Effects of the handheld technology instructional approach on performances of students of different achievement levels

Computers and Education

Volumn 82, Issue , 2015, Pages 306-314

  Tan, Choo Kim ^a   Tan, Choo Peng ^a  

^a MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY   (Malaysia)

Author keywords

Interactive learning environments

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER AIDED INSTRUCTION; NORMAL DISTRIBUTION; POISSON DISTRIBUTION; STUDENTS; TEACHING;

BINOMIAL DISTRIBUTION; HANDHELD TECHNOLOGIES; HIGHER LEARNING INSTITUTIONS; INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT; LEARNING PROBABILITY; MATHEMATICS EDUCATION; QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE METHODS; TEACHING AND LEARNING;

ENGINEERING EDUCATION;

EID: 84919799318     PISSN: 03601315     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.011     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Acelajado, M. J. (2004a). The impact of using technology on students' achievement, attitude, and anxiety in mathematics. Paper presented at the TSG15: The Role and Use of Technology in the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics. International Congress on Mathematics Education.
2. Acelajado, M. J. (2004b). The use of graphing calculators: effects on students' achievement in ANMATH1 and anxiety in mathematics. In A. H. Yahya, B. Adam, M. I. Ahmad Izani, H. L. Koh, & H. C. Low (Eds.), Integrating technology in the mathematical sciences (pp. 53-61). Malaysia: University of Science Malaysia Press.
3. Arnold, S. (2008). Making algebra meaningful with technology. Paper presented at the 3rd National Conference of Graphing Calculators, Malaysia.
4. Bouck, E. C. (2009). Calculating the value of graphing calculators for seventh-grade students with and without disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 30(4), 207-215.
5. Brooks-Young, S. (2009). Enrich math and science instruction using technology. Today's Catholic Teacher, 43(2), 14.
6. Daire, S. A. (2010). Transforming functions. The Mathematics Teacher, 103(9), 704.
7. Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Educational communications and technology (pp. 170-199). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
8. Ha, T. Y. (2008). Technology-Integrated Mathematics Education (TIME): A study of integrations between teachers and students in technology-integrated secondary mathematics classrooms. University of Hawai'i.
9. Harskamp, E., Suhre, C., & Van Streun, A. (2000). The graphics calculator and students' solution strategies. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 12(1), 37-52.
10. Honeycutt, B. B., & Pierce, B. A. (2007). Illustrating probability in genetics with hands-on learning: making the math real. The American Biology Teacher, 69(9), 554-561.
11. Horton, R. M., Storm, J., & Leonard, W. H. (2004). The graphing calculators as an aid to teaching algebra. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 4(2), 152-162.
12. Kissane, B. (1997). The graphics calculator and the curriculum: the case of probability. In N. Scott, & H.Hollingsworth (Eds.), Mathematics:Creating the Future (pp. 397-404). Melbourne: Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers.
13. Kutzler, B. (1999). The algebraic calculator as a pedagogical tool for teaching mathematics. In E. D. Laughbaum (Ed.), Hand-held technology in mathematics and science education: A collection of papers (pp. 98e109). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.
14. Lee, P. Y. (2004). The impact of technology on teaching of mathematics. In A. H. Yahya, B. Adam, M. I. Ahmad Izani, H. L. Koh, & H. C. Low (Eds.), Integrating technology in the mathematical sciences (pp. 13-17). Malaysia: Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia.
15. Muhd Khairiltitov, Z. (2003). Abstract: Penggunaan Kalkulator Grafik Di Sekolah-Sekolah Di Malaysia: Penerokaan dan Cabaran. Paper presented at the 1st National Conference on Graphing Calculators, Malaysia.
16. Munisamy, S., & Doraisamy, L. (1998). Levels of understanding of probability concepts among secondary school pupils. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 29(1), 39-45.
17. Ng, W. L. (2011). Using an advanced graphing calculator in the teaching and learning of calculus. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 42(7), 925-938.
18. Nik Ra fidah, N. A. R., Zarita, Z., & Safian, U. (2008). Using graphic calculators in teaching and learning functions and graphs at matriculation level. Paper presented at the 3rd National Conference of Graphing Calculators, Malaysia.
19. Noraini, I. (2004). Exploration and entertaining mathematics: why graphic calculator?. Paper presented at the 2nd National Conference on Graphing Calculators, Malaysia.
20. Noraini, I. (2006a). Exploring the effect of TI-84 plus on achievement and anxiety in mathematics. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2(3), 67-78.
21. Noraini, I. (2006b). Usage of graphing calculator TI-83 plus: motivation and achievement. Jurnal Pendidikan (Education Journal), 31, 143-156.
22. Nor'ain, M. T., Rohani, A. T., Wan Zah, W. A., & Mohd Majid, K. (2011). The use of graphic calculator in teaching and learning of mathematics: effects on performance and metacognitive awareness. American International Journal of Contemporary Research, 1(1), 59-72.
23. Schwarz, B. B., & Hershkowitz, R. (1999). Prototypes: brakes or levers in learning the function concept? The role of computer tools. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(4), 362-389.
24. Serhan, D. (2006). The effect of graphing calculators use on students' understanding of the derivative at a Point. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning. http://www.cimt.plymouth.ac.uk/journal/serhan.pdf.
25. Simonsen, L. M., & Dick, T. P. (1997). Teachers perceptions of the impact of graphing calculators in the mathematics classroom. Journal of Computer in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 16, 239-268.
26. Slavit, D. (1994). The effect of graphing calculators on students' conceptions of functions. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
27. Sundram, M. (2008). Designing examination questions by incorporating the Use of graphing calculator. Paper presented at the 3rd National Conference of Graphing Calculators, Malaysia.
28. Tan, C.-K. (2012). Effects of the application of graphing calculator on students' probability achievement. Computers & Education, 58, 1117-1126.
29. Tan, C.-K., Madhubala, B. H., & Lau, S.-H. (2011). Graphing calculator for probability students: how was it perceived? IBIMA Business Review, 2011, 1-11.
30. Thompson, D. R., & Senk, S. L. (2001). The effects of curriculum on achievement in second-year algebra: the example of the university of Chicago school mathematics project. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(1), 58-84.
31. TIMSS 2011 International Results in Mathematics (2013). TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College. IEA International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
32. Van Streun, A., Harskamp, E., & Suhre, C. (2000). The effect of the graphic calculator on students' solution approaches: a secondary analysis. Hiroshima Journal of Mathematics Education, 8, 27-39.
33. Waits, B. K., & Demana, F. (1998a). The role of graphing calculators in mathematics reform. In E. D. Laughbaum (Ed.), Hand-held technology in mathematics and science education: A collection of papers (pp. 72-75). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.
34. Waits, B. K., & Demana, F. (1998b). The role of hand-held computer symbolic algebra in mathematics education in Twenty-First century: a call for action? In E. D. Laughbaum (Ed.), Hand-held technology in mathematics and science education: A collection of papers (pp. 85-97) Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.
35. Waits, B. K., & Demana, F. (1999a). Calculators in mathematics teaching and learning: past, present, and future. In E. D. Laughbaum (Ed.), Hand-held technology in mathematics and science education: A collection of papers (pp. 2-11). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.
36. Waits, B. K., & Demana, F. (1999b). A new breed of calculators: they will change the way and what you teach. In E. D. Laughbaum (Ed.), Hand-held technology in mathematics and science education: A collection of papers (pp. 81-84). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.