Author, Subjects, Keywords

Cited Author

 
 
   » By Author or Editor
 » Browse Author by Alphabet
 » By Journal
 » By Subjects
 » Malaysian Journals
 » By Type
 » By Year
 » By Latest Additions
 
 
   » By Author
 » Top 20 Authors
 » Top 20 Article
 » Top Journal Cited
 » Top Article Cited
 » Journal Citation Statistics
 » Usage Since Sept 2007


 
 
 

Login | Create Account

The Effects of Geometer’s Sketchpad and Graphic Calculator in the Malaysian Mathematics Classroom

Teoh, Boon Tat, and Fong, Soon Fook, (2005) The Effects of Geometer’s Sketchpad and Graphic Calculator in the Malaysian Mathematics Classroom. Malaysian Online Journal of Instructional Technology (MOJIT), 2 (2). pp. 82-96. ISSN 1823-1144

Full text not available from this repository.

Official URL: http://pppjj.usm.my/mojit/articles/pdf/August05/08-Fong-USM.pdf

Affiliations

Universiti Sains Malaysia. School of Educational Studies

Abstract

This study examined the effects of using the Geometer’s Sketchpad (GSP) and the graphic calculator (GC) in the learning of the vertex form of quadratic functions among field dependent (FD) and field independent (FI) cognitive style students. The GSP and GCs are two innovative tools introduced in Malaysia in the teaching and learning of secondary school mathematics. This study found that the students performed as well when using the GSP or the GC in the learning of quadratic functions by way of the visualisation of graphs. The FI students outperformed the FD students in both tools. The implications of this study in using the GSP and GC in the mathematics classroom are discussed.

Item Type:Journal
Subjects:Q Science
T Technology
L Education
ID Code:1661

Adams, V.M. & McLeod, D.B. (1979). The interaction of field independence with discovery learning in mathematics. Journal of Experimental Education, 48, 32 - 35.

Alexander, M.P. (1993). The effective use of computers and graphing calculators in college algebra. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54(6), 2080A.

Almeqdadi, F. (2000). The Effect of Using the Geometer’s Sketchpad (GSP) on Jordanian Student’s Understanding of Geometrical Concepts. Jordon: Yarmouk University.

Ayersman D.J. & Minden A. (1995). Individual differences, computers and instruction. Computers in Human Behaviour, 11(3/4), 371-390.

Battista, M.T. (1999). Fifth graders’ enumeration of cubes in 3D arrays: Conceptual progress in an inquiry-based classroom. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30, 417-448.

Canelos, J., Taylor, W.D. & Gates, R.B. (1980). The effects of three levels of visual stimulus complexity on the information processing of field-dependents and field-independents when acquiring information for performance on three types of instructional objectives. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 7, 65 - 70.

Cavanagh, M. & Mitchelmore, M. (2000). Student Misconceptions in Interpreting Basic Graphic Calculator Displays. Australia: Macquarie University.

Dyke, F.V. (2003). Using graphs to introduce functions. The Mathematics Teacher, 96(2), 126-137.

Edwards, M.T. (2002). Symbolic manipulation in a technological age. The Mathematics Teacher, 95(8), 614.

Embse, C.V. (2001). Dynamic visualizations of calculus ideas. The Mathematics Teacher, 94(7), 602.

Embse, C.V. & Engebretsen, A. (1996). Friendly windows for graphing calculators. The Mathematics Teacher. 89(6), 508-511.

Fong, S.F. (2000). The Effects of Animation on Learning of Procedural Knowledge of Meiosis among Students with Different Psychological Profiles. PhD thesis (Not published). Penang: Universiti Sains Malaysia.

Frank, B.M. & Davis, J.K. (1982). Effect of field-independence match or mismatch on a communication task. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 23 - 31.

Gagné, R.M. (1984). The Conditions of Learning (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Garofalo, J. & Bell, R. (2004). A new look at Geometer’s Sketchpad: Teaching area across grade levels. Academic Research Library, 104(5), 233.

Gay, L.R. & Airasian, P. (2003). Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Applications, (7th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education.

Geometer’s Sketchpad Reference Manual. (Fall 2001). California: Key Curriculum Press.

Geometer’s Sketchpad Workshop Guide. (2002). California: Key Curriculum Press.

Goodenough, D.R. (1976). The role of individual differences in field dependence as a factor in learning and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 675 - 694.

Greeno, J.G., Collins, A.M. & Resnick, L.B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology. (pp. 15-41). New York: MacMillan.

Harvey, J.G., Waits, B.K. & Demana, F.D. (1995). The influence of technology on the teaching and learning of algebra. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 14, 75-109.

Kelly,G., Ewers, T. & Proctor, L. (2002). Developing spatial sense: Comparing appearance with reality. The Mathematics Teacher, 95(9), 702.

