Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Technology as a Tool for Teaching Undergraduate Mathematics

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Second International Handbook of Mathematics Education

Part of the book series: Springer International Handbooks of Education ((SIHE,volume 10))

Abstract

In this chapter we review the current situation regarding the use of technology as a teaching tool at university level When we talk about technology we mean graphic calculators and CD-ROM as well as all aspects of computers including software and their use with the Internet. However, we have chosen to emphasize here the theoretical perspectives and content areas of undergraduate research rather than the tools through which these are implemented.

On the teaching side we look at present views on the theory of learning. These ideas are then linked with examples of practice and a comparison made between the effects on learning of teaching with and without technology.

Finally we consider the influence of technology on the way undergraduate mathematics is taught, and on the undergraduate curriculum.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 429.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 549.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 549.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Appleby, J. C., Ekins, J. M., Hill, C., Houston, S. K., & Wilson, P. (2000). Proceedings of the 26th Undergraduate Mathematics Teaching Conference (pp. 40–51). Sheffield: Sheffield Hallam University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrewartha, G., & Wilmot, S. (2001). Can multimedia meet tertiary educational needs better than the conventional lecture? A case study. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 17(1), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arcavi, A., & Hadas, N. (2000). Computer mediated learning: An example of an approach. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 5, 25–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, G. M., & Hendrix, L. J. (1999). Does traditional or reformed calculus prepare students better for subsequent courses? A preliminary study. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 18(2), 95–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asiala, M., Dubinsky, E., Mathews, D., Morics, S., & Oktac, A. (1997). Student understanding of cosets, normality, and quotient groups. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 16(3), 241–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asp, G., Dowsey, J., & Stacey, K. (1993). Linear and quadratic graphs with the aid of technology. In B. Atweh, C. Kanes, M. Carss & G. Booker (Eds.). Contexts in Mathematics Education (Proceedings of the 16th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, pp. 51–56). Brisbane: MERGA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergsten, C. (1996). Learning by computing? The case of calculus and a CAS. In L. Lum (Ed.), Proceedings of the Seventh Annual International Conference on Technology in Collegiate Mathematics (pp. 36–40). Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry, J. S. (1999). A computer algebra system as a mentor for the apprentice mathematician. Proceedings of the Delta 99 Conference on Undergraduate Mathematics Education: The Challenge of Diversity (pp. 38–42). Laguna Keys, Whitsunday Coast.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bookman, J., & Friedman, C. P. (1999). The evaluation of Project Calc at Duke University 1989–1994. In B. Gold, S. Keith & W. Marion (Eds.), Assessment Practices in Undergraduate Mathematics (pp. 253–256). Washington, DC: The Mathematical Association of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brauer, K. (2000). Differential equations in higher education — the benefits of computer algebra systems. In M. O. J. Thomas (Ed.), Other conference papers of TIME 2000 an International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Education (pp. A9–A17). Auckland, New Zealand: The University of Auckland and Auckland University of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A., DeVries, D. J., Dubinsky, E., & Thomas, K. (1997). Learning binary operations, groups, and subgroups. Journal of Mathematical Behaviour, 16(3), 187–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruckheimer, M., & Arcavi, A. (2001). A Herrick among mathematicians or dynamic geometry as an aid to proof. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6,113–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burn, R. P. (1996). What are the fundamental concepts of group theory? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 31, 371–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burn, R. P. (1998). Participating in the learning of Group Theory. Primus, VIII(4), 305–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burn, R. P. (2002). The genesis of mathematical structures. In P. Kahn (Ed.), Effective learning and teaching in mathematics and its applications (pp. 20–33). London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burn, R.P, Egerton, P., Howkins, M., Pevy, L., Rowland, T., & Simpson, A. (2000). Supporting the professional development of mathematics lecturers. In D. Emery (Ed.), Proceedings of the 26th Undergraduate Mathematics Teaching Conference (pp. 87–95). Sheffield: Sheffield Hallam University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, D. (2000). Autograph Interactive Software. Oundle, UK: Eastmond Publishing, http://www.ar-gonet.co.uk/oundlesch

