Interoperable interactive geometry for Europe
I forgot my login data

Report a bug

Fan club

Quick Intro Videos
click to start movie
Create A Simple
GeoGebra Resource (25Mb)
click to start movie
Filing a review
click to start movie
Find a Resource

This platform is brought to you by the intergeo project, funded under the eContent Plus programme of the European commission and by partners

D1.10 Annual Public Report Y2

Introduction - Project Objectives Y2

Error: TODO: short and sound introduction concentrating on the major objectives of Y2


The second year of the Intergeo project introduces quality assessment for the content, and continues activating users, now backed by a substantial, accessible content base, the Intergeo platform (

  • Evolution of the i2g Platform (WP4)
    • Content status (D4.7)
    • Enhancements & Features (D4.6)
  • further development of the Common File Format (WP3)
    • intermediate results (D3.8) and enhancements (D3.6)
  • Improvements of the Quality assessment of resources (WP6)
    • improvements of the quality review system (questionnaire) (D6.2)
    • first round of reviews (D6.2)
  • Building a community (WP5)
    • LUM experience (D5.2)
    • 3rd-party content (D5.4)

Project Results & Achievements Y2

In the following sections we will highlight a few of the major achievements regarding both (1) technical improvements of the Intergeo platform (i2geo), the Common File Format, and the Quality Assessment Framework and (2) outcomes concerning the building of communities of practice task. A more detailed description of each section is given by various public reports available at the i2geo Platform:

Intergeo Platform

Achived Enhancements

Summary of Achievements

The merge of the initial project homepage and the Intergeo platform ( was successfully done early in 2009. Since then, is the common entry point for everybody interested in either the project itself or the content we provide. Also, the Quality Testing Framework was integrated to the platform (see D6.1 „QA standards“). This was a huge step forward on the technical side of the project. The platform starts to become more usable (see D4.6 „revised systems“), which is also caused by the fact that we received a lot of feedback on platform usability and overall suitability for the purpose at the local user meetings (see D5.2 „report on LUMs“) and at conferences. The platform has improved substantially during the second year and is now usable for the general public and ready to perform quality assessment tasks. The content as such was transformed from the Traces stage into the fully qualified and meta-data enhanced Resource stage. The content offered on the platform is increasing, the current number of resources is listed on the website with a visible counter on the front page showing progress every day (currently about 1800 metadata enriched resources).

After several major technical revisions during the second year (see D4.6), the Intergeo platform gets more and more usable and stable. In general, i2geo is a web based platform. It is a derivative of Curriki (, a platform which is based on the XWiki web framework ( It processes resources which are stored at XWiki documents within the space of the contributing user.

The consortium partners offer more than 3000 constructions, exercises, animations and learning objects. Altogether more than 3500 contents provided by the consortium partners (~3000) and external partners (~500) have been identified and collected as traces during the first year. In this early stage of the platform a trace simply represents an external link to a single content – as a single construction, exercise, animation, etc. – without metadata enhanced information. The migration of the existing traces (>3500) into i2geo metadata-tagged resources has been realised in the period March 2009 to May 2009. As a result of the conversion the platform now (Nov. 2009) collects more than 1800 metadata-tagged resources, some of which are links to quite many different individual interactive geometry constructions. Many of them are compound and not individual resources. A lot of them still are simple web links to pages with several individual resources.

Web accessibility of resources and their life

Among the most important aspects that make i2geo most applicable long-term on the web is that all resources are accessible through URLs. Every time a state is presented that is not expected to be private or intermediate, the browser is directed to a page who can be obtained by its address by any other browser. This is the case of resource views, search results, user profiles, group discussions, comments, and reviews. Moreover, a few news streams are available both in HTML and RSS forms so as to enter further processing in other web oriented platforms. Two streams are worth noting:

This has allowed to start, for example, a Facebook group incorporating the news of this stream. We intend to strengthen the integration in external worlds based on (enhancements) of these assets.

Support the workflow of translators

One of the very distinguishing features of the intergeo project is that it had voluntary translators from almost day one. This attraction continues and seems to be successful. Several design decisions are the reasons for this; the biggest one is rejection of the traditional claim of Human Computer Interaction that incomplete translations are useless translations, and the infrastructure allowing translators to see immediately the effect of their modifications for almost all of the i2geo user interface. The translators’ work is coordinated on a web based group,, where new interested parties can come anytime.

Enhance the support of users

Measures have been applied in order to ensure a timely and effient reaction to help requests. The first support measure is a simple link report a bug presented below the table of contents of the platform, so that it is always accessible. It leads to a webpage describing the options to submit a feedback and/or requesthelp. The second option is the user mailing list. Furthermore users can visit a chatroom and consult with other users.

