Author

Shereen Elbedewy

Submission
School of Education
STEM Department

A Cookbook First Supervisor

Univ.-Prof.Dr.Zsolt
Lavicza
Towards Architectural,
Mathematical, and June 2021

Technological Meals
{Practices} in a Cross-
Cultural Fashion

PhD in Education | Proposal

JOHANNES KEPLER
UNIVERSITY LINZ
Altenberger Straße 69
4040 Linz, Austria
jku.at
Table of Contents

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ 4
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 4
1.1. The Project Map ............................................................................................................ 5
1.2. 3D Transformations ....................................................................................................... 5
1.3. STEAM + X ................................................................................................................... 6
1.4. Research Motivations .................................................................................................... 6
2. Literature Review .................................................................................................................. 7
3.1. STEAM .......................................................................................................................... 7
3.2. X == Architecture ........................................................................................................... 7
3.3. The Teachers Lesson Planning...................................................................................... 8
3.4. The Adopted Technologies ............................................................................................ 9
3.4.1. The Reality Technologies (Augmented/ Virtual) Reality ...................................... 9
3.4.2. 3D Scanning, 3D Printing and 4D Frame .......................................................... 11
3.4.3. Origami Technology........................................................................................... 11
3.5. Mixing Technologies for Educational Purposes ............................................................ 12
3. Theoretical Framework ....................................................................................................... 12
3.1. Constructivism ............................................................................................................. 13
3.2. Theories That Contribute to the Dynamic Lesson Planning Module ............................. 13
3.2.1. The Theory of Didactical Situations .................................................................. 13
3.2.1.1. Cycles in the Theory of Didactical Situations ...................................... 14
3.3. Theories that contribute to the Technologies Used in this Research Scope ................. 15
3.3.1. TPACK Framework........................................................................................... 15
3.3.1.1. TPACK Components Contribution to the Research ............................ 16
3.4. Theories that Contribute to the Cross-Cultural Research Nature ................................. 17
3.4.1. The AMOEBA Framework ................................................................................ 17
3.5. Theories Contributing to the Program Development .................................................... 18
3.5.1. The relation of the Program Development and the TPACK ............................... 19
3.5.2. The Relation of the Program Development and the TDS .................................. 19
4. Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 20
4.1. Research Rationale ..................................................................................................... 21
4.2. Learning Trajectories ................................................................................................... 22
4.2.1. Dynamic Lesson Plan Aim ................................................................................ 22
4.2.2. Dynamic Lesson Plan Design ........................................................................... 23
4.3. Research Timeline....................................................................................................... 24

2
5. Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 24
6. Methods.............................................................................................................................. 25
6.1. Data Collection ............................................................................................................ 25
6.2. The Population Sampling............................................................................................. 26
6.3. The Research Validity ................................................................................................. 26
6.4. The Research Reliability .............................................................................................. 26
7. Publications ........................................................................................................................ 26
8. Findings and Future Work................................................................................................... 27
9. Concluding Thoughts .......................................................................................................... 27
10. References ......................................................................................................................... 28

List of Figures
Figure 1 The Research Components and the Dynamic Lesson Plan connections 5
Figure 2: Didactic situation as interplay between a teacher (T), students (S) and milieu (M). 14
Figure 3: The learning situation of the lesson studies: The interplay between the teachers and their milieu, the
didactical situation 14
Figure 4: A lesson study with three cycles. Here DS, Prs,ObS and Pos refer to didactic, pre didactic observational and
post didactic situations, indexed according to the cycle 15
Figure 5: The TPACK Model 16
Figure 6: Process of program Development 19
Figure 7: Technology Theoretical Framework and the Process of the Program Development 19
Figure 8: Design and process conjectures in research on and through interventions 21
Figure 9: Generic model for conducting design research in education 21
Figure 10: The research rationale and the connection between the theories, interventions, and the expected results.22
Figure 11: A, B, C, D The dynamic lesson plan four sides, E the links to the GeoGebra book 24

3
 Abstract
This research proposal addresses the integration of architecture, culture, and history in applying
STEAM practices that can be adopted by teachers and students. The proposal aims to provide a
“Cookbook” of different educational ingredients to teachers that can be practiced with their
students through a web interface to develop lesson plans which we refer to as dynamic lesson
plan. The dynamic lesson plan is an interactive tool to allow teachers to choose what modeling
task they aim to practice with their students utilizing various technologies. The focus is on
architectural modeling from different locations and time periods. In this proposal, we will offer
insights into mathematical modeling implementations with a variety of technologies. Then we
highlight our methodology and methods and how we plan for the data collection. Through the
literature connection which will examine different views about integrating technologies into
mathematical tasks and their impacts on students’ and teachers’ learning processes. To support
our work with theories we are providing a brief introduction to their initial connections to the
existing theoretical models. At the end of this proposal, we will present our research plans and
future steps.

1. Introduction
This research idea emerged from the motivation of implementing STEAM (Science, Technology,
Engineering, Arts and Mathematics) practices that students can find around them everywhere. The
research idea emerged from the admiration of ancient Egyptian Architecture and the thoughts of utilizing it
in mathematics education through the modeling process. The reason behind the Architectural choice in
our research is due to the fact that it is a real, empirical, existing, and influenceable aspect of our lives.
Architecture is around us everywhere and when we bring real constructions to the classroom, analyze
them and understand them from many dimensions and real-life examples we may be bringing
mathematics to life, and then we hope we are contributing to mathematics education. Based in Egypt the
influence of history and culture that can be represented in the ancient Egyptian architectures in our
surroundings was one of the reasons behind this research motivations and from there architectural
modeling initiatives emerged.
The architectural modeling initiative in this study is based on the Egyptologists work by (Rossi, 2004) to
understand the ancient Egyptian mathematical systems, which was represented as texts of mathematics
components written on Papyrus and leather such as Rhind Mathematical Papyrus, the Moscow
Mathematical Papyrus, the Kahun Papyri, and the Egyptian Mathematical Leather Roll and the relation to
ancient Egyptian architecture. This connection of ancient architecture and mathematics makes us the
authors of this proposal hope that it may be a great opportunity for classroom explorations and
applications. The cultural and historical initiative emerged from the idea of combining mathematics with
other disciplines. The cultural, historical, and mathematics “trio” may allow teachers and students to tell a
story using mathematics, to connect theorems and proofs and givens to history and culture of the ancient
Egyptians. The referred “trio” may allow students to learn and use mathematical concepts while they are
modeling ancient architectures.
The evolution in this research track allowed us to encapsulate architecture as a concept in our studies and
not only include ancient Egyptian Architecture but rather new or modern architecture that belongs to our
modern world and is based on modern mathematics. Therefore, the research scope is integrating any type
of architecture e.g. modern architecture, ancient architecture, or any other architecture, that can be
analyzed on a mathematical basis during the modeling process. This evolution allowed the integration of
more sophisticated mathematical shapes, equations, and transformations which may allow a broader
intervention, that allows teachers to use more of their student’s mathematical knowledge in such practices.
Every building has its mathematical norms, and this is what makes us eager to explore and integrate a
wide variety of architectural constructions in the classrooms and in our research. We are eager to
implement mathematical modeling under the motto that each building has a story, and we encourage the
participants to get familiar with these stories. Due to the Austrian connection, we look forward to
encapsulating great Austrian architectures that belong to various time periods for example inspired by
famous designers as Hundertwasser. This may be a good exploration for Austrian students to reflect on in
the classrooms during the proposed practices. The initial research intention to adopt architectures from
Egypt and Austria and practice them in each country respectively. Afterward, the initial research idea
evolved from the local focus to the international focus. We are broadening our research focus not only to
acquire Egyptian architecture and Austrian Architecture but instead by integrating any ancient, modern
architecture around the world. We broadened our focus to capture cultural reflections, not only of a single
country but integrating many others and this is our approach to generalization.
4
 1.1. The Project Map
Our strategy in integrating the trio (Architecture, culture, and history) in our research is shown in Figure 1.
There are three modules in applying these research concepts and strategies. The first one is the lesson
planning for achieving and combining the main research notions. This module is implemented using a
real-time web interface we call the dynamic lesson plan, which allows the teachers to choose the lesson
components in order to achieve the modeling tasks. The dynamic lesson plan allows the teachers to
choose the lesson criterion by answering the four questions like Who, What, Where, and How? As seen in
Figure 1, the teacher approaches the dynamic lesson plan which provides them with many options in
terms of the architectural models, the environment, and the wide spectrum of technologies that can be
visualized in physical to digital forms and vice versa.

Figure 1: The Research Components and the Dynamic Lesson Plan connections

After the teacher interacts and chooses the lesson components as described in Figure1, the designed web
interface redirects the teachers to the other module. The other module is the GeoGebra book, which
guides the teachers and provides architectural and visualization examples tailored for the majority of the
participants during the intervention. The final module is the GeoGebra classroom which is derived from the
second module the GeoGebra book. The GeoGebra classroom provides a space for innovations and
allows the teachers and researchers to watch the architectural creations of the participants in real-time
during the intervention. The GeoGebra book and classroom are tailored for each intervention and for each
cycle to address the participant's type whether they are teachers or designed for teachers to practice with
their students. Moreover, these modules are tailored to address the participants' culture by tailoring the
language, the architectural examples provided, and the appropriate technologies and visualization tools
integrated into these practices.

1.2. 3D Transformations
Emerging from the aim and purpose of this research scope, the exploration of a wide spectrum of
technologies and ways to represent and model architectural constructions. The architectural models can
be ancient or modern or belonging to any time and to any culture. The connection we are eager to
emphasize in this research study is how teachers along with their students can represent these
architectural models in various ways and in various locations. This connection may aid the teachers and
students to see how the same architectural models can be represented in various forms. For example, on
one hand, it can be represented physically and for that, we would need specific technologies and tools
and on the other hand, to represent these architectural models digitally then, we would need another
different spectrum of technologies and tools. So, the 3D transformations of architectural models to various
forms using the proposed technologies are one of the main focuses of the research. The architectural
5
models we are referring to could be constructions the participants have in their own countries, own
districts, or an architectural construction they have visited or is of high interest to the participants, and they
want to explore its contents mathematically by modeling and representing it in different forms as physically
or digitally.

1.3. STEAM + X Idea

In this research study, we are eager to explore the cultural and historical reflection of the participants
about the architectural models they experience and connect them with mathematics during the modeling
process. We are proposing a STEAM + X, where the X defines a variable that stands for any discipline
that could serve multiple indications and meanings according to each research direction. Broadening the
possibilities and giving a way of combining all fields of humanity in designed interventions for the sake of
enhancing student’s education and broadening student’s interpretation of the underlying connection of
various fields of study. By this concept, we want to capitalize on the similarities and the connection points
of various fields of study rather than their differences. By the proposed interventions we are connecting
technical sciences to social sciences we are connecting separate curriculums and finding the intersections
of various fields of study. For example, in this research direction, we are addressing a STEAM intervention
to connect math and suggesting the variations for the X variable. These variations along with the basic
STEAM principles could be X: x== architecture, x== history and x == culture. We are designing this
STEAM combination with the X variations and providing hybrid interventions to collect and gather
knowledge from these fields of study for potential collaboration with mathematics education. Looking at
the hybrid interventions we are proposing in this research track, we are keen to reflect on a number of
research variables. We are eager to collect insights and participant’s reflections on the architectural choice
and from which culture or history it is emerging as well as their reflections on their own mathematical
knowledge during the modeling process. In this study the teachers are our primary focus and to capture
these reflections from the students if needed, the teachers will be the connection point, and we will
consider them as mirrors to reflect their student's thoughts. If we manage to transfer to the teachers the
proposed hybrid interventions and connections in this research proposal, to reflect on in their own way,
this will facilitate to the students the learning experience captured from these interventions. From this
point, STEAM + X and the technique of combining these various notions, tools, and technologies with
teachers to explore with their students in the proposed practices began. Therefore, the idea of interactive
tools as the dynamic lesson plan emerged to enable the teachers to apply these practices, which we will
describe in detail later in this proposal.

