You are here:

Research On Graphing Calculators at the Secondary Level: Implications for Mathematics Teacher Education
Article

, Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis, United States ; , Brigham Young University, United States

CITE Journal Volume 5, Number 1, ISSN 1528-5804 Publisher: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, Waynesville, NC USA

Abstract

This article focuses on three key factors that a survey of literature indicated impact the teaching and learning of mathematics with graphing calculators: access to graphing calculators, the place of graphing calculators in the mathematics curriculum, and the connection between graphing calculators and pedagogical practice. Access to graphing calculators is associated with student achievement gains and a wide array of problem-solving approaches. The research suggests students' achievement is positively affected when they use curricula designed with graphing calculators as a primary tool. Studies of teachers' use and privileging of graphing calculators illustrate the impact professionals have on students' mathematical knowledge and calculator expertise. Implications of these research findings for preservice and in-service teacher education are summarized.

Citation

Kastberg, S. & Leatham, K. (2005). Research On Graphing Calculators at the Secondary Level: Implications for Mathematics Teacher Education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 5(1), 25-37. Waynesville, NC USA: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education. Retrieved March 19, 2019 from .

Keywords

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Adams, T. L. (1997). Addressing students' difficulties with the concept of function: Applying graphing calculators and a model of conceptual change. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics , 19(2), 43 -5 7 .
  2. Boers, M. A., & Jones, P. L. (1994). Students' use of graphics calculators under
  3. Confrey, J., & Smith, E. (1991). A framework for functions: Prototypes, multiple representations, and transformations. Paper presented at the 13th annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Blacksburg, VA.
  4. Core -Plus Mathematics Project. (2004). Features of the CPMP curriculum . Retrieved August 25, 2004, from http://www.wmich.edu/cpmp/features.html
  5. Doerr, H. M., & Zangor, R. (1999). The teacher, the task and the tool: The emergence of classroom norms. International Journal of Computer Algebra in Mathematics Education, 6, 267 -280.
  6. Doerr, H. M., & Zangor, R. (2000). Creating meaning for and with the graphing calculator. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 41 , 143 -163 .
  7. Drijvers, P., & Doorman, M. (1996). The graphics calculator in mathematics education. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 15, 425 -440.
  8. Fleener, M. J. (1995a). The relationship between experience and philosophical
  9. Fleener, M. J. (1995b). A survey of mathematics teachers' attitudes about calculators: The impact of philosophical orientation. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 14, 481 -498.
  10. Goos, M., Galbraith, P., Renshaw, P., & Geiger, V. (2000). Reshaping teacher and student roles in technology -enriched classrooms. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 12, 303 -320.
  11. Graham, A. T., & Thomas, M. O. J. (2000). Building a versatile understanding of
  12. Harskamp, E. G., Suhre, C. J. M., & Van Struen, A. (1998). The graphics calculator in mathematics education: An experiment in the netherlands. Hiroshima Journal of Mathematics Ed ucation, 6 , 13 -3 1 .
  13. Harskamp, E. G., Suhre, C. J. M., & Van Struen, A. (2000). The graphics calculator and students' solution strategies. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 12, 37 -5 2 .
  14. Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. (1992). Learning and teaching with unde rstanding. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 65 - 100). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  15. Hong, Y., Toham, M., & Kiernan, C. (2000). Supercalculators and university entrance ca lcu lus examinations. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 12, 321 -326 .
  16. Huntley, M. A., Rasmussen, C. L., Villarubi, R. S., Sangtong, J., & Fey, J. T. (2000).
  17. Kieran, C. (1992). The learning and teaching of school algebra. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 390 -419). New York: Macm i llan .
  18. Kendal, M., & Stacey, K. (1999). Varieties of teacher privileging for teaching calculus with computer algebra systems. International Journal of Computer Algebra in Mathematics Education, 6, 233-247 .
  19. Laborde, C. (1999). The integration of new technologies as a window on teachers'
  20. Decisions. Proceedings of the 1999 International Conference on Mathematics Teacher Education, Taipei, Taiwan.
  21. LaGrange, J.-B. (1999a). Complex calculators in the classroom: Theoretical and practical reflections on teaching pre -calculus. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 4 , 51 -8 1 .
  22. LaGrange, J.-B. (1999b). Techniques and concepts in pre -calculus using CAS: A two -year classroom experiment with the TI -92. International Journal of Computer Algebra in Mathematics Education, 6 , 143 -165 .
  23. Leatham, K. R. (2002). Preservice secondary mathematics teachers' beliefs about
  24. Merriweather, M., & Tharp, M. L. (1999). The effect of instruction with graphing
  25. Mitchelmore, M., & Cavanagh, M. (2000). Students' difficulties in operating a graphics calculator. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 12, 254 -268.
  26. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
  27. Porzio, D. (1999). Effects of differing emphases in the use of multiple representations and technology on students' understanding of calculus concepts. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 21 (3), 1 -29.
  28. Romberg, T. A. (1992). Problematic features of the school mathematics curriculum. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 749 -788). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
  29. Ruthven, K. (1990). The influence of graphic calculator use on translation from graphic to symbolic forms. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 21 , 431 -450 .
  30. Schwarz, B. B., & Hershkowitz, R. (1999). Prototypes: Brakes or levers in learning the function concept? The role of computer tools . Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30, 362-389.
  31. Simmt, E. (1997). Graphing calculators in high school mathematics. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 16, 269-289.
  32. Simonson, L. M., & Dick, T. P. (1997). Teachers' perceptions of the impact of graphing calculators in the mathematics classroom. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching , 16, 239-268.
  33. Slavit, D. (1996). Graphing calculators in a "hybrid" Algebra II classroom. For the Learning of Mathematics, 15 (1), 9 -14.
  34. Tharp, M. L., Fitzsimmons, J. A., & Ayers, R. L. B. (1997). Negotiating a technological shift: Teacher perception of the implementation of graphing calculators. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 16, 551 -575 .
  35. Thompson, D. R., & Senk, S. L. (2001). The effects of curriculum on achievement in second-year algebra: The example of the University of Chicago School Mathematics Project. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32, 5 8-84 .
  36. Usiskin, Z. (1986). Translating grades 7 -12 mathematics recommendations into reality. Educational Leadership, 44(4), 30 -3 5 .
  37. Van Streun, A., Harskamp, E. G., & Suhre, C. J. M. (2000). The effect of the graphic
  38. Zarzycki, P. (2000). Thinking mathematically with technology. International Journal of Computer Algebra in Mathematics Education, 7 , 181 -192.