A search tool that crosses the boundaries of curriculum (D4.6 - revised system)

Intergeo took seriously the candidate possibility of crossing the boundaries of educational regions, of languages, and of countries, being a European project aiming at all of the 27 countries of Europe. To achieve this, Intergeo has been constructing an ontology of topics, competencies, and levels called GeoSkills. Details can bee explred at the folling website:

This ontology forms the language of annotations for the trained topics and competencies and for the educational levels. Annotators that contribute interactive geometry resources to i2geo are invited to provide topics, competencies, and educational levels that are applicable to the resources. A fundamental addition in the platform (June 4th , 2009) has been the replacement of the fragile text search by the cross-curriculum search. The search text field lets users type a few words, and then suggests possible terms: topics, competencies, or educational levels whose names match approximately those words. The user can then press return or click the first row to search for the text she entered. But she can also choose one of the terms proposed, in which case a search is triggered for this concept or one of its inferred concepts. More details about the approach of this search tool are available in the explanation page .

Integration of the competency editor to edit the language of topics (D4.6 - revised system)

The language of topics, competencies, and levels, used for the annotations of interactive geometry resources is the very central element allowing a cross-cultural search to take place. The construction and enrichment of this language has from early on been seen as a challenge. This challenge was first faced by a small group of closely working persons which has led to a first stable structure which leads to the construction of a web based tool called CompEd. CompEd is created to serve two types of users: the curriculum-translators, who enrich the set of names of each of the nodes (typically in their own language) and the curriculum-encoders, who construct further topics and competencies and are responsible for the overall consistency of this language. The first experience we made of assembling the classification showed that the initiative of considering new topics can be taken by many other people than those responsible for the list of topics, and that a communication channel was necessary for the non-experts to suggest nodes for incorporation into GeoSkills.

make the language of topics activatable in curriculum-texts (D4.6 - revised system)

One of the best ways for a curriculum encoder to make sure that he has covered the whole of the curriculum standard he is aiming to encode is to use this standard as source of topics and competencies. We therefore requested curriculum encoders to also hyperlink the sentences in the curriculum standard. The objective of doing so is to use the curriculum standard as a reference that is visually shared between the curriculum encoder and the teachers of this educational region: both know what each line of each page means. Two curriculum encoders, thus far, managed to find curriculum standards which are in HTML forms. With a transformation, these curriculum texts are accessible from aside the search field: teachers that know these texts can then browse them, go to the page they know of and, there, choose the items of interest. The choose action triggers a search for the given topics or competencies. If the user is contributing a resource, then the choose action triggers an addition of the underlying topics in the annotations of that resource. We expect to generalize this approach, having already obtained agreement to publish the table of contents of classical college levels textbooks. These textbooks are also a basis for the curriculum and thus should also be usable as means of designation of the topics and competencies.

Common File Format

Summary of achievements

The Intergeo File Format aims at the interchange of content between DGS’s. It is our goal to create a file format that could serve as a standard in the DGS industry. As a first application, the format can be used to interchange content between geometric software. At present, the format is restricted to the geometry in the plane, although it does not seem difficult to extend it, in the future, to the space. Dynamic Geometry Systems (DGS) is a kind of software used to experiment with geometry. A construction, a drawing with geometric elements, is displayed to the user. But the most exciting part of a DGS is that it is possible to move some of the elements with the mouse pointer and the whole construction is recomputed while keeping predefined geometric relationships, which are the object of study. Although the origin of DGS is geometry, they can be applied to the study of other areas of mathematics or even subjects like, for example, physics. A wide variety of DGS exists. Before this project, each system used incompatible proprietary file formats to store its data. Thus, most of the DGS makers have joined to provide a common file format that will be adopted either in the core of the systems or just as a way to interchange content.

Beside the software partners of the Intergeo Consortium a bright range of global acting software developers and DGS experts are participating in adopting and developing the i2g Common File Format which underlines the fundamental necessity and acceptance of interoberability between dynamic geometry systems.

Enhancements (D3.6 – Common File Format v2) The Intergeo File Format is still in further development (see D3.6 „file format v2“). With the first version, we were able to define a structure that is capable of accommodating all the different needs of software developers and end-users, and which is also flexible enough to be extended for future needs. We started to create test files that everybody can use to check for i2g compliance. In addition, the server API was developed (see D3.5 „API Specification“). Finally, this led to the availability of previews of constructions on the web.

