Algebra Teachers' Utilization of Problems Requiring Transfer Between Algebraic, Numeric, and Graphic Representations

School Science and Mathematics

Volumn 105, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 73-81

  Cunningham, Robert F ^a  

^a The College of New Jersey   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 36148980539     PISSN: 00366803     EISSN: 19498594     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1949-8594.2005.tb18039.x     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Anderson, M., Bloom, L., Mueller, U., & Pedler, P. (1997). Graphing calculators: Some implications for course content and examination [Online]. Available: http://www.runet.edu/~atcm/atcm97.html.
2. 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.(3), 301–317.
3. Beckmann, C.E., Senk, S.L., & Thompson, D.R. (1999). Assessing students' understanding of functions in a graphing calculator environment. School Science and Mathematics, 99(8), 451–456.
4. Dunham, P.H., & Osborne, A. (1991). Learning how to see: Students' graphing difficulties. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 13.(4), 35–49.
5. Eisenberg, T., & Dreyfus, T. (1991). On reluctance to visualize in mathematics. In W. Zimmermann & S. Cunningham (Eds.), Visualizing in teaching and learning mathematics (pp. 25–37). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
6. Goldenberg, E.P. (1988). Mathematics, metaphors, and human factors: Mathematical, technical, and pedagogical challenges in the educational use of graphical representation of functions. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 7, 135–173.
7. 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: MacMillan.
8. Knuth, E.J. (2000). Student understanding of the cartesian connection: An exploratory study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31.(4), 500–507.
9. Fererrini-Mundy, J., & Lauten, D. (1993). Teaching and learning calculus. In P.S. Wilson (Ed.), Research ideas for the classroom: High school mathematics (pp. 155–176). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
10. Moschkovich, J., Schoenfeld, A., & Arcavi, A. H. (1993). Aspects of understanding: On multiple perspectives and representations of linear relations and connections among them. In T. A. Romberg, E. Fennema, & T. P. Carpenter (Eds.), Integrating research on the graphical representation of functions (pp. 69–100). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
11. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
12. 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.
13. Schoenfeld A.H., Smith, J.P., III, & Arcavi, A. (1993). Learning: The microgenetic analysis of one student's evolving understanding of a complex subject matter domain. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 55–175). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
14. Schwartz, J. (1992). Getting students to function in algebra. In L. Wirszup & R. Streit (Eds.), Developments in school mathematics education around the world (Vol. 3, pp. 303–318). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
15. Wilson, M.R., & Krapfl, C.A. (1994). The impact of graphing calculators on students' understanding of function. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 13, 252–264.
16. Yerushalmy, M., & Gafni, R. (1992). Syntactic manipulations and semantic interpretations in algebra: The effect of graphic representation. Learning and Instruction, 2, 303–319.