chris budd will be speaking on 'visions of maths and...

Mara Alagic: What Change Is Technology Bringing to Conceptual Understandings of Mathematical Ideas?

What Change Is Technology Bringing to

Conceptual Understandings of Mathematical Ideas?(WORK IN PROGRESS)

Mara AlagicWichita State University, Wichita, USA

[email protected]

Through every rift of discovery some seeming anomaly drops out of the

darkness, and falls, as a golden link into the great chain of order.

- Ed Hubbel Chapin (1814-880).

Abstract

Technology integration is bringing new lenses to our understanding of key mathematical

ideas. This paper addresses some of the issues relevant to teaching mathematics for conceptual

understanding in the technology-based environment. By reflecting on some of the existing

knowledge in this area and teachers deliberation as they learn to integrate technology in their

mathematics teaching, it strives to bring more light to the scene and capture the “struggle”

Paper presented at the IMECT3 - Third International Conference on Mathematics Enrichment with Communication Technology at Robinson College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England July 2002

1


Introduction... the defining characteristic of knowledge workers is that they

are themselves changed by the information they process

Kidd (1994, p. 186)

Current research suggests that the use of technology integrated into the curriculum is a powerful

learning tool, bringing new lenses to our understanding of key mathematical ideas. Specifically in the

domain of mathematical knowledge development, technology (1) empowers teachers and students to deal

1with multiple representations, (2) enhances ability to visualize, (3) increases opportunities for development

of conceptual understanding, and (4) enhances opportunity for individualized learning.

For many teachers understandings of key mathematical ideas are grounded in the ways they have

learned them before this technology-induced paradigm shift was so powerful. These same teachers are

teaching new generations of pupils born and being educated surrounded with the explosion of emerging

technologies. Bridging this kind of “digital divide” requires revisiting roles that representations, and

translations among representations, play in mathematical learning and problem solving. This paper, in its

first part, brings together teaching mathematics for conceptual understanding in the technology-based

environment, by considering mathematics teaching and technology in general terms, exploring conceptual

understanding via multiple representations and addressing some effects of the cognitive tools to teaching

and learning mathematics.

“Technology in the Mathematics Classroom K-12” is a course that pre-service and practicing

teachers take to advance their knowledge of technology integration. Learners’ interactions (instructor-

teachers, teacher-teacher) played a significant role in designing this course. The qualitative features of these

interactions as they relate to learning to teach mathematics for conceptual understanding in the technology-

based environment will be explored. Other results have been reported elsewhere (Alagic, 2002; Alagic &

Langrall, 2002). Data collected is comprised of online interactions, questionnaires, assignments, and

interviews of the teachers (students in the course). The second part of this paper is a reflection on teachers’

deliberations related to teaching mathematics for conceptual understanding in the technology-based

environment. The following four questions are in the center of these deliberations:

How are technology-based representations of mathematical concepts different from standard

representations?

What do you think is the influence of technology-based representations on YOUR conceptual

understanding of specific mathematical ideas and on the development of your pedagogical content

knowledge?


2


What criteria are you as a teacher going to use to balance between technology-based and "other"

representations?

Mathematics Teaching and Technology... what theoretical reflection we need if we want to really help

teachers to adequately use technological tools...

(Lagrange, 2002, p. 15)

Technology Principle. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM, 2000)

identified the "Technology Principle" as one of six principles of high quality mathematics

education. The principle states: "Technology is essential in teaching and learning mathematics; it

influences the mathematics that is taught and enhances students' learning" (p. 24). Preparing

teachers to integrate technology appropriately requires professional development that focuses on

both conceptual and pedagogical issues, and ongoing support. This is a complex task for teacher

educators and its success significantly depends on teachers’ beliefs and openness to changes in the

classroom practice (e.g.,Waits & Demana, 2000).

The research on use of technology reveals the complexities of the interplay of technology

and teaching in the learning of mathematics. One thing remains constant. It is ultimately the

mathematics teachers, not the technological tools that remain the key to the success of the

mathematical learning environment. Their own perspective on the nature of mathematics, on the

potential of the technology, and the training that they receive determines their effectiveness in

integration of the technology in mathematics learning. (Garofalo, Drier, Harper, Timmerman, &

Shockey, 2000; Kaput, 1992; NCTM, 1991, 2000). The external world is interpreted according to

ones own experiences, beliefs, and knowledge and therefore each person visualizes the external

world at least slightly differently. As learners, teachers are able to comprehend a variety of

interpretations and use them. But they cannot map their own interpretations of the world directly

onto their students, because they do not share a set of common experiences and understandings.

Yet another key piece of teacher knowledge for building a technology-based learning environment

is how to teach for transfer. Teaching practices congruent with a metacognitive approach to

learning include those that focus on sense-making, self-assessment, and reflection on what worked

and what needs improving. These practices have been shown to increase the degree to which

students transfer their learning to new settings and events (Schoenfeld, 1991).


3


Technology in Context. The use of technology in mathematics teaching should support and

facilitate conceptual development, exploration, reasoning and problem solving, as described by the

NCTM (1989, 1991, and 2000). Technology enables users to explore topics in more depth and in

more interactive ways. It makes accessible the study of mathematics topics that were previously

impractical, such as recursion and regression, by removing computational constraints. Technology-

augmented activities should take advantage of these capabilities of technology, and hence should

extend beyond or significantly enhance what could be done without technology. These activities

can facilitate mathematical connections in a variety of ways: (a) interconnect and integrate

mathematics topics, (b) connect mathematics to real-world phenomena, (c) multiple

representations.

What factors determine the success of the use of technology in learning mathematics?

The following guidelines provide the essential ideas for strengthening mathematics instruction

while integrating technology (Garofalo, Shockey, Harper, & Drier, 1999; Flick & Bell, 2000).

1. Technology should be introduced in the context of mathematics content.

2. Technology should address worthwhile mathematics with appropriate pedagogy.

3. Technology instruction in mathematics should take advantage of the unique features of

technology.

4. Technology should make scientific views more accessible.

5. Technology instruction should develop students' understanding of the relationship between

technology and mathematics.

These guidelines are interconnected and our classroom experiences always addressed more

than one.

Teaching Mathematics for Conceptual Understanding “Students do not necessarily interpret results in the manner that is

“obvious” (to the mathematics teacher).

(Dreyfus, 2002, p. 26)

When students attain understanding, what have they achieved? What students do in

response to the questions that put understanding into action show their level of understanding.

Students might be able to solve an equation, but if there is no understanding of where the equation

is coming from or where and how to use it, they may just be using a memorized skill that is going Paper presented at the IMECT3 - Third International Conference on Mathematics Enrichment

with Communication Technology at Robinson College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England July 20024


to be useful only for that type of equation, nothing more. Understanding a concept or a topic of

study is being able to carry out a variety of actions or performances with the topic by the ways of

critical thinking: explain, apply, transfer, generalize, represent in a new way, make analogies and

metaphors, and so on. It is being able to take knowledge and use it in new ways (Perkins, 1993).