Quality assessment of resources (WP6)

Summary of achievements (Progress Reports M18 & M24)

In a first round, selected resources were tested in classrooms during the second year and the results of the evaluation were added to the content database. Also, a report on best practises for the use of DGS content in the classroom has been prepared by reflecting the given results (see D6.2). This document also provides guidelines for authors of interactive geometry contents and reviewers to improve their work for the next round of testing during the third year of the project.

Evolution of the quality review system (D6.2)

The first version of the questionnaire was used to elaborate a list of characteristics or features of a resource related to its mathematical, didactical and pedagogical quality. We wished this list to be as complete as possible addressing all aspects of the resource that we could think of. These characteristics were classified into 5 classes considered as relevant criteria for the resource quality:

  1. appropriation of the resource by the teacher,
  2. added value of dynamic geometry,
  3. learning potential of the resource
  4. technical quality of the resource, and
  5. quality of metadata associated to the resource.
For each of these criteria, we defined a set of indicators ensuring that a given criterion is met. Each indicator was formulated as a question that could be given an appreciation out of 5 degrees, ranking from “I totally agree” to “I do not agree at all”. Thus, we produced a first questionnaire, not intended to be implemented, that made possible first pilot experiments. Given the length of the questionnaire, it seemed necessary to start by proposing a lighter version focusing on a few large questions (one per class) addressing globally each aspect of the resource. At the same time, the user will have the possibility to deepen her/his answer by answering more precise questions related to aspects s/he will wish to analyse further, according to her/his expertise.

Results of the first experiment carried out in the framework of an in-service teacher training course, reported in the D4.3 (Libbrecht et al., 2008), showed that the teachers adopted the questionnaire as a useful tool for a resource analysis, drawing their attention to aspects they would have certainly missed without the help of detailed and accurate questions. Thus, the experiment validated the overall structure of the questionnaire and the relevance of the criteria and the indicators we had defined. However, it also showed a need to reformulate some questions that appeared as ambiguous and thus lead to possible dfferent interpretations.

While searching for better wording of some questions, we realised that some of the criteria previously defined were addressing dfferent aspects of a resource. For instance, the “appropriation of a resource by the teacher” relied at the same time on the mathematical content of the resource, on the content of the associated dynamic geometry files and on the suggested enactment of the resource with the learners, or the “learning potential of the resource” addressed the issues of the adequacy between pedagogical goals and possible learning through the activities proposed in the resource, the learner’s activity and the analysis of the software in terms of the feedback provided by the dynamic geometry. It would thus have been difficult to clearly identify aspects of the resource to improve since a given criterion mixed up several dfferent aspects. We thus proceeded to another classification of indicators in order to better specify various aspects of a resource to analyse and to evaluate. As a result, we proposed eight classes of indicators corresponding to the following aspects of a resource :

  1. metadata,
  2. technical aspect,
  3. mathematical dimension of the content,
  4. instrumental dimension of the content,
  5. potentialities of DG,
  6. didactical implementation,
  7. pedagogical implementation,
  8. integration of the resource into a teaching sequence.
We first had to reword the questionnaire in order to transform questions into assertions, with which to agree or disagree, in a way that agreeing is a positive evaluation of the ressource. We reworded the questions as “tips” or “help balloons” to help the user better understand the assertion (we still call it “a question”).

In the present state the questionnaire can be used for a quick review, i.e. the user can give a general appreciation of a given criterion at a global level, or proceed to a detailed review of aspects s/he wishes to analyse further, according to her/his expertise, by answering more precise questions associated to the indicators defining the quality of the resource according to the given criterion. These aspects are described in pedagogical expert “lingo” and then reformulated as a sentence addressed to ordinary teachers in their own words.

Every registered i2geo user is able to review every resource by filling out the Review Class Sheet. This sheet consists of nine question items dealing with different criteria. Every question item is divided into subitems in order to give a more precise review. The value of every item is between one (I do not agree at all) and four (I fully agree). If a user fills out the subitems, the review value of the associated question item is computed as the average of the subitems. Analogously, the resource review value of one user is computed as the average of the question item values.

Experiments showed that the teachers and teachers educators share our view of a “quality resource”, the choices of quality criteria and indicators seemed thus validated. Moreover, the questionnaire turned out to function as a tool helping teachers analyse a resource and identify its strengths and weaknesses. However, a few ambiguities still remained that led us to search for simpler formulations of the items. The current version of the questionnaire is the result of an ongoing collaboration with experts and school mathematics teachers.

