Learning the indefinite integral in a dynamic and interactive technological environment

ZDM - International Journal on Mathematics Education

Volumn 46, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 517-531

  Swidan, Osama ^a   Yerushalmy, Michal ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HAIFA   (Israel)

Author keywords

Dynamic artifact; Graphs; Indefinite integral; Mediation; Objectification

Indexed keywords

EID: 84926318658     PISSN: 18639690     EISSN: 18639704     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11858-014-0583-1     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Arzarello, F., Paola, D., Robutti, O., & Sabena, C. (2009). Gestures as semiotic resources in the mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics,70(2), 97–109. doi:10.1007/s10649-008-9163-z.
2. Bartolini Bussi, M. G., & Mariotti, M. A. (2008). Semiotic mediation in the mathematics classroom: artifacts and signs after a Vygotskian perspective. In L. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (2nd ed., pp. 746–783). New York: Routledge.
3. Berger, M. (2004). The functional use of a mathematical sign. Educational Studies in Mathematics,55(1), 81–102.
4. Berry, J. S., & Nyman, M. A. (2003). Promoting students’ graphical understanding of the calculus. Journal of Mathematical Behavior,22(4), 479–495.
5. Botzer, G., & Yerushalmy, M. (2008). Embodied semiotic activities and their role in the construction of mathematical meaning of motion graphs. International Journal for Computers in Mathematical Learning,13(2), 111–134. doi:10.1007/s10758-008-9133-7.
6. Hughes-Hallett, D., & Gleason, A. (1994). Calculus. New York: Wiley.
7. Kaput, J., & Schorr, R. (2008). Changing representational infrastructures changes most everything: the case of SimCalc, algebra, and calculus. In G. Blume & K. Heid (Eds.), Research on technology and the teaching and learning of mathematics (Vol. 2, pp. 211–253)., Cases and perspective Charlotte: IAP-Information Age Publishing.
8. Mariotti, M. (2009). Artifacts and signs after a Vygotskian perspective: the role of the teacher. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 41(4), 427–440. doi:10.1007/s11858-009-0199-z.
9. Metaxas, N. (2007). Difficulties on understanding the indefinite integral. In J. H. Woo, H. C. Lew, K. S. Park, & D. Y. Seo (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 3 (pp. 265–272). Seoul.
10. Noble, T., Nemirovsky, R., Wright, T., & Tierney, C. (2001). Experiencing change: the mathematics of change in multiple environments. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,32(1), 85–108.
11. Núñez, R. (2006). Do real numbers really move? Language, thought, and gesture: the embodied cognitive foundations of mathematics. In R. Hersh (Ed.), 18 unconventional essays on the nature of mathematics (pp. 160–181). New York: Springer.
12. Radford, L. (2003). Gestures, speech, and the sprouting of signs: a semiotic-cultural approach to students’ types of generalization. Mathematical Thinking and Learning,5(1), 37–70.
13. Radford, L. (2008). The ethics of being and knowing: towards a cultural theory of learning. In L. Radford, G. Schubring, & F. Seeger (Eds.), Semiotics in mathematics education: epistemology, history, classroom, and culture (pp. 215–234). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
14. Radford, L., Bardini, C., Sabena, C., Diallo, P., & Simbagoye, A. (2005). On embodiment, artifacts, and signs: a semiotic-cultural perspective on mathematical thinking. In H. L. Chick & J. L. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 113–120). Australia: University of Melbourne.
15. Schwartz, J., & Yerushalmy, M. (1995). On the need for a bridging language for mathematical modeling. For the Learning of Mathematics,15(2), 29–35.
16. Shternberg, B., & Yerushalmy, M. (2004). Didactic model–bridging a concept with phenomena. In Ihe Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 4 (pp. 185–192). Norway: Bergan.
17. Shternberg, B., Yerushalmy, M., & Zilber, A. (2004). The Calculus Integral Sketcher. http://calculus.cet.ac.il/Lib/item.aspx?sID=DDE91E48-EB26-41B6-ABE3BACBADBCEA78&bPopup=1&bFitSize=1.
18. Thomas, M. O., Yoon, C., & Dreyfus, T. (2009). Multimodal use of semiotic resources in the construction of antiderivative. In R. Hunter, B. Bicknell, & T. Burgess (Eds.), Crossing divides. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Vol. 2. Palmerston North: MERGA.
19. Thompson, P. W., Byerley, C., & Hatfield, N. (2013). A conceptual approach to calculus made possible by technology. Computers in the Schools,30(1–2), 124–147. doi:10.1080/07380569.2013.768941.
20. Ubuz, B. (2007). Interpreting a graph and constructing its derivative graph: stability and change in students’ conceptions. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology,38(5), 609–637.
21. Yerushalmy, M. (1997). Mathematizing verbal descriptions of situations: a language to support modeling. Cognition and Instruction,15(2), 207–264.
22. Yerushalmy, M., & Swidan, O. (2012). Signifying the accumulation graph in a dynamic and multirepresentation environment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 80(3), 287–306. doi:10.1007/s10649-011-9356-8