Learning beginning algebra in a computer-intensive environment

ZDM - International Journal on Mathematics Education

Volumn 45, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 377-391

  Tabach, Michal ^a   Hershkowitz, Rina ^b   Dreyfus, Tommy ^a  

^a TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

^b WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE   (Israel)

Author keywords

Algebraic generational activity; Algebraic transformational activity; Beginning algebra; Computer intensive environment; Global meta level activity; Instrumental genesis and instrumental orchestration

Indexed keywords

EID: 84892834752     PISSN: 18639690     EISSN: 18639704     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11858-012-0458-2     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Ainley, J. (1996). Purposeful contexts for formal notation in a spreadsheet environment. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 15, 405-422.
2. Arcavi, A. (1994). Symbol sense: Informal sense-making in formal mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 14, 24-35.
3. Artigue, M. (2002). Learning mathematics in a CAS 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.
4. Bednarz, N., Kieran, C., & Lee, L. (Eds.). (1996). Approaches to algebra. Perspectives for research and teaching. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
5. Cobb, P., Stephan, M., McClain, K., & Gravemeijer, K. (2001). Participating in classroom mathematical practices. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10, 113-163.
6. Dettori, G., Garuti, R., & Lemut, E. (2001). From arithmetic to algebraic thinking by using a spreadsheet. In R. Sutherland, T. Rojano, A. Bell, & R. Lins (Eds.), Perspectives on school algebra (pp. 191-208). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
7. Dörfler, W. (2008). En route from patterns to algebra: Comments and reflections. ZDM-The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 40, 143-160.
8. Dreyfus, T., Hershkowitz, R., & Schwarz, B. B. (2001). Abstraction in context: The case of peer interaction. Cognitive Science Quarterly-An International Journal of Basic and Applied Research, 1, 307-358.
9. Drijvers, P., Doorman, M., Boon, P., Reed, H., & Gravemeijer, K. (2010). The teacher and the tool: Instrumental orchestrations in the technology-rich mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 75, 213-234.
10. Drouhard, J. P., & Teppo, A. R. (2004). Symbols and language. In K. Stacey, H. Chick, & M. Kendal (Eds.), The future of the teaching and learning of algebra: The 12th ICMI study (pp. 227-266). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
11. Eisenmann, T., & Even, R. (2010). Enacted types of algebraic activity in different classes taught by the same teacher. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9, 867-891.
12. Friedlander, A., Hershkowitz, R., & Arcavi, A. (1989). Incipient "algebraic" thinking in pre-algebra students. In Proceedings of the 13th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 1, pp. 283-290). Paris: PME.
13. Friedlander, A., & Tabach, M. (2001). Developing a curriculum of beginning algebra in a spreadsheet environment. In H. Chick, K. Stacey, & J. Vincent (Eds.), The future of teaching and learning of algebra. Proceedings of the 12th ICMI study conference (Vol. 2, pp. 252-257). Australia: The University of Melbourne.
14. Gardner, J., Morrison, H., & Jarman, R. (1993). The impact of high access to computers on learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 9, 2-16.
15. Goos, M. (2012). Digital technologies in the Australian curriculum: Mathematics-a lost opportunity? In B. Atweh, M. Goos, R. Jorgensen, & D. Siemon (Eds.), Engaging the Australian National Curriculum: Mathematics-Perspectives from the Field (pp. 135-152). Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia: Online Publication. http://www. merga. net. au/sites/default/files/editor/books/1/Chapter%207%20Goos. pdf. Accessed 27 Aug 2012.
16. Guin, D., Ruthven, K., & Trouche, L. (Eds.). (2005). The didactical challenge of symbolic calculators: Turning a computational device into a mathematical instrument. New York: Springer.
17. Haspekian, M. (2005). An "instrumental approach" to study the integration of a computer tool into mathematics teaching: The case of spreadsheets. International Journal of Computers for Mathematics Learning, 10, 109-141.
18. Heid, M. K. (1995). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics, Addenda series: Algebra in a technological world. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
19. Hershkowitz, R., & Arcavi, A. (1990). The interplay between student behaviors and the mathematical structure of problem situations-issues and examples. In Proceedings of the 14th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 2, pp. 193-200). Mexico: Oaxtepec.
20. Hershkowitz, R., Dreyfus, T., Ben-Zvi, D., Friedlander, A., Hadas, N., Resnick, T., et al. (2002). Mathematics curriculum development for computerized environments: A designer-researcher-teacher-learner activity. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 657-694). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21. Hoyles, C., Noss, R., & Kent, P. (2004). On the integration of digital technologies into mathematics classrooms. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9, 309-326.
22. 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). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
23. Kieran, C. (2004). The core of algebra: Reflections on its main activities. In K. Stacey, H. Chick, & M. Kendal (Eds.), The future of teaching and learning of algebra: The 12th ICMI study (pp. 21-34). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
24. Knuth, E. J., Stephens, A. C., McNeil, N. M., & Alibali, M. W. (2006). Does understanding the equal sign matter? Evidence from solving equations. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37, 297-311.