1.4. Research Motivations

"If we teach today as we taught yesterday, we rob our children of tomorrow." John Dewey
In this research proposal, our stances evolve from the ontology that architecture may be related to
mathematics, architecture may be related to the culture and the history of a country. Our motivations are
how can we relate these connections to mathematics education and how can we adopt these proposed
research practices in our teaching-learning strategies. We hope by providing simplified tasks that can
integrate the research notions and that can evolve to integrate disciples of study as described by STEAM
+ X.
The epistemic justification is that the architectural models' building blocks are based on mathematical
knowledge and practices. This research is introducing modeling to the students connected to a life
example they see around them which is architecture. By analyzing architectural models and remodel them
the participants may understand the mathematical connections behind these constructions. This is what
this research is eager to capture the “aha moment” when the participants realize how the mathematics
that they learn affects physical constructions around them and is integrated with everyday life starting from
their homes to the museums and ancient monuments they visit during their trips, basically all architectural
models around them. All these connections to mathematics through architecture and the reflections
captured from the application of these proposed practices are the focus of the research proposal.
Teachers and students are encouraged in these proposed STEAM practices to model architectural
buildings of their choice to reflect on our epistemology along the research journey. The proposed practices
provide the participants the freedom of choice because these architectural buildings referred to, can be
ancient or modern or belonging to any place. This is how the research would capture the variant
reflections on the architectural choices.
The participants could be teachers or teachers applying these practices with their students which would
provide another layer to this research reflections. Therefore, the research aim is to capture successive
6
reflections of the teachers and their students on the mathematical knowledge, while they are modeling
using the proposed technologies. Along with capturing reflections on the technological tools provided and
to what extent did these tools serve as a good representational aid for the modeled architectures. The
reflections of the 3D transformations and the representations of the models in various forms as in physical
and digital forms. Moreover, capturing the reflections of the cultural and historical backgrounds in the
architectural model the participants choose. All these goals to capture the various reflections from different
perspectives is the (Core) heart of this research and are the variables of question in this research scope.
This research considers GeoGebra as the online platform digital modeling tool that allows participants to
model architecture based on simple mathematical shapes and transformations because it is based on
mathematical foundations. Moreover, the research is keen to capture the analysis of the variant
mathematical approaches the participants can implement during the architectural modeling, as this will
add another layer of reflection. Which is how the participants do the modeling?
The research track is to implement these modeling practices in a diverse cultural setting. Where the
implementation of these interventions will be in a cyclic fashion and each cycle will take place in a different
country. At that point, this research would capture the cultural reflections from the diverse interventions as
explained under the STEAM + X approach. Moreover, the teachers are encouraged to establish a diverse
environmental implementation setting. The dynamic lesson plan is proposing a diverse environmental
practice, that could be inside a classroom, outdoor, or even museum practices, to investigate the
reflections of the surrounding environment on the architectural choices and connections of the various
proposed technologies to the various environmental settings proposed inside each cycle to the
participants. Through the theoretical models, we are referring to later in the conceptual framework chapter,
they may be able to understand each factor of these reflections and investigate the combination of all of
them together. The main notions of the research are highlighted, integrated, and guided by the proposed
theories. This proposal is eager to elaborate on each module in this research in a more extensive way as
well as clarifying the methodologies, the theories, and the proposed research question, and finally the
research future steps.

2. Literature Review
This section is connecting the research focus to the literature and defining the most relevant publications
that guide us to develop our ideas and intersect with our thoughts. As the research focus has been
mentioned in the previous section, now this section tackles each integrated notion and defines its
relevance to the literature.

3.1. STEAM
The proposed research track falls under the STEAM umbrella. (Marrero et al. 2014, p. 38) states that
STEM education aims for the growth of the main four disciplines which are Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics by connecting them in a single lesson, exercise, or practice and moreover
to real-world challenges. As has been referred by (English 2016; Honey et al. 2014; Madden et al. 2013)
that STEM allows the growth in the skills of the students both for their own selves and for the professional
track because they encourage research analysis, problem resolutions, creativity, working with each other’s
in a group in a collaborative way which will enhance the communication skills. These opinions direct the
research track to implement STEAM practices that may help in enhancing educational practices in
general. Moreover, by adapting STEM to STEAM and furthermore to STEAM +X.

3.2. X == Architecture
As it has been defined earlier that X == Architecture, then one of the research focuses is the connection of
mathematics to architecture. The Ancient Architecture to mathematics connections was represented in a
couple of sources as (Peet, 2017) wrote in his article about ancient Egyptian architecture which was
based on mathematical formulas and equations that we study and know until now. Stating that sources as
the Rhind, the Moscow papyri, and the Egyptian Mathematical Leather Roll, which contains a table of 26
decompositions of unit fractions, Egyptian mathematics became clear. As well as the Reisner Papyrus
representing the mathematical practical applications in the field of construction and architecture. Not only
the mathematical connection to ancient architecture was represented and studied but also it appeared in
modern architectural designs as the new term emerging called Architectural Geometry, which is a
combination of differential geometry, computational mathematics, and architectural design and
engineering as said my (Pottmann, 2008).

7
 3.3. The Teachers Lesson Planning
As raised earlier in this proposal, a lesson planning tool was developed to aid teachers in defining the
lesson components to implement the research STEAM practices. This is because it has been said by
(Breiner et al. 2012; Honey et al. 2014; Newhouse 2017) that the lesson preparation, sometimes the
integration or adoption of some STEM practices in the education field result in various opinion sometimes
confusion for those who will implement it and adopt it as teachers and will result in arising questions as
how to plan for it, teach it and finally evaluate it regardless of its great impact on the self, society, and
economics. Therefore, in this context, an implemented concept of dynamic lesson planning is proposed, to
assist the teachers in choosing the main components of the modeling tasks they wish to practice with their
students to help in applying the proposed STEAM practices.

Focusing on the lesson planning, as stated by (Cameron, L, 2008) the lesson plan should include the
lesson flow to serve as documentation of how the teachers reached the decision-making process. This will
help in the design and establish self-confidence at the teacher’s side to be able to continue with the actual
implementation of the lesson. (Strickroth, 2019) shows that the design of lesson plans was usually based
on handwritten notes. But now sometimes teachers rely on software such as LibreOffice Writer or
Microsoft Word. Accordingly, Strickroth (2019) argues in his paper that the composite process of lesson
planning can be strengthened by specialized software systems that help in the creation of routine tasks
and moreover helps in the teacher’s reflection stimulation. He developed a software PLATON system, and
its target is to stimulate self-reflection and to support a deeper understanding of a planned lesson to
teachers. PLATON operates on two important levels: First, a supportive representation, various views, and
analysis functions are given. Second, the PLATON system also offers actual automatic feedback. On the
other hand, as described by (Kolloffel et al., 2011) the effects of digital representations in lesson planning
which are proven to be good in reducing the cognitive load on the teachers, more regular task solving,
putting into consideration the various solutions by their students, and the representations can make the
task better or worse reachable to the learner. They also argue that sometimes the graphical
representation may be a barrier for teachers to express and show their own ideas.

According to these findings, it has been taken into consideration while designing the dynamic lesson plan
the importance of graphical representations and to make the lesson design broad and not restricted to the
teacher’s ideas and not to limit their intentions, thoughts, and the teacher’s creativity. The dynamic lesson
plan presented in this proposal is targeting teachers who preferably use GeoGebra or know how to
interact with its tools in order to support and assist the students in the modeling tasks. Moreover, to be
able to identify and imagine which architectural models would require which GeoGebra tools. The teacher
would be able to define which mathematical equations and functions to be used and which ones would
capitalize on during the STEAM practices that are suitable to meet their student’s mathematical
knowledge. It is recommended for the teachers to establish a connection between the student’s
mathematical knowledge and the architectural modeling tasks. The teacher's role in the modeling tasks is
to be a facilitator to help students out if they get stuck in a modeling exercise, but not to do the modeling
tasks for the students. Students should be left out to try and figure out various solutions to solve the
modeling tasks on their own. The teachers and students are implementing an inquiry-based approach in
these practices where they can reflect on their mathematical knowledge during the modeling process.

We are using GeoGebra in these STEAM practices because it may serve the architectural modeling
based on mathematics goals well. (Olsson & Granberg, 2019) describe in their publications the benefits of
using a dynamic software such as GeoGebra which will provide students, the opportunity to work with
unguided tasks (tasks that do not have a defined outcome) which is the case in the architectural modeling
presented in this proposal. However, they propose that some challenges have to be met in order to ensure
the success of such unguided tasks using dynamic software. First, the provided task needs to be designed
to align with the student's prior knowledge. In our case, we try to meet this challenge in the dynamic
lesson plan when the teacher provides the student's age as a first step when answering the question “Who
will model?” in order to continue the lesson design while keeping into consideration the student’s age and
accordingly their previous mathematical knowledge. Another challenge presented by (Olsson & Granberg,
2019) is for the teachers which should guarantee their support to students as they solve the provided
tasks but without giving too much guidance. So, the teachers can only guide students in highlighting useful
tools or techniques they learned in their math classrooms. And help them to come up with ideas and
various approaches for solving the modeling tasks. As referred by (Olsson & Granberg, 2019) GeoGebra
will help teachers to allow students to engage in exploratory task-solving ways by asking a student to
clarify the approach they had in mind while solving a task. Olsson & Granberg believe that students would
benefit from a dynamic software’s potential if the tasks provided to them are unguided tasks and with no
defined solution method it could hold various ways and approaches. And according to their findings, they
8
state that the challenge is for teachers to design a convenient task that requires feedback to support the
students without giving a full guided task. And capitalizing on their findings and suggestions we provide in
this research scope the dynamic lesson design to help and support teachers in creating unguided tasks to
be able to be practiced using dynamic software’s as GeoGebra while modeling architecture. We refer to
the tasks mentioned by Olsson & Granberg earlier as in our case the architectural modeling tasks which
could have various approaches to be solved or achieved with and thereby, we encourage teachers to ask
students about their approaches in solving these modeling tasks.

When the participants are immersed in the modeling process most of the reflections can be captured as
mathematical, cultural, and historical when the participants are connected to the model, they are
modeling. (Olsson, 2019) noted that students when they are engaged in solving the problem and using
various features and tools from GeoGebra, it is advised to understand how students react to that and not
assume something. And this is what we want to capture the participant’s reflections by designing
questions during the modeling process to help in capturing the reflections and insights from the
participant’s answers inside the GeoGebra classroom as will be discussed later in this proposal. According
to (Olsson, 2019) other researchers proved that non-routine tasks that are provided to students who don't
have the answer or way to solve them are important for learning and that students should discover their
own methods and solutions to tasks. Although other studies suggest when students are given non-routine
tasks the teachers can provide them with initial hints for getting the task started, suggest some ways to be
used in the solving process, and offer some instructions for making suitable illustrations. Therefore, in
these proposed practices the participants are provided with implemented examples which explains in a
step-by-step fashion how to model architecture using the GeoGebra 2D/3D tools. These provided
knowledge can act as the foundation for the intervention and the guide to the participants to apply them to
any other architectural modeling task.