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, M. K., Ka, A., Booth, D. J., Gordon, N. A., Middleton,W., & Stone, J. A. (2000). Use of the internet in teaching mathematics (group B). In D. Emery (Ed.), Proceedings of the 26th Undergraduate Mathematics Teaching Conference (pp. 72–86). Sheffield: Sheffield Hallam University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, D., Johnson, C., Lay, D., & Porter, A. D. (1993). The Linear Algebra Curriculum Study Group recommendations for the first course in linear algebra. College Mathematics Journal, 24(1), 41–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, J. M, Cordero, F., Cottrill, J., Czarnocha, B., Devries, D. J., St. John, D., Tolias, G., & Vidakovic, D. (1997). Constructing a schema: The case of the chain rule?. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 16(4), 345–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornu, B. (1981). Apprentissage de la notion de limits: modeles spontanés et modèles propres. Actes du Cinquième Colloque du Groupe Internationale PME (pp. 322–326). Grenoble.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornu, B. (1983). Apprentissage de la notion de limit: Conceptions et obstacles, Doctoral thesis, Grenoble.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornu, B. (1991). Limits. In D. O. Tall (Ed.), Advanced Mathematical Thinking (pp. 153–166). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cottrill, J., Dubinsky, E., Nichols, D., Schwingendorf, K., Thomas, K., & Vidakovic, D. (1996). Understanding the limit concept: Beginning with a coordinated process scheme. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 15, 167–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuoco, A. (1997). Constructing the complex numbers. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 2(2), 155–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Czarnocha, B., Dubinsky, E., Loch, S., Prabhu, V., & Vidakovic, D. (2002). Conceptions of area: In students and in history. The Journal for Collegiate Mathematics. In print.

