The role of the graphic calculator in mediating graphing activity

International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology

Volumn 32, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 267-290

  Hennessy, Sara ^a   Fung, Pat ^b   Scanlon, Eileen ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^b OPEN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 78651238091     PISSN: 0020739X     EISSN: 14645211     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00207390010022176     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Hennessy, S., 1999. The potential of portable technologies for supporting graphing investigations. Br. J. Educ. Technol., 30 (1):57–60. Full article available athttp://iet.open.ac.uk/pp/s.c.hennessy/.
2. Browning, C. A., The Computer/Calculator Precalculus (C2PC) project and levels of graphical understanding. Conference on Technology in Collegiate Mathematics. pp. 114–117.
3. Dunham, P. H., and Osborne, A., 1991. Learning how to see:students' graphing difficulties. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 13 (4):35–49.
4. Friedler, Y., and McFarlane, A., 1997. Data logging with portable computers a study of the impact on graphing skills in secondary students. J. Comput. Math. Sci. Teaching, 16 (4):527–550.
5. Kerslake, D., 1981. “ Graphs ”. In Students' Understanding of Mathematics:11–16, Edited by:Hart, K., London:John Murray.
6. Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., and Stein, M. K., 1990. Functions, graphs and graphing:Tasks, learning and teaching. Rev. Educ. Res., 60 (1):1–64.
7. Preece, J., 1983. Graph Interpretation and Sketching Skills in 14 and 15 year olds, Milton Keynes:Open University.
8. Swatton, P., and Taylor, R. M., 1994. Students' performance in graphical tasks and its relationship to the ability to handle variables. Br. Educ. J., 20:227–243.
9. Ruthven, K., 1992. “ Personal technology in the classroom ”. In Graphic Calculators in Advanced Mathematics, Edited by:Ruthven, K., Coventry:NCET.
10. Kaput, J. J., 1989. “ Linking representations in the symbol systems of algebra ”. In Research in the Teaching and Learning of Algebra Edited by:Wagner, S., and Kieran, K., New York
11. Dunham, P. H., 1993. Does using calculators work? The jury is almost in. UME Trends, 5:8–9.
12. Ruthven, K., 1990. The influence of graphic calculator use on translation from graphic to symbolic forms. Educ. Studies Math, 21 (5):431–450.
13. Crowe, D., and Zand, H., 1997. Novices entering mathematics—I The impact of new technology. Comput. Educ, 28 (1):43–54.
14. Dunham, P. H., and Dick, T. P., 1994. Research on graphing calculators. Math. Teacher, 87 (6):440–445.
15. Oldknow, A., International study on graphing calculators in secondary education. International Federation of Information Processors, Working Group 3.1 Conference. Grenoble.
16. Ainsworth, S., Wood, D., and Bibby, P., 1997. Coordinating multiple representations in computer based learning environments, EuroAIEd:Lisbon.
17. Borba, M. C., and Confrey, J., 1996. A student's construction of transformation of functions in a multiple representational environment. Educ. Studies Math, 31:319–337.
18. Scanlon, E., 1990. Modelling physics problem solving, Open University. PhD Thesis
19. Gill, P., Mathematical support for engineering and science students. Proceedings of BSRLM Conference. London.:King's College.
20. Sivasubramaniam, P., Distributed cognition, computers and the interpretation of graphs. British Research into Learning Mathematics Day Conference. Leeds. pp. 59–64.
21. Berger, M., Graphic calculators:An intepretative framework. 22nd International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Stellenbosch, South Africa. pp. 237
22. Salomon, G., and Globerson, T., 1987. Skill may not be enough:the role of mindfulness in learning and transfer. Int. J. Educ. Res., 11:623–637.
23. Bowell, B., France, S., and Redfern, S., 1994. Portable Computers in Action, Coventry:NCET.
24. Fung, P., O'Shea, T., and Hennessy, S., 1998. Pocket book computing:a paradigm shift?. Comput. in Schools, 14 (3/4):109–118.
25. Noss, R., and Hoyles, C., 1996. Windows on Mathematical Meaning, Dordrecht, Netherlands:Kluwer.
26. Hennessy, S., and Murphy, P., 1999. The potential for collaborative problem solving in design and technology. Int. J. Technol. Design Educ., 9:1–36.
27. Howe, C., and Smith, P., “ Experimentation and conceptual understanding in school science:Can hypothesis testing play a role? ”. In Practical Work in Science, Edited by:Wellington, J., London:Routledge. In press
28. Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., and Dawes, L. 1998. Software design to support discussion in the primary curriculum. J. Comput. Assisted Learning, 14 (3):199–211.
29. Ginsburg, H. P., 1983. “ Protocol methods in research on mathematical thinking ”. In The Development of Mathematical Thinking, Edited by:Ginsburg, H. P., Hillsdale, NJ:Academic Press.
30. Gage, J., Using the graphic calculator to teach lower secondary school algebra. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching. Plymouth.
31. Ainley, J., Nardi, E., and Pratt, D., Graphing as a computer-mediated tool. 22nd International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Stellenbosch, South Africa. pp. 243
32. Moschkovich, J. N., 1996. Moving up and getting steeper:Negotiating shared descriptions of linear graphs. J. Learning Sci, 5 (3):239–277.
33. Lave, J., 1988. Cognition in Practice:Mind, Mathematics and Culture in Everyday Life, New York:Cambridge University Press.
34. Dick, T. P., 1992. “ Super calculators:implications for the calculus curriculum, instruction and assessment ”. In Calculators in Mathematics Education. Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Edited by:Fey, J. T., Reston, VA:NCTM.
35. McFarlane, A., 1995. Developing an understanding of the meaning of line graphs in primary science investigations, using portable computers and data logging software. J. Comput. Math. Sci. Educ., 14 (4):461–480.
36. Pratt, D., Active graphing in a computer-rich environment. 18th International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Lisbon. pp. 57–64.
37. Gibson, J. J., 1979. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, Boston:Houghton Miflin.
38. Ainsworth, S. E., 1997. Designing and evaluating multi-representational learning environments for primary mathematics, University of Nottingham. PhD Thesis
39. Hennessy, S., and O'Shea, T., 1993. Learner perceptions of realism and ‘magic’ in computer simulation. Br. J. Educ. Technol., 24 (2):125–138.
40. Duncan, A., Calculator and non-calculator examinations in secondary school mathematics:issues and implications. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching. Plymouth.
41. Cox, R. J., and Brna, P., Analytical reasoning with external representations:The relationship between prior knowledge and performance. Workshop on Graphical Representations, Reasoning and Communication held at World Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Education (AI-ED93). pp. 33–36.
42. Rogers, Y., 1999. What is different about interactive graphical representations?. Learning and Instruction, 9:419–425.
43. Goldstein, R., 1997. Integrating computers. Micromath, 13 (1):25–27.
44. Bruner, J. S., 1985. “ Vygotsky:A historical and conceptual perspective ”. In Culture, Communication and Cognition:Vygotskyan Perspectives, Edited by:Wertsch, J. V., Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
45. Hammond, M., 1994. Measuring the impact of IT on learning. J. Comput.-Assisted Learning, 10:251–260.
46. Strickland, P., and Al-Jumeily, D., 1999. A computer algebra system for improving student's manipulation skills in algebra. Int. J. Comput. Algebra in Math. Educ., 6 (1):17–24.