25. Laborde, C. (2003). Technology used as a tool for mediating knowledge in the teaching of mathematics: The case of Cabri-geometry. In W. C. Yang, S. C. Chu, T. de Alwis, & M. G. Lee (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Asian technology conference in mathematics (Vol. 1, pp. 23-38). Hsinchu: Chung Hua University.
26. Lagrange, J. B., Artigue, M., Laborde, C., & Trouche, L. (2003). Technology and mathematics education: A multidimensional study of the evolution of research and innovation. In A. J. Bishop, M. A. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & F. K. S. Leung (Eds.), Second international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 239-271). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
27. Malle, G. (1993). Didaktische Probleme der elementaren Algebra. Wiesbaden: Vieweg.
28. Mariotti, M. A. (2002). Technological advances in mathematics learning. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 695-723). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
29. Mason, J., & Pimm, D. (1984). Generic examples: Seeing the general in the particular. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 15, 277-289.
30. Radford, L. (2000). Signs and meanings in students' emergent algebraic thinking: A semiotic analysis. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 42, 237-268.
31. Rockman et al. (1999). A more complex picture: Laptop use and impact in the context of changing home and school access. http://www. rockman. com/projects/projectDetail. php?id=126. Accessed 27 Aug 2012.
32. Rojano, T. (2002). Mathematics learning in the junior secondary school: Students' access to significant mathematical ideas. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 143-164). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
33. Shternberg, B., & Yerushalmy, M. (2003). Models of functions and models of situations: On the design of modeling-based learning environments. In H. M. Doerr & R. Lesh (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: A model and modeling perspective on teaching, learning, and problem solving in mathematics education (pp. 479-498). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
34. Simon, M. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26, 114-145.
35. Stacey, K., & MacGregor, M. (2001). Curriculum reform and approaches to algebra. In R. Sutherland, T. Rojano, A. Bell, & R. Lins (Eds.), Perspectives on school algebra (pp. 141-153). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
36. Star, J. R. (2007). Foregrounding procedural knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38, 132-135.
37. Sutherland, R., & Balacheff, N. (1999). Didactical complexity of computational environments for the learning of mathematics. International Journal of Computers for Mathematics Learning, 4, 1-26.
38. Sutherland, R., & Rojano, T. (1993). A spreadsheet approach to solving algebra problems. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 12, 353-383.
39. Tabach, M. (2011a). The dual role of researcher and teacher: A case study. For the Learning of Mathematics, 31, 32-34.
40. Tabach, M. (2011b). Symbolic generalization in a computer intensive environment: The case of Amy. In CERME 7-seventh conference of european research in mathematics education. http://www. cerme7. univ. rzeszow. pl/WG/15b/CERME7-WG15B-Paper01_Tabach. pdf. Accessed 27 Aug 2012.
41. Tabach, M. (2011c). A mathematics teacher's practice in a technological environment: A case study analysis using two complementary theories. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 16, 247-265.
42. Tabach, M., Arcavi, A., & Hershkowitz, R. (2008a). Transitions among different symbolic generalizations by algebra beginners in a computer intensive environment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 69, 53-71.
43. Tabach, M., & Friedlander, A. (2004). Levels of student responses in a spreadsheet-based environment. In M. J. Høines, & A. B. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th international conference for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 2, pp. 423-430). Bergen: PME.
44. Tabach, M., & Friedlander, A. (2008). Understanding equivalence of algebraic expressions in a spreadsheet-based environment. International Journal of Computers in Mathematics Education, 13, 27-46.
45. Tabach, M., Hershkowitz, R., Arcavi, A., & Dreyfus, T. (2008b). Computerized environments in mathematics classrooms: A research-design view. In L. D. English, M. Bartolini Bussi, G. A. Jones, R. A. Lesh, B. Sriraman, & D. Tirosh (Eds.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (2nd ed., pp. 784-805). New York: Routledge.
46. Tabach, M., Hershkowitz, R., & Schwarz, B. B. (2006). Constructing and consolidating of algebraic knowledge within dyadic processes: A case study. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63, 235-258.
47. Trouche, L. (2004). Managing complexity of human/machine interactions in computerized learning environments: Guiding students' command process through instrumental orchestrations. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9, 281-307.
48. Vérillon, P., & Rabardel, P. (1995). Cognition and artifact: A contribution to the study of thought in relation to instrumented activity. European Journal of Psychology in Education, 9, 77-101.
49. Wilson, K., Ainley, J., & Bills, L. (2005). Naming a column on a spreadsheet: Is it more algebraic? In D. Hewitt, & A. Noyes (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth British congress of mathematics education (pp. 184-191). Warwick, UK.
50. Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Socio-mathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 458-477.
51. Yerushalmy, M. (2005). Challenging known transitions: Learning and teaching algebra with technology. For the Learning of Mathematics, 2, 37-42.
52. Yerushalmy, M. (2009). Technology-based algebra learning, epistemological discontinuities and curricular implications. In B. B. Schwarz, T. Dreyfus, & R. Hershkowitz (Eds.), Transformation of knowledge through classroom interaction (pp. 56-64). London: Routledge.