On teachers' mathematical knowledge and student exploration: A personal story about teaching a technologically supported approach to school algebra

International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning

Volumn 4, Issue 2-3, 1999, Pages 121-149

  Chazan, Daniel ^a  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0342675877     PISSN: 13823892     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/a:1009875213030     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Ball, D. L. (1992). Teaching mathematics for understanding: What do teachers need to know about the subject matter. In M. Kennedy (Ed.), Teaching Academic Subjects to Diverse Learners (pp. 63-83). New York: Teachers College.
2. Ball, D. L. (1993a). Halves pieces, and twoths: Constructing and using representational contexts in teaching fractions. In T. Carpenter and E. Fennema (Eds), Learning, Teaching, and Assessing Rational Number Constructs (pp. 157-195). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3. Ball, D. L. (1993b). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary school mathematics, The Elementary School Journal 93(4): 373-397.
4. Van Barneveld, G. and Krabbendam, H. (Eds) (1982). Conference on Functions: Report 1. Enschede, The Netherlands: Foundation for Curriculum Development.
5. Bednarz, N., Kieran, C. and Lee, L. (Eds) (1996). Approaches to Algebra: Perspectives for Research and Teaching. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers
6. Bracey, Gerald (1992, June 12). If you ask me - cut out algebra! Mostly it's a useless, impractical exercise. Washington Post.
7. California State Department of Education (1992). Mathematics Framework for California Public Schools. Sacramento: Author.
8. Chazan, D. (1992). Knowing school mathematics: A personal reflection on NCTM's teaching standards, Mathematics Teacher 85: 371-375.
9. Chazan, D. (1993). F(x) = G(x)?: An approach to modeling with algebra, For the Learning of Mathematics 13(3): 22-26.
10. Chazan, D. (1996). Algebra for all students? Journal of Mathematical Behavior 15(3): 455-177.
11. Chazan, D. and Bethell, S. (1998). Working with algebra. In Mathematical Sciences Education Board (Ed.), High School Mathematics at Work: Essays and Examples from Workplace Contexts to Strengthen the Mathematical Education of All Students. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
12. Cohen, D., McLaughlin, M. and Talbot, J. (Eds) (1993). Teaching for Understanding: Challenges for Policy and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
13. Computer-Intensive Curricula in Elementary Algebra (1991). Computer-Intensive Curricula in Elementary Algebra. The University of Maryland and The Pennsylvania State University.
14. Confrey, J. and Smith, E. (1995). Splitting, covariation, and their role in the development of exponential functions, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 26(1): 66-86.
15. Cuban, L. (1993). How Teachers Taught: Constancy and Change in American Classrooms 1890-1990, 2nd edn, New York: Teachers College.
16. Cuoco, A. (1990). Investigations in Algebra. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
17. Dewey, J. (1902/1990). The School and Society; The Child and the Curriculum. Chicago: University of Chicago.
18. Dolciani, M. and Wooton, W. (1970/73). Modern Algebra, Book One: Structure and Method. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
19. Dugdale, S. and Kibbey, D. (1986). Interpreting Graphs. Pleasantville, NY: Sunburst.
20. Fey, J. (1989). School algebra for the year 2000. In S. Wagner and C. Kieran (Eds), Research Issues in the Learning and Teaching of Algebra. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
21. Goldenberg, P. (1988). Mathematics, metaphors, and human factors: Mathematical, technical, and pedagogical challenges in the educational use of graphical representations of functions, Journal of Mathematical Behavior 7: 135-173.
22. Hewitt, D. (1995). Imagery as a tool to assist the teaching of algebra. In R. Sutherland and J. Mason (Eds), Exploiting Mental Imagery with Computers in Mathematics Education. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
23. Hirsch, E. D. (1996). The School We Need and Why We Don't Have Them. New York: Doubleday.
24. Jaworski, B. (1994). Investigating Mathematics Teaching: A Constructivist Enquiry. London: Falmer.
25. Kieran, C., Boileau, A. and Garancon, M. (1996). Introducing algebra by means of a technology-supported, functional approach. In N. Bednarz, C. Kieran and L. Lee (Eds), Approaches to Algebra: Perspectives for Research and Teaching (pp. 257-293). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
26. Lacampagne, C., Blair, W. and Kaput, J. (Eds) (1995). The Algebra Initiative Colloquium. Washington: U.S. Department of Education.
27. Lampert, M. (1989). Choosing and using mathematical tools in classroom discourse. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in Research on Teaching, Vol. 1 (pp. 223-264). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
28. Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: mathematical knowing and teaching, American Educational Research Journal 27(1): 29-63.
29. Lee, L. (1996). Algebraic understanding: The search for a model in the mathematics education community. Unpublished Dissertation, Universite du Quebec a Montreal, Montreal.
30. Lester, F and Garofalo, J. (Eds) (1982). Mathematical Problem Solving: Issues in Research. Philadelphia: Frankline Institute Press.
31. Love, E. (1988). Evaluating mathematical activity. In D. Pimm (Ed.), Mathematics, Teachers and Children (pp. 249-263). London: Hodder and Stoughton.
32. Mason, J. (1996). Expressing generality and roots of Algebra. In N. Bednarz, C. Kieran and L. Lee (Eds), Approaches to Algebra: Perspectives for Research and Teaching (pp. 6586). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
33. McCarthy, C. (1991, April 20). Who needs algebra? Washington Post.
34. Morgan, C. (1998). Writing Mathematically: The Discourse of Investigations. London: Falmer.
35. Moschkovich, J., Schoenfeld, A. H. and Arcavi, A. (1993). Aspects of understanding: On multiple perspectives and representations of linear relations and connections among them. In T. A. Romberg, E. Fennema and T. P. Carpenter (Eds), Integrating Research on the Graphical Representation of Function (pp. 69-100). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
36. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989). Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA.
37. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1991). Professional Standards for Teaching Mathematics. Reston, VA.
38. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1994, September). A Framework for Constructing a Vision of Algebra: Working Draft. Reston, VA.
39. Peterson, P. L., Fennema, E. and Carpenter, T. (1991). Using children's mathematical knowledge. In B. Means, C. Chelemer,and M. S. Knapp (Eds), Teaching Advanced Skills to At-Risk Students: Views from Research and Practice (pp. 68-101). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
40. Pimm, D. (1995). Symbols and Meanings in School Mathematics. London: Routledge.
41. Rojano, T. (1996). Developing algebraic aspects of problem solving within a spreadsheet environment. In N. Bednarz, C. Kieran and L. Lee (Eds), Approaches to Algebra Perspectives for Research and Teaching (pp. 137-147). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
42. Roberts, Wayne (1991, April 27). Algebra is not just math, its the language of science, Minneapolis Star Tribune.
43. Schoenfeld, A., Smith, J. and Arcavi, A. (1990). Eearning: The microgenetic analysis of one student's understanding of a complex subject matter domain. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in Instructional Psychology, Vol. 4. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
44. Schwartz, J., Yerushalmy, M. and Educational Development Center. (1989). The Function Supposer: Explorations in Algebra. Pleasantville, NY: Sunburst.
45. Schwartz, J. and Yerushalmy, M. (1992). Getting students to function in and with algebra. In G. H. and E. Dubinsky (Eds), The Concept of Function: Aspects of Epistemology and Pedagogy. Washington: Mathematical Association of America.
46. Schwartz, J. and Yerushalmy, M. (1995). On the need for a bridging language for mathematical modeling, For the Learning of Mathematics 15(2): 29-35.
47. Sizer, T. (1992). Horace's School: Redesigning the American High School. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
48. Thompson, P. (1993). Quantitative reasoning, complexity, and additive structures, Educational Studies in Mathematics 25: 165-208.
49. Tikhomirov, O. K. (1972/1981). The psychological consequences of computerization. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The Concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology (pp. 256-278). New York: M.E. Sharpe.
50. Usiskin, Z. (1987). Why elementary algebra can, should, and must be an eight-grade course for average students, Mathematics Teacher 80(6): 428-38.
51. Wheeler, D. (1993). Knowledge at the crossroads, For the Learning of Mathematics 13(1): 53-55.
52. Wood, T., Cobb, P., Yackel, E. and Dillon, D. (Eds). (1993). Rethinking elementary school mathematics: Insights and issues, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 6.
53. Yerushalmy, M. (1991). Effects of computerized feedback on performing and debugging algebraic transformations, Journal of Educational Computing Research 7: 309-330.
54. Yerushalmy, M., and Schwartz, J. (1993). Seizing the opportunity to make algebra mathematically and pedagogically interesting. In E. Fennema, T. Romberg, and T. Carpenter (Eds), Integrating Research on the Graphical Representation of Function. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
55. Yerushalmy, M. and Gafni, R. (1992). Syntactic manipulations and semantic interpretations in algebra: The effect of graphic representation, Learning and Instruction 2: 303-319.
56. Yerushalmy, M. and Gilead, S. (1997). Solving equations in a technological environment: Seeing and manipulating, Mathematics Teacher 90(2): 156-163.
57. Yerushalmy, M. and Schwartz, J. (1997). A Procedural Approach to Explorations in Calculus. Haifa, Israel: Haifa University.