    Google Scholar 

  • Czarnocha, B., Loch, S., Prabhu, V., & Vidakovic, D. (2001). The definite integral: Coordination of two schemas. Proceedings of the International Conference of Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 297–304). Utrecht, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dekkers, A. (1999). The development of web-based learning resources for mathematics. Proceedings of the Delta 99 Conference on Undergraduate Mathematics Education: The Challenge of Diversity (pp. 87–92). Laguna Keys, Whitsunday Coast.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doerr, H. M., & Zangor, R. (1999). Creating a tool: An analysis of the role of the graphing calculator in a pre-calculus classroom. Proceedings of the 23rd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 265–272). Haifa, Israel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doerr, H. M., & Zangor, R. (2000). Creating meaning for and with the graphing calculator. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 41(2), 143–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreyfus (1986). Computer use in mathematics education and PME, Discussion paper in new insights into mathematics education with the microcomputer. Proceedings of the 10th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 13–15). London, England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreyfus, T. (1991). Advanced mathematical thinking processes. In D. O. Tall (Ed.), Advanced Mathematical Thinking (pp. 25–41). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreyfus, T., & Hillel, J. (1998). Reconstruction of meanings for function approximation. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 3(2), 93–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drijvers, P. (2000). Students encountering obstacles using a CAS. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 5, 189–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubinsky, E. (1991). Reflective abstraction in advanced mathematical thinking. In D. Tall (Ed.). Advanced Mathematical Thinking (pp. 95–123). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubinsky, E. (1994). Pedagogical change in undergraduate mathematics education. In B. A. Case (Ed.), You’re the Professor, What Next (pp. 114–119). MAA Notes, 35. Washington, DC: The Mathematical Association of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubinsky, E. (1995). ISETL: A programming language for learning mathematics. Communications in Pure and Applied Math, 48,1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubinsky, E. (1997). Some thoughts on a first course in linear algebra at the college level. In D. Carlson, C. Johnson, D. Lay, A. D. Porter, A. Watkins & W. Watkins (Eds.), Resources for Teaching Linear Algebra (pp. 85–106). MAA notes volume 42, Washington, DC: The Mathematical Association of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubinsky, E. (1999). Assessment in one learning theory based approach to teaching: A discussion. In B. Gold, S. Keith & W. Marion (Eds.), Assessment Practices in Undergraduate Mathematics (pp. 229–232). Washington, DC: The Mathematical Association of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubinsky, E., Dautermann, J., Leron, U., & Zazkis, R. (1994). On learning fundamental concepts of group theory. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27(3), 267–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubinsky, E., & Leron, U. (1994). Learning Abstract Algebra with ISETL. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubinsky, E., & Lewin, P. (1986). Reflective abstraction and mathematics education: The genetic decomposition of induction and compactness. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 5(1), 55–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubinsky, E., & McDonald, M. (2001). APOS: A constructivist theory of learning. In D. Holton (Ed.), The Teaching and Learning of Mathematics at University Level: An ICMI Study (pp. 275–282). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunham, P. H., & Dick, T. (1994). Research on graphing calculators. Mathematics Teacher, 87(6), 440–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, P., Harley, P., Hermans, D., Parkhurst, S., & Pountney, D. (2000). Use of the internet in teaching mathematics (group A). Proceedings of the 26th Undergraduate Mathematics Teaching Conference (pp. 60–71). Sheffield: Sheffield Hallam University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Even, R. (1998). Factors involved in linking representations of functions. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17, 105–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrini-Mundy, J., & Graham, K. (1994). Research in calculus learning: understanding of limits, derivatives, and integrals. In J. J. Kaput & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), Research Issues in Undergraduate Mathematics Learning (pp. 31–45). Washington DC: The Mathematical Association of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freudenthal, H, (1983). Didactical Phenomenology of Mathematical Structures. Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ganter, S. L. (1999). An evaluation of calculus reform: A preliminary report of a national study. In B. Gold, S. Keith & W. Marion (Eds.), Assessment Practices in Undergraduate Mathematics (pp. 233–236). Washington, DC: The Mathematical Association of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gold, B., Keith, S., & Marion, W. (Eds.) (1999). Assessment Practices in Undergraduate Mathematics. Washington DC: The Mathematical Association of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldin, G. A. (1987). Cognitive representational systems for mathematical problem solving. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of Representation in the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics (pp. 197–206). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldin, G. A. (1998) Representational systems, learning, and problem solving in mathematics. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17(2), 137–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, E., & Tall, D. O. (1991). Duality, ambiguity and flexibility in successful mathematical thinking. Proceedings of the 15 th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 72–79). Assisi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, E., & Tall, D. O. (1994). Duality, ambiguity and flexibility: A proceptual view of simple arithmetic. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26, 115–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, E., & Tall, D. O. (2001). Relationships between embodied objects and symbolic procepts: An explanatory theory of success and failure in mathematics. In M. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 25th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 65–72). Utrecht, Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greer, B., & Harel, G. (1998). The role of isomorphisms in mathematical cognition. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17(1), 5–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guin, D., & Trouche, L. (1999). The complex process of converting tools into mathematical instruments: The case of calculators. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 3,195–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hadamard, J (1945). The Psychology of Mathematical Invention. Dover.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harel, G. (2000). Three principles of learning and teaching mathematics. In J.-L. Dorier (Ed.), The Teaching of Linear Algebra in Question (pp. 177–189). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harskamp, E., Suhre, C., & Van Streun, A. (2000). The graphics calculator and students’ solution strategies. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 12, 37–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herget, W., Heugl, H., Kutzler, B., & Lehmann, E. (2001). Indispensable manual calculation skills in a CAS environment. In J. Engelbrecht (Ed.), Communications of the Third Southern Hemisphere Symposium, on Undergraduate Mathematics Teaching (pp. 56–63). Kruger National Park, South Africa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillel, J. (1995). Using Maple in the Teaching and Learning of Linear algebra. Memorias del V Simposio Internacional en Educacion Matematica (pp. 187–191). México.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillel, J. (1997). Levels of description and the problem of representation in linear algebra. In J.-L. Dorier (Ed.), L’enseignement de l’algèbre linéaire en question (pp. 231–237). Grenoble: Edition Pensée Sauvage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillel, J. (2000). Modes of description and the problem of representation in linear algebra. In J.-L. Dorier (Ed.), The Teaching of Linear Algebra in Question (pp. 191–207). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillel, J. (2001). Computer algebra systems in the learning and teaching of linear algebra: Some examples. In D. Holton (Ed.), The Teaching and Learning of Mathematics at University Level: An ICMI Study (pp. 371–380). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillel, J., Sierpinska, A., & Dreyfus, T. (1998). Investigating linear transformations with Cabri. Proceedings of the International Conference on the Teaching of Mathematics (July 3–6, pp. 146–148). University of the Aegean, Samos, Greece.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holton, D., Ahmed, A., Williams, H., & Hill, C. (2001). On the importance of mathematical play. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 32(3), 401–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong, Y. Y., & Thomas, M. O. J. (1997a). Student misconceptions in integration: Procedures and concepts. In D. Fisher & T. Rickards (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Science, Mathematics and Technology Education (pp. 346–354). Hanoi, Vietnam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong, Y. Y., & Thomas, M. O. J. (1997b). Using the computer to improve conceptual thinking in integration. Proceedings of the 21st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 81–88). Lahti, Finland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong, Y. Y., & Thomas, M. O. J. (1998). Versatile understanding in integration. Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematics Instruction - South East Asian Conference on Mathematics Education (pp. 255–265). Seoul, Korea.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong, Y. Y., & Thomas, M. O. J. (2000). Super-calculators and conceptual understanding of the Newton-Raphson method. In M. O. J. Thomas (Ed.), Proceedings of TIME 2000 an International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Education (pp. 163–171). Auckland, New Zealand: Auckland University and AUT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong, Y. Y., Thomas, M. O. J., & Kwon, O. (2000). Understanding linear algebraic equations via super-calculator representations. Proceedings of the 24th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 57–64). Hiroshima, Japan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong, Y. Y., Thomas, M. O. J., & Kiernan, C. (2000). Super-calculators and university entrance Calculus examinations. In M. Chinnappan & M. O. J. Thomas (Eds.), Mathematics Education Research Journal Special Issue on Technology in Mathematics Learning and Teaching (Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 321–336). MERGA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howson, A. G. (Ed.) (1973). Developments in Mathematics Education. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoyles, C. (1998). Looking through the technology. Pre-proceedings, ICMI Study Conference, December, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jorgensen, L. (2000). Possible futures for mathematics on the Web. In B. Cload & T. A. Jenkyns (Eds.), Proceedings of the Conference on Technology in Mathematics Education at the Secondary and Tertiary Levels (pp. 37–52). Ontario: Brock University.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaput, J. J. (1989). Linking representations in the symbol systems of algebra. In S. Wagner and C. Kieran (Eds.), Research issues in the learning and teaching of algebra (pp. 167–194). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaput, J. J. (1992). Technology and mathematics education. NCTM Yearbook on Mathematics Education (pp. 515–556).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaput, J. J. (1998). Representations, inscriptions, descriptions and learning: A kaleidoscope of windows. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17, 265–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaput, J. J. (2000). Implications of the shift from isolated, expensive technology to connected, inexpensive, diverse and ubiquitous technologies. In M. O. J. Thomas (Ed.), Proceedings of TIME 2000 an International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Education (pp. 1–24). Auckland, New Zealand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kawski, M. (2001). A central role for interactive visualization in advanced courses. Proceedings of Warthog Delta ‘01, The Third Southern Hemisphere Symposium on Undergraduate Mathematics Teaching (pp. 17–18). Kruger National Park, South Africa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendal, M., & Stacey, K. (1999). Varieties of teacher privileging for teaching calculus with computer algebra systems. The International Journal of Computer Algebra in Mathematics Education, 6(4), 233–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kissane, B. (2000). New calculator technologies and examinations. In W.-C. Yang, S.-C. Chu & J.-C. Chuan (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Asian Technology Conference in Mathematics (pp. 365–374). Chiang Mai, Thailand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kissane, B., Kemp, M., & Bradley, J. (1996). Graphics calculators and assessment. In P. Gomez & B. Waits (Eds.), Una empresa docente (pp. 97–124).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kissane, B., & Thomas, M. O. J. (2003, to appear). CAS and the learning of algebra. ICMI Study Group on the Teaching and Learning of Algebra. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kutzler, B. (2000). Two-tier exams as a way to let technology in, http://www.kutzler.com.

