Perhaps a matter of imagination TPCK in mathematics education

Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 145-165

  Grandgenett, Neal F ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA AT OMAHA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85076054042     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (56)

1. American Educational Research Association. (2005). Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education. Edited by M. Cochran-Smith and K. M. Zeichner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
2. Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators. (2006). Preparing teachers to use technology to enhance the learning of mathematics. An AMTE position statement, published January, 2006. Accessible at http://www.amte.net.
3. Ball, L., & Stacey, K. (2005). Teaching strategies for developing judicious technology use. In W. J. Masalski, & P. C. Elliott (eds), Technology-supported mathematics learning environments, the Sixty-Seventh Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
4. Borja, R. R. (2006). Voices of experience. In the focus issue entitled, The information edge: Using data to accelerate achievement, of Education Week, 25(35), 35.
5. Caldwell, J. H., & Masat, F. E. (1991). A knapsack problem, critical-path analysis, and expression trees. In M. J. Kenney & C. R. Hirsch (eds), Discrete mathematics across the curriculum, K-12, the 1991 Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
6. Checkley, K. (2006). "Radical" math becomes the standard: Emphasis on algebraic thinking, problem solving, communication. Education Update, newsletter within the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 48(4), 1-2, 8.
7. Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
8. Davis, R. B., Maher, C. A., & Noddings, N. (1990). Suggestions for the improvement of mathe-matics education. In Constructivist views on the teaching and learning of mathematics, Monograph Number 4. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
9. Education Commission of the States. (2003). Eight questions on teacher preparation: What does the research say? Denver, CO: ECS. Available from www.ecs.org/treport.
10. Falconer, K. (2003). Fractal geometry: Mathematical foundations and applications. Chichester, West Sussex, England: John Wiley and Sons.
11. Frykholm, J., & Glasson, G. (2005). Connecting science and mathematics instruction: Pedagogi-cal context knowledge for teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 105(3), 127-141.
12. Fuson, K. C., Kalchman, M., & Bransford, J. D. (2005). Mathematical understanding: An Intro-duction. In M. S. Donovan, & J. D. Bransford (eds), How students learn: History, mathe-matics, and science in the classroom. Committee on How People Learn, A targeted report for teachers from the National Research Council, Washington, DC: The National Acade-mies Press.
13. Gardiner, A. D. (1991). A cautionary note. In M. J. Kenney & C. R. Hirsch (eds), Discrete mathe-matics across the curriculum, K-12, the 1991 Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
14. Gates, P. (2004). Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, held in Bergen, Norway, July 14-18.
15. Hegedus, S. J., & Kaput, J. J. (2004). An introduction to the profound potential of connected algebra activities: Issues of representation, engagement and pedagogy. Proceedings of the 28th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 3(1), 129-136.
16. Heid, M. K. (2005). Technology in mathematics education: Tapping into visions of the future. In W. J. Masalski & P. C. Elliott (eds), Technology-supported mathematics learning environ-ments, the Sixty-Seventh Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
17. Heid, M. K., & Edwards, M. T. (2001). Computer algebra systems: Revolution or retrofit for today's classrooms? Theory into Practice, 40 (Spring), 128-136.
18. Hofer, M. (2005). Technology and teacher preparation in exemplary institutions: 1994 to 2003. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 22(1), 5-14.
19. Hoff, D. J. (2006). Delving into data: States and districts are beginning to build digital data systems that can drive decisions in the classroom and the boardroom. In the focus issue entitled, The information edge: Using data to accelerate achievement, Education Week, 25(35), 12-14, 20-22.
20. Horwitz, P., & Tinker, R. (2005). Universal design with technology. The Concord Consortium, 9(1), 1, 4-5.
21. Kaput, J. J. (2000). Implications of the shift from isolated, expensive technology to connected, inexpensive, diverse and ubiquitous technologies. Proceedings of the International Confer-ence on Technology in Mathematics Education, Auckland, NZ.
22. Kaser, J., Bourexis, P. S., Loucks-Horsley, S., & Raizen, S. A. (1999). Enhancing program quality in science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
23. Kim, J. (2003). Overcoming challenges in urban education: CPMSA achievement highlights and case stories of five sites. Boston, MA: Systemic Research, Inc.
24. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educa-tional Research Journal, 32, 465-491.
25. Lesmoir-Gordon, N. (2001). Introducing fractal geometry. Duxford, Cambridge, England: Icon Publishers.
26. Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Gonzalez, E. J., & Chrostowski, S. J. (2004). Findings from IEA's trends in international mathematics and science study at the fourth and eighth grades. Chest-nut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
27. Mertler, C. A., & Vannatta, R. A. (2005). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods, 3rd edn. Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Publishing.
28. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2003). Not "what" but "how": Becoming design-wise about educa-tional technology. In Y. Zhao (ed.), What should teachers know about technology? Perspec-tives and practices (pp. 99-121). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
29. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A new frame-work for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
30. Moses, B. (2000). Exploring our world through algebraic thinking. Mathematics Education Dia-logues, April. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
31. Moses, R. P. (1994). Remarks on the struggle for citizenship and math/science literacy. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 13, 107-111.
32. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. A report to the nation and the Secretary of Education, United States Department of Education.
33. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathe-matics. Reston, VA: NCTM. Accessible at http://www.nctm.org.
34. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2003). The use of technology in the learning and teaching of mathematics. NCTM position statement, published October. Accessible at http://standards.nctm.org.
35. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2005). Closing the achievement gap. NCTM posi-tion statement, published April. Accessible at http://standards.nctm.org.
36. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2006). Curriculum focal points for prekindergarten through grade 8 mathematics: A quest for coherence. Reston, VA: NCTM. Accessible at http://www.nctm.org.
37. National Research Council. (2005). How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom. Committee on How People Learn, A targeted report for teachers, M. S. Donovan & J. D. Bransford, (eds) Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
38. National Science Board. (2003). The science and engineering workforce realizing America's potential. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
39. Noddings, N. (2000). Algebra for all? Why? Mathematics Education Dialogues, April. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
40. Peterson, I. (1988). The mathematical tourist: Snapshots of modern mathematics. New York: Freeman and Company Publishers.
41. Priwer, S., & Phillips, C. (2003). The everything Einstein book. Avon, MA: Adams Media Corpora-tion.
42. Reece, G. C., Dick, J., Dildine, J. P., Smith, K., Storaasli, M., Travers, K. J., et al. (2005). Engaging students in authentic mathematics activities through calculators and small robots. In W. J. Masalski, & P. C. Elliott (eds), Technology-supported mathematics learning environments, the Sixty-Seventh Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
43. Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155-169.
44. Rosen, K. H. (1999). Discrete mathematics and its applications. San Francisco, CA: McGraw Hill.
45. Seilar, G., Tobin, K., & Sokolic, J. (2001). Design, technology, and science: Sites for learning, resistance, and social reproduction in urban schools. Journal of Research in Science Teach-ing, 48(7), 746-767.
46. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
47. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educa-tional Review, 57(1), 1-22.
48. Sinclair, N., & Crespo, S. (2006). Learning mathematics in dynamic computer environments. Teaching Children Mathematics, 12(9), 437-444.
49. Steen, L. A. (1988). The science of patterns. Science, 240, 29.
50. Steen, L. A. (1992). Does everybody need to study algebra? Mathematics Teacher, 85(4), 258-260.
51. Swanson, R. R. (2006). Tracking U.S. Trends. In the focus issue entitled, The information edge: Using data to accelerate achievement, Education Week, 35, 50-55.
52. Thompson, C., & Zeuli, J. (1999). The frame and the tapestry: Standards-based reform and pro-fessional development. In L. Darling-Hammond and G. Sykes (eds), Teaching as a learn-ing profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 341-375). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
53. Turner, M. J., Blackledge, J. M., & Andrews, P. R. (1998). Fractal geometry in digital imagery. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
54. United States Department of Education. (2005). The secretary's fourth annual report on teacher quality, from the office of Postsecondary Education. Jessup, MD: Educational Publications Center, U.S. Department of Education.
55. Vincent, J. (2005). Interactive geometry software and mechanical linkages: Scaffolding students' deductive reasoning. In W. J. Masalski & P. C. Elliott (eds), Technology-supported mathe-matics learning environments, the Sixty-Seventh Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
56. Zehr, M. A. (2006). Monthly checkups: A new principal works with teachers to get the most out of district benchmark assessments. In the focus issue entitled, The information edge: Using data to accelerate achievement, Education Week, 25(35), 35.