Advertisement

Educational Studies in Mathematics

, Volume 101, Issue 1, pp 67–81 | Cite as

What happens when CAS procedures are objectified?—the case of “solve” and “desolve”

  • Uffe Thomas JankvistEmail author
  • Morten Misfeldt
  • Mario Sánchez Aguilar
Article

Abstract

Inspired by the entering of computer algebra systems (CAS) in the Danish upper secondary school mathematics program, this article addresses, from a theoretical stance, what may happen when traditional procedures are outsourced to CAS. Looking at the commands “solve” and “desolve,” it is asked what happens when such CAS procedures are objectified in the students’ minds, and what the nature might be of the resulting “objects.” The theoretical analyses draw on a selection of classical mathematics education frameworks on conceptualization and are related to the research literature on technology in mathematics education. The article suggests the following characteristics as elements of negative effects: loss of distinctive features of concept formation, a consequential reclassification of mathematical objects, instability of CAS solutions as objects, and prevailing a posteriori reasoning on students’ behalf when relying solely on CAS in their mathematical work.

Keywords

CAS Conceptualization Pseudo-objects APOS Solve Desolve 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank reviewers and editor for their valuable comments. This article was partly written in the frame of project 8018-00062B under Independent Research Fund Denmark.

References

  1. Arnon, I. (1998). In the mind’s eye: How children develop mathematical concepts—extending Piaget’s theory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Haifa, Israel: School of Education, Haifa University.Google Scholar
  2. Arnon, I., Nesher, P., & Nirenburg, R. (2001). Where do fractions encounter their equivalents? Can this encounter take place in elementary school? International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6(2), 167–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Artigue, M. (2002). Learning mathematics in a CAS environment: The genesis of a reflection about instrumentation and the dialectics between technical and conceptual work. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 7(3), 245–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Artigue, M. (2010). The future of teaching and learning mathematics with digital technologies. In C. Hoyles & J.-B. Lagrange (Eds.), Mathematics education and technology—rethinking the terrain. The 17th ICMI study (pp. 463–475). Boston, MA: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Asiala, M., Brown, A., DeVries, D., Dubinsky, E., Mathews, D., & Thomas, K. (1996). A framework for research and curriculum development in undergraduate mathematics education. In Research in collegiate mathematics education II. CBMS issues in mathematics education (Vol. 6, pp. 1–32). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
  6. Bodin, A. (1993). What does to assess mean? The case of assessing mathematical knowledge. In M. Niss (Ed.), Investigations into assessment in mathematics education. An ICMI study (pp. 113–141). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bosch, M., & Gascón, J. (2014). Introduction to the anthropological theory of the didactic (ATD). In A. Bikner-Ahsbahs & S. Prediger (Eds.), Networking of theories as a research practice in mathematics education (pp. 67–83). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Buchberger, B. (2002). Computer algebra: The end of mathematics? SIGSAM Bulletin, 36(1), 3–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Collins, H., & Pinch, T. (1993). The golem. What everyone should know about science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Dreyfus, T. (1994). The role of cognitive tools in mathematics education. In R. Biehler, R. W. Scholz, R. Strässer, & B. Winkelmann (Eds.), Didactics of mathematics as a scientific discipline (pp. 201–211). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  11. Dreyøe, J., Schewitsch, P. S., & Hansen, P. S. (2017). Design of written assessment items in mathematics with the integration of digital technologies—focusing on the Danish folkeskole, upper secondary school (stx), and teacher education. Unpublished master’s thesis. Copenhagen, Denmark: Danish School of Education, Aarhus University.Google Scholar
  12. Drijvers, P., Godino, J. D., Font, V., & Trouche, L. (2013). One episode, two lenses: A reflective analysis of student learning with computer algebra from instrumental and onto-semiotic perspectives. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 82(1), 23–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dubinsky, E. (1991). Reflective abstraction in advanced mathematical thinking. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 95–126). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Dubinsky, E., Dautermann, J., Leron, U., & Zazkis, R. (1994). On learning fundamental concepts of group theory. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27(3), 267–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grønbæk, N. (2017). Outsourcing and insourcing of CAS in the teaching of mathematics. Plenary presentation at Matematikdidaktikkens Dag 2017, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