Building a Community (WP5 & WP7)

Summary of achievements (Progress Report M18 & M24)

During the second year Intergeo has performed various dissemination activities to publicize the platform and gather new users, ready for a round of full evaluations along this autumn and early winter, with proven success, as shown in detail by the statistics in the "Report on Best Practises for the Use of DGS Content" (see D6.2)

As already introduced in the first year we also continued to perform Local User Meetings around Europe. A full list of LUMs is available at the i2geo platform, see: Some of these meetings have provided an opportunity to present dissemination papers on Intergeo or they have been the starting point for a publication at some Journal (generally related to a teachers association). A monographic volume (circa 200 pages long) at the journal of AGAPEMA (Galician Math Teachers Society) devoted to Dynamic Geometry has been written by a collection of authors under the generic name of “Colectivo Intergeo”, since most of them have been involved in the project. This is, indeed, a good example of the gathering of communities of practice. The issue is now submitted to the ANAYA editorial, one of the largest in Spain concerning textbooks, that happens to edit the AGAPEMA journal.

With regard to dissemination activities we started to use modern, “Web 2.0”, tools to activate a larger worldwide community. Intergeo is represented on Facebook and Twitter. At the same time the project members continue to publicize Intergeo at mathematics education conferences, see:

Extract of participated conferences (extract):

Intergeo still has a very strong basis of supporters throughout Europe. These mainly consist of key actors in the educational mathematics community. We consider this the appropriate user basis for the current phase of the project.

List of APs (extract):

The result of the joint efforts from the teams involved in the field of dissemination tasks has been the organization of about 30 actions calling for participation in the Intergeo tasks to different kinds of dynamic geometry users and groups of practice. 18 of these can be properly catalogued as LUMs (such as those in Castellon (Spain), Chiechocinek (Poland), Paderno del Grappa (Italy), Vilnius (Lithuania), Horska Kvilda (Czech Republic), La Rochelle (France) and Luxembourg). These gathering events have covered 11 european countries (Czech Republic, France, Italy, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, and Spain; in some of these countries, several LUMs have been organized during the 18 past months). An estimated number of 1000 teachers have been reached, with circa 600 of them if we restrict to the meetings that followed the more tradional format.

A questionnaire on the outcome of the standard LUMs has been presented at the deliverable D5.2, answered by each Intergeo responsible person in charge of the corresponding LUMs, providing a sound basis for the analysis of the different issues involved in this activity. Global conclusions can be summarized by stating that we have achieved more than the initial commitments (number and geographical distribution of LUMs) concerning this Intergeo task; but, also, that a better coordination among the different Intergo tasks is desirable in order to optimize the output of the communities of practice around Dynamic Geometry.

3rd party contents & gathering contributors

At the "Report on Additional 3rd Party Content" (see D5.4) a list of external users and contributors is presented, showing that we have attracted the interest of circa 300 3rd-party users, with over 20 of them contributing with about 200 new resources. Most of these external resources are written in French. The rest of resources are in German, Italian, Spanish and English. We also observed that, in most 3rd-party contributions, the type of used software comes not from a DGS which is involved in the consortium. In fact, most of them use Geometrix software, which does not belong to the consortium but its representative Jacques Gressier figures as an associate partner to the project. The used software also reflects the variety of DGS software which is used in France.

On the other hand, the profile of the users who have not contributed show a variety of countries (including, in an ordered list considering the countries with more external registered users: Spain, France, Portugal, Germany, Brazil, Argentina, Italy, USA, Belgium, Greece, Turkey, Egypt, Mexico, Peru, Russia, Uruguay, Australia, Colombia, Croatia, India, Morocco, Romania, Switzerland, Tunisia, Vietnam).

Finally, it should be remarked that the trend for external users and contributors show a rapid increase in the last months, once the i2geo platform has been updated to include more and more user-friendly features.

Impact & Sustainability

Impact on Content Availability and Visibility

With the advent of Intergeo there is now a one-stop portal for interactive geometry content that bundles a lot of content that was scattered on the net before. By offering a vendor-neutral database joining commercial, semi-commercial and free software it is now possible to select content on a educational basis, instead of a technical one. By offering this service to the community, we are able to collect material from all over Europe (and also from outside of Europe). Serving as an information hub, the platform has the potential to become the most important resource broker for interactive geometry.