(Haciomeroglu et al., 2009) state that most of us live in a digital era now and that affects our student’s
minds, therefore teachers are recommended to speak an UpToDate language with their students.
Teachers should not have the knowledge to create computerized games to practice mathematics in
classrooms, but rather they can include technologies that are dynamic and appropriate to meet their
student’s needs and develop a rich environment in mathematics teaching. They recommend in their paper
that using still pictures or figures is not enough to inspire students to imagine or use numerous
representations; they instead have to use dynamic various representations and mathematical modeling.
They believe that technologies are very essential in lesson planning and that teachers should develop the
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge TPCK foundation in mathematical teaching. Therefore, it
is recommended to challenge teachers with mathematical tasks that can be solvable using technologies.

Also, Brophy (1983) emphasized the dynamic reaction in the teaching and in the lesson planning than the
proactive methods he referred to reactive as listening to the students and taking the lesson in a direction
based on the answers of students. As described by Simon (1995) about the learning trajectory when
defining the lesson plan which is considering main three parts which are the determination goal of the
lesson, the exercises, and tasks to be done in the lesson and finally evaluating a cognitive aspect of the
students, for example, how well did they absorb the lesson content and how did they reflect on it during
the provided tasks implementation. Building on this, the learning trajectory will be proposed in the dynamic
lesson planning tool in the following sections.

3.4. The Adopted Technologies

The technologies that are being integrated into the proposed interventions are various and it is intended to
propose various sets of technologies and not to restrict the teachers to a certain way of visualization. As
we explained that the visualizations of the architectural models can be physical or digital, we will refer to
each and every proposed technology from the literature.
3.4.1. The Reality Technologies (Augmented/ Virtual) Reality
The reality technologies that tend to immerse or impose digital overlays on our real environments are
being used in educational settings for several purposes. One of these purposes we are encapsulating in
this research is the 3D transformation and the ability to visualize architectural models in many forms as
physical or digital. Some of these examples will be introduced to show the connection between these
technologies and their uses in some educational environments. This paper by (Hwang et al., 2016) is a
study for a game-based AR approach in ecology to help students learn about butterflies, there are two
target groups one to test the game approach another control group to test the attitudes, the author used
many pre-tests, post-test, and questionnaires to develop his research, the game was an outdoor AR-

9
based game to track markers based on locations using QR codes. He based his hypotheses on previous
work of other researchers. And they concluded that the field mobile learning activities using AR can
improve the learning achievements and learning attitudes of the student. They advised that anyone
interested in applying the field AR game-based activities should keep in mind three things, to select real-
world activities, include questions about these real-world activities that require the participants to develop
observations and reflect about these activities and finally to develop the content and specify the location of
each AR element. This study by (Hwang et al., 2016) is not considered new, that's why they relied on the
QR codes, and they will rely on the marker-less technologies in their future phases, but the idea behind
the practice used in solving a real-world problem that can be adapted to other fields of study is promising
and especially the outputs of the study. In this proposal, the aim is to encourage the participants to apply
real-world problems and to capture their reflections and observations along with the introduced contents in
AR and other reality technologies.

As said by (Kaufmann,2003), AR is not an optimum tool to be adopted for every educational practice
needs but rather it is a good option and that the real use of technology has first to rely on the objectives
and goals from this application and how to apply them pedagogically to the target groups. Kaufmann
developed the Construct 3D system to allow people to work in an AR environment collaboratively and to
explore some geometrical exercises. At the end of the study by (Kaufmann,2003), they raised an
important aspect of technology adoption, and it is that we shouldn’t focus on the impact of these
technologies on the learning enhancements but rather how to make use of their advancements in the
learning contexts. Therefore, in this research scope, the technologies explorations are not the core of the
proposed learnings in this research. The technologies in this research scope are rather an aid to help
deliver the learning to the participants. That is why the content of architectural modeling and the
pedagogical approaches in delivering the mathematical concepts behind them are the main building
blocks of the offered learnings and practices which can be facilitated and then visualized using
technologies such as AR. (Kim & Kim, 2018) This paper is discussing the effect of AR in education
especially in STEAM approaches, it is comparing applications like ‘Aurasma’ (2017) against other ones
using AR in education and assuming that this app is the best according to their research because it fits the
classroom lessons they presented, and it helps in applying the STEAM education concepts. They believe
that AR is a good tool to be adopted in STEAM practices because it can help participants on a central
aspect to increase their science and know-how to grasp concepts while improving the creative and
imaginary aspects. Moreover, on a classroom basis, the AR can deliver good information that has the
potential of increasing learning competence.

In this research approach, AR that is embedded in the GeoGebra platform is used because it has many
advantages and has proven its benefits in mathematical educational settings. As described by (Trappmair
& Hohenwarter, 2019) the newly added features of the GeoGebra AR platform that covers most of the
problems that AR users used to face in the previous platforms. These features are the conversion of 3D
objects to AR mode or 3D objects that can be created from scratch in AR mode, direct access to the AR
objects, selection of the points, lines of the 3D objects in the AR mode, real-time behavior which is any
change to the objects in the scene they appear in real-time reflections in the AR scene, labeling of the
objects and its mathematical functionalities as area, volume and so forth and lastly, the measurement
capability can be achieved in the AR mode. The authors provide the effects of these newly added features
on mathematics education and how they can be applied in various use cases as in modeling and they
provided an example of modeling a glass vase in AR mode. This functionality is of high importance to our
research scope as it provides a physical-digital functionality and introduces a new approach for modeling
in AR not only viewing previously modeled objects in AR mode.
(Lee, K, 2012) as AR tools continue to evolve therefore their usage in education will be very significant, as
it is predicted by researchers from the educational field. And this will help in the application of the
terminology “Interactive education” as AR applications can transform educational environments to be more
fruitful, enjoyable, and interactive. AR can be well designed to meet each student’s needs and provide
each student with unique interactive content from 3D models and environments.

As AR is not fully immersive on the other hand the VR technology is totally immersive because it
separates the users from the real world around them, yet it has privileges in education. As it has been
investigated by (Mckechnie & Wilson, 2021) and in their review, they showed that using VR technology in
education can have a successful reason for facing real-world problems. And the most interesting
advantage to using VR is practicing any task in a simulative safe environment. VR which is totally
immersive has its advantages in education too as raised by (Pantelidis, V.S.) who developed a model to
show educators how and when to adopt VR and when to discard it and they argue that VR can be helpful
in teaching the normal lesson objectives and evaluation and assessment for these objectives while
providing a new edge of immersion in the designed environment. From these perspectives, VR has been
10
adopted in this research as a digital visualization tool for the architectural models already modeled in
GeoGebra, they can be exported from GeoGebra in the required formats to match the participant's
headsets inputs.
3.4.2. 3D Scanning, 3D Printing and 4D Frame

This research is providing teachers with various technological options to visualize the modeling
architecture with, for example, 3D printing is a very useful tool to represent the modeled architectures in a
physical tangible form. (Lieban et al., 2019) argue that 3D printers are now of affordable costs to be
adopted in the schools and for educational practices, they believe that 3D printers are good for teachers to
apply mathematics education by printing the student’s work and investigating its mathematical basis. They
conducted two interventions with teachers which resulted in further explorations in mathematics education.
Another argument by (Lieban et al., 2019) believe that 3D printing may foster the modeling process
because its application it would enhance the student’s- centered learning approach. Which may have a
great effect on students’ motivation when representing things, they created themselves. From these
findings, we can capitalize on adding 3D printing as a tool to represent students’ architectural models in a
physical tangible way. (Cho et al., n.d.) argue that 3D printing offers another perspective as it allows
students to investigate the printed models which enhances the process of perceiving the designs mentally
and allows them to think about the models’ mathematical development. These findings encourage us to
provide the participants with a tangible edge by printing the 3D architectural models.

Another technology is 3D scanning which on the contrary to 3D Printing, 3D scanning helps in digital
visualization and taking input from physical or tangible models to represent them on digital software. The
impact of 3D scanning on teaching is quite tremendous as said by (Parekh & Parekh, 2019) who advised
that when the physical models are scanned, they can be read by several CAAD-files (such as 3ds, dxf, or
stl). After importing the models, the teachers guide the students to break them down into several other
objects or represent them as a set of points or lines, or even curves. Another interesting combination to
the 3D scanning is the AR by (Portalés et al., 2009) for the sake of the reconstruction of the cultural
heritage as the Baroque vault of the Valencia Cathedral. The 3D reconstruction of the models was carried
out then combined with AR to overlay the actual and original missing parts virtually on the real view which
was presented to the users using the AR HDMI in the Valencia Cathedral. The paper focuses on the
technological aspect that is represented in the system used and the cultural and historical aspects. And
shreds the lights on the effects of the AR in the cultural heritage applications which were reported as
successful and encouraging to use and adopt these technologies in real-world problems as cultural
heritage. We can adopt these findings and try to use the proposed technologies and to reflect on real-life
problems which in our case are modeling of architectural constructions along with the connection to
culture and history.

One of the technologies that we would like to adopt for our architectural visualization is the 4D Frame. As
seen in the example by (Park, 2014) on creating a Klein bottle to understand the Mobius strip phenomena
which is an illusion of identifying the same direction of the front and rear shapes is simply the same. The
workshop paper illustrated the drawing of the Klein bottles and their constructions in 4D Frame along with
the mathematical formulas and equations needed to do that. The 4D Frame is a very innovative tool that
the teachers may use to allow students to use their mathematical knowledge in creating architectural
models (Park, 2014).
3.4.3. Origami Technology
Another technology choice is provided to teachers in the dynamic lesson plan which is the paper modeling
where students can model using papers in the known technique Origami.
(Budinski & Lavicza, 2019) introduce a dual practice mode using a physical technology as Origami and a
digital one as GeoGebra to deliver mathematical concepts. They emphasize the connection of Origami to
mathematics, the usage of GeoGebra platform features, and finally the AR modeling capability within the
GeoGebra platform. The example proposed by the authors is the “maximizing the volume of a box” to help
in illustrating the “advanced mathematical concepts and calculus” is the modeling of the Masu box. They
achieved the modeling with paper fold and with GeoGebra AR which required them to connect to their
previous mathematical know-how as line, plane equations, and the plane intersections. In their
conclusions, they pointed out that the approach of mingling physical and digital practices was of great
value and reflected positive attitudes from the students. (Toyib, 2018) stated in a study conducted in
Indonesia about the relation of mathematics learning to education from three projects implemented using
Origami and they advise that it provides a great learning opportunity. This publication is of great interest to
our research track as it showed through a simple modeling example the effects of combining digital and
physical modeling along with the strength of the Origami modeling.
11
 3.5. Mixing Technologies for Educational Purposes
This part is addressing the mixture of the proposed technologies in educational practices from the most
relevant papers. (Martínez-sevilla et al., 2018) showed an example that is too close to what we are
proposing through a trio of math walks, augmented reality, and GeoGebra. Their idea was to use open-
source platforms such as GeoGebra to generate virtual models using marker-less augmented reality of
cultural heritage. They export the GeoGebra models in a .svg format to include vector information to be
used in representing a mathematical layer with marker-less AR. This way they managed to impose the
digital overlay of the buildings over the ancient objects. They gave an example of that by reconstructing
the ruins of a medieval bridge in Granada using GeoGebra.