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.

View References & Citations Map

Cited By

  1. Using Cognitive Tutor Software In Learning Linear Algebra Word Concept

    Kai-Ju Yang, Indiana University Bloomington, United States

    Journal of Interactive Learning Research Vol. 26, No. 4 (October 2015) pp. 431–452

  2. The Role of Technology in Supporting Students’ Mathematical Thinking: Extending the Metaphors of Amplifier and Reorganizer

    Milan Sherman, Drake University, United States

    Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education Vol. 14, No. 3 (September 2014) pp. 220–246

  3. A Comparative Study of Mathematical Content, Pedagogy and Technology using a Paired T-Test of the means of Seven Domains

    Maria Mitchell, Central Connecticut State University, United States

    Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2013 (Mar 25, 2013) pp. 2273–2278

  4. Transforming Teaching; Mathematical Content, Pedagogy and Technology, a Messy Problem!

    Maria Mitchell, Central Connecticut State University, United States

    E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2012 (Oct 09, 2012) pp. 288–293

  5. The Views of Preservice Teachers About the Strengths and Limitations of the Use of Graphing Calculators in Mathematics Instruction

    S. Asli Ozgun-Koca, Wayne State University, United States

    Journal of Technology and Teacher Education Vol. 17, No. 2 (April 2009) pp. 203–227

  6. Mathematics Teacher TPACK Standards and Development Model

    Margaret L. Niess, Oregon State University, United States; Robert N. Ronau, University of Louisville, United States; Kathryn G. Shafer, Ball State University, United States; Shannon O. Driskell, University of Dayton, United States; Suzanne R. Harper, Miami University, United States; Christopher Johnston, George Mason University, United States; Christine Browning, Western Michigan University, United States; S. Asli Özgün-Koca, Wayne State University, United States; Gladis Kersaint, University of South Florida, United States

    Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education Vol. 9, No. 1 (March 2009) pp. 4–24

  7. Integrating Graphing Calculators and Probeware Into Science Methods Courses: Impact on Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Confidence and Perspectives on Technology for Learning and Teaching

    Irina Lyublinskaya, College of Staten Island, United States; George Zhou, University of Windsor, Canada

    Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching Vol. 27, No. 2 (April 2008) pp. 163–182

  8. Pre-Service Teachers’ Confidence and Perspectives in Using Graphing Calculator Technology for Learning and Teaching

    George (Guoqiang) Zhou & Irina Lyublinskaya, City University of New York, United States

    Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2007 (Mar 26, 2007) pp. 2663–2672

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.