Keypress.com (2005). Geometer’s Sketchpad Catalogue Pricing. http://www.keypress.com/catalog/products/software/Prod_GSP.html

Knuth, E. (2000). Understanding connections between equations and graphs. The Mathematics Teacher, 93(2), 48-53.

Ling, S. (2004). Enhancing the Learning of Conics with Technology. California: California State University Dominguez Hills.

Lopez, A., Jr. (2001). A classroom note on: Making connections through geometric visualization. Mathematics and Computer Education, 35(2), 116-122.

Maznah, I. & Ng, W.K. (1985). Relationships of locus of control, cognitive style, anxiety and academic achievements of a group of Malaysian primary school children. Psychological Reports, 57, 1127-1134.

McClintock E., Jiang Z. & July R. (2002). Students’ Development of 3D Visualization in the Geometer’s Sketchpad Environment. Florida: Florida International University.

Milou, E. (1999). The graphing calculator: a survey of classroom usage. School Science & Mathematics, 99(3), 133.

Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2001). Education in Malaysia: A Journey to Excellence. Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Education Malaysia.

Ministry of Education. (2002). SPM Performance Report (in Malay). Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Ministry of Education.

Musser, T. (2005). Individual differences: How field dependence-independence affects learners. http://www.personal.psu.edu/staff/t/x/txm4/paper1.html

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, NCTM Standards 2000. Principles and Standards for School Mathematics.

Noraini, I., Tay, B.L., Nilawati, M., Goh, L.S. & Aziah, A. (2003). Pengajaran & pembelajaran matematik dengan kalkulator grafik TI-83 Plus. Selangor: Penerbitan Bangi.

Noraini, I. (2004). Exploration and entertaining mathematics: why graphic calculator? Paper presented at the 2nd national conference on graphing calculators, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur.

Norjoharuddeen, M.N. (2004). Integrating the graphic calculator in the development of students’ meaningful understanding of secondary school mathematics concept by teaching through problem-solving. http://www.mat.usm.my/math/Events/NCGC04Proc/PDF/norjo.pdf)

Oh, N.K. (2002). The effect of calculator-based ranger activities on students' graphing ability. School Science and Mathematics. Bowling Green, 102(2), 57-67.

Packer, J. & Bain, J. (1978). Cognitive style and student-teachers compatibility. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 864 - 871.

Paivio, A. (1986). Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach. New York: Oxford University Press.

Purdy, D.C. (2000). Using the geometer's sketchpad to visualize maximum-volume problems. The Mathematics Teacher, 93(3), 224.

Podlesni, J. (1999) “A new breed of calculators: do they change the way we teach?” Mathematics Teacher, 92(2).

Quinn, A.L. (1997). Using dynamic geometry software to teach graph theory: Isomorphic, bipartite, and planar graphs. The Mathematics Teacher, 90(4), 328.

Ruthven, K. (1990). The influence of graphic calculator: use on translation from graphics to symbolic forms. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 21, 431-450.

Scher, D. (2003). Dynamic visualization and proof: A new approach to a classic problem. The Mathematics Teacher. 96(6), 394.

Sherwood, R.D., Kinzer, C.K., Bransford, J.D. & Franks, J.J. (1987). Some benefits of creating macro-contexts for science instruction: Initial findings. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 24(5), 417-435.

Smith, K.B. & Shotsberger, P.G. (1997). Assessing the use of graphing calculators in college algebra: reflecting on dimensions of teaching and learning. School Science and Mathematics, 97(7), 368.

Thompson, G.& Knox, A.B. (1987). Designing for diversity: are field dependent learners less suited to distance education programs of instruction? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 12, 17 - 29.

Vaidya, S. & Chansky, N.M. (1980). Cognitive development and cognitive style as factors in mathematics achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 326 - 330.

Weiss, J. (2004). Trigonometric identities on a graphing calculator. The College Mathematics Journal, 35(5), 393.

Whitehead, A.N. (1929). The Aims of Education. New York: MacMillan.

Wilborn, M.R. (1981). An investigation of the relationships among proportional reasoning, field-ependence/independence, sex, and grades in science of eight grade ISCS students. (Doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University), Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 92.

Witkin, H.A. & Goodenough, D.R. (1981). Cognitive Styles: Essence and Origins. New York: International Universities Press.

Witkin, H.A., Moore, C.A., Goodenough, D.R. & Cox, P.W. (1977). Field dependent and field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 1 - 64.

Witkin, H.A., Oltman, P.K., Raskin, E. & Karp, S.A. (1971). A Manual for the Embedded Figures Test. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.

Worthley, K.M.E. (1987). Learning Style Factor of Field Dependence/Independence and Problem Solving Strategies of among Refugee Students. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin-Stout.

Repository Staff Only: item control page
 
 
 
 
 
 
© Copyright 2007 MyAIS Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, University of Malaya – All Rights Reserved. Malaysian Abstracting and Indexing System is powered by EPrints 3 which is developed by the School of Electronics and Computer Science at the University of Southampton. More information and software credits.