Another esteemed project uses Math city map with the goal of applying STEAM practices in a fun and
creative way by (Ancochea, 2020). The project's aim is to allow students to use geometrical modeling in a
fun interactive way through the routes introduced in the MathCityMap applications. The first example
provided is the Mathematical walks at Maresme Sud, which gave an opportunity for students to use
GeoGebra modeling and AR to represent architectural models that were on the route. Moreover, they
highlighted the importance of transformations and applying symmetries in the modeling process. The
second example provided was the Mathematical walk exploring modernist fronts in Sant Pol de Mar, which
also promoted the GeoGebra modeling and AR and had very positive feedback from the students on
increasing the mathematical learning contents. The authors of the study didn’t neglect the didactical part
where they highlighted the mathematical capability that includes “formulas, data, variables, three-
dimensional coordinates, and basic mathematical operations and statistics, reading and interpreting
graphs, geometry and perspective, areas and volumes.” And the communication capability which was
reflected in the reports handed in by the students participating in the trials and their thoughts. A digital
capability is the outcome learnings of the students from interacting with the 3D programs and video
programs. The learning capability is how the student approaches and analyzes the problems given to
solve them. The capability of interacting with the physical world which is when the students implement the
3D modeling in AR mode. And lastly, social capability is when the students are evolving in a personal and
intellectual manner.

Lastly, another interesting publication evaluates the interest of educators and students towards VR, AR,
3D Printing, and modeling. (Trust & Woodruff, 2021) in their study used the TPACK model to see where
teachers and educators are standing from these technologies and on the other hand proposed 3 research
questions to evaluate their interest in each technology and know, study the reasons behind that, they
reached an interesting conclusion that educators are interested in these technologies but lack knowledge
on how to adopt them in the classroom. They suggest that novel designs and practices are needed to be
utilized in the adoption of such technologies in the classroom. From this point, we hope that this research
focus is one of these novel contributions and it would help in delivering use cases with various
technologies to be adopted by teachers and educators. And from these publications, it is believed that
integrating the wide spectrum of technologies may aid teachers in supporting their student’s
understanding of the virtual representations and the physical representations of the architectural models.
Hoping that it would aid the participants in the 3D transformation journey of the architectural models.

3. Theoretical Framework
The conceptual framework in this research direction is trying to cover all the proposed notions and the
various directions this research can reach. Keeping into consideration the research focus, therefore some
variables will act as primary ones and will be of major focus that is represented with some theoretical
framework’s fusion. On the other hand, some secondary variables which are of a minor focus in this
research track will also be mentioned.
As has been highlighted above, the research direction is combining several aspects as architectural
modeling, mathematical learning, culture and history connections, the various technologies, and as a
preparation for this fusion a lesson planning technique is proposed. All these variables formulate the
research construct and in order to cover these directions, the theory plays an important role in the
definition of the variables that need to be addressed in the research question and in the design phase.
The theory affects the design as well as it affects the practice of any research, which makes it of high
importance to be well defined at the beginning of the research. The theory and designs are a connected
procedure where each one affects the other as stated by Brown (1992) during the experiments or the
practice part throughout the research. Added by Collins (1992) who stated that the theory in the initial
states of building the research ideas will act as the information and guidance to the design while in the

12
testing phase of the proposed designs it will enhance the proposed theory, which concludes this relation
as interactive. In this chapter, we will address each notion and the theoretical framework that applies to it,
and at the end, we will explain how potentially these frameworks can be merged in the final versions of the
research. The theoretical frameworks should act as the guide for this research focus during all its phases
and interventional cycles.

3.1. Constructivism
The theoretical models that are proposed in this research all emerged from the constructivism umbrella.
The constructivism movement has a very long history, and the main focus of this move is to center the
attention on the students' reasoning towards the teacher’s role as a facilitator. Instead of receiving the
mathematics information for granted from the teacher’s side, constructivism acts on the concept of “Taken
as shared mathematical reality” for the teacher and students communication as stated by Cobb, Yackel,
and Wood [1992, p. 10]. In other words, by planning pedagogical tools in order to enhance a student's
intellect by not providing answers from the teachers and to avoid direct teaching but rather explore the
student’s conceptual growth in approaching mathematical problems (Radford, 2018).
The research capitalizes on these notions as it encourages the teachers to be facilitators of the
interventions and allow their students to innovate through the modeling process.

3.2. Theories That Contribute to the Dynamic Lesson Planning

Module
In order to start by designing the notions that are integrated into this research scope, a dynamic lesson
plan has been implemented, that allows the teachers to integrate the various aspects of the project in one
interactive interface as will be explained later in this proposal. Therefore, the lesson planning module will
be discussed as a first step to explore it from the theoretical point of view. Mangan & Mitchell (2007)
provided four to five steps that can help in designing the lesson study and they explained it as a set of
iterative and cyclic procedures that can take place starting from the lesson preparation to planning,
observation, discussion and followed by the revision of the proposed lessons. (Bahn, 2018) stated the
unpleasant fact that most of the lesson planning is implicit to cultural boundaries, meaning they are not
universal that can be applied across many cultures and places. That is due to the fact that teachers
consider the lesson planning an individual task or action that can’t be shared and even if shared it would
be hard to be understood outside a certain department, school, district, or even country. Mangan &
Mitchell (2007) state “It also seems to be a bit paradoxical, given that one of the often-cited features of
lesson study is to create shared and documented knowledge, rather than (just) private experience and
wisdom”.

Bahn, (2018) believes that there is no defined structure for the lesson planning which makes it a current
situation that contributors to the lesson planning develop practices that are only well perceived by them
only. And unfortunately, these practices will stay unclear to any interlopers. In order to promote the lesson
planning, teacher's and student’s learning outcomes from this research direction, theoretical frameworks
are highly needed. The theoretical framework will reorganize the various modules of the lesson planning
and will address all the stakeholders that contribute to it. The theoretical framework will differentiate the
instruments used to build the values of the lesson study from the cultural differences that appear in the
descriptions of the lesson planning. They also promoted the idea of international lesson study that can be
based on theoretical frameworks. And therefore, the theoretical framework that will address the lesson
planning needs to be accurate in solving issues related to the lesson planning and the components inside
it. Therefore, this direction of creating a lesson study that may be shared, understood, perceived in an
accurate form across boundaries, was one of the research motivations.
3.2.1. The Theory of Didactical Situations
The dynamic lesson plan which is proposed in this research is dynamic by its nature as it holds multiple
alternatives to meet the teacher's needs as will be discussed in the lesson plan section. This makes us
think of a dynamic approach from the theoretical point of view as addressed in the Theory of didactical
situations (TDS). The TDS was established by Brousseau (1997) to define the didactical situations (DS)
as a dynamic process that involves the interplay between the teacher, students, and the surrounding of
these situations and all the components that are involved in this surrounding which is referred to as the
milieu. Having a closer look at the didactic milieu which has been initiated by the teachers before and
during the lesson planning. Therefore, this focuses on the teachers’ intentions and hypotheses they have
for establishing such a milieu for their students; this is one aspect of the TDS. The other aspect is
13
investigating the student’s reactions to this milieu and how they try to approach it, solve it, and adapt to it
(Bahn, 2018). As seen in Figure 2, the relation of the teacher, student, and the milieu.

Figure 2: Didactic situation as the interplay between a teacher (T), students (S), and milieu (M).

The TDS is the combination of these learnings looking at the teachers' and students’ sides to solve these
milieus. Reflecting on the TDS, these learnings govern this research journey as it starts, because it
highlights the various possibilities the teachers can construct for their students from the dynamic lesson
planning proposed. And it further studies how these constructed possibilities within the milieu, will
influence the student’s adaptation and knowledge. For further elaboration of the relation between the TDS
and the lesson planning phase for the proposed practices, will be pictured in the possibilities and
alternatives proposed in the dynamic lesson planning which will define the content of the didactic
situations in this context. As the teachers define the content of the tasks to be solved, including the
environments and finally the tools and technologies used to solve these tasks, all these define the milieu
provided to the students and integrate all these factors to address the given situation which is the
architectural modeling.

Moreover, the student’s approach to solving the given milieu undergoes the inquiry nature to be able to
come up with relevant answers to solve the situation. As one can see the relation highlighted in Figure 3,
as (Bahn, 2018) describes. From the teacher’s point of view as they receive feedback from the students
and their interaction with the provided DS, is very important as it describes the teacher's perspectives and
reflections to their own milieu. This feedback can be received in the pre-didactic situation during the
lesson planning and after the lesson planning during the intervention of the DS which is referred to as the
post didactical situations.

Figure 3: The learning situation of the lesson studies: The interplay between the teachers and their milieu, the
didactical situation

As we evaluate the TDS and its compatibility with this research, the TDS appears to be very compatible in
investigating the teacher learning when they implement the didactical knowledge, the milieu. One can
picture this as an interplay between the teacher and the milieu in the DS, and the feedback from the milieu
to the teachers. As the teachers construct the DS and the milieu, on one hand, they have a learning goal
or intention from the didactic situation and on the other hand, the realized didactic situation is perceived
from the feedback of the provided milieu by the students. (Bahn, 2018).
3.2.1.1. Cycles in the Theory of Didactical Situations

In the proposed research where the dynamic lesson plan is provided to the teachers to reflect on their
choices and maybe alter them in successive cycles giving them various options in an iterative process,
and because our methodology focuses on an iterative behavior which is the design-based research
approach. Which encourages researchers to iterate their interventions with cycles and learn, reflect on
each iteration before approaching a new cycle. If we adopt this concept to teachers, this will open them a
door to reflect on the feedback from the constructed milieu before constructing a new one as is
represented in Figure 4. This is also highlighted in the TDS as the lesson planning can be an iteration of
the Para didactic situations which takes place in the lesson planning phase and can be enhanced after the
feedback provided from the milieu in the post didactical situations as has been highlighted in the use case
presented by (Bahn, 2018).

14
 Figure 4: A lesson study with three cycles. Here DS, Prs, ObS, and Pos refer to didactic, pre didactic observational
and post didactic situations, indexed according to the cycle.

One can also reflect on one of the key principles of the Realistic Mathematics Education (RME)
educational perception which is the guided reinvention (Freudenthal 1991). The RME approach in brief
focuses on providing not any situation like stated in the TDS but rather real-life problems that can develop
further studies, the realistic way is created to allow students to develop meanings of very “abstract
concepts” by a slow approach “through mathematization of meaningful real-life situations''. It highlights the
importance of providing the students with lessons that help them to develop their own mathematics,
moreover, help them use problem-solving ways. And the teacher's role is to guide the students, reflect on
these lessons by iteration of the piloting and design of these proposed lessons. But RME is not in the
focus of this conceptual framework as it focuses on other notions that are not significant in this research
track. RME intersects in the notion of real-life situations only which is adopted and considered as a
modification to the usual TDS used in this research scope.

3.3. Theories that contribute to the Technologies Used in this

Research Scope
In this research scope as has been explained in the introduction section that the technology plays an
important role as it provides the visualization tools to the target group. Moreover, it interferes in the lesson
planning in the dynamic interface that delivers an instant lesson plan to the teachers to practice with their
target groups. These lessons hold the concept of modeling architecture while reflecting on the
mathematical knowledge which is done using various visualization technologies. As the GeoGebra
modeling, augmented reality, 3D scanning/ printing, virtual reality, 4D Frame, and origami. All these
technologies are encapsulated in this research to help in visualizing the created models both physically
and digitally. This spectrum of technologies highlights the need for a theoretical model to govern its
applications in an educational context.

