DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

중등 학교수학의 교수-학습과 그래핑 계산기 활용과의 관계에 대한 고찰

  • Cho, Cheong-Soo (Department of Mathematics Education College of Education Yeungnam University)
  • Received : 20100100
  • Accepted : 20100200
  • Published : 2010.02.28

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to review previous studies regarding the relationship between graphing calculators usage and teaching and learning school mathematics and to suggest practical implications for further research in mathematics education. Through reviewing the total of 21 studies five subsections are divided in order to gain the answers to the research questions. The results of this study are as follows: students typically used graphing calculators in drawing graphs of functions, and they used graphing calculators as a tool for calculations, transformations, data collection and analysis, visualization, and checking. The implications for further research are suggested corresponding to these results.

Keywords

References

  1. Ballheim, C. (1999). How our readers feel about calculators. In Z.Usiskin(Ed.), Mathematics education dialogues(p. 4). Reston, VA: NCTM.
  2. Boers, M. A., & Jones, P. L. (1994). Students' use of graphics calculators under examination conditions. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 25, 491-516. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739940250403
  3. Dahland, G., & Lingefjard, T. (1996). Graphing calculators and students'interpretations of results: A study in four upper secondary classes in Sweden. Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education, 4(2-3), 31-50.
  4. Doerr, H. M., & Zangor, R. (2000). Creating meaning for and with the graphing calculator. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 41, 143-163. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003905929557
  5. Drijvers, P., & Doorman, M. (1996). The graphics calculator in mathematics education. J ournal of Mathematical Behavior, 15, 425-440. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-3123(96)90027-9
  6. Ellington, A. J. (2003). A meta-analysis of the effects of calculators on students' achievement and attitude levels in precollege mathematics classes. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(5), 433-463. https://doi.org/10.2307/30034795
  7. Fey, J. T., Heid, M. K., Good, R. A., Sheets, C., Blume, G. W., & Zbiek, R. M.(1995). Concepts in algebra: A technological approach. Dedham, MA:Janson Publications.
  8. Forster, P. A., & Mueller, U. (2001). Outcomes and implications of students' use of graphics calculators in the public examination of calculus. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science andTechnology, 32(1), 37-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207390116972
  9. Graham, A. T., & Thomas, M. O. J. (2000). Building a versatile understanding of algebraic variables with a graphic calculator. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 41(3), 265-282. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004094013054
  10. Guin, D., & Trouche, L. (1998). The complex process of converting tools into mathematical instruments: The case of calculators. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 3(3), 195-227. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009892720043
  11. Harskamp, E. G., Suhre, C. J. M., & van Streun, A. (2000). The graphics calculator and students' solution strategies. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 12(1), 37-52. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217073
  12. Hennessy, S., Fung, P., & Scanlon, E. (2001). The role of the graphic calculator in mediating graphing activity. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 32, 267-290. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207390010022176
  13. Hollar, J. C., & Norwood, K. (1999). The effects of a graphing-approach intermediate algebra curriculum on students' understanding of function. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(2), 220-226. https://doi.org/10.2307/749612
  14. Hong, Y., Toham, M., & Kiernan, C. (2000). Supercalculators and university entrance calculus examinations. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 12(3), 321-336. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217092
  15. Keller, B. A., & Hirsch, C. R. (1998). Student preferences for representations of functions. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 29(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739980290101
  16. Mackey, K. (1999). Do we need calculators? In Z. Usiskin(Ed.),Mathematics education dialogues(p. 3). Reston, VA: NCTM.
  17. Merriweather, M., & Tharp, M. L. (1999). The effect of instruction with graphing calculators on how general mathematics students naturalistically solve algebraic problems. Journal of Compters in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 18(1), 7-22.
  18. Mitchelmore, M., & Cavanagh, M. (2000). Students' difficulties in operating a graphics calculator. Mathematics Education Research Journal,12(3), 254-268. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217088
  19. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics(2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
  20. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics(2005). Technologysupported mathematics learning environments: Sixty-seventh yearbook.Reston, VA: NCTM
  21. Quesada, A. R., & Maxwell, M. E. (1994). The effects of using graphing calculators to enhance college students' performance in precalculus. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27(2), 205-215. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01278922
  22. Ruthven, K. (1990). The influence of graphic calculator use on translation from graphic to symbolic forms. Educational Studies in Mathematics,21(5), 431-450. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00398862
  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. https://doi.org/10.2307/749706
  24. Slavit, D. (1998). Three women's understandings of algebra in precalculus course integrated with the graphing calculator. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17(3), 303-389. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0364-0213(99)80065-2
  25. Smith, B. A. (1997). A meta-analysis of outcomes from the use of calculators in mathematics education. (Texas A&M University, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, 58, 787A.
  26. Texas Instruments (2002). Handheld graphing technology in secondary mathematics: Research findings and implications for classroom practice .Texas Instruments.
  27. 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, 58-84. https://doi.org/10.2307/749621
  28. Waits, B. K., & Demana, F. (2000). 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. The Ohio State University.

Cited by

  1. Graph Art를 활용한 함수 지도에 관한 연구 - 울산 WISE 과학캠프활동을 중심으로 한 사례연구 - vol.51, pp.3, 2010, https://doi.org/10.7468/mathedu.2012.51.3.197