Impact on the Academic Community

The academic community did acknowledge both the need for a project such as Intergeo as well as the inherent difficulties it will have to solve. We received strong support so far, and our project presentations at various conferences were favourably accepted. A complete list of participated conferences and submitted papers is available at the following website:

  • CERME 6 - Sixth Conference of European Research in Mathematics Education (28.01.2009 to 01.02.2009) Presentation of first technological and educational results and future challenges of the Intergeo Project
  • ICTMT-9 - The Ninth International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching (06.07.2009 to 09.07.2009) Using the Intergeo Platform for Teaching and Research
  • MKM 2009 - 8th International Conference on Mathematical Knowledge Management (10.07.2009 to 12.07.2009) The Intergeo File Format in Progress – Presentation at 22nd OpenMath Workshop
  • CADGME - Computer Algebra and Dynamic Geometry Systems in Mathematics Education (11.07.2009 to 13.07.2009) Presentation and discussion on Intergeo issues
  • EC-TEL 2009 - Fourth European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (29.09.2009 to 02.10.2009) I2Geo: Sharing Across Curriculum Regions – demo presentation
A presentation of Intergeo at the "Paradigms in Mathematica Education for the XXIst century: Sharing educational experiences with Asia" meeting (Valencia, Spain, November 22-24, 2009) can serve as an indicator for a cross-boarder acceptance from both pan-European and worldwide academic communities. Furthermore, it was not just a presentation to the academic community, but a presentation of Intergeo to the highest officers from the International Mathematical Union (IMU) and the International Commission on Mathematical Instruction (ICMI), as well as to higher educational representatives of many different Asian countries, who heard about Intergeo for the first time (see:

Impact on the Software Situation

One important aspect of interoperability is that we enable users to use any software of their choice. While the basic idea is very good and well accepted, we have to take care that this does not lead to a drain of sales for the commercial partners. The main focus of the academic partners and software developers is to do research and to develop new ideas for math teaching, which might also include creating innovative software. But it is not a task of Universities to deliver ready-to-use software for the masses with proper customer support (even if some of the packages developed in Universities are quite professional, and the enthusiastic support of volunteers can match or exceed commercial support) with massive engineering tasks or other substantial efforts which have a price that are incompatible with University organisation. A usual strategy, as exercised with Cabrilog, for example, is to create spin-off companies. The commercial approach also guarantees that a software (and the whole community built on it) is no longer dependent on individuals who feel responsible for it but on a tradition carried by a symbolic entity. The Intergeo Consortium deems it important that we continue to break down technological barriers that hinder the exchange of content, and will continue to do so. An innovation-stimulating competition between partners can benefit from this kind of exchange, promoting the individual capabilities and strengths of each package.

Next steps

In the third year we will improve the visibility of the project for end-users, i.e. teachers. This will be one of the major tasks as the platform is now out of the beta status and ready for use in the classroom. We will focus on gathering more potential users and contributors of resources by concetrating on various dissemination initiatives:

  • Writing articles on Intergeo issue. For example in the journals of national association of mathematics teachers of European countries.
  • Visiting both national and local math conferences on the use of new technologies in teaching mathematics, physics etc. in every country.
  • Inform math students at pedagogical faculties and other schools preparing students to teach mathematics about Intergeo.
  • Inform the teachers of in-service training about Intergeo.
  • Offer the sources of a high quality and demonstrate them.
  • Translate attractive sources into various languages.
  • Organize special events for teachers on how to work with Intergeo
  • Inform the public about Intergeo at international level (conferencies (Hagenberg, etc.), journals).
  • prepare work sheets for teaching mathematics for various important topics (Theorem of Pythagoras, Euklid theorem, Theorem of Thales, . .. ).
  • Show how Intergeo contributes to obtain better professional knowledge. Pedagogical contributions.
  • Concentrate on content and the quality of the sources.
  • Cooperation with other European pro jects (running or in preparation) of similar topics (Inno- MathEd - Innovations in Mathematics Education on European Level , LEGIs - Local European GeoGebra Institutes, EMATEC - European Certificate for Technology in Mathematics Education, … ).
The i2g-file format will be implemented completely in all software products that participate in Intergeo. Based on that, we will issue i2g-compliance badges that software can use to show its level of support for Intergeo constructions.

As we aim for the adoption of the file format by all major software developers in the field of dynamic geometry (both commercial and open-source projects) we will focus on standardization issues. While we publish the specification of this OpenMath-based standard on the web, we are also trying to find a more formal way to publish this standard by i.e. submitting it to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO).

Since we now have a significant amount of content available, we will also pormote the use and the evaluation of the content through the Country Representatives. Most of them are working in positions at the Ministries of Education, and Intergeo will serve as another reason for introducing computers into the Curriculum.

Finally, the Intergeo Conference 2010 will take place in Ceske Budejovice immediately following the CADGME 2010 conference.The partnership of the conferences will help to attract a larger audience to both. The conference proceedings will be published in a special volume of the ZDM, the International Journal on Mathematics Education. Using this more traditional medium we hope to ensure the sustainability of the project by anchoring it in the mathematics education community.