3.3.1. TPACK Framework

Therefore, the TPACK framework is considered to help in analyzing technological usage and its relation to
the other didactical aspects covered in this research track. It was developed by (cf. Mishra & Koehler,
2006, 2008). The strength of the TPACK framework is that it urges to combine the content and pedagogy
with the technology best practices. As it tries to use suitable technology to blend the required pedagogy to
cover the introduced content. This framework is focused on teacher behavior towards the TPACK
although it can be shared with the participants in a simpler way to give them an overview of the whole
process and is considered the connection link between content, pedagogy, and technology. This
framework helps in delivering the required technological knowledge to utilize it to the content with the
learning situations to help in delivering a pedagogical manner as seen in Figure 5.

15
 Figure 5: The TPACK Model

Figure 5, elaborates the components that form the TPACK. It consists of three circles or areas of
knowledge and with each intersection, new knowledge is revealed until the major intersection takes place
in defining the TPACK framework. The different levels of knowledge introduced will be discussed and their
relation to our research focus according to (Koehler et al., 2014).

3.3.1.1. TPACK Components Contribution to the Research

Pedagogical Knowledge (PK) definition from the teacher perspective tries to answer the question of how
do your students learn best and what instructional strategies do you need to meet their needs and the
requirements of the lesson plan? To this research, the PK is utilized by providing the teacher's different
options in the lesson plan and categories that can be combined to reach a unique intervention, mainly by
allowing teachers to use IBL methods within the intervention which may capitalize on their creativity and
may endorse the student’s curiosity. And by promoting the collaboration ways between participants.
Content Knowledge (CK) definition from the teacher perspective tries to answer the question on what are
you teaching and what is your own knowledge of the subject? In this research proposal CK will refer to the
mathematical modeling process in principle and on the other hand it can also reflect on the architectural
choice from the participant's side, for example, is the architectural model chosen ancient, modern, based
on a mathematical concept, free choice or even allowing participants to invent their own model.
Technological Knowledge (TK) definition from the teacher perspective tries to answer the question of what
digital tools are available to you, which do you know well enough to use, and which would be most
appropriate for the lesson at hand? And for this research, the TK will refer to the used technology in
modeling and experimenting with the wide range of proposed technologies that help in visualizing the
architectural models in physical or digital forms. The TK can also appear in the choice of the participants
and the reason behind that choice, is it because of accessibility or prior knowledge or because it sounds
easier and more doable these are all possibilities for further explorations.
Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) refers to understanding the best practices for teaching specific
content to the teacher’s specific students. PCK may arise when the mathematical modeling of a specific
ancient, modern, or based on a certain mathematical concept which is the content to be applied and how
did the participants approach this content, the way of teaching in terms of IBL or instructional behavior.
Also taking into consideration the where to practice choice from the lesson planning, which environment
did the teachers choose to make the intervention as online, classroom, museum, or outdoor. Because
environmental choice is part of the teaching pedagogy. As an example, ancient architectural modeling
may be best practiced in a museum practice that holds artworks from the same time period and may help
students and teachers to reflect more on their surroundings. These reflections are what PCK is all about.
All these explorations can put the PCK in a position that will lead the teachers to the best combinations
and the best versions of themselves.

Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) refers to understanding how the teacher uses digital tools as
a vehicle to the learning outcomes and experiences. TPK may arise in this research after experimenting
with the technologies and then the hypotheses may appear in matching the best fit technology to the best
fit environment proposed. In other words, the new technologies used that are represented in the TK and
their relation to pedagogy would explain how these technical tools were used to fulfill the pedagogy goal in

16
the first place. Therefore, the teaching method adopted, and the technology relation should be further
highlighted in this fashion. Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) refers to knowing how the digital tools
available to the teachers can enhance or transform the content, and how it is delivered to students, and
how the students can interact with it. Now as we have circulated through the three circles of knowledge
and visited their intersection the TPACK which lies in the center of the model where all primary forms of
knowledge blend together are what the research is eager to formulate. As explained briefly in each
knowledge area how this research focus can be applied by giving assumptions. At the end of this research
phase, the TPACK will be formulated based on real data that will be discussed in the data collection part.
In the end, the research aim with the TPACK framework would recommend which technology and tools
may fit for the best environments allowing teachers to present certain mathematical, cultural, and historical
contents in the most relevant pedagogical way.

3.4. Theories that Contribute to the Cross-Cultural Research

Nature
The last part of the theoretical framework is focusing on the cultural aspect across the countries and the
places we will manage to implement our research. This cultural definition which we are interested in
exploring can be reflected in the choice of the architectural models and their relation to the participants'
cultures and backgrounds. The cultural perspectives appear in the research as well as in the design
phases and can’t be neglected. There is a wide variety of frameworks which are covering the importance
of culture in the development of designs that are concerned with learning (Asino et al., 2017). If we start
by what is culture as a definition in the first place, culture has many definitions, but we are referring to
some here as stated by (Eugene et al., 2009 p.22) it is “what we do” and “who we are”.
“Cultures are crucial to what it is to exist, as such, it is not an overstatement to say that understanding
culture has been around since human existence. Hence, as long as humanity exists, and new fields of
studies emerge, the concept of culture will continue to change in the human mind and a definition will
continue to be sought (Salehi, 2012).” According to Rogers, Graham, and Mayes (2007) say that the
designers that lack the cross-cultural awareness differences and did actual designs, these differences had
a great effect on their designs.

Some of the studies that did cross-cultural designs were only concerned with language change. We can’t
ignore cultures because they have an extensive effect in the educational settings and in the learning of
individuals as argued by (Asino et al., 2017). In their initiative to come up with a new focus in order to
adopt the cultural differences in the design of the different practices. Because researchers are usually
uncertain what are changes that should take place in the design process when the study is being applied
across cultures. They advise that this cultural adoption should be included at each stage in the process of
the research precisely in the evaluation of the studies and not only afterward. But rather to consider the
culture variance during the design and when the decisions of learning objects, evaluating the
performances of individual results within the study. They present different cultural frameworks that try to
adopt the programs that tackle the global learning requirements.
3.4.1. The AMOEBA Framework
Therefore, the introduced framework which is the AMOEBA design framework is adopted to allow us to
regulate the cultural differences in our introduced designs.
The AMOEBA (Gunawardena, Wilson, & Nolla, 2003) came out from the study of intercultural fields such
as cross-cultural psychology and computer-mediated communication. The AMOEBA definition is a single-
cell organism that can live in hybrid environments, yet it manages to survive without having a unique
shape but a defined structure. The authors used this terminology to introduce the (Adaptive, Meaningful,
Organic, Environmental-based architecture for Online course design) framework which aims to facilitate
the planning and the learning procedures between the instructors and the individuals involved in the
learning process. The framework highlights the decisions taken between the two stakeholders during the
learning process (instructor and the learner) to fulfill the learning objectives. (Asino et al., 2017)
The AMOEBA is composed of main components stated by (Gunawardena, Wilson, & Nolla, 2003) as
follows:
● Language: the content should be represented by the most understood language to the majority.
● Format: The group defines the icons, colors, navigation, structure
● Communication channel: Include options of using synchronous and asynchronous tools
● Activities: “culturally appropriate actions” that can be considered from two stakeholders as group/
individual work as well as activities to meet learning goals as assignments, projects, or essays.
● Methods: “The roles” taken by the two stakeholders

17
 ● Knowledge (instructor and student): results and outcomes of the activities as well as the learning
methods used as well as the generated knowledge from the discussion and reflection of each of
the components and its interaction to the two levels of the two involved stakeholders.
This framework is concerned with integrating the learners in the co-creation of activities and delivering
teaching strategies that suit the teachers as well as learners. As the AMOEBA framework is adopted in
this research focus and follows the components to result in developed research that may be fitting for
application on a cross-cultural basis. In the interventions applied in each country, the AMOEBA
components are taken into consideration starting from the language to architectural examples shared with
the teachers and learners to suit each addressed culture. The activities’ structure and the methods used
are according to the teacher and learners in the situation which is a mutual decision. The knowledge
which will evolve during and after the intervention may be captured by reflecting on the applied
components and how the two stakeholders interacted with the introduced interventions.

3.5. Theories Contributing to the Program Development

The proposed dynamic lesson design along with the modeling tasks that can be implemented using
various technologies are all the formulation and foundation of the integrational program to serve the
research scope. The program development principles will be investigated to serve the mathematical
education goal in this research.

The program development has four main components as stated by (Demir, 2011) which are inseparable;
they depend on each other and dynamically affect each other. The first step in the program development
is determining the goals of the program, which justifies the need for such a program and the goals of the
target group. Afterward, the four components follow with the objectives, content, teaching-learning
situations, and assessment phases. As seen in Figure 6, the program evaluation needs to be an inter-
operable process seeding continuous development and enhancements for this program to meet the
educational needs. The first component is the objectives which state the required knowledge or skills that
need to be covered in this program to the target group. The objectives have to be tailored to meet the
target group's needs to enhance their shortages and add on their current knowledge. While taking into
consideration the cultural differences. The second component is setting the content which is what to be
taught to the target group within this program, the content provided should be suitable for the target group.
The third component is the learning-teaching situation which is the actual implementation of the situations
or interventions that fulfill the required objective with the added contents. The last component of the
program development is the assessment which measures the target group's achievements in satisfying
and meeting the objectives of the program.

Figure 6: Process of program Development

These components in the process of educational program development are important, therefore, the
dynamic lesson plan components along with the learning situations provided can be reflected on to meet
this program development cyclic model. Where the first two components of the program development are
pictured in the dynamic lesson plan where the objectives of modeling architecture using mathematical
elements are being determined and the contents are being set to meet the target group's current
knowledge and age. The third component of the program development is the learning situation which is
the actual situations the target groups face and should solve which is the architectural mathematical
modeling and bypass these situations in order to reach the assessment phase. The learning situations
that the target group faces are the milieu to them, while the whole program development is the milieu to
the teachers or moderators of this program development, which will bring us to the point of reflecting on
and connecting to the TDS and think of how the theory and the didactical situations discussed above are
18
connected to the program development. Therefore, this raises the importance of linking and defining the
program development with the theoretical frameworks. It has been stated by (Demir, 2011) that the
theoretical framework has a great effect on the program development and its components:
“This is because the theoretical framework defines and re-defines the relationships between factors and
variables that are thought to be related to a certain concept or problem” (Trentu University).
(Demir, 2011) stated that the theoretical framework should be tailored for the objectives of the target group
even if the target group sounds similar. For example, in case of teachers they could be in-service teachers
or pre-service teachers, therefore minor changes in the integration of program development modules are
required.

3.5.1. The relation of the Program Development and the TPACK

Connecting the program development to the technology as shown in Figure 7, the relation of integrating
technology to the theoretical frameworks and the program development by (Demir, 2011).

Figure 7: Technology Theoretical Framework and the Process of the Program Development

Now we can have a closer look at each interplay in Figure 7, the relation of the technology and theoretical
framework and the objectives, contents, learning-teaching situations, and the assessment. We know that
some technology has some constraints and limitations that may affect the program components and
should be considered and defined beforehand. Moreover, these limitations can be a result of the lack of
knowledge of the target group in using these technologies.
Therefore, it is advised by (Demir, 2011) to include various technological options, devices, or tools for the
target groups. This will also help in ensuring program flexibility which is also one of the major aspects of
program development. Each technology tool provided in the program should influence in assuring and
meeting the objectives and the dynamic interplay to the contents and the other components of the
program integration. However, in the introduction of technology, it has to be ensured that it is used in a
correct way to ensure the success of meeting the program goal. Because the reason behind selecting the
introduced technologies should align with the objectives of the program. Which has a great impact on
defining the TCK in the TPACK framework. Another aspect is defining what to teach and how to teach in
terms of the skills required for defining the technology integration in the teaching-learning situations inside
the program development which is also mutually exclusive to the TPK in the TPACK. Which justifies why
in our research track we are providing a wide spectrum of technologies to be used by the participants
which may overcome the limitations and may provide flexibility to meet the various participant's needs and
the program objectives.

3.5.2. The Relation of the Program Development and the TDS

On the other hand, the theoretical frameworks govern the four components with respect to the target
group and their needs in order to specify the content to be included in the learning situations. The
theoretical framework governs the content as to what to include in the content and governing the order of
the content introduced. So, if we are applying the TDS and we are concerned and focusing on the teacher
and interested in its own milieu and didactical situation then we will take into consideration the whole
process of the program development along with the chosen technologies and the dynamic lesson planning
modules in the para didactical situations which are in the initiation of the goals of the program along with
the definition of each of the program components.

19
Another extensive outlook would be if the teacher provides the researchers access to the students. Then
the student’s development would be a research variable using this integrational program. Therefore, the
interest will be in the milieu from the student’s perspective and how they managed to bypass the didactical
situations and learning situations proposed with the defined contents. To meet the program development
goals and objectives along with the technologies proposed. Another connecting aspect (Demir, 2011)
stated that the TPACK encourages teachers to contribute to the lesson planning from the design phase to
the conduction of the lesson phase with the aid and integration of technology. Therefore, this is a
connection point that overlaps the TPACK with the TDS in the lesson planning phase inside the program
development. Concerning the assessment part, it is advised to be previously thought while the objectives
and content of the program development have been agreed on because it is a crucial thing to capture the
participants' understanding. The assessment assesses how the objectives have been met using the
frameworks applied. The assessment ways have to be designed according to the required framework
because the frameworks shape the whole program and affect each of the program components (Demir,
2011). At the end of this chapter, most of the theoretical frameworks that covered the proposed research
focus or track have been mentioned. The networking and the fusion of these frameworks together
capitalizing on the differences and similarities between the frameworks will be discussed in the final
versions of this research. Because we believe in the power of data and how it can also have a substantial
effect on the variables and how this affects the conceptual framework we are proposing and would
continue to its contribution.

4. Methodology
The methodological framework that is used and capitalized in this research is the design-based research
(DBR) approach. The DBR has a dualism nature. The DBR is an iterative process encapsulating multiple
components with diverse types that helps in tuning practice to meet what really works and to affect theory
in a constructive way (Cobb et al., 2003). The DBR does not just contribute to the design process but
rather provides a justification for the proposed designs. The DBR is a generic perspective, unlike action
research, because all the practices introduced are tuned by theoretical models that make them applicable
to be used by others and in other circumstances. Referring to how Cobb explained the DBR to be
extensively interventionist which gives the researchers the privilege of living inside the iteration not
assuming some insights from other people. Therefore, Cobb recommended that researchers who were
interventionists should document all the learnings (learning ecology) that take place during the
interventions to be able to conclude justification on each part in the design. The continuous generation of
theories during each iteration in each intervention is how DBR contribution is significant, especially that
the generated theories undergo testing.

Moving to the research focus in case there are many focus norms to the research group, then the analysis
part has to be extended to distinguish between variance in these norms and managing the different levels
of each. According to Cobb, the initial preparation of the design has to include some assumptions on the
imagined ways of learning that will be practiced during interventions, but these assumptions may change
for example due to the environments which may reflect on a change in the variables of focus. Building on
this information we prepared the dynamic lesson plan which is an assumption on how we can facilitate the
teachers to choose the lesson building blocks. By designing a dynamic lesson plan that may lead to
various paths of exploration and propose new ways of learning. Cobb described the DBR as an iterative
process that helps in solving stubborn goals and that requires many rounds, and the output of each
iteration may develop conjectures in the proposed notions that can be discarded or can be adapted and
tested in the coming iterations as shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8: Design and process conjectures in research on and through interventions

The DBR contributions to the theory are summarized in how Brown (1992) described it as “theory informs
design and vice versa”. As described by (McKenney & Reeves, 2018) DBR may contribute to the theories
20
foundations that help to answer questions about the explanation and description of specific incidents. And
propose design principles that give advice on how to adopt these principles to target some intervention-
related issues. Because DBR is broader and more generic it should apply to all and to anywhere, but to
guarantee that it will work everywhere then we need more evidence and justification to the proposed
designs, and this is the role of the theory. The theories that are proposed are the ones addressed in the
conceptual framework chapter and they are subject to change after each cycle to reach the theoretical
understanding that meets the maturing intervention on an iterative basis as described in Figure 9.

Figure 9: Generic model for conducting design research in education.

In each cycle, there are intersecting points between the steps of the cycle which result in a continuous impact from
and to the cycle steps. This continuous reflection between the cycle steps gives a much wider room for the cycles to
grow, the cycles grow but in time or in tasks, but they grow in thoughts. These growing thoughts are the input that can
contribute to the formulation of the coming cycles. These connections between the cycle's steps will be highlighted in
the coming section.

4.1. Research Rationale

The idea behind adding this section is to connect the research modules from the theoretical frameworks to
the interventions, cycles to the expected results, the fulfilling of the research variables inside the research
questions, and finally how they all contribute to form the research results or recommendations.

Figure 10: The research rationale and the connection between the theories, interventions, and the expected results.

Figure 10 explains the theories introduced and which aspect of the research they are tackling as TDS for
lesson planning, the TPACK for the technology, and the AMEOBA for the cultural aspects. Finally, the
relation of all of these together is combined in the cyclic model of the program development. The
21
connection of the first part which is the theories to the second which is the interventions. In the part of the
intervention, the cycles which we also refer to them as groups are intersecting not separated from each
other and this is due to the time factor. The cycles will be grouped on a cultural basis each cycle will tackle
a certain cultural or as we define it based on geographical locations, for example, First Group Cycle ==
Europe, Second Group Cycle == Africa, Middle East, Third Group Cycle == USA and the Far East.
Therefore, the cycles are mutually exclusive not bounded to a time frame because the final grouping will
take place at the end of the research according to geographic location. As we are seeking opportunities
from teachers who show interest in our studies. In other words, if we get an intervention in Malaysia before
England, it can be included regardless of when in the cycles but rather where in the cycles.
The second part is the continuous feedback for each intervention to dynamic lesson planning to release
many versions and add enhancements according to each intervention output.
Moreover, the whole interventions the whole cycles will contribute to the results, each intervention will
reflect on the RQs try to solve them or enhance them. Each intervention will try to solve the variables of
the research too. Moreover, the Theoretical framework is continuously affecting the intervention and the
results and vice versa because we are continuously contributing to theory. To reach the utmost goal which
is the STAEM Practices combining architecture culture and history into mathematics education.
So finally our methodological contribution is that the cycles do not get formed as in the conventional DBR
but are more adapted to overcome the obstacles we face in this research. Therefore, the arrows cannot
be represented by a numbering sequence because they are continuously updating each-others, so we do
not want to restrict ourselves on a time basis within cycles but rather on a where basis through a Y
number of interventions taking place in Z number of countries.

Y Z

At last, the research rationale which is visualized in Figure 10 acts like the chart that explains the
connection points of the introduced modules and notions in this research. Which connects the intentions
and the purposes of the teachers while solving the dynamic lesson plan visualized in Figure 1, to the
research methodology.

4.2. Learning Trajectories

In the proposed research the learning trajectories are defined by developing the dynamic lesson planning
tool for teachers to aid them through the process of defining a lesson plan with all the mentioned notions
integrated. The dynamic lesson plan aim presented in this proposal is to combine all discussed research
notions earlier and technologies for visualization purposes. To aid the teachers in creating lesson plans
that combine mathematics and mathematical concepts, architectural modeling, culture, and history while
applying various technologies. We assume that this concept introduced may offer teachers new ways and
practices to apply mathematical learning content in a more interactive manner.

One of the main aspects of the learning trajectory would be the modeling ways of these architectural
representations which could be implemented in various forms and using various technologies as well as in
different environments. The third aspect of the learning trajectory could be student’s understanding of the
modeling tasks and this can be evaluated by the results of the models they created during the
interventions and on the other hand the reflection of the students on the architectural models while they
are modeling, they can reflect on the mathematical knowledge and on the cultural and historical
knowledge they have, or they may gain new knowledge during these lessons, which all is our aim in this
exploratory approach. In this part of the proposal, we will start by describing the dynamic lesson plan
interactive tool, how it was developed and how it can be used by teachers to serve the research focus.
4.2.1. Dynamic Lesson Plan Aim
Our aim behind developing the dynamic lesson plan concept is to engage the teachers in the design of
their own interventions with their own students. Engagement of teachers means motivation and
ownership, when teachers feel they have the freedom of what they choose and say and teach in the
classrooms this may open creative doors to them to innovate, and then this spirit can be reflected to
students. As it has been investigated by (Wang et al., 2020) that classroom boredom and teacher
enthusiasm are related and affect each other. We assume this lesson planning module may result in a
different experience than the normal traditional way of designing lessons.

Teachers are required to meet certain curricula goals and finish certain content during a specific time
frame. This traditional teaching way may not leave any space or time for innovation and thinking of new
methods of presenting the learning content to the students. This study (Stein et al., 2020) stresses the fact
22
that teachers who were taught in normal traditional ways not using technological tools face some
difficulties in integrating technologies in their teaching. They assume that this limitation could be overcome
by introducing training and programs to help in encapsulating technology in educational settings. These
findings are motivations to implement some programs that may aid in technology adoption and introduce
new learning practices.
4.2.2. Dynamic Lesson Plan Design
The dynamic lesson design was modeled to provide teachers the feeling of ownership, and freedom of
choice. We hope by this approach we allow teachers to feel motivated towards implementing the various
tools presented and this will make them curious to visit all the options presented in this designed dynamic
lesson plan. The tool was designed on the Unity platform which is a game engine for interactive and real-
time responsive applications. Our approach is designed to be a web portal to be accessible for all
teachers and does not need any extra installation and the aim is to facilitate its usage for the teachers. As
the teachers navigate to the provided URL, they will find a single scene with various Objects and UI
elements that they can interact with as seen in Figure 11. In the middle, there is a large cube with 4 sides
that the teachers can answer each of the questions provided as who will model, what to model, where to
model and how to model. By answering these questions, the teachers will be able to complete the lesson
plan which acts as the “Cookbook” and choose different ingredients to put in the lesson plan or in the meal
they wish to serve to their students hypothetically.

A B

C D

E
Figure 11: A, B, C, D The dynamic lesson plan four sides, E the links to the GeoGebra book

After the teacher finishes the design of the lesson, the next step is the implementation and modeling of
these choices with the students. The GeoGebra book has the same design as the interactive lesson plan
but as static texts with resources designed under the four categories as the interactive lesson plan
23
visualized in the four-sided cube. To specify the age, architectural models, the environment of the
practice, and finally the technology or way the teacher wishes to implement the architectural modeling.
Some enhancements in the dynamic lesson plan are discussed in the future work section.

4.3. Research Timeline

Phase Time Description

Exploratory Phase 1.3.2019 - 1.12.2019 ● Exploring the literature to define research

scope

Research Idea 1.1.2020 - 1.3.2020 ● Crystallizing the Research Idea

● Piloting
● Experimenting with Students
● Experimenting the Technologies
● Approaching Schools in Egypt

Research Design 1.4.2020 - 1.12.2020 ● Designed Dynamic Lesson Plan

● Designed Data Collection Tools

Zero Cycle 1.1.2021 - 30.3.2021 ● Conducted Several Interviews, workshops with

Teachers

First Cycle 31.3.2021 - 31.5.2021 ● First Cycle: Upper Austria

(Europe -Upper ● Design Teacher
Austria)
● 44 Students age group (15-16)

Second Cycle (Next Semester) ● Looking for potential Opportunities in an

(Africa, MENA Until 12. 2021 Egyptian school
Region) ● Conducted two interviews.
● Submitted two proposals for school
management.
● School Proposal got accepted.
● Finalizing Paperwork
to start the intervention next semester

Third -- N Cycle 1.2022 - 12. 2022 ● Looking for potential Opportunities in

Indonesia, Libya, Luxembourg, California

Final Cycle, 1.2023 - 6.2023 ● Reflection on the data analysis results.

Reflections ● Proposing Recommendations for the research
focus
● Writing Dissertation

5. Research Questions
The research question is:
o How do teachers perceive dynamic lesson planning and how do they choose the four
criteria to fulfill the research goal of modeling architecture with 3D transformation?
▪ How do teachers reflect on their students’ architectural choices from a cultural
perspective?
▪ How do teachers use the provided visualization technologies to serve the goal of
architectural representation while using their students’ previous mathematical
knowledge?
24
 6. Methods
The first stage in a research journey is putting the conceptual idea and that is what we are presenting
today. But as we look forward to implementing the dynamic lesson plan with teachers to model
architectural constructions and reflect on the intervention collected data. In this research we are looking
forward to capturing participants' reflections on the specified interventions, we are eager to capture their
ideas, emotions, and expressions on using various technologies and the reflection on the cultural and
historical architectural models they choose. This research is eager to seek diversity to capture different
cultural and historical backgrounds that will be reflected in the modeled architectures. We are also
interested in the student’s work when the teacher practices with them these interventions. As the dynamic
lesson plan is diverse in its nature combining various tools, technologies, environments, and different
architectural models the research is eager to retrieve diverse results from each cycle during each
intervention. This research is visiting various cultures and countries and as we look at diversity as a notion
it is referred to by (Luciak, 2010) as “Diversity can refer to long-standing intra-state cultural differences in
societies with differing ethnic, racial, linguistic and religious groups or to new forms of cultural diversity
brought about by demographic changes and migratory movements. In understanding diversity, it is
important to recognize how cultural diversity interrelates with other diversity dimensions such as social
and family background, gender, age, physical and mental abilities, or sexual orientation.”

But in this research, we do not capitalize this definition to diversity because it is too broad, but it just gives
the readers how diverse the reflections of the target groups could be to the proposed research. Moreover,
it sheds the light on how the teachers can react to their students if they belong to a diverse group
(ethnic/cultural). Considering the proposed research, we would like to know if the teacher will introduce or
impose certain architectural models with certain histories and cultures that belong to the minority or
majority of the student’s groups or will leave them the freedom of choice to reflect on their own cultures.

6.1. Data Collection

Some of the data will be collected before, during, and after the intervention in a form of recorded semi-
structured interviews with the teachers and open-ended questions inserted in the GeoGebra classrooms
during the intervention. The open-ended questions aim is to seek the reflection of the teachers as a core
step then the students as a secondary step in each cycle. The shaping of the research and
teacher(practitioner) relationship as described by Wagner (1997) “social design of research projects” is
very important to facilitate the intervention process. Another data collection tool is the multiple-choice
questions that would investigate how likely the teachers and students are happy with the interventions.
Moreover, the semi-structured interview that provides mostly qualitative data is more flexible and dynamic
because in this research track new practices are being explored; therefore, we fall under an exploratory
research design. All these reasons contributed to the decision on using semi-structured interviews as in
semi-structured interviews the questions evolve from the variables of the research. Knowing that this
research is addressing a diverse setting/circumstances, therefore, before each cycle, the content,
questions, and data collection tools are being designed in a variant manner. For example, in some
situations, we get the opportunity to work with teachers only another time the teacher provides access to
the students and sometimes even to schools. So, the situations are variable along with the spoken
languages and the different cultures addressed. Therefore, the cycles are being designed beforehand to
cover the introduced variables to meet the diversity of the target groups in the cross-cultural aspects.
Therefore, the data collection tools may be subject to change in each cycle if one gets access to teachers
or teachers and students. Another factor is if the cycle is on one-to-one basis or one to many, all these
factors affect the data collection, but the research ensures the sustainability of the variables or principles
in use to ensure validity and reliability.

Therefore, the data collection triangulation methods will be collected from our primary research focus from
teachers and from the secondary focus from students through semi-structured interviews, questionnaires
with open-ended questions inside the GeoGebra classroom, the modeled architectural objects (shapes)
classifications, and finally student’s reflection in a one-page essay. Specifically, the modeled architecture
classification will follow the quantitative analysis, because we will take each model and see which tools
and approaches the students used, and in order to come up with relevant results, we will quantify this part.
To be more elaborative the analysis will check the following points, how many students used the extrude
tool, a prism or a pyramid extrude tool, how many students started modeling in 2D, 3D, or AR view/mode,
how many students used the algebraic approach by typing functions and equations instead of using 3D
commands from the toolbar to do the translation, reflection. etc. of polygons, how many students used
transformations and above all we have to make sense of the chosen architecture, its requirements and the
25
chosen approach to model it. So, with these mixed methods of qualitative and quantitative analysis, we
hope it would give us more clarity with the variables and the data. The analysis of the collected data will
recognize the patterns in mixed methods approaches as Qualitative/ Quantitative methods to formulate
the results of this research. With the help of software as for example in qualitative data analysis where we
define codes and design a codebook for all the introduced variables.

6.2. The Population Sampling

As we have mentioned earlier, we are seeking opportunities from teachers from any place regardless of
the culture nor the country. Instead, we are eager to capture this diversity and reflect on their diverse
choices as mentioned earlier. We are implementing the workshops on a wide number of teachers in
various places in order to get better connections with teachers, and then seeking opportunities with those
who show great interest for example by completing the classroom modules. And having sufficient
GeoGebra knowledge to act as a facilitator to their students during the intervention. The tutors will be
participating voluntarily and may connect us to their students for further data collection opportunities. The
volunteered teachers may connect us to others and the snowball and opportunity sampling may take
place.

6.3. The Research Validity

The type of validity that may apply to us most is the one proposed by Morgan (1999) the cultural validity,
which affects all stages of the research from the planning part to the implementation and finally the
analysis part because it has to fit the culture of the participants.
It deals with the comparative studies nature that includes cross-cultural, intercultural with the aim of
shaping the research to apply to the culture of the researched participants especially when the researcher
belongs to different cultures than the participants involved. “Cultural validity entails an appreciation of the
cultural values of those being researched. This could include understanding possibly different target
culture attitudes to research; identifying and understanding salient terms as used in the target culture;
reviewing appropriate target language literature; choosing research instruments that are acceptable to the
target participants; checking interpretations and translations of data with native speakers and being aware
of one’s own cultural filters as a researcher.” (Morgan 2005) Therefore, in this research proposal, we try to
take care of the culture validity through the research process and when applying the data analysis and
definition of the variables. Moreover, the participants' perspectives emerging from the diverse cultures
have to be transparently transmitted to the results through data triangulation. By clarifying and stating the
researcher’s observations and personal interpretations we try to overcome any bias from the researcher’s
side.

6.4. The Research Reliability

The consistency of the main variables being questioned, and the main codes assigned to each variable or
principle during the data analysis will be consistent and will be revised. We will try to include other
researchers to cross-check the analysis part.

7. Publications
The Research scope dissertation will be written to define the main research focus while covering
extensively the content presented in this research proposal further. Along with the results captured from
the interventions. We are looking forward to publishing papers about our intermediate results and cycles
during our research journey.

8.1. Author’s Publications

● Paper A: Open Education Journal, Title: “STEAM practices to explore Ancient Architectures using
Augmented Reality and 3D printing with GeoGebra”

● Paper B: MEDA Proceedings, Title: “A Conceptual Approach on Mingling Augmented Reality, 3D

Printing and Ancient Architectural Modelling using GeoGebra” (ElBedewy, S. & Lavicza, Z.
(2020))

26
 8. Findings and Future Work
This proposal is only stating the conceptual ideas and research steps. We are eager to implement these
concepts and ideas proposed with diverse cultures from different countries. In the current research state,
we have been defining the notions, the research questions, and connecting to theories. We have been
experimenting with a couple of interventions on various levels. We conducted semi-structured interviews
with mathematics teachers from a couple of countries such as Egypt, Austria, Indonesia, Libya, and
Singapore. These interviews aimed to sharpen our thoughts and clarify our directions by asking questions
that cover the variables that we are questioning during this research.

In the time of writing, we carried out some semi-structured interviews and workshops with teachers from
various countries that gave us some initial results. We were reflecting on the cultural aspects during the
interventions, where we tried to adapt the content to meet the addressed culture. For example, the
practiced GeoGebra book and classroom during each intervention were updated and redesigned to
address the participants properly. The language provided in the GeoGebra book and classroom was
updated along with modeling examples which were provided from each country’s own architecture. These
changes in the intervention structure were part of the research design process to meet the cultural needs
that we are eager to reflect on further. These interventions helped us a lot during our research as they
made us stand on a solid floor for further explorations and crystalize our thoughts. The findings of these
interventions will still undergo the proper analysis but in the meanwhile, one can reflect on their personal
observations that may also contribute to paving the way for future work.

So, in order to shed the light on some of the observations about the dynamic lesson plan during the
interventions. It was provided to teachers during the semi-structured interviews where we had the luxury of
time and on a one-to-one conversational basis, we allowed the teachers to go on an exploratory phase
with the dynamic lesson plan and try to figure it out intuitively. We were trying to figure out how well they
interact with it, is it understandable in the first place, and until where did they manage to walk through it on
their own, after that we provided instructions to its components. From our observations about the lesson
planning responses, some teachers like the idea and thought it saves time than the normal GeoGebra
book, some mentioned that it gave them many options and they were happy to explore technologies in an
easy way. Some stressed the fact that they do not have time to explore these technologies although they
are so much interested, and they would need assistance with that, and the lesson plan somehow may
have filled this gap. Some teachers recommended some enhancements in the lesson plan which we are
taking into consideration and will apply in the next cycles. For example, some mentioned that they need
another button to rotate the cube on the opposite side. Others wanted more bright colors and
enhancements in the fonts used. We are aware of the fact that the recommendations of the teachers
would vary due to their personal backgrounds, technology engagements, and GeoGebra know-how and
we also would like to highlight this in our formal findings. For the GeoGebra modeling part, some teachers
struggled in modeling architectures because they believe GeoGebra did not provide them all the modeling
tools as Boolean operations. On the other hand, other teachers were so happy with the GeoGebra
platform as a modeling tool and took it right away to the classroom. So, all these differences and
similarities that one can observe needs proper addressing and extensive analysis. On the contrary, the
interventional workshops data outputs took another form because the presentation of the research
modules took a different path due to time constraints and the number of participants. And therefore, the
data was collected through questionnaires inside the GeoGebra classroom, and the lesson planning was
explained to them in an instructional way rather than an exploratory fashion. All this diversity in the
research design that leads to diversity in the data collection methods may help us triangulate the data
better and may develop the reliability and validity of the research.

9. Concluding Thoughts
Now, the proposal gave a general overview of the research scope in this context. Most of the main
modules and technologies that may help us in achieving the required research goals have been
highlighted. And as was described in the earlier sections of the proposal, the research goal is to provide
an opportunity for teachers to connect culture, history to mathematics learning by modeling architecture.
While providing teachers with a dynamic lesson planning tool to help them choose the lesson preferences
and the technologies to achieve the research goal. The technologies integrated into this research scope
complement each other by allowing participants to visualize the modeled architectures in a digital and in a
physical form. This 3D transformation feature is essential for application within the research scope. The
choices presented in the dynamic lesson plan are broad and not very specific that may provide the
teachers freedom of choice not specific to any country, place, culture, history, environment, or
27
technology. Although this research may show potential in the mathematics education field, some
limitations may arise.

As the COVID-19 situation invaded earth and since we are part of this planet so this may limit our
opportunities especially in the fieldwork that was planned as part of the research. Participating physically
during the interventions with the teachers, because in a DBR we need to be interventionist. Therefore, we
are trying to overcome this barrier by implementing semi-structured interviews in each phase of each
cycle. Looking at the full half of the cup when it comes to the pandemic, it opened to us the international
track possibility as most of the teaching worldwide is taking place in a virtual form. This privilege may lead
us to more teachers who are eager to adopt these proposed research practices regardless of the time nor
the place. Another limitation is the technology implementations, as some of the proposed technologies
require some special hardware like 3D Printers and Scanners. Therefore, we hope to meet teachers who
have accessibility to such hardware in order to try to adapt these technologies towards this research idea.

This proposal is presenting a couple of notions referred to as the trio which is integrating architecture,
culture, and history to mathematics. This is to be achieved by modeling architectural models while
connecting to the building’s stories. To provide teachers and students STEAM practices of another flavor.
Speaking of flavors, a dynamic lesson plan approach was implemented which we refer to as a “Cookbook”
which allows teachers to use an application to construct a lesson plan in real-time adding different
ingredients to the lesson. The idea behind the tool is that it is responsive and walks the teachers through
steps while leaving them the freedom of choice to choose the targeted group age, the architectural
models, the environment they want to practice the intervention in, and finally the technology or tool to
visualize and implement these architectural models. All these categories would instruct the teachers
further using a GeoGebra book to show them what to do in each of the criteria they chose in each stage of
the lesson design. The purpose of the study is to result in architectural models that were modeled based
on mathematical understandings and visualized in 3D transformations in hybrid forms. In the next papers,
we will be presenting the actual data from the participants hoping for fruitful future work.

10. References
Aurasma. 2017. Retrieved from: www.aurasma.com. Date ac- cessed: 01/02/2017.

Ancochea, B. (2020). EXPLORING REAL WORLD ENVIRONMENTS USING POTENTIAL. 2020(June), 41–46.

Asino, T. I., Giacumo, L. A., & Chen, V. (2017). of learning environments Culture as a design “next”: Theoretical
frameworks to guide new design, development, and research of learning environments. The Design Journal,
6925, S875–S885. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1353033

Bahn, J. (2018). Theorizing lesson study: two related frameworks and two Danish. April.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75696-7

Budinski, N., & Lavicza, Z. (2019). Teaching Advanced Mathematical Concepts with Origami and GeoGebra
Augmented Reality. 387–390.

Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex
interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.

Cobb, P., Confrey, J., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design Experiments in Educational Research. 32(1),
9–13.

Collins, A. M. (1992). Towards a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O’Shea (Eds.), New directions
in educational technology (pp. 15–22). Berlin: Springer.

Chevallard, Y. (1999) L’analyse des pratiques enseignantes en théorie anthropologique du didactique.

Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques 19(2), 221-266.

Cho, D.-W., Lee, J.-S., Jang, J., Jung, J. W., Park, J. H., Pati, F., Korger, M., Bergschneider, J., Lutz, M., Lu,
M., Su, J., Wang, W., Piparo, D., Smith, H. I., Walsh, M. I., Zhang, F., Ukita, Y., Takamura, Y., Utsumi, Y., …
Huleihil, M. (n.d.). 3D printing technology as innovative tool for math and geometry teaching applications
Possible Applications of 3D Printing Technology on Textile Substrates Visualization of Kepler’s laws of planetary
motion Automated quality monitoring and validation of the CMS reconstruction software Direct digital
manufacturing of autonomous centrifugal microfluidic device Origami-inspired building block and parametric

28
design for mechanical metamaterials 2D segmented large inkjet printhead for high speed 3D pr.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/164/1/012023

Demir, S. (2011). Two Inseparable Facets of Technology Integration Programs: Technology and Theoretical.
7(2), 75–88.

ElBedewy, S. & Lavicza, Z. (2020). A Conceptual Approach on Mingling Augmented Reality, 3D Printing and
Ancient Architectural Modelling using GeoGebra.In Donevska-todorova, A., Faggiano, E., Trgalova, J.,
Lavicza, Z., Weinhandl, R., Clark-wilson, A., Weigand, H., Proceedings of the 10th ERME Topic Conference (
ETC 10 ) on Mathematics Education in the Digital Age ( MEDA ),(pp.16-18) September 2020, Johannes Kepler
University, Linz, Austria (Paper B)

Eugene, W., Hatley, L., McMullen, K., Brown, Q., Rankin, Y., & Lewis, S. (2009, July). This is who I am and this
is what I do: demystifying the process of designing culturally authentic technology. In International Conference
on Internationalization, Design and Global Development (pp. 19-28). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Freudenthal, H. (1991). Revisiting mathematics education. China lectures. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Gunawardena, C. N., Wilson, P. L., & Nolla, A. C. (2003). Culture and online education. Handbook of distance
education, 753-775.

Harris, J. B., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2007). Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge:
Curriculum-based Technology Integration Reframed. Paper presented at the AERA.

Haciomeroglu, E. S., Schoen, R. C., & Hohenwarter, M. (2009). Learning to Develop Mathematics Lessons with
GeoGebra prospective mathematics teachers for incorporating technology in mathematics has. 9(2), 24–26.

Hwang, G. J., Wu, P. H., Chen, C. C., & Tu, N. T. (2016). Effects of an augmented reality-based educational
game on students’ learning achievements and attitudes in real-world observations. Interactive Learning
Environments, 24(8), 1895–1906. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2015.1057747

Kaufmann, Hannes. (2003). Collaborative Augmented Reality in Education.

Kim, J., & Kim, J. (2018). Augmented Reality Tools for Integrative Science and Arts STEAM Education.
International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, 118(24).

Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., Kereluik, K., Shin, T. S., & Graham, C. R. (2014). The Technological Pedagogical
Content Knowledge Framework. 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5

Kolloffel, B., Eysink, T. H. S., & Jong, T. De. (2011). Comparing the effects of representational tools in
collaborative and individual inquiry learning. 223–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-011-9110-3

Lieban, D., Ulbrich, E., Barreto, M., Lavicza, Z., Lieban, D., Ulbrich, E., Barreto, M., & Lavicza, Z. (2019). A new
era of manipulatives: making your own resources with 3D printing and other technologies To cite this version:
HAL Id: hal-02417070. 3–5.

Martínez-sevilla, Á., Ureña, C., & Recio, T. (2018). Augmented Reality, Maths Walks and GeoGebra.

McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2018). Conducting Educational Design Research. In Conducting Educational
Design Research. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315105642

Miyakawa, T., & Winsløw, C. (2013). Developing mathematics teacher knowledge: the paradidactic
infrastructure of “open lesson” in Japan. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education 16, 185-209.

Morgan, C. (1999) Personal communication. University of Bath, Department of Education.

Morgan, C. (2005) Cultural validity. Personal communication. University of Bath, Department of Education.

Olsson, J. (2019). Relations Between Task Design and Students’ Utilization of GeoGebra. Digital Experiences in
Mathematics Education, 5(3), 223–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-019-00051-6

Olsson, J., & Granberg, C. (2019). Dynamic Software, Task Solving With or Without Guidelines, and Learning
Outcomes. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 24(3), 419–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9352-5

29
Pantelidis, V. S. (n.d.). Reasons to Use Virtual Reality in Education and Training Courses and a Model to
Determine When to Use Virtual Reality. 59–70.

Park, H.-G. (2014). A Workshop on Making Klein Bottle using 4D Frame. Proceedings of Bridges 2014:
Mathematics, Music, Art, Architecture, Culture, 509–514.

Peet, T. E. (2017). Mathematics in ancient Egypt. Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 15(2), 409–441.
https://doi.org/10.7227/bjrl.15.2.6

Portalés, C., Lerma, J. L., & Pérez, C. (2009). Photogrammetry and augmented reality for cultural heritage
applications. Photogrammetric Record, 24(128), 316–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9730.2009.00549.x

Pottmann, H. (2008). Geometry of architectural freeform structures. Proceedings of the 2008 ACM Symposium
on Solid and Physical Modeling 2008, SPM’08, 209(209), 9. https://doi.org/10.1145/1364901.1364903

Radford, L. (2018). CONCEPTUAL DIFFERENCES. January.

Rogers, P. C., Graham, C. R., & Mayes, C. T. (2007). Cultural competence and instructional design: Exploration
research into the delivery of online instruction cross-culturally. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 55(2), 197-217

Rossi, C. (2004). Architecture and mathematics in ancient Egypt. In Architecture and Mathematics in Ancient
Egypt. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511550720

Salehi, M. (2012). Reflections on culture, language and translation. Journal of Academic and Applied Studies,
2(5), 82.

Strickroth, S. (2019). education sciences PLATON : Developing a Graphical Lesson Planning System for
Prospective Teachers. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9040254

Takahashi, A. (2011). Response to part 1: Jumping into lesson study - In-service mathematics teacher
education. In L. C. Hart, A. S. Alston, & A. Murata (Eds.), Lesson study research an practice in mathematics
education. Springer

Trentu University (n.d.). Theoretical Frameworks. Retrieved from http://www.trentu.ca/history/workbook/

theoreticalframeworks.php

Trappmair, A., & Hohenwarter, M. (2019). DRIVING AUGMENTED REALITY: GEOGEBRA’ S NEW AR
FEATURES IN TEACHING MATHEMATICS. February 1–9.

Trust, T., & Woodruff, N. (2021). Educators’ Interests, Prior Knowledge and Questions Regarding Augmented
Reality , Virtual Reality and 3D Printing and Modeling.

Wagner, J. (1997). The unavoidable intervention of educational research: A framework for reconsidering
researcher–practitioner cooperation. Educational Researcher, 26(7), 13–22.

Wang, C., Hu, Y., Zhang, X., Wang, J., Cui, G., & Cui, G. (2020). Stability of the mitigating effect of students’
perceived teacher enthusiasm on class-related boredom: Moderating role of boredom proneness and perceived
task difficulty. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(8).
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17082645

Stein, H., Gurevich, I., & Gorev, D. (2020). Integration of technology by novice mathematics teachers – what
facilitates such integration and what makes it difficult? Education and Information Technologies, 25(1), 141–161.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09950-y

30