Teachers set the classroom atmosphere for the kinds of inquiry in which students engage,

whether with the teacher or among themselves (Cohen, 1990; Porter, 1989; Thompson &

Thompson, 1994). The images and beliefs that they have about the nature of mathematics

influence the way they are teaching (Bauersfeld, 1980; Cooney, 1985). These images reveal

themselves in two main orientations: calculational and conceptual (Thompson, Philipp,

Thompson, & Boyd, 1994). Students also have varying degrees of conceptual or calculational

orientations to mathematics. Those who have adapted to calculationally-oriented instruction will

expect that the classroom discussions will be about getting answers (Nicholls, Cobb, Yackel,

Wood, & Wheatley, 1990). They will not only have difficulty focusing on their and others'

reasoning, they may also consider such a focus as being irrelevant to their images of what

mathematics is about. On the other hand, students who have adopted a conceptual orientation will

likely engage in longer, more meaningful discussions (Cobb, Wood, & Yackel, 1991). A

conceptual approach aims for students to solve problems by working from their own

understandings (Thompson, Philipp, Thompson, & Boyd, 1994).

For teachers, it is not sufficient to know how to solve the problem with which the students

may be grappling, nor is it sufficient to know several solution methods (McDiarmid, Ball, &

Anderson, 1989). To be able to facilitate students' thinking in productive ways, teachers need to

have an image of students' thinking as they develop these ideas. Any teacher can begin building

this image by encouraging students to reason and express him or herself accordingly, by listening

to their reasoning, respecting it, and asking students to do likewise.

The interplay of factual knowledge, procedural proficiency, and conceptual understanding

makes all three components usable in powerful ways. Students who memorize facts or procedures

without understanding often are not sure when or how to use what they know, and such learning is

often quite fragile (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999). Mathematics makes more sense and is

easier to remember and to apply when students connect new knowledge to existing knowledge in

meaningful ways (Schoenfeld, 1988). Learning with understanding also makes subsequent learning

easier.


5


Studies in complex domains such as solving science problems (Bromage & Mayer, 1981;

Heller & Reif, 1984; Robertson, 1986) have suggested that conceptual understanding is associated

with connections -- connections between science concepts and everyday life and connections

among the different concepts in a discipline. Someone who is good at solving transfer problems

does not randomly connect concepts (which might occur when using memorized algorithms to

solve problems) but rather integrates the concepts into a well-structured knowledge base.

Conceptual Understanding via Multiple RepresentationsThings before words, concrete before abstract.

– Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi (1803)

How is the information processed once it has been perceived and has entered the cognitive

system? The answer to this question depends on the way information is represented in the system.

Understanding this constitutes an important piece of teacher knowledge for designing an effective

technology-enhanced learning environment. Some types of knowledge representation preserve

much of the structure of the original perceptual experience. Those are called perception-based

representations. Our minds have an ability to best remember what is most important. Meaning-

based representations are quite abstracted from the perceptual details and incorporate the meaning

of the experience (Anderson, 2000). Representations can be a process and a concept; a tool for

thinking and a finished product. They are observable both externally and internally (NCTM, 2000).

There are many ways of knowing through representations: examples, models, demonstrations,

simulations, analogies, and metaphors.


6

TRANSLATION BETWEEN MODES OF

REPRESENTATION

WRITTEN SYMBOLS

REAL-WORLD EXPERIENCE

MANIPULATIVES = CONCRETE

PICTURES

SPOKEN SYMBOLS

SPOKEN SYMBOLS

PICTURESMANIPULATIVES = CONCRETE

REAL-WORLD EXPERIENCE

WRITTEN SYMBOLS


Teachers who can represent a concept in a variety of ways provide a vehicle for all students

to grasp the concept and make connections to previous and future understandings. Teachers' use of

representations can supply a rich repertoire of access points for accommodating the different ways

students have been found to learn (Fischer, 1980, Bidell & Fischer, 1992, as cited in Fink, 1993),

provided such representations are already familiar to students (Janvier, 1987, p. 102-103; Dufour-

Janvier, Bednarz, & Belanger, 1987).

Multiple representations for certain concepts have been linked with greater flexibility in

student thinking (Ohlsson, 1987, as cited in Leinhardt, et. al. 1991). Such flexibility, in turn, has

also been associated with better transfer of learning into the ill-structured domains typical of the

real world (Spiro, Vispoel, Schmitz, Samarapungavan, Boerger, 1987). As an arena in which

teachers' creativity can come to the fore, instructional representations provide a temporary context

for incubating student understanding. By blending familiarity and challenge to stimulate

development, they are akin to Papert's "microworlds" (1980), Schoenfeld's "reference worlds"

(1986, as cited in Leinhardt, et. al., 1991) and Kegan's (1982) "holding environments."

Representing knowledge. Langer (1989) and others (cf. Salomon & Globerson, 1987)

emphasize the importance of mindfulness in learning. Students learn and retain the most from

thinking in critical and creative ways. Some of the best thinking results when students try to

represent what they know. Representing knowledge require students to think in meaningful ways

to represent what they know, actively engage in creating knowledge that reflects their

understanding of mathematical ideas rather than absorbing predetermined presentations of

knowledge.

To use a calculator, a real-world problem must be restated in symbolic form. Students

starting to use calculators, especially if they are using them with problems involving more than one

operation, usually need some help (Wiebe, 1989). The fundamental problem here, as in other

examples of learning to use intellectual tools, is understanding and becoming proficient in abstract

representational systems that convey concepts. When using a calculator, students have to

understand both mathematical representations and how to translate information depicted in

question format to the final solution. The step from natural language to symbolic notation is

probably too large. Therefore, an intermediate representation would be useful in order to promote

understanding. It is this aspect which is crucial and is therefore the principal cognitive model

within the environment.


7


Problem solving and “word problems” are about restating the problem in different format,

symbolic form. The necessary cognitive process requires the mapping of mental models to

representations. Since there are multiple representations, translation between them is essential in

order to assist learning. Teachers in a technology-based learning environment facilitate the

understanding of mathematical concepts through the use of multiple representations and its

cognitive modeling (i.e. environment plus embedded model), (a) the construction and use of

mental models; (b) the mapping of mental models to representations (i.e. cognitive modeling); and

(c) the translation (i.e. re-representation).

Representation standard (NCTM, 2000) recognizes representations as essential elements in

building students’ conceptual understanding of mathematical concepts and relationships and in

communicating mathematical arguments and understandings to one’s self and to others. The term

representation, in the same standard, refers both to the process of “capturing” representation and

to the product - the form itself. Furthermore, the term applies to processes and products that are

observable externally (external representations) as well as to those that occur “internally” (internal

representations, mental models).

