You are here:

Emergent Public Spaces: Generative Activities on Function Interpolation
ARTICLE

, The University of Texas at Austin, United States ; , Instituto Tecnologico de Monterrey, Mexico ; , , The University of Texas at Austin, United States

CITE Journal Volume 11, Number 4, ISSN 1528-5804 Publisher: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, Waynesville, NC USA

Abstract

This study highlights ways in which generative activities may be coupled with network-based technologies in the context of teacher preparation to enhance preservice teachers’ cognizance of how their own experience as students provides a blueprint for the learning environments they may need to generate in their future classrooms. In this study, the design of generative learning environments is used as a framework for developing an activity for students to explore modeling by interpolation and function approximation in the classroom. The research question explored whether the implementation of a generative activity on function interpolation can lead to a qualitatively different mathematical space of solutions when used in a calculus class when compared to its use in the context of a class on learning theories in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. Participating students included preservice STEM teachers and students in a first-year calculus course. In order to determine possible qualitative differences in mathematical activity between the two classroom contexts (calculus class or learning theories in STEM education class), the authors focused on the evidence of student individual and collective thinking from three different groups, as documented in their corresponding generated public spaces and explored and characterized each group by its respective generated mathematical spaces of solutions.

Citation

Carmona, G., Dominguez, A., Krause, G. & Duran, P. (2011). Emergent Public Spaces: Generative Activities on Function Interpolation. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 11(4), 362-381. Waynesville, NC USA: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education. Retrieved March 21, 2019 from .

Keywords

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Ares, N., Stroup, W.M., & Schademan, A.R. (2009). The power of mediating artifacts in group-level development of mathematical discourses. Cognition& Instruction, 27(1), 124.
  2. Asiala, M., Cottrill, J., Dubinsky, E., & Schwingendorf, K.E. (1997). The development of students’ graphical understanding of the derivative. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 16, 399-431.
  3. Aspinwall, L., Shaw, K.L., & Presmeg N.C. (1997). Uncontrollable mental imagery: Graphical connections between a function and its derivative. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 33, 301-317.
  4. Brown, T. (2002). Mathematics education and language: Interpreting hermeneutics and post-structuralism. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
  5. Cantoral, R., & Montiel, G. (2003). Una presentación visual al polinomio de interpolación de Lagrange. Números, 55, 3-22.
  6. Carpenter, T.P., Fennema, E., Franke, M.L., Levi, L., & Empson, S.B. (1999). Children’s mathematics: Cognitively guided instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
  7. Clark-Wilson, A. (2010). Emergent pedagogies and the changing role of the teacher in the TI-Nspire Navigator-networked mathematics classroom. ZDM, 42(7), 747-761.
  8. Davis, R.B., & Vinner, S. (1986). The notion of limit: Some seemingly unavoidable misconception stages. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 5, 281-303.
  9. Eisenberg, T. (1991). Functions and associated learning difficulties. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 140-152). Dordrecht, Holland: Kluwer.
  10. Ferrini-Mundy, J., & Graham, K. (1994). Research in calculus learning understanding of limits, derivatives and integrals. Research Issues in Undergraduate Mathematics Learning, MMA Notes, 33, 31-45.
  11. Filer, A. (1993). Contexts of assessment in a primary classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 19, 95-107.
  12. Habre, S., & Abboud, M. (2006). Students’ conceptual understanding of a function and its derivative in an experimental calculus course. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 25, 5772.
  13. Janvier, C. (1987). Representation and understanding: The notion of function as an example. In C. Janvier Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics. (pp. 67-70). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  14. Juter, K. (2006). Limits of functions as they developed through time and as students learn them today. Mathematical Thinking& Learning, 8(4), 407-431.
  15. Kersaint, G. (2007). Toward technology integration in mathematics education: A technology integration course planning assignment. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 7(4), 256-278.
  16. Kieran, C. (1997). Mathematical concepts at the secondary school level: The learning of algebra and functions. In T. Nunes& P. Bryant (Eds.), Learning and teaching mathematics: An international perspective (pp. 133-158). East Sussex, UK: Psychology
  17. Millspaugh, R.P. (2006). From intuition to definition: Teaching continuity in first semester calculus. Primus: Problems, resources, and issues in mathematics undergraduate studies, 16(1), 53-60.
  18. Newmann, F.M. (1992). The assessment of discourse in social studies. In H. Berlak, F.M. Newmann, E. Adams, D.A. Archbald, T. Burgess, J. Raven, & T.A. Romberg (Eds.), Toward a new science of educational testing and assessment. (pp. 53-69). Albany, NY:
  19. Orton, A. (1983). Students' understanding of integration. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 14(1), 1-18.
  20. Rasmussen, C., & Stephan, M. (2008). A methodology for documenting collective activity. In A.E. Kelly, R.A. Lesh, & J.Y. Baek (Eds.), Handbook of design research methods in education: Innovations in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics learning and teaching. (pp. 195-215). New York, NY: Routledge.
  21. Rasslan, S., & Tall, D. (2002). Definitions and images for the definite integral concept. In Anne D. Cockburn & Elena Nardi (Eds), Proceedings of the 26th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 4, 89-96.
  22. Shamatha, J.H., Peressini, D., & Meymaris, K. (2004). Technology-supported mathematics activities situated within an effective learning environment theoretical Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 11(4) framework. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 3(4), 362-381.
  23. Skovsmose, O. (1998). Book review: Mathematics education and language: Interpreting hermeneutics and post-structuralism (by Tony Brown). ZDM, 98(5), 138-41.
  24. Stewart, J. (2003). Calculus (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson.
  25. Stroup, W.M., Ares, N.M., & Hurford, A.C. (2005). A dialectic analysis of generativity: Issues of network-supported design in mathematics and science. Mathematical Thinking& Learning, 7(3), 181.
  26. Stroup, W., Carmona, G., & Davis, S. (2005). Improving on expectations: Preliminary results from using network supported function based algebra. In G.M. Lloyd, M. Wilson.,
  27. Stroup, W.M., Ares, N.M., Hurford, A.C., & Lesh, R.A. (2007). Diversity-by-design: The why, what, and how of generativity in next-generation classroom networks. In R.A. Lesh, E. Hamilton, & J.J. Kaput (Eds.), Foundations for the future in mathematics education (P.367-393). Mahawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  28. Stroup, W., & Davis, S. (2004). Generative activities and function-based algebra. In H.L. Chick & J.L. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th annual meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol.1, P. 328). Melbourne,
  29. Thompson, P.W. (1994). Students, functions, and the undergraduate curriculum. In E. Dubinsky, A.H. Schoenfeld, & J. Kaput (Eds.), CBMS Issues in Mathematics Education: Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education I, 4, 21-44.
  30. Thompson, P.W., & Silverman, J. (2008). The concept of accumulation in calculus. In M. Carlson& C. Rasmussen (Eds.), Making the connection: Research and teaching in undergraduate mathematics (pp. 117-131). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of
  31. Wallace, R.M. (2004). A framework for understanding teaching with the Internet. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 447-488.
  32. Wagner, S. (1981). Conservation of equation and function under transformations of variable. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 12(2), 107-118.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.