#
Online Applets in Mathematics Teaching: The Case of Linear Functions
PROCEEDINGS

## Mustafa Demir, University of Detroit Mercy, United States

AACE Award

E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, in Las Vegas, NV, USA ISBN 978-1-939797-05-6 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), San Diego, CA

## Abstract

Online Math Applets (OMAs) are web-based, dynamic, and visual representations of mathematics concepts and offer interactive learning environments where students can work with multiple-linked representations of mathematical concepts. Although there is a growing empirical research about the effective integration of math applets into mathematics instruction (Moyer-Packenham & Suh, 2012), few studies focused on the use of OMAs with different instructional methods. Therefore, this study examined the effects of using OMAs with two different instructional approaches on students’ knowledge of linear functions, an important concept that can be used to enhance students’ comprehension of functions at earlier grades. The study also revealed the impact of instructional activities on students’ use of technology.

## Citation

Demir, M. (2013). Online Applets in Mathematics Teaching: The Case of Linear Functions. In T. Bastiaens & G. Marks (Eds.), Proceedings of E-Learn 2013--World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 352-358). Las Vegas, NV, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved November 26, 2020 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/114852/.

© 2013 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

### Keywords

## References

View References & Citations Map- Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183-198.
- Clark, R.E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445459.
- Goldin, G., & Shteingold, N. (2001). Systems of representation and the development of mathematical concepts. In A.A. Cuoco & F.R. Curcio (Eds.), The Roles of Representation in School Mathematics: 2001 Yearbook. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
- Hutchins, E.L., Hollan, J.D., & Norman, D.A. (1986). Direct manipulation interfaces. In D.A. Norman& S.W. Draper (Eds), User centered system design: New perspectives in human–computer interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Kaput, J.J. (1992). Technology and mathematics education. In D.A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 515-556). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
- Kaput, J.J. (1998). Representations, inscriptions, descriptions and learning: A kaleidoscope of windows. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17(2), 265–281.
- Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., & Stein, M.K. (1990). Functions, graphs and graphing: Tasks, learning and teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60(1), 1-64.
- Lesh, R., Post, T., & Behr, M. (1987). Representations and translations among representations in mathematics learning and problem solving. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 33-40). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Moschkovich, J.N. (1996). Moving up and getting steeper: Negotiating shared descriptions of linear graphs. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5(3), 239-277.
- Moyer-Packenham, P.S., & Suh, J.M. (2012). Learning mathematics with technology: The influence of virtual manipulatives on different achievement groups. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 31(1), 39-59.
- Parnafes, O., & Disessa, A. (2004). Relations between types of reasoning and computational representations. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9(3), 251-280.
- Ross, D. (2001). The math wars [Electronic version]. Navigator, 4(5). Traditional instruction places more emphasis on memorization.
- Scaife, M., & Rogers, Y. (1996). External cognition: How do graphical representations work? International Journal of Humane-Computer Studies, 45(2), 185-213.
- Schoenfeld, A.H. (2002). Making mathematics work for all children: Issues of standards, testing, and equity. Educational Researcher 31, no. 1: 13-25.
- Sinclair, M. (2006). Designing tasks with interactive geometry applets for use in research– Some methodological issues. The International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 13(1), 31-36.
- Steen, K., Brooks, D., & Lyon, T. (2006). The impact of virtual manipulatives on first grade geometry instruction and learning. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 25(4), 373-391.
- Stein, M.K., Smith, M.S., Henningsen, M.A., & Silver, E.A. (2000). Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
- Stigler, J.W., & Hiebert, J. (1997). Understanding and improving classroom mathematics instruction: An overview of the TIMSS video study. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(1), 14-21.
- Tanışlı, D. (2011). Functional thinking ways in relation to linear function tables of elementary school students. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 30(3), 206-223.
- White, T., & Pea, R. (2011). Distributed by design: On the promises and pitfalls of collaborative learning with multiple representations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3), 489-547.
- You, Z., & Quinn, R.J. (2010). Prospective elementary and middle school teachers’ knowledge of linear functions: A quantitative approach. Journal of Mathematics Education, 3(1), 66-76.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References### Slides

- presentation_3058_40421.ppt (Access with Subscription)