“The Role of Graphing Calculators in Mathematics Reform” is an essay written by Waits and Demana regarding the positive impact of graphing calculators in mathematics curriculum. Waits and Demana believe that the role of graphing calculators will not eliminate paper-and-pencil techniques; yet, the two methods will compliment each other.
The authors begin their essay revealing the history of graphing calculators in mathematics education. Prior to graphing calculators, teachers would have to schedule a time to use a PC and then provide a demonstration of the software program to the students. Thus, the computer software was not hands on for the students. This was a major benefit of the induction of the personal hand held graphing calculators.
According to Waits and Demana, the first graphing calculator arrived in 1986 by Casio. The graphing calculator became a huge success. Within three years, “the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics’ Curriculum and Evaluation Standards released in 1989 for grades 9-12 includes the assumption that graphing calculators will be available to all students at appropriate times because they are personal computers that fit in a pocket or purse” (Waits, 1998). The graphing calculators were relatively inexpensive compared to the PC software, making the availability to students much more convenient.
The accessibility of the graphing calculators to all students significantly reformed the society viewed mathematics educations. Waits, Demana, and many others favored the implementation of graphing calculators in the classroom. Waits and Demana conducted two computer graphing projects one in pre-calculus and the other in calculus, both producing text books that incorporate the graphing calculator into the classroom. Those who opposed the reform feared that graphing calculators may replace the traditional curriculum and abolish pencil-and-paper practices.
However, Waits and Demana believe they have “balanced approach” that combines the positive elements of the traditional curriculum with the graphing calculator. Their approach of learning mathematics allows the students to solve algebraically using the tradition method and then check their solution by using the graphing technology and solve using the graphing calculator and validate their answer with the pencil-and-paper technique (Waits, 1998). Waits and Demana deem that learning by rote memory does not imply the students have a conceptual understanding of mathematics, and the use of graphing calculators may allow for better understanding of various applications.
Lastly, Waits and Demana feel that professional development is a key factor is applying technology in the classroom. As the world of technology is constantly changing, teachers need to keep their knowledge up to date and be a valuable asset in their students learning experience.
The most interesting part of this article is that it was written almost ten years ago. In Waits and Deamana’s closing paragraph they state “it is clear to us that ten or fifteen years in the future the mathematics curriculum of today will have changed considerably to take full advantage of just the technology that exists today.” In my opinion, the authors’ prediction of the mathematics curriculum was correct. It today’s classroom, graphing calculators are used almost everyday and readily available to the students. For example in my placement where I attend everyday, each student owns their own calculator and in addition each classroom has a set of roughly ten calculators that the students’ may borrow. There is a television screen in each of the mathematics classroom that displays the screen of the teachers’ calculator. Thus, students are actively learning how to use the calculator correct. Additionally, there are large posters of the calculators with the buttons labeled so that the educator can teach the students the navigation of the graphing technology. Waits and Demana were also correct when they considered professional development a key factor in implementing technology in a classroom. In another example referring to my placement, staff development day at the start of the school year a workshop on the latest Texas Instrument graphing calculator called TI-Nspire was held.
In conclusion, I think Waits and Demana approach to integrating the graphing calculator into the traditional mathematics curriculum is beneficial to the students’ learning and a similar approach can be seen in the various classrooms today. Waits and Demana were correct in their thought process, just a little ahead of the rest of society.
References
Waits, Bert & Demana, Franklin. (1998). “The Role of Graphing Calculators in Mathematics Reform.”
Monday, April 28, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I find it interesting that your students own graphing calculators. However, you may be in a high school and I am in an urban middle school where they are relatively scarce. The math teachers just each got a set. I do not know about the science teachers, but suspect not. In addition, I have never seen a science teacher borrow the graphing calculators. Is this true for your school as well (and what are the grades in it)
The work of the authors sounds interesting although in general, the math classrooms, at least in my school, no longer have compasses due to the sharp points. (we did not seem to have problems with the points years ago)
Post a Comment