Teachers can gain valuable insight into students’ ways of interpreting and thinking

about mathematics by looking at their representations and building bridges from students’

personal representation to more conventional ones. Different representations often clarify


8

MENTALMODELS/INTERNAL REPRESENTATIONS

EXTERNAL REPRESENTATIONS& TRANSLATIONS


different aspects of a complex concept or relationship. Students need opportunities to construct,

refine, and use their own representations as tools to support their own learning and doing

mathematics for conceptual understanding.

Students demonstrate conceptual understanding in mathematics when they provide

evidence that they can recognize, label, and generate examples of concepts; use and interrelate

models, diagrams, manipulatives, and varied representations of concepts; identify and apply

principles; know and apply facts and definitions; compare, contrast, and integrate related concepts

and principles; recognize, interpret, and apply the signs, symbols, and terms used to represent

concepts. Conceptual understanding reflects a student's ability to reason in settings involving the

careful application of concept definitions, relations, or representations. (NCTM, 2000).

Since every transfer can be considered as a new representation, the principle that people

learn by using what they know to establish their new understandings can be reformulated into

“learning occurs through representations” where representations are considered either as concepts

(objects, fixed representations) or as transfer-processes between different media. Processes of

learning and transfer are central to understanding how people develop important competencies. It

is especially important to understand the kinds of learning experiences that lead to transfer,

defined as ability to extend what has been learned in one context to new contexts (NRC, 2000). It

goes to understanding defined as flexible performance (Perkins, 1993), and more specifically to

conceptual understanding.

Problem Representation. The main reason that experts are better problem solvers than

novices is that they construct richer, more integrated mental representations of problems than do

novices. Their representations integrate domain knowledge with problem types, so they are able to

better classify problem types (Chi, Feltovich, & Glaser, 1981; Larkin, 1983). Whether problems

are represented as production rules (Anderson, 1983) or as schema-like forms (Chi & Bassock,

1989; Larkin, 1983) it is generally accepted that problem solvers need some kind of internal

representation (mental model) of a problem in order to solve a problem. Problem representations

can guide further interpretation/simulation of the problem, and/or associate with and trigger a

particular solution schema (Savelsbergh, de Jong, & Ferguson-Hessler, 1998).

Problem representation is the key to problem solving among novice learners as well as

experts. Instruction must help learners to construct problem representations that integrate their

problem representations with their knowledge. What characterizes good problem representations?


9


The quality of internal problem representations is a function of the coherence (internal structure)

and the integration of the different representations (qualitative and quantitative, abstract-concrete,

visual verbal). What make experienced problems solvers more effective is their richer, more

coherent and interconnected representations of problems.

Multiple Representations. Cox and Brna (1995) have shown that when people are learning

complicated new ideas it helps to interact with various representations like diagrams, graphs and

animations. If the learner can integrate information from representations with different formats

then they often acquire a deeper understanding of the concept. On the other hand, if the learner

fails to make the connection between the different kinds of information, then many of the benefits

that multiple representations provide will not occur (e.g.Tabachneck, Leonardo & Simon, 1994)

and it can even inhibit learning (Ainsworth, Bibby & Wood, 2002). What then can be done to

ensure that learners can translate information between representations in the technology –based

environment?

Activities should incorporate multiple representations of mathematical topics. Research

shows that many students have difficulty connecting the verbal, graphical, numerical and algebraic

representations of mathematical functions (Goldenberg, 1988; Leinhardt et al., 1990). Appropriate

use of technology can be effective in helping students make such connections (e.g., connecting

tabulated data to graphs and curves of best fit). "We, as mathematics educators, should make the

best use of multiple representations, especially those enhanced by the use of technology, encourage

and help our students to apply multiple approaches to mathematical problem solving and engage

them in creative thinking" (Jiang & McClintock, 2000, p.19).

Teaching Mathematics for Conceptual Understanding

in the Technology-based EnvironmentStudents do not necessarily do what seems “natural”

(to the instructional designer).

(Dreyfus, 2002, p. 27)

Consideration for representations as a tool for meaningful learning has been given by

anumber of researchers (e.g., Kaput, 1987; Greeno & Hall, 1997; Schultz & Waters, 2000). Greeno

and Hall emphasize importance of students’ exploration in selecting representations when building

their conceptual understanding of mathematical ideas. In the presence of technology, “the ability of


10


students to operate within and between different representations of the same concept or problem

setting is fundamental in effectively applying technology to enhance mathematics learning”

(Demana & Waits, 1990, p.218). Schultz & Waters (2000), while using a variety of representations

for a given mathematical situation, explore some criteria for selecting representations that would

facilitate students learning. For example, which representations best (a) promotes conceptual

understanding, (b) generalizes to higher-level mathematics, (c) applies to finding approximate

solutions, (d) applies to finding exact solutions, (e) suits the learning style and comfort level of the

student? Which representation is best for a given type of technology? What representations do

your student prefer? Which one do you prefer?

With multiple contexts, students are more likely to abstract (yet another representation) the

relevant features of the concepts and develop a more flexible representation of knowledge.

Research has also shown that developing a suite of representations enables learners to think

flexibly about complex domains and develop their conceptual understanding orientation.

Technology-augmented activities should facilitate mathematical connections in two ways:

(a) interconnect mathematics topics and (b) connect mathematics to real-world phenomena.

Technology "blurs some of the artificial separations among some topics in algebra, geometry and

data analysis by allowing students to use ideas from one area of mathematics to better understand

another area of mathematics" (NCTM, 2000, p. 26). Many school mathematics topics can be used

to model and resolve situations arising in the physical, biological, environmental, social, and

managerial sciences. Appropriate use of technology can facilitate such applications by providing

ready access to real data and information, by making the inclusion of mathematics topics useful for

applications more practical, and by making it easier for teachers and students to bring together

multiple representations of mathematics topics.

A potentially abstract problem statement or an abstract arithmetic expression may be

illustrated using the visualization tools to encourage inquiry: i.e. three external graphical

equivalent and linked representational styles. In order to reach a reflective abstraction, scaffolding

through multiple representations should encourage inquiry. Instructional design in a technology-

based environment has to take into consideration opportunities that multiple representations and

translations among them in order to encourage a learner’s inquiry.

Representations are essential components of a learning environment in which learners are

required to think harder about the topic being studied and to generate thinking that would be


11


impossible without these representations. This should lead them to enhancing their conceptual

understanding. But it is not an orientation that can be created easily, and once created, easily

maintained (Romberg & Price, 1981; von Glasersfeld, 1988; Wood, Cobb, & Yackel, 1991). In

short, the real power of technologies to improve education will only be realized when students

actively use them as cognitive tools for building their own representations and translations among

them.

Cognitive tools. Derry (1990) defines cognitive tools as both mental and computational

devices that support, guide, and extend the thinking processes of their users. Jonassen (1992)

describes them as: "generalisable tools that can facilitate cognitive processing " (p.2). Cognitive

tools can make it easier for learners to process information, but their main "goal is to make

effective use of the mental efforts of the learner" (Jonassen, 1996, p.10). These are tools that are

used to engage learners in meaningful cognitive processing of information. They are knowledge

construction and facilitation tools that can be applied to a variety of subject matter domains. These

cognitive tools include specially designed knowledge construction tools, such as semantic

networking tools and micro worlds for mediating learning.

