Developing Student Understanding: Contextualizing Calculus Concepts

School Science and Mathematics

Volumn 100, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 90-98

  Schwalbach, Eileen M ^a   Dosemagen, Debra M ^b  

^a Mount Mary College   (United States)

^b Pius XI High School   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0345424611     PISSN: 00366803     EISSN: 19498594     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1949-8594.2000.tb17241.x     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Baker, P. (199596, Winter). Putting mathematics in context. WCER Highlights, 7, 1–3.
2. Berlin, D. F. (1990). Science and mathematics integration: Current status and future directions. School Science and Mathematics, 90, 254–257.
3. Boix-Mansilla, V., & Gardner, H. (1997). Of kinds of disciplines and kinds of understanding. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 381–386.
4. Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1993). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
5. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educational process. Lexington, MA: Heath.
6. Dewey, J. (1963). Experiences and education. New York: Collier Books, McMillian Publishing.
7. Fogarty, R. (1991). Ten ways to integrate curriculum. Educational Leadership, 49(2), 61–65.
8. Goetz, J. P., & LeCompte, M. D. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.
9. Hayes Jacobs, H. (1989). Design options for integrated curriculum. In H. Hayes Jacobs.(Ed.), Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementation, (pp. 13–24). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
10. Kennedy, D. (1997). AP calculus: Teacher's guide. New York: College Entrance Examination Board and Educational Testing Service.
11. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
12. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
13. Novodvorsky, I. (1997). Constructing a deeper understanding. The Physics Teacher, 35, 242–245.
14. Perkins, D., & Blythe, T. (1994). Putting understanding up front. Educational Leadership, 51(5), 4–7.
15. Redish, E. F. (1994). Implications of cognitive studies for teaching physics. American Journal of Physics, 62(9), 796–803.
16. Romberg, T. A., & Carpenter, T. P. (1986). Research on teaching and learning of mathematics: Two disciplines of scientific inquiry. In M. C. Wittrock (ed.), Handbook of research on teaching, (3rd ed., pp. 850–873). New York: McMillian Publishing.
17. Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
18. Wells, M., Hestenes, D., & Swackhamer, G. (1995). A modeling method for high school physics instruction. American Physics Journal, 63, 607–616.
19. Wiggins, G. (1993). Assessing student performance: Exploring the purpose and limits of testing. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
20. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.