  • Lagrange, J. B. (1999). Complex calculators in the classroom: Theoretical and practical reflections on teaching pre-calculus. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 4(1), 51–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lagrange, J. B. (2000). L’Intégration d’instruments informatiques dans l’enseignement: Une approche par les techniques. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 43(1), 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and Refutations. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G., & Nunez, R. E. (2000a). Where Mathematics Comes From. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G., & Nunez, R. E. (2000b). Mathematical idea analysis: What embodied cognitive science can say about the human nature of mathematics. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 3–22). Hiroshima, Japan: Program Committee.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laughbaum, E. D. (1998). Testing students with hand-held technology. Proceedings of the Third Asian technology Conference in Mathematics (pp. 1 –11). Tsukuba, Japan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laughbaum, E. D. (1999). Hand-held technology in mathematics education at the college level. Ohio State University, USA, http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~elaughba/chapters/98survey.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauten, A. D., Graham, K., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (1994). Student understanding of basic calculus concepts: Interaction with the graphics calculator. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 13, 225–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lefton, L. E., & Steinbart, E. M. (1995). Calculus and mathematica: An end-user’s point of view. Primus, V(1), 80–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leigh-Lancaster, D. (2000). Curriculum and assessment congruence — Computer algebra systems(CAS) in Victoria, http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/ ~ waitsb/papers/t3_posticme2000/leigh-lancaster.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerman, S. (1994). Articulating theories of mathematics learning. In P. Ernest (Ed.), Constructing Mathematical Knowledge: Epistemology and Mathematics Education. London: The Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lesh, R. (1999). The development of representational abilities in middle school mathematics. In I. E. Sigel (Ed.), Development of Mental Representation: Theories and Application (pp. 323–350). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lesh, R. (2000). What mathematical abilities are most needed for success beyond school in a technology based age of information?. In M. O. J. Thomas (Ed.), Proceedings of TIME 2000 an International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Education (pp. 73–83). Auckland, New Zealand: Auckland University and AUT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meel, D. E. (1998). Honors students’ calculus understandings: Comparing calculus and Mathematica and traditional calculus students. CBMS Issues in Mathematics Education (Vol. 7, pp. 1663–215). Providence, Rhode Island: American Mathematical Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monaghan, J., Sun, S., & Tall, D. O. (1994). Construction of the limit concept with a computer algebra system. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 279–286). University of Lisbon, Portugal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moschkovich, J, Schoenfeld, A. H., & Arcavi, A. (1993). Aspects of understanding: On multiple perspectives and representations of linear relations and connections among them. In T. A. Romberg, E. Fennema & T. P. Carpenter (Eds.), Integrating research on the graphical representations of functions (pp. 69–100). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, W. (1998). Effective design of computer-based instructional materials, Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual International Conference on Technology in Collegiate Mathematics. New Orleans, http://www.math.duke.edu/education/ccp/resources/write/design/ictcm98.html.

