Slower algebra students meet faster tools: Solving algebra word problems with graphing software

Journal for Research in Mathematics Education

Volumn 37, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 356-387

  Yerushalmy, Michal ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HAIFA   (Israel)

Author keywords

Algebra; Computers; Functions; Graphing calculators; Mathematical modeling; Reform in mathematics education; Representations; Secondary 7 9

Indexed keywords

EID: 33750910699     PISSN: 00218251     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Arcavi, A., Hadas, N., & Dreyfus, T. (1994). Engineering curriculum tasks on the basis of theoretical and empirical finding. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 280-288). Lisbon: University of Lisbon.
2. Artigue, M. (2002). Learning mathematics in a GAS environment: The genesis of a reflection about instrumentation and the dialectics between technical and conceptual work. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 7, 245-274.
3. Bednarz, N., Kieran, C., & Lee, L. (Eds.). (1996). Approaches to algebra: Perspectives for research and teaching. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
4. Bell, A. (1995). Purpose in school algebra. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 14, 41-74.
5. Cardelle-Elawar, M. (1995), Effects of metacognitive instruction in low achievers in mathematics problems. Teaching and Teacher Education, 77, 81-95.
6. Chazan, D. (1996). Algebra for all students? Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 15, 445-447.
7. Chazan, D. (2000). Beyond formulas in mathematics and teaching: Dynamics of the high school algebra classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
8. Confrey, J., & Smith, E. (1995). Splitting, covariation, and their role in the development of exponential functions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26, 66-86.
9. Drijvers, P. (2000). Students encountering obstacles using a CAS. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning 5, 189-209.
10. Heid, K. M. (1996). A technology-intensive functional approach to the emergence of algebraic thinking. In N. Bednarz, C. Kieran, & L. Lee (Eds.), Approaches to algebra: Perspectives for research and teaching (pp. 239-256). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
11. Hershkowitz, R., & Kieran, C. (2001). Algorithmic and meaningful ways of joining together representatives within the same mathematical activity: An experience with graphing calculators. In M. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 25th International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 96-107). Utrecht, The Netherlands: Utrecht University.
12. Hershkowitz, R., & Schwarz, B. (1997). Unifying cognitive and socioculrural aspects in research on learning the function concept. In E. Pehkonen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 21st International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 148-164). Lahti. Finland: Lahti Research and Training Center.
13. Huntley, M. A., Rasmussen, C. L., Villarubi, R. S., Sangtong, J., & Fey, J. (2000). Effects of Standards-based mathematics education: A study of the Core-Plus Mathematics Project Algebra and Functions strand. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31, 328-361.
14. Kaput, J. J., Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (2002). Developing new notations for a learnable mathematics in the computational era. In L. D. English, (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 51-75). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
15. Kieran, C., & Yerushalmy, M. (2004). Technological environments in algebra learning and teaching. In K. Stacey, H. Chick, & M. Kendal (Eds.), The future of the teaching and learning of Algebra: Report of the 12th ICMI Study (pp. 99-152). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
16. Laborde, C. (2001). Integration of technology in the design of geometry tasks with Cabri-Geometry International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6, 283-317.
17. Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. M. (2003). Foundations of a models and modeling perspective on mathematics teaching, learning and problem solving. In R. Lesh & H. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching (pp. 3-34). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
18. Monk, S., & Nemirovsky, R. (1994). The case of Dan: Student construction of a functional situation through visual attributes. CBMS Issues in Mathematics Education, 4, 139-168.
19. Nasser, S. (2000). The characteristics of solution processes of low achieving pupils who study algebra in the function approach with technology. Unpublished master's thesis (in Hebrew), University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.
20. Nesher, P. (1987). Towards an instructional theory: The role of students' misconceptions. For the Learning of Mathematics, 7(3), 33-40.
21. Ruthven, K. (2001). Theorizing the dialectic between technique and concept in mathematical activity: Reflections on recent French studies of the educational use of computer algebra systems. In P. Kent (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2nd Symposium of the Computer Algebra in Mathematics Education Group. Retrieved July 18, 2006, from http://www.lonklab.ac.uk/came/events/freudenthal/ 1-Reaction-Ruthven.pdf
22. Schnepp, M., & Nemirovsky, R. (2001). Constructing a foundation for the fundamental theorem of calculus. In A. A. Cuoco & F. Curcio (Eds.), The roles of representation in school mathematics: 2001 NCTM yearbook (pp. 90-102). Reston, VA: NCTM.
23. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1986). On having and using geometric knowledge. In J. Hiebert (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics (pp. 225-264). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
24. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2002). Making mathematics work for all children: Issues of standards, testing, and equity. Educational Researcher, 31(1), 13-25.
25. Shternberg, B., & Yerushalmy, M. (2003). Models of functions and models of situations: On design of a modeling based learning environment In R. Lesh & H. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching (pp. 479-500). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Album Associates.
26. Skemp, R. R. (1978). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Arithmetic Teacher, 26(3), 9-15.
27. Thompson, P. W., & Thompson, A. G. (1994). Talking about rates conceptually, Part I: A teacher's struggle. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25, 279-303.
28. Tobias, S. (1990). They're not dumb, they're different. Tucson, AZ: Research Corporation.
29. Watson, J. M. (2002). Inferential reasoning and the influence of cognitive conflict. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 52, 225-256.
30. Yerushalmy, M. (1991). Effects of computerized feedbacks on performing and debugging algebraic transformations. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 7, 309-330.
31. Yerushalmy, M. (1999). Making exploration visible: On software design and school algebra curriculum. International Journal for Computers in Mathematical Learning, 4, 169-189.
32. Yerushalmy, M., & Chazan, D. (2002). Flux in school algebra: Curricular change, graphing technology, and research on student learning and teacher knowledge. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of International Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 725-756). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
33. Yerushalmy, M., & Gafni, R. (1992). Syntactic manipulations and semantic interpretations in algebra: The effect of graphic representation. Learning and Instruction, 2, 303-319.
34. Yerushalmy, M., & Gilead, S. (1997). Solving equation in a technological environment: Seeing and manipulating. Mathematics Teacher, 90, 156-163.
35. Yerushalmy, M., & Shternberg, B. (2001). A visual course to functions. In A. Cuoco & F. Curcio (Eds.), The roles of representation in school mathematics: 2001 NCTM yearbook (pp. 251-268). Reston, VA: NCTM.
36. Yerushalmy, M., Shternberg, B., Gafni, R., & Bohr, M. (1994/1995). Visual-Math: Algebra and functions (In Hebrew). Tel-Aviv, Israel: Centre for Educational Technology.