  16. Guin, D., Ruthven, K., & Trouche, L. (Eds.). (2005). The didactical challenge of symbolic calculators. Turning a computational device into a mathematical instrument. Boston, MA: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hoyles, C., & Lagrange, J.-B. (2010). Introduction. In C. Hoyles & J.-B. Lagrange (Eds.), Mathematics education and technology—rethinking the terrain. The 17th ICMI study (pp. 1–11). Boston, MA: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Iversen, S. M., Misfeldt, M., & Jankvist, U. T. (2018). Instrumental mediations and students’ identities. Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques, 38(2), 133–155.Google Scholar
  20. Jankvist, U. T., & Misfeldt, M. (2015). CAS-induced difficulties in learning mathematics? For the Learning of Mathematics, 35(1), 15–20.Google Scholar
  21. Jankvist, U. T., Misfeldt, M., & Marcussen, A. (2016). The didactical contract surrounding CAS when changing teachers in the classroom. REDIMAT – Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 5(3), 263–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jankvist, U. T., & Niss, M. (2015). A framework for designing a research-based “maths counsellor” teacher program. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 90(3), 259–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kieran, C. (2007). Learning and teaching algebra at the middle school through college levels. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 707–762). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar
  24. Lagrange, J.-B. (2005). Using symbolic calculators to study mathematics. The case of tasks and techniques. In D. Guin, K. Ruthven, & L. Trouche (Eds.), The didactical challenge of symbolic calculators. Turning a computational device into a mathematical instrument (pp. 113–135). Boston, MA: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Misfeldt, M., & Jankvist, U. T. (2018). Instrumental genesis and proof: Understanding the use of computer algebra systems in proofs in textbooks. In M. Tabach & H.-S. Siller (Eds.), Uses of technology in K-12 mathematics education: Tools, topics and trends (pp. 375–385). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
  26. Niss, M. (2010). Modeling a crucial aspect of students’ mathematical modeling. In R. Lesh, P. L. Galbraith, C. R. Haines, & A. Hurford (Eds.), Modeling students’ mathematical modeling competencies: ICTMA 13 (pp. 43–59). Boston, U.S.A.: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rasmussen, C. L. (2001). New directions in differential equations. A framework for interpreting students’ understandings and difficulties. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 20(1), 55–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rhine, S., Harrington, R., & Starr, C. (2018). How students think when doing algebra. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  29. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  30. Sfard, A. (1991). On the dual nature of mathematical conceptions: Reflections on processes and objects as different sides of the same coin. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22(1), 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sfard, A., & Linchevski, L. (1994). The gains and the pitfalls of reification—the case of algebra. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26(2–3), 191–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shaffer, D. W., & Kaput, J. J. (1998). Mathematics and virtual culture: An evolutionary perspective on technology and mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 37(2), 97–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tall, D. (1994). Computer environments for the learning of mathematics. In R. Biehler, R. W. Scholz, R. Strässer, & B. Winkelmann (Eds.), Didactics of mathematics as a scientific discipline (pp. 189–199). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  34. Tall, D., & Vinner, S. (1981). Concept image and concept definition in mathematics with particular reference to limits and continuity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12(2), 151–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Trouche, L. (2005a). Calculators in mathematics education: a rapid evolution of tools, with differential effects. In D. Guin, K. Ruthven, & L. Trouche (Eds.), The didactical challenge of symbolic calculators. Turning a computational device into a mathematical instrument (pp. 9–39). Boston, MA: Springer.Google Scholar
  36. Trouche, L. (2005b). An instrumental approach to mathematics learning in symbolic calculator environments. In D. Guin, K. Ruthven, & L. Trouche (Eds.), The didactical challenge of symbolic calculators. Turning a computational device into a mathematical instrument (pp. 137–162). Boston, MA: Springer.Google Scholar
  37. Verillon, P., & Rabardel, P. (1995). Cognition and artifacts: A contribution to the study of thought in relation to instrumented activity. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10(1), 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Weigand, H.–G. (2014). Looking back and ahead-didactical implications for the use of digital technologies in the next decade. Teaching Mathematics and its Applications, 33(1), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zandieh, M. J. (2000). A theoretical framework for analyzing student understanding of the concept of the derivative. In E. Dubisnky, A. H. Schoenfeld, & J. Kaput (Eds.), CBMS issues in mathematics education (Vol. 8, pp. 103–122). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Danish School of EducationAarhus UniversityCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Department for Learning and PhilosophyAalborg UniversityCopenhagenDenmark
  3. 3.Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Programa de Matemática EducativaCICATA Unidad LegariaMexico CityMexico

Personalised recommendations