  • Muller, E. R. (2001). Reflections on the sustained use of technology in undergraduate mathematics education. In D. Holton (Ed.), The Teaching and Learning of Mathematics at University Level: An ICMI Study (pp. 381–394). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (1996). Windows on Mathematical Meanings: Learning Cultures and Computers. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oates, G., & Thomas, M. O. J. (2001). Throwing out the bath water? Adapting curricula to reflect changes in technology. Warthog Delta ‘01, The Third Southern Hemisphere Symposium on Undergraduate Mathematics Teaching. Kruger National Park, South Africa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orton, A. (1983). Students’ understanding of integration. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 14(1), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms. Harvester Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, K., & Travers, K. J. (1996). A comparative study of a computer-based and a standard college first-year calculus course. CBMS Issues in Mathematics Education (Vol. 6, pp. 155–176). Providence, Rhode Island: American Mathematical Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penglase, M., & Arnold, S. (1996). The graphics calculator in mathematics education: A critical review of recent research. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 8, 58–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, R. (1999). Using CAS as scaffolding for calculus: Some observations. Proceedings of the Delta 99 Conference on Undergraduate Mathematics Education: The Challenge of Diversity (pp. 172–176). Laguna Keys, Whitsunday Coast.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, R., & Stacey, K. (2001). A framework for algebraic insight. In J. Bobis, B. Perry & M. Mitchelmore (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 418–425). Sydney: MERGA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pólya, G. (1962). Mathematical Discovery. John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Povey, H., & Ransom, M. (2000). Some undergraduate students’ perceptions of using technology for mathematics: Tales of resistance. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 5, 47–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, C. (2001). New directions in differential equations: A framework for interpreting students’ understandings and difficulties. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 20, 1–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, C., & King, K. (1999). Locating starting points in differential equations; A realistic mathematics education approach. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 31(2), 161–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, L. F. (1996). Software activities for linear algebra: Concepts and caveats. PRIMUS, VI(2), 140–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rochowicz, J. A. (1996). The impact of using computers and calculators on calculus instruction: Various perceptions. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 15(4), 423–435.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruthven, K. (1990). The influence of graphic calculator use on translation from graphic to symbolic forms. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 21, 143–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruthven, K. (1996). Calculators in the mathematics curriculum: The scope of personal computational technology. In A. J. Bishop, K. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick & C. Laborde (Eds.), The International Handbook of Mathematics Education (pp. 435–468). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santos, A. G. D., & Thomas, M. O. J. (2001). Representational fluency and symbolisation of derivative. Proceedings of the Sixth Asian Technology Conference in Mathematics (pp. 282–291). Melbourne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, J. L. (1999). Can technology help us make the mathematics curriculum intellectually stimulating and socially responsible? International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 4, 99–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwingendorf, K. E. (1999). Assessing the effectiveness of innovative educational reform efforts. In B. Gold, S. Keith & W. Marion (Eds.), Assessment Practices in Undergraduate Mathematics (pp. 249–252). Washington, DC: The Mathematical Association of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 1–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shafrir, U. (1999). Representational competence. In I. E. Sigel (Ed.), Development of Mental Representation: Theories and Applications (pp. 371–390). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sierpinska, A. (2000). On some aspects of students’ thinking in linear algebra. In J.-L. Dorier (Ed.), The Teaching of Linear Algebra in Question (pp. 209–246). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sierpinska, A, Dreyfus, T., & Hillel, J. (1999). Evaluation of a teaching design in linear algebra: The case of linear transformations. Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques, 19(1), 7–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sierpinska, A., Traglova, J., Hillel, J., & Dreyfus, T. (1999). Teaching and learning linear algebra with Cabri. Proceedings of the 23rd Conference of the International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, I, 119–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silverberg, J. (1999). Does calculus reform really work? In B. Gold, S. Keith & W. Marion (Eds.), Assessment Practices in Undergraduate Mathematics (pp. 245–248). Washington, DC: The Mathematical Association of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavit, D., & Yeidel, J. (1999). Using web-based materials in large-scale precalculus instruction. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 4, 27–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D. A. (1997). Technology transitions in college calculus. In J. Harvey (Ed.), Proceedings of the Technology Transitions Calculus Conference, October, MAA Notes series. Washington, DC: The Mathematical Association of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D. A. (1998). Renewal in collegiate mathematics education. Documenta Mathematica, Extra Volume ICM III, 777–786.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D. A, Colvin, M. R, Moore, L. C., Mueller, W. J, & Wattenberg, F. A. (1997). Design, development, and use of web-based interactive instructional materials. In G. Goodell, (Ed.), Proceedings of the Tenth Annual International Conference on Technology in Collegiate Mathematics, November, Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soto-Johnson, H. (1998). Impact of technology on learning infinite series. The International Journal of Computer Algebra in Mathematics Education, 5(2), 95–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stacey, K., Asp, G., & McCrae, B. (2000). Goals for CAS-active senior mathematics curriculum. In M. O. J. Thomas (Ed.), Proceedings of TIME 2000 an International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Education (pp. 246–254). Auckland, New Zealand: The University of Auckland & AUT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, I., & Noss, R. (1999). Supporting the evolution of mathematical meanings: The case of non-euclidean geometry. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 3, 229–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, I (2000). Modelling hyperbolic space: Designing a computational context for learning non-euclidean geometry. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 5(2), 143–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tall, D. O. (1980). The anatomy of a discovery in mathematical research. For the Learning of Mathematics, 1(2), 25–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tall, D. O. (1985) Using computer graphics as generic organisers for the concept image of differentiation. Proceedings of the 9th Conference of the International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 105–110). Utrecht, Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tall, D. O. (1986). Lies, damn lies and differential equations. Mathematics Teaching, 114, 54–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tall, D. O. (1992). The transition to advanced mathematical thinking; Functions, limits, infinity, and proof. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 495–511). New York: Macmillan,

