Mathematics Learning Instructional Development based on Discovery Learning for Students with Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Intelligence (Preliminary Research Stage)
Yerizon, Atus Amadi Putra, & Muhammad Subhan
pp. 97-101 | Article Number: ..2018.009
The mathematical ability of Indonesian students is still very low compared to other countries. One alternative to overcome the problem is by creating learning instructional that allows students to learn well. Most of learning instructional developed today do not accommodate the student learning styles especially in schools that have classified students based on multiple intelligences. The dominant intelligences in the classroom are intrapersonal and interpersonal. The purpose of this research is to produce a mathematics learning instructional based on Discovery Learning approach that are valid, practical, and effective for junior high school students with intrapersonal and interpersonal intelligence. These instructional are developed using a development model adapted from the Plomp model. The development process of these instructional consists of 3 phases: front-end analysis/preliminary research, development/prototype phase and assessment phase. From the preliminary research results, we obtain that the intrapersonal student learning outcomes are not different from interpersonal. Teachers and students desperately need learning instructional with simple language and can guide students to understand the subject matter.
Keywords: learning instructional, multiple intelligences, development model
Azid, N., & Yaacob, A. (2016). Enriching Orphans’ Potentials through Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Intelligence Enrichment Activities. International Journal of Instruction January 2016, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2016.913a
Behjat, F. (2012) Interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences: Do they really work in foreign-language learning? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences No. 32, 351–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.01.052
Ferrill, S. P. (2017) Discovery Learning Plus Direct Instruction Equals Success: Modifying American Math Education in the Algebra Classroom. Seattle Pacific University Honors Projects. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.spu.edu/honorsprojects/63/
Illahi, M. T. (2012) Pembelajaran Discovery Strategy dan Mental Vocational Skill. Yogyakarta: DIVA Press.
Ishartono, N., Juniati, D., & Lukito, A. (2016) Developing Mathematics Teaching Devices in the Topic of Trigonometry Basedon Guided Discovery Teaching Method. Journal of Research and Advances in Mathematics Education, 1(2), 154-171.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Hooper, M. (2016). TIMSS 2015 International Results in Mathematics. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College. Retrieved from http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2015/international-results/
OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 Result and Focus. Retrieved from www.oecd.org/ https://doi.org/10.1787/aa9237e6-en
Perez, M. P., & Ruz, N. R. (2014) Intrapersonal intelligence and motivation in foreign language learning. European Scientific, 10(17).
Pishghadam, R. (2009). Emotional and verbal intelligences in language learning. Iranian Journal of Language Studies 3, 43–64.
Tamilselvi, B., & Geetha, D. (2015). Efficacy in teaching through “Multiple Intelligence” instructional strategies i-manager’s. Journal on School Educational Technology, 11(2).
Whardani, S. et al (2015). Materi pelatihan guru implementasi kurikulum 2013. Yogyakarta: Kemendikbud.
|View Abstract References Full text PDF|
Teacher Educator-Embedded Professional Learning Model
Scott A. Courtney
pp. 103-123 | Article Number: ..2018.010
The author describes interactions with two middle grades (grades 6-8, student ages 11-14 years) and three secondary school (grades 9-12, student ages 14-18 years) mathematics teachers designed to increase and enhance teachers’ content knowledge and transform their classroom instruction by embedding the author (i.e., mathematics teacher educator) into teachers’ practices. In addition, the author operationalizes the teacher educator-embedded professional learning model. Embedding a teacