here an outline of the artifact (object) is drawn with coding letters and are proposed to recognize the fixed points, the trajectories of the going points (e.g. G along with F), the extent of the bars, and so on and so forth. After this investigation, they are inquired to conjecture the title (if any) of the trajectory of the point E (junction of GH as well as FI) finding it with a graphite lead on the timber platform. The drawing is shortly identified as an arch of an ellipse after which the conjecture is successfully formed. Then the method of verification building is to be initiated.
The second choice is that the learners have to observe and move around. Their method appears time trashing and not productive and has to be supervised by a strolling educator who proceeds from one group of students to the other one, giving each group equal time, displaying how to discover the artifact, with altering races and, perhaps, no word. The primary weak direct appears to need a more powerful teachers control. The learners manage to not require (and preferably do not desire) to assess bars by a ruler. As shortly as they observe some invariants, they make use of their hands: they imagine to choose up the line section EG involving forefinger along with the thumb and to revolve it until it equals EI. They replicate the activity on the two FE and FH. Silent signs appear to be sufficient to assure them. Maybe phrases and deductive chains are absent. Writing as well as justifying (for example by symmetry) the equality:
In both situations of the experimental research methods of teaching math, if the drawing is made too early, the mind is concentrated on the last outcome of drawing instead of on the dynamical method of