    Google Scholar 

  • Tall, D. O. (1994). A versatile theory of visualisation and symbolisation in mathematics. Paper presented at the Plenary Presentation at eh le? Commission Internationale pour l’Etude et l’Amélioration de l’Ensignemente des mathematiques, Toulouse, France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tall, D. O. (1996). Advanced mathematical thinking and the computer. Proceedings of the 20th University Mathematics Teaching Conference (pp. 1– 8). Nottingham: Shell Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tall, D. O. (1998). Information technology and mathematics education: Enthusiasms, possibilities and realities. In C. Alsina, J. M. Alvarez, M. Niss, A. Perez, L. Rico & A. Sfard (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Congress on Mathematical Education (pp. 65–82). Seville: SAEM Thales.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tall, D. O. (2000a). Cognitive development in advanced mathematics using technology. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 12(3), 210–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tall, D. O. (2000b). Technology and versatile thinking in mathematics. In M. O. J. Thomas (Ed.), Proceedings of TIME 2000 an International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Education (pp. 33–50). Auckland, New Zealand: The University of Auckland & AUT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tall, D. O., Gray, E., Bin Ali, M., Crowley, L., DeMarois, P., McGowen, M., Pitta, D., Pinto, M., Thomas, M. O. J., & Yusof, Y. (2000). Symbols and the bifurcation between procedural and conceptual thinking. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 1, 80–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tall, D. O., Thomas, M. O. J., Davis, G, Gray, E., & Simpson, A. (2000). What is the object of the encapsulation of a process. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18(2), 223–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tall & Vinner (1981) Concept image and concept definition in mathematics with particular reference to limits and continuity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 81, 151–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, M. O. J., & Hong, Y. Y. (2001a). Representations as conceptual tools: Process and structural perspectives. Proceedings of the 25th International Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 257–264). Utrecht, Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, M. O. J., & Hong, Y. Y. (2001b). Representational versatility: Conceptual interactions and mathematics learning, submitted for review. Thompson, P. W. (1985) Experience, problem solving and learning mathematics: considerations in developing mathematics curricula. In F. A. Silver (Ed.), Learning and Teaching Mathematical Problem Solving (pp. 189–236). Nilledale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P. W. (1993). Students, Functions, and the Undergraduate Curriculum. Presentation to the Annual Joint Meeting of AMS/MAA. January. Contemporary Mathematics (publ. American Mathematical Society).

    Google Scholar 

  • Trigueros, M. (2000). Students’ conceptions of solution curves and equilibrium in systems of differential equations. In M. L. Fernandez (Ed.), Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 93–97). Columbus, OH: ERIC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trouche, L. (2000). La parabole du gaucher et de la casserole à bec verseur: ètude des processus d’apprentissage dans un environnement de calculatrices symboliques. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 41(3), 239–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, R. (1999). Evaluating the effects of reform. In B. Gold, S. Keith & W. Marion (Eds.), Assessment Practices in Undergraduate Mathematics (pp. 219 –223). Washington, DC: The Mathematical Association of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, S. R. (1991). Models of limit held by college Calculus students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 237–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winslow, C. (2000). Linguistic aspects of computer algebra systems in higher mathematics education. Proceedings of the 24th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 281–288). Hiroshima, Japan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Witt, A. (1997). Numerical aspects of solving differential equations: Laboratory approach for students. PRIMUS, VII(3), 249–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zandieh, M., & McDonald, M. (1999). Student understanding of equilibrium solution in differential equations. In F. Hitt & M. Santos (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 253–258). Columbus, OH: ERIC.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mathematics Education Unit, Department of Mathematics, The University of Auckland, USA

    Michael O. J. Thomas

  2. Department of Mathematics, University of Otago, USA

    Derek Holton

Authors
  1. Michael O. J. Thomas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Derek Holton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Monash University, Australia

    Alan J. Bishop

  2. Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Brunei

    M. A. Clements

  3. Free University of Berlin, Germany

    Christine Keitel

  4. University of Georgia, Athens, USA

    Jeremy Kilpatrick

  5. The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

    Frederick K. S. Leung

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2003 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Thomas, M.O.J., Holton, D. (2003). Technology as a Tool for Teaching Undergraduate Mathematics. In: Bishop, A.J., Clements, M.A., Keitel, C., Kilpatrick, J., Leung, F.K.S. (eds) Second International Handbook of Mathematics Education. Springer International Handbooks of Education, vol 10. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0273-8_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0273-8_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-010-3951-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-010-0273-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation