 (pp. )
IMO, XI (2019), Broj 20 A. Hasić and D. A. Romano

[38] M. Turgut. Sense-making regarding matrix representation of geometric transformations in R2 : a semiotic

mediation perspective in a dynamic geometry environment. ZDM Mathematics Education,
51(7)(2019), 1199–1214.
[39] ZJNPiPBiH. M. Common Core Defined on Learning Outcomes in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Common Core of
Comprehensive Development Programs for Preschool Education: Common Core Curricula for
Primary and Secondary Education [Zajednička jezgra definisana na ishodima učenja u Bosni i
Hercegovini : zajednička jezgra cjelovitih razvojnih programa za predškolski odgoj i
obrazovanje : zajedničke jezgre nastavnih planova i programa za odgoj i obrazovanje u
osnovnim i srednjim školama]. Naletilić (Ed.). Agencija za predškolsko, osnovno i srednje
obrazovanje, Mostar 2018.
[40] R. Živković amd D. Vujaković. First grade high school geometry [Geometrija za prvi razred srednjih
škola]. Zavod za izdavanje udžbenika, Sarajevo, 1974.
[41] P. M. van Hiele and D. van Hiele-Geldof. (1958). A method of initiation into geometry at secondary
schools. In: H. Freudenthal (Ed.). Report on methods of initiation into geometry (pp. 67-80).
Groningen: J. B. Wolters, 1958.
[42] D. van Hiele-Geldof. (1984). The didactics of geometry in the lowest class of secondary school. In: D.
Fuys, D. Geddes and R. Tischler. English translation of selected writings of Dina van Hiele-
Geldof and P. M. van Hiele (pp. 1-214). Brooklyn: Brooklyn College. (Original document in
Dutch. De didaktiek van de meetkunde in de eerste klas van het V. H. M. O., Unpublished
doctoral dissertation. University of Utrecht, 1957).
[43] V. Warfield. Invitation to didactique. New York: Springer, 2014.
[44] H. B. Yanika and A. Flores. Understanding rigid geometric transformations: Jeff’s learning path for
translation. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 28(1)(2009), 41-57.

View publication stats