Retention of concepts and skills in traditional and reformed applied calculus

Mathematics Education Research Journal

Volumn 13, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 165-184

  Garner, Bradley E ^a   Garner, Lynn E ^b  

^a BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 69449107375     PISSN: 10332170     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/BF03217107     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Allen, G. H. (1995). A comparison of the effectiveness of the harvard calculus series with the traditionally taught calculus series (Doctoral dissertation, San Jose State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 33(06), 1646.
2. Anderson, J. R., Greeno, J. G., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (2000). Perspectives on learning, thinking, and activity. Educational Researcher, 29(4), 11-13.
3. Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is-or might be-the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6-8, 14.
4. Bookman, J., & Friedman, C. P. (1998). Student attitudes and calculus reform. School Science and Mathematics, 98(3), 117-122.
5. Brunet-t, M. R. (1995). A comparison of problem-solving abilities between reform calculus students and traditional calculus students (Doctoral dissertation, American University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57(01A), 0140.
6. Byrnes, J. P., & Wasik, B. A. (1991). Role of conceptual knowledge in mathematical procedural learning. Developmental Psychology, 27(5), 777-786.
7. Cavanagh, M. (1996). Student understandings in differential calculus. In P. C. Clarkson (Ed.), Technology in mathematics education (Proceedings of the 19th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group o f Australasia, pp. 107-114). Melbourne: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.
8. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159.
9. Ganter, S. L. (1997). Impact of calculus reform on student learning and attitudes. AWIS Magazine, 26(6), 10-15.
10. Garner, L. E., & Hughes-Hallett, D. (1996). Instructor's manual, applied calculus for business, social sciences, and life sciences. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
11. Goldstein, L. J., Lay, D. C., & Schneider, D. (1996). Calculus and its applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
12. Hadfield, K. E (1996). Conceptual and procedural understanding in students of Harvard and traditional calculus. Unpublished master's thesis, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USA.
13. Held, M. K. (1988). Resequencing skills and concepts in applied calculus using the computer as a tool. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19(1), 3-25.
14. Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. P. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 65-97). New York: Macmillan.
15. Hiebert, J., & Lefevre, P. (1986). Conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics: An introductory analysis. In J. Hiebert (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics (pp. 1-27). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Ertbaum Associates.
16. Hughes-Hallett, D., Gleason, A. M., Lock, P. F., Flath, D., Gordon, S. P., Lomen, D. O., et al. (1996). Applied calculus, preliminary edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
17. Judson, P. T. (1988). Effects of modified sequencing of skills and applications in introductory calculus (Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin). Dissertation Abstracts International, 49(06A), 1397.
18. Kenelly, J. (1996). Technology in mathematics instruction. In A. W. Roberts (Ed.), Calculus, the dynamics of change (MAA Notes Number 39, pp. 24-27). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
19. Moursund, D. (1985). Will mathematics education rise to the challenge of computers? Mathematics Teacher, 78(9), 660-661.
20. Narasirnhan, C. C. (1993). Calculus reform for the non-science client disciplines. Primus, 3(3), 254-262.
21. Park, K., & Travers, K. J. (1996). A comparative study of a computer-based and a standard college first-year calculus course. In J. Kaput, A. Schoenfeld & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), Research in collegiate mathematics education, II (pp. 155-176). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.
22. Ratay, G. M. (1993). Student performance with calculus reform at the united states merchant marine academy. Primus, 3(1), 107-111.
23. Schoenfeld, A. H. (Ed.). (1997). Student assessment in calculus (MAA Notes Number 43). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
24. Selden, J., Selden, A., & Mason, A. (1994). Even good calculus students can't solve nonroutine problems. In J. Kaput & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), Research issues in undergraduate mathematics learning, preliminary analyses and results (MAA Notes Number 33, pp. 19-26). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
25. Thomas, M. O. J., & Hong, Y. Y. (1996). The Riemann integral in calculus: Students' processes and concepts. In P. C. Clarkson (Ed.), Technology in mathematics education (Proceedings of the 19th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, pp. 572-579). Melbourne: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.
26. White, P. (1995). An introduction to teaching calculus. In L. Grimison & J. Pegg (Eds.), Teaching secondary school mathematics: Theory into practice (pp. 165-185). Marrickville: Harcourt, Brace.
27. White, P. & Pegg, J. (1996). Advanced Mathematical Thinking. In B. Atweh, K. Owens & P. Sullivan (Eds.), Research in Mathematics Education in Australasia 1992-1995 (pp. 151-168). Sydney: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.
28. Wilson, R. (1997). A decade of teaching 'reform calculus' has been a disaster, critics charge. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 43(22), A12-A13