Jonassen and Reeves (1996) assert that well designed cognitive tools should: represent

knowledge (how someone depicts content or personal knowledge); be generalisable (can represent

knowledge in different content areas); engage the learner in critical thinking about the subject;

assist learners to acquire skills that are generalisable and transferable to other contexts; be simple

but powerful in order to encourage deeper thinking and processing of information; be easy to learn

- therefore the mental effort needed to learn the software should not exceed the benefits.

The primary distinction between traditional learning applications of technologies and their

use as cognitive tools is best expressed by Salomon, Perkins, and Globerson (1991) as the effects

OF technology versus the effects WITH computer technology. When students work WITH

computer technology, instead of being controlled by it, they enhance the capabilities of the

computer, and the computer enhances their thinking and learning. The result of an “intellectual

partnership” with the computer is that "the appropriate role for a computer system is not that of a

teacher /expert, but rather, that of a mind-extension cognitive tool" (Derry & LaJoie, 1993, p.5).

Technology should not be used to carry out procedures without appropriate mathematical

and technological understanding (e.g., inserting rote formulas into spreadsheets). Nor should it be

used in ways that can distract from the underlying mathematics. Another way to prevent


12


technology use from compromising mathematics is to encourage users to connect their experiential

findings to more formal aspects of mathematics. Technology should not influence students to take

things at face value or to become what Schoenfeld (1985) referred to as "naive empiricists."

An early stage of knowledge development for designing a technology-enhanced learning

environment might entail an understanding that some representations are better than others for

portraying particular aspects of a situation, knowledge of a range of representations, as well as a

developmental approach to the ways teachers and students can use them (Vergnaud, 1987; Alagic

& Langrall, 2002). With the increased availability of IC technology to provide students with easy

access to a range of representational formats, explicit instruction in crossing between symbol and

referent, as well as how certain representations convey mathematical content more efficiently than

others is now being seen as a crucial aspect of mathematics education (Kaput, 1987).

Another early stage of knowledge development for designing a technology-enhanced

learning environment might involve the awareness that students, faced with multiple

representations for the same concept often learn how to make one correspond with another using

the syntactic rules of math, but without developing a sense of the underlying concept being

represented. Premature or inappropriate use of representations can cause frustration and

misconceptions in children and place undue focus on the representation at the expense of the target

concept; thus, effective representations for the younger student must be based on students' own

drawings and codes (Dufour-Janvier, et. al., 1987, Alagic & Langrall, 2002).

Yet another stage of development might include the recognition that with today’s emerging

technologies the very nature of the problems that can be solved and methods used in the process

are changing: performing calculations; collecting, analyzing, and representing numeric

information; creating and using models and simulations; representational scaffolding higher levels

of abstraction, solving problems with mathematical premises. The hands-on, minds-on learning

experiences fostered through today’s interactive technology applications empower students with a

level of mathematical power they cannot achieve without technology. (Potential for stimulating

higher order thinking when freed from the mechanics of calculating.)

A more advanced stage could involve the understanding of the dialectic between perception

and conceptualization. For example, accessing geometrical knowledge is more often presented as

resulting from the ability to rely efficiently both on spatial and geometrical competencies, as

opposed to resulting from rejection of some perceptive apprehension of geometrical objects.


13


Fostering the dialectic interplay between these differing competencies through more emphasis on

the relevant traits within problems and situations lead to the development of geometrical expertise

(Hoyles & Keith 1998, Laborde 1998, as reported in Lagrange, 2001).

Spreadsheets as cognitive tools for “producing” representations

Spreadsheets have become popular tools for exploring mathematical phenomena and

building conceptual understanding of mathematical ideas. Spreadsheets have three primary

functions: storing, calculating, and presenting information. A spreadsheet program can file

information, usually numerical, into a particular location (the cell). This enables information to be

accessed and retrieved efficiently. Most importantly, spreadsheets support calculation functions.

The numerical contents of any combination of cells can be mathematically related in just about any

way the user wishes. Cells can be added, multiplied, and factored in any combinations of ways.

Most spreadsheets provide mathematical functions such as logarithms and trigonometric functions.

It also includes sophisticated tools for generating tables and graphs.

Spreadsheets are rule-using tools that require users to become rulemakers (Vockell & van

Deusen, 1989). Calculating values in a spreadsheet requires that the user identify relationships and

patterns among the data that he or she wants to represent in the spreadsheet. Next, those

relationships must be modeled mathematically, using rules to describe the relationships in the

model. Building spreadsheets requires abstract reasoning by the user, thereby matching one of the

important goals of cognitive tools. The combined calculational and graphical capabilities of a

spreadsheet provide a context to engage students in analyzing and connecting multiple

representations.

Spreadsheets also support problem-solving activities. Given a problem situation with

complex quantitative relationships, spreadsheets can be used to represent those relationships. The

"what if?" thinking that is supported by spreadsheets is essential to decision analysis. Such

reasoning requires learners to consider implications of conditions or options, thereby engaging

higher order thinking (Sounderpandian, 1989). Identifying values and developing formulas to

interrelate them in spreadsheets enhance learners' understanding of the algorithms used to compare

them and also the mathematical models used to describe content domains. It is sometimes useful to

provide guided activities and problems to structure the use of spreadsheets. For example, to

support higher-level thinking skills such as collecting, describing, and interpreting data, Niess

(1992) provided students with a spreadsheet with wind data from various towns. Wind directions


14


described rows of data, with the percentage of days for each month of the year representing

columns. She then asked students to use the spreadsheet to answer queries, such as: Are the winds

more predominant from one direction during certain months? Why do you think this is the case? In

which months is the wind the calmest? Which wind direction is the most stable during the year?

What Research Supports the Use of Spreadsheets as Cognitive Tools? A few studies have

examined the effects of different instructional treatments on learning to use spreadsheets (Charney,

Reder & Kusbit, 1990; Kerr & Payne, 1994; Tiemann & Markle, 1990). These studies were not

investigating the cognitive requirements or effects of using spreadsheets. Rather they were

interested in the effects of different computer-based tutorial treatments, and spreadsheets happened

to be the content or skill being learned. Baxter and Oatley (1991) compared the effectiveness of

two different spreadsheet packages. Not surprisingly, the users' prior experience level with

spreadsheets was far more important to learning than the usability of the software package. These

studies provide few insights about the effectiveness of spreadsheets as cognitive tools.

In one of the rare studies investigating spreadsheets as cognitive tools, Sutherland and

Rojano (1993) were interested in how prealgebra students could use spreadsheets to represent and

solve algebra problems. This study was conducted simultaneously in Britain and Mexico and took

place over a 5-month period. During that time, students moved from a strict cause-effect local

numerical notion of algebraic relationships to general rule-governed relationships that could be

symbolized both in the spreadsheet and in algebraic notation. Another study used spreadsheets in

community college math classes to help students solve linear and nonlinear equations problems

(Hulse, 1992). Non significant increases in mathematics achievement and decreases in numerical

computation anxiety were reported; however, this study was so methodologically flawed by short

treatment times and the use of inappropriate measures of achievement that it would be difficult to

generalize the results.

Teachers Deliberations: Capturing the “strugle”

"Technology in the Mathematics Classroom K-12” is a three-week summer course (http://education.wichita.edu/alagic/summer2002/752r/752r_first_page.htm) which teachers take either as a part of their requirements for graduate coursework or from a desire to advance their knowledge of technology integration. The underlying themes are:


15

http://education.wichita.edu/alagic/summer2002/752r/752r_first_page.htm


1. Experiencing and doing mathematics as problem solving, reasoning, connecting and communicating through a variety of representations in the technology-based learning environment” (NCTM 2000).

2. Recognizing how conceptual understanding and procedural knowledge are developed together and that their mutual development is enhanced (reinforced) through technology.

3. Reinforcing awareness of changes in the teaching of school mathematics brought both by current school reform for standards-based teaching that supports integration of technology and by the development of IC technology.

4. Evaluating a variety of computer programs and web resources for learning and doing mathematics.

5. Organizing a class for differentiated instruction.

Responses to four of the questions posed at the end of the course are reported below.

Question 1.

How are technology-based representations of mathematical concepts different from standard

representations? Explain in details an example appropriate for the level you are teaching (or will

be teaching).

Teachers mainly supported their answers with examples from this classroom experience.

These examples of mathematical concepts varied from interactive web-sites to the most

sophisticated software available to them (web-quests, interactive work sheets, concept mapping

software, computer algebra systems, and dynamic geometry). Teachers perceived technology

based-representations to be richer, hands-on and more interesting than standard representations,

visual, and dynamic. The main benefit that they report on is more flexibility for teachers. They

recognized variety in methods of presentation, levels of engagement for the learner, opportunities

for feedback and the ability for the teacher to connect many related topics at once. Specifically,

according to these teachers, advantages of the technology-based representations are that they

Appeal to more of the student's senses and help students with their visualization.

Add dimension to the solution of problems.

Are interactive.

Can be manipulated or changed by the students.

Allow the students to get a different picture of what the mathematical concept actually is.

Help make connections between what the students see through the visual representation

and the abstract concept the teacher is trying to teach.


16


Are largely visual and hands on which appeal to many learners.

Are more dynamic, the concept can be animated or edited to “come alive”.

Can involve more of a student ownership/control learning situation.

Based on these answers, reflections and classroom discussions, this group of teachers

focused on advantages of well-designed tools. They seemed to neither have a critical stance in

making their choices nor recognize intrinsic changes that technology-based representations are

bringing to their teaching. Maybe the tone of the class sessions was set too strongly in the direction

of finding appropriate technology based representations that enrich our mathematical ideas. We

speculate that reflecting during and after classroom experiences in their own schools will trigger

some questions.

In the responses to the written question above, all but one teacher strongly recognized a

variety of differences between technology-based and “standard” representation. She writes,

In actuality, I do not believe that technology-based representations are all that different from the

standard representations. Tech-based reps are just in a different format. One enhancement for

tech-based representation was with the proof of the Pythagorean theorem. Using the Web, an

animated version of the proof could lead to a more concrete example of why and how this theorem

works... the worksheet maker for the math facts.

Some of the teachers related to their previous experiences with learning mathematics. One

of them writes,

I do not have the trigonometry background or as much algebra background as some of the

teachers have. The lessons they shared helped me to begin to understand what they were talking

about. As an example, one concept is hyperbola and graphing it. When they could use technology

to show me the actual path or lines, it helped me to see it in my mind. My math teachers from years

ago didn’t help me make the connection between algebra and geometry to the real world. We just

followed the formulas, did the work.

Question 2.

What do you think is the influence of technology-based representations on YOUR

conceptual understanding of specific mathematical ideas and on the development of your

pedagogical content knowledge? Give an example first. Then, elaborate.


17


Mathematics related pedagogical content knowledge term was briefly mentioned in this

class, not really explored. The researcher’s uncertainty about these teachers understanding of

pedagogical content knowledge in terms of Shulman (1986) appeared to be warranted. In an

expectation that teachers would select a mathematical concept and elaborate on their specific PCK

related to that example, the question asked for an example to start with. But most of the teachers

kept their answers quite general. For example,

Technology-based representations will take a concept that is not thoroughly understood and

direct you to many other ways of looking at that concept, therefore elevating your level of

conceptual knowledge.

If there is some theory or rule in math that I do not fully understand, the Internet can be very

helpful in teaching me it. Also, by searching for various ways to teach something I can in turn

learn different ways that students may understand something and see various ways to teach it

to students.

.. a visual and hands on learner....Technology can help cement the concepts in my own brain

and help me gain a higher level of understanding so that I can teach the concepts to students

and have the ability to break down the concept in many different ways to serve the different

learning styles of the students.

... the visual representation ...teachers that struggle with specific concepts can use technology

to help them better understand and better teach that concept to students.

... foresee some of the misconceptions and prior knowledge....I should be able to improve my

pedagogical content knowledge

Examples are followed by general comments. Not much about technology-based

representation as support for scaffolding and differentiating instruction.

... tessellation ... My own pedagogical knowledge increased each time I visited a different site

because it would review the definition of the topic and also show other ways of understanding

and teaching the concept to students

I experience immediate feedback and am able to extend and explore ideas that occur to me

quickly, Green Globs.... Gauge just how much altering I need to make in order to accomplish...

... spreadsheet on probability by doing a word problem....This example, teach me that by using

spreadsheet, I can practice my knowledge of probability with a hand on experience, which was

wrote functions to do the calculation.


18


... Pythagorean theorem...it has helped further my understanding of mathematical concepts and

has brought to light some other details I missed in other mathematical concepts.

.... compound interest. I have had the concept explained to me before, but when I applied the

information to the spreadsheet, I had a clearer understanding of the concept

...multiplication can be taught by using manipulative...multiplication spreadsheet where the

appropriate cells would fill in with color giving a visual picture of the math fact.

And, some additional reflections:

Since I was brought up before the computer age, I have a great respect for what technology

can do for the discovery of new mathematical concepts. For example, in calculus, the concepts

of a secant line “moving” closer to becoming a tangent line. To see that under animation

made me feel warm all over. It made the once difficult- to -understand concept, rather easy.

The use of technology adds the third dimension to any subject matter.

I plan to go through my curriculum with new insight. I will question myself as I plan, if

technology can be beneficial.

When I become a teacher, show them how to use technology-based representations to solve

real world problem. Then let them practice with the technology. I think this is one of the best

ways of learning.

Question 3.

What criteria are you as a teacher going to use to balance between technology-based and

"other" representations?

Teachers’ answers fell into the following categories:

Availability of the technology:

- I can usually get in the lab about 3 times a week for about 45 minutes.

- I will use what technology is available to me...take students to the computer lab to use

software to reinforce my teaching.

Improving students’ understanding and achievement (learning styles of students, reinforcing

teaching, students needs),

- If the technology is going to improve student achievement.

- One that can benefit most of students in the classroom.

- If technology can help me to demonstrate some of the concepts that I am teaching,...


19


Balance and variety

- A balance between traditional and technological instruction.

- By mixing your teaching up, your students are more likely to stay interested.

- Varity is crucial for the students, and me.

Teacher’s knowledge and confidence with use of technology

- When I am very comfortable with (technology), that I know how to use.

Although most of the teachers identify specific criteria, some of them are cautious to

explicate any specific ground for decision making. They are describing the process they think they

will go through when making choices. The following reflective answers capture the essence of

some teachers’ dilemmas

I won’t forgo all other forms of representations and go all out technology. The balance will

come when I get a “feel” for where my students are in their use of current technology. The

overuse of a certain technology tool will need to be avoided.... The initial concepts of the

subject need to be addressed initially in traditional ways. Problems solved on the blackboard

help the student see the steps needed to come up with the solution. Once the student is given the

background of the subject, the use of technology should be introduced to strengthen its

application or practice.

If I can put together a standard representation that will work just as well in a shorter amount

of time, I might opt for the standard.

I will experiment with a variety of technological representations and maybe even use more

than one in the same concept as needed by the individuals I am teaching. I do not believe that

all classical representations should be eliminated nor do I think a classroom without any

technology is the best either.

One teacher rank-ordered his criteria in the following response:

First, availability of technology...Secondly, learning styles of the teacher and how

effectively they understand the technology available. Lastly, which representation might be most

effective in the instruction of that particular concept?

Question 4.

How can technology help in differentiating instruction for individualized learning? Be

specific.


20


The attitudes toward differentiating instruction through the use of technology were

overwhelmingly positive. We see that as a major difference from some of our earlier findings, with

different cohort of teachers (Alagic & Langrall, 2001). Teachers quoted number of examples

explored during the instruction and explained how that could help them differentiate instruction.

Here are a few of those examples.

Web sites included step-by-step detailed instructions on multiplying which could be used as an

introduction for new students or as a review for students having difficulty, resource for whole

classroom activities, a computer center in the classroom, or to use for students ahead, or to use

as a tutor for students who are need extra help.

... multiplication....each student to work at their own pace and see immediate results. Providing

altered repetition for those students needing more instruction and giving the advanced student

an opportunity to explore on their own with guidance from the teacher.

Worksheet maker web sites are available to work with students’ individual abilities. A teacher

could easily tell if students needed further instruction and practice or if they were ready to

move on. Students could move ahead as they were ready and not be held back from further

learning because the teacher needed to work with students that hadn’t mastered the concept

yet.

Cooperative learning experiences could be used through WebQuests or other group projects

that are technology based.

It is important to try different ways to approach a concept, for example, learning to find area

and perimeter. By using the Geometer’s Sketch Pad, students can see the process appear.

Students can vary the method in which they receive the information. ... Also, a student can

repeat steps as many times as necessary to reinforce understanding.

If a teacher was using Web Quest or a PowerPoint software students could work at their own

pace. ... Students take charge of their own learning and move forward at their own pace.

Some teachers preferred to keep their answers more general and reflect on their

experiences:

A regular classroom ... multiple levels of abilities. Using technology can help close the gap.

Just like in our class some students just are starting out ... Other students can learn more

complex technology and add it to their presentation.


21


... hands on learners who have been struggling to understand the abstract concepts of

mathematics ... reach the advanced learner ... an accelerated pace while the other learners

can continue at a pace that is comfortable for them ... those independent learners who are too

proud or too intimidated to ask for help.

Future Inquiry

... the defining characteristic of knowledge workers is that

they are themselves changed by the information they process

Kidd (1994, p. 186)

Shifts in the philosophy and theory of learning as well as emerging technologies support

the view that a paradigm shift in teaching and learning mathematics with the use of information

and computing technologies is taking place. The existence of increasingly efficient cognitive tools

lends support to the view that the learning environment in school mathematics is changing into a

more technological one. Teachers are aware of current changes and are involved in the processes

of these changes in their schools.

Technology integration is bringing new lenses to our understanding of key mathematical

ideas. For many teachers, understandings of these ideas are grounded in the ways they have

learned them before this paradigm shift that technology is providing was so powerful. These same

teachers are teaching new generations of pupils born and being educated surrounded with the

explosion of emerging technologies.

Many teachers are disillusioned by their experience with technology integration so far.

Marcinkiewicz (1991) points out that teachers are often not sure that the skills and experiences

they acquire in available technology training will be easily transferable to classroom instruction.

High-quality training, sufficient resources and awareness of necessary change are some of the

critical factors necessary to regain the trust (Cafolla & Knee, 1995). To build confidence, teachers

need successful experiences and ongoing pedagogical and technological support when integrating

technology into their curriculum (Byrom, 1997).

Mathematics teachers need opportunities to experience and do mathematics in

environments supported by diverse technologies (Dreyfus & Eisenberg, 1996). Understanding,

using, and appreciating mathematics are essential components of the development of mathematical

power. Empowering teachers through the use of technology in mathematics exploration, open-


22


ended problem solving, interpreting mathematics, developing conceptual understandings and

communicating about mathematics is in the heart of professional development and teacher

education (Bransford, et al, 1996; Schoenfeld, 1982, 1992). Teachers need to experience and learn

in depth how conceptual understanding emerges in technologically based environment to better

understand

“the conditions under which their students will be able to see on the screen what is

evident to the software designer” and, we expect, to the teacher,

“do in activity what seems natural to the instructional designer,

conclude from the data what is obvious to the teacher and” hopefully

“think in a way that is logical to the mathematician” (Dreyfus, 2002, p.30).

Many other questions of interest remain open. For example: Because technology-based representations can make conventional representations

dynamic and interactive, do they provide a more immediate way to map students' developing understandings? If so, how could such “maps” provide valuable insights into students’ thinking to help new teachers develop their mathematics related pedagogical content understanding more efficiently? (Alagic & Langrall, 2002).

References:Alagic, M. (March, 2002). Participatory Cognitive Apprenticeship: Teachers Learning Mathematics in the

Technology-based Environment. Proceedings of the SITE 2002--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference. Nashville. Tennessee.

Alagic, M. & Langrall, R. (2002). Differentiating Mathematics Instruction through Technology: Deliberations about mapping personalized learning. In Borovcnik, M & Kautschitsch, H. (Eds.) Technology in Mathematics Teaching, Proceedings of ICTMT5 in Klagenfurt 2001. Schriftenreiche Didactik Der Mathematik, Band 25 (pp.33-36). Vienna: öbv&hpt.

Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers and Education, 33, 131-152.Ainsworth, S. E., Bibby, P. A & Wood, D. J. (2002). Examining the effects of different multiple representational

systems in learning primary mathematics. Journal of the Learning Sciences. 11(1), 25-62. Anderson, J. R. (2000). Cognitive psychology and its applications (5th ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.Bauersfeld, H. (1980). Hidden dimensions in the so-called reality of a mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in

Mathematics, 11(1), 23-42.Baxter, I. & Oatley, K. (1991) Measuring the learnability of spreadsheets in inexperienced users and those with

previous spreadsheet experience. Behaviour and Information Technology, 10, 475-490.Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and

school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Bromage, B. K., & Mayer, R. E. (1981). Relationship between what is remembered and creative problem solving

performance in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 451-461.Byrom, E. (1997). Review of the Professional Literature on the Integration of Technology into Educational Programs.

Available online: http://www.serve.org/technology/litreview.html (retrieved January 2002)Cafolla, R., & Knee, R. (1995). Factors limiting technology integration in education: The leadership gap. Paper

presented at the SITE95 - Sixth Annual Conference of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education (SITE), San Antonio.


23


Charney, D. H., Reder, L. M., & Kusbit, G. W. (1990). Goal setting and procedure selection in acquiring computer skills: A Comparison of tutorials, problem solving, and learner exploration. Cognition and Instruction, 7(4), 323-342.

Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, J. P. & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5(2), 121-152.

Cobb, P., Wood, T., & Yackel, E. (1991). Classrooms as learning environments for teachers and researchers. In R. B. Davis, C. A. Maher, & N. Noddings (Eds.), Constructivist views on the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 125-146). Reston, VA : National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Cohen, D. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 327-345.

Cooney, T. J. (1985). A beginning teachers' view of problem solving. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 16, 324-336.

Cox, R., & Brna, P. (1995). Supporting the use of external representations in problem solving: The need for flexible learning environments. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 6(2), 239-302.

Demana, F., & Waits, B. K. (1990). Enhancing mathematics teaching and learning through technology. In T. J. Cooney & C. R. Hirsch (Eds.), Teaching and learning mathematics in the 1990s, 1990 yearbook of the national council of teachers of mathematics (pp. 212-222). Reston, VA: National council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Derry, S. J. (1990, April). Flexible cognitive tools for problem solving instruction. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.

Derry, S. J., & LaJoie, S. P. (1993). A middle camp for (un)intelligent instructional computing: An introduction. In S.P. LaJoie & S.J. Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 1- 11 ). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1990). The systematic design of instruction (3rd ed.). New York: Scott Foresman.Dreyfus, T., & Eisenberg, T. (1996). On different facets of mathematical thinking. In R. Sternberg & T. Ben-Zeev

(Eds.), The Nature of Mathematical Thinking. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Dreyfus, T. (2002). Computer-rich learning environments and the construction of abstract algebraic concepts. In

Borovcnik, M & Kautschitsch, H. (Eds.) Technology in Mathematics Teaching, Proceedings of ICTMT5 in Klagenfurt 2001. Schriftenreiche Didactik Der Mathematik, Band 25 (pp.17-32). Vienna: öbv&hpt.

Dufour-Janvier, B. Bednarz, N., & Belanger, M. (1987). Pedagogical considerations concerning the problem of representation. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 109-122). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Dwyer, D. C., Ringstaff, C., & Sandholtz, J. H. (1991). Changes in teachers' beliefs and practices in technology-rich classrooms. Educational Leadership, 48(8), 45-52.

Fink, R. (1993). How successful dyslexics learn to read. Teaching Thinking and Problem Solving, 15(5), 3-6.Flick, L., & Bell, R. (2000). Preparing tomorrow's science teachers to use technology: Guidelines for Science

educators. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 1(1). Retrieved July 2, 2002 from http://www.citejournal.org/vol1/iss1/currentissues/science/article1.htm

Garofalo, J., Drier, H., Harper, S., Timmerman, M. A., & Shockey, T. (2000). Promoting appropriate uses of technology in mathematics teacher preparation. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 1(1). Retrieved July 2, 2002 from http://www.citejournal.org/vol1/iss1/currentissues/mathematics/article1.htm

Garofalo, J., Shockey, T., Harper, S. R., & Drier, H. S. (1999). Impact project at Virginia: Promoting appropriate uses of technology in mathematics. Virginia Mathematics Teacher 25(2), 14-15.

Greeno, J. G., & Hall, R. P. (1997). Practicing representation: Learning with and about representational forms. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 361-367.

Goldenberg, E. P. (1988). Mathematics, metaphors, and human factors: Mathematical, technical, and pedagogical challenges in the educational use of graphical representations. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 7, 135-173.

Heller, J. I., & Reif, F. (1984). Prescribing effective human problem-solving processes: Problem description in physics. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 177-216.

Hiebert, J., & Wearne, D. (1992). Links between teaching and learning place value with understanding in first grade [Electronic version]. Journal for Research in Mathematics

Education, 23(2), 98-122.Hoyles C., & Jones K. (1998), Proof in Dynamic Geometry Contexts. In C. Mammana, & V. Villani (Eds.),

Perspectives on the Teaching of Geometry for the 21st Century (pp.121-128) Dordrecht: Kluwer.


24


Hulse, J.W. (1992). A comparison of the effects of spreadsheet use and traditional methods on student achievement and attitudes in selected collegiate mathematics topics (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Dakota, 1992). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45(8), 2723.

Jackiw, N. (1997). The Geometer's Sketchpad , Version 3.1 . Berkeley, CA: Key Curriculum Press.Janvier, B. (1987). Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Jiang, Z., & McClintock, E. (2000). Multiple approaches to problem solving and the use of technology. Journal of

Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 19(1), 7-20.Jonassen, D.H. (1996). Computers in the classroom: Mindtools for critical thinking. Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall.Jonassen, D. H., & Reeves, T. C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D. H.

Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 693-719). New York: Macmillan.

Jonassen, D. H. (1992). What are cognitive tools? In M. Kommers, D. H. Jonassen, & J. T. Mayes (Eds.), Cognitive tools for learning. Vol. F81 (pp.1-6). Berlin: Springer-Verland in cooperation with NATO

Scientific Affairs Division.Kaput, J. J. (1987). Representation systems and mathematics. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the

teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 19-26). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Kaput, J. J. (1992). Technology and mathematics education. In D.A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on

mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 515-556). New York: Macmillan.Kerr, M. P. & Payne, S. J. (1994). Learning to use a spreadsheet by doing and by watching. Interacting with

Computers, 6(1), 3-22.Kidd, A. (1994). The marks are on the Knowledge Worker. Paper presented at the meeting of the Human Factors in

Computing Systems (CHI’94), Boston.Kommers, P., Jonassen, D. H., & Mayes T. (Eds.). (1992). Cognitive tools for learning. Heidelberg, FRG: Springer-

Verlag.Lagrange, J. B., (2002). Integration of IC technologies into learning processes. In Borovcnik, M & Kautschitsch, H.

