Investigating the Potential of Computer Environments for the Teaching and Learning of Functions: A Double Analysis from Two Research Traditions

The general goal of this paper is to explore the potential of computer environments for the teaching and learning of functions. To address this, different theoretical frameworks and corresponding research traditions are available. In this study, we aim to network different frameworks by following a ‘double analysis’ method to analyse two empirical studies based on the use of computational environments offering integrated geometrical and algebraic representations. The studies took place in different national and didactic contexts and constitute cases of Constructionism and Theory of Didactical Situations. The analysis indicates that ‘double analysis’ resulted in a deepened and more balanced understanding about knowledge emerging from empirical studies as regards the nature of learning situations for functions with computers and the process of conceptualisation of functions by students. Main issues around the potential of computer environments for the teaching and learning of functions concern the use of integrated representations of functions linking geometry and algebra, the need to address epistemological and cognitive aspects of the constructed knowledge and the critical role of teachers in the design and evolution of students’ activity. We also reflect on how the networking of theories influences theoretical advancement and the followed research approaches.

[1]  Raymond Duval,et al.  Basic Issues for Research in Mathematics Education. , 2000 .

[2]  Andrea Hoffkamp.  ENHANCING FUNCTIONAL THINKING USING THE COMPUTER FOR REPRESENTATIONAL TRANSFER , 2010 .

[3]  Michèle Artigue,et al.  STUDENTS’ ACTIVITIES ABOUT FUNCTIONS AT UPPER SECONDARY LEVEL: A GRID FOR DESIGNING A DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT AND ANALYSING USES , 2012 .

[4]  Michèle Artigue,et al.  NEW DIDACTICAL PHENOMENA PROMPTED BY TI-NSPIRE SPECIFICITIES - THE MATHEMATICAL COMPONENT OF THE INSTRUMENTATION PROCESS , 2010 .

[5]  Jacek Miękisz.  Mathematics at work , 2009 .

[6]  C. Laborde,et al.  Approaching functions: Cabri tools as instruments of semiotic mediation , 2007 .

[7]  Jean-Baptiste Lagrange,et al.  Curriculum, Classroom Practices, and Tool Design in the Learning of Functions Through Technology-Aided Experimental Approaches , 2005, Int. J. Comput. Math. Learn..

[8]  Celia Hoyles,et al.  Developing and evaluating alternative technological infrastructures for learning mathematics , 2006 .

[9]  E. Paul Goldenberg,et al.  Students' understanding of the notion of function in dynamic geometry environments , 1997, Int. J. Comput. Math. Learn..

[10]  David Tall,et al.  Functions and Calculus , 1996 .

[11]  Susanne Prediger,et al.  Networking of Theories—An Approach for Exploiting the Diversity of Theoretical Approaches , 2010 .

[12]  Holbrook L. Horton.  Mathematics at Work , 1990 .

[13]  Masataka Koyama,et al.  Proceedings of the Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME) (24th, Hiroshima, Japan, July 23-27, 2000), Volume 4. , 2000 .

[14]  Carolyn Kieran.  The learning and teaching of school algebra. , 1992 .

[15]  Douglas A. Grouws,et al.  Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning , 1992 .

[16]  Glen Bull,et al.  Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. , 2005 .

[17]  Hans-Georg Weigand,et al.  Towards a competence model for the use of symbolic calculators in mathematics lessons: the case of functions , 2010 .

[18]  Seymour Papert,et al.  Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas , 1981 .

[19]  L. Radford.  Connecting theories in mathematics education: challenges and possibilities , 2008 .

[20]  Patrick W Thompson,et al.  Students, Functions, and the Undergraduate Curriculum † , 1994 .

[21]  S. Papert,et al.  Constructionism: Research Reports and Essays, 1985-1990 , 1991 .

[22]  Jürgen Maaß,et al.  New mathematics education research and practice , 2006 .

[23]  David Tall,et al.  Concept image and concept definition in mathematics with particular reference to limits and continuity , 1981 .

[24]  I. Bloch.  Teaching functions in a graphic milieu: What forms of knowledge enable students to conjecture and prove? , 2003 .

[25]  Barbara J. Dougherty,et al.  Mathematics Education Across Cultures: Proceedings of the 42nd Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education , 2020 .

[26]  J. Confrey,et al.  Splitting, covariation, and their role in the development of exponential functions , 1995 .

[27]  Michèle Artigue,et al.  Le Logiciel ‘Derive’ comme revelateur de phenomenes didactiques lies a l'utilisation d'environnements informatiques pour l'apprentissage , 1997 .

[28]  Ed Dubinsky,et al.  Development of the process conception of function , 1992 .

[29]  C. Hoyles,et al.  The Construction of Mathematical Meanings: Connecting the Visual with the Symbolic , 1997 .

[30]  Marilyn P. Carlson,et al.  Applying Covariational Reasoning While Modeling Dynamic Events: A Framework and a Study. , 2002 .

[31]  Celia Hoyles,et al.  Windows on Mathematical Meanings , 1996 .

[32]  G. Brousseau.  Theory of didactical situations in mathematics , 1997 .

[33]  K. Mackrell.  Introducing algebra with interactive geometry software , 2011 .

[34]  Johannes Lenhard,et al.  Activity and Sign. Grounding Mathematical Education , 2005 .

[35]  A. Sfard.  On the dual nature of mathematical conceptions: Reflections on processes and objects as different sides of the same coin , 1991 .

[36]  Richard Noss.  Designing a learnable mathematics: a fundamental role for the computer? , 2004 .

[37]  Jeremy Kilpatrick,et al.  International handbook of mathematics education , 1997 .

[38]  Chronis Kynigos,et al.  A "Black-and-White Box" Approach to User Empowerment With Component Computing , 2004, Interact. Learn. Environ..

[39]  Paul Drijvers,et al.  A reflective analysis of student learning with computer algebra from instrumental and onto-semiotic perspectives , 2013 .

[40]  Chronis Kynigos,et al.  Constructionism: Theory of Learning or Theory of Design? , 2015 .

[41]  David Slavit,et al.  An Alternate Route to the Reification of Function , 1997 .

[42]  Ferdinando Arzarello,et al.  Networking strategies and methods for connecting theoretical approaches: first steps towards a conceptual framework , 2008 .

[43]  Patrick W Thompson,et al.  Foundational Reasoning Abilities that Promote Coherence in Students' Function Understanding , 2008 .

[44]  Kaye Stacey,et al.  The future of the teaching and learning of algebra : the 12th ICMI study , 2004 .

[45]  Michal Yerushalmy,et al.  Research on the Role of Technological Environments in Algebra Learning and Teaching , 2004 .

[46]  Paul Drijvers,et al.  The Co-Emergence of Machine Techniques, Paper-and-Pencil Techniques, and Theoretical Reflection: A Study of Cas use in Secondary School Algebra , 2006, Int. J. Comput. Math. Learn..

[47]  Robyn Pierce,et al.  Computer Algebra Systems and Algebra: Curriculum, Assessment, Teaching, and Learning , 2004 .

[48]  Paul Drijvers,et al.  TOOL USE AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FUNCTION CONCEPT: FROM REPEATED CALCULATIONS TO FUNCTIONAL THINKING , 2012 .

[49]  Lyn D. English,et al.  Theories of Mathematics Education: Seeking New Frontiers , 2012 .

[50]  Markus Hohenwarter,et al.  Combination of dynamic geometry, algebra and calculus in the software system GeoGebra , 2004 .

[51]  Luis Radford,et al.  The Semiotics of the Schema , 2005 .