(Eds.) Technology in Mathematics Teaching, Proceedings of ICTMT5 in Klagenfurt 2001. Schriftenreiche Didactik Der Mathematik, Band 25 (pp.13-15). Vienna: öbv&hpt.

Lagrange, J. B., Artigue, M., Laborde, C. & Trouche, L. (2001). A meta study on IC technologies in education. Paper presented at the meeting of the Psychology of Mathematics Education PME 25 Conference.Utrecht, Netherlands.

Langer, E. J. (1989). Minding matters: The consequences of mindlessness- mindfulness. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 137-173.

Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., & Stein, M. K. (1990). Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning and teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60(1), 1-64.

Leinhardt, G., Putnam, R. T., Stein, M. K., & Baxter, J. (1991). Where subject knowledge matters. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research in teaching (pp. 87-113). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc.

Logo Computer Systems Inc. (1997). MicroWorlds, Version 2.0. Montreal, CA: Author.Marcinkiewicz, H. R. (1991). Levels of use of the innovation: A framework for analyzing innovation adoption. The

Journal of Teacher Education, 26(1), 52-56.McDiarmid, G. W. Ball, D. L., & Anderson, C. W. (1989). Why staying ahead one chapter doesn't really work:

Subject-specific pedagogy. In M. Reynolds (Ed.), The knowledge base for beginning teachers (pp.193-205). New York: Pergamon and the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education, 193-205.

Means, B., & Olson. K. (1994). Tomorrow's schools: Technology and reform in partnership. In B. Means (Ed.), Technology and the education reform (pp. 191-222). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mergendoller, J. R. (1994). The Curry School of Education, University of Virginia. In Exemplary approaches to training teachers to use technology, vol. 1: Case studies (pp. 4.1-4.24). Novato, CA: Beryl Buck Institute for Education.

Microsoft Corporation (2000). Microsoft Excel 2000. Redmond, WA: Author.National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics .

Reston, VA: Author.National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics . Reston, VA:

Author.National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA:

Author.


25


National Research Council (2000). How people learn: Brain, kind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Neuwirth, E. (1995). Correlation visualized. Retrieved July 2, 2002 from http://sunsite.univie.ac.at/Spreadsite/statexamp

Niess, M. L. (1992). Math: Winds of change. Computing Teacher, 19(6), 32-35. Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.Perkins, D. (1993). An apple for education: Teaching and learning for understanding. American Educator, 17 (3), 28-

35.President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology, Panel on Educational Technology. (1997). Report to

the President on the use of technology to strengthen K-12 education in the United States.Porter, A. (1989). A curriculum out of balance: The case of elementary mathematics. Educational Researcher, 18(5),

9-15.Romberg, T. A., & Price, G. G. (1981). Assimilation of innovations into the culture of the school: Impediments to

radical change. Paper presented at the NIE Conference on Issues Related to the Implementation of Computer Technology in Schools, Washington, DC. (ERIC DRS No. ED 202 156)

Savelsbergh, E., de Jong, T., & Ferguson-Hessler, M.G.M. (2000). Physics learning with a computer algebra system: Towards a learning environment to promote elaborate problem representations. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16, 229-243.

Salomon, G., & Globerson, T. (1987). Skill may not be enough: The role of mindfulness in learning and transfer. International Journual of Educational Research, 11, 623-537.

Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20(3), 2-9.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (1983, April). Theoretical and pragmatic issues in the design of mathematical "problem solving" instruction. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 228 045).

Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. New York: Academic Press.Schoenfeld, A. H. (1998). Reflections on a course in mathematical problem solving. In Alan H. Schoenfeld, J. J.

Kaput, & E. Dubinsky (Eds.). Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education (Vol. 3) (pp. 81-113). Washington, DC: Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (1991). On mathematics as sense-making: An informal attack on the unfortunate divorce of formal and informal mathematics. In J.F. Voss, D.N. Perkins, &

J.W. Segal (Eds.), Informal Reasoning and Education (pp. 311-343). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Schultz, J. E., & Waters, M. S. (2000). Why representations? Mathematics Teacher, 93(6), 448-453.Silver, E. A. (1987). Foundations of cognitive theory and research for mathematics problem-solving instruction. In A.

H. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Cognitive science and mathematics education: An overview (pp. 33-60). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Simon, H. A. (1981). The Sciences of the Artificia. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4-14.Sounderpandian, J. (1989). Decision Analysis using Spreadsheets. Collegiate Microcomputer, 7(2), 157-163. Spiro, R. J., Vispoel, W. P., Schmitz, J.G., Samarapungavan, A., & Boerger, A.E., (1987). Knowledge acquisition for

application: cognitive flexibility and transfer in complex content domains. In B.K. Pritton & S. M. Glynn (Eds.), Executive Control Processes in

Reading (pp. 177- 199). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Sutherland, R., & Rojano, T. (1993). A spreadsheet approach to solving algebra problems. Journal of Mathematical

Behaviour, 12(4), 351-383. Tabachneck, H. J. M., Leonardo, A. M., & Simon, H. A. (1994). How does an expert use agraph? A model of visual &

verbal inferencing in economics. Paper presented at the meeting of the 16th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Hillsdale, NJ: LEA

Tiemann, P. W., & Markle, S. M. (1990). Analyzing instructional content: A guide to instruction and evaluation. Champaign, IL: Stipes.

Thompson, A. G., Philipp, R. A., Thompson, P. W., & Boyd, B. A. (1994). Calculational and conceptual orientations in teaching mathematics. In A. Coxford (Ed.), 1994 Yearbook of the NCTM (pp. 79-92). Reston, VA: NCTM.

Thompson, P. W., & Thompson, A. G. (1994). Talking about rates conceptually, part I: A teacher's struggle. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(3), 279-303.


26


Van Labeke, N., & Ainsworth, S. (2002). Representational Decisions when Learning Population Dynamics with an Instructional Simulation. Paper presented at the meeting of the ITS'2002 - 6th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Biarritz (France), Springer-Verlag.

Vergnaud, (1987). Conclusion. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 227-232). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Vockell, E., & van Deusen, R.M. (1989) The Computer and higher-order thinking skills. Watsonville, CA: Mitchell McGraw-Hill. von Glasersfeld, E. (1988). Reluctance to change a way of thinking. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 8(1), 83-90.

Waits, B. K., & Demana, F. (2000). Calculators in mathematics teaching and learning: Past, present, and future. In M. J. Burke and F. R. Curcio (Eds.), Learning mathematics for a new century (pp. 51-66). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Wertsch, J. V., & Toma, C. (in press). Discourse and learning in the classroom: A sociocultural approach. In L. P. Steffe (Ed.) Constructivism in education . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wiebe, J.H. (1989). Teaching mathematics with technology: Calculator memory and multistep problems. Arithmetic Teacher, 37(1), 48-49.

Wood, T., Cobb, P., & Yackel, E. (1991). Change in teaching mathematics: A case study. American Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 587-616.


27

chris budd will be speaking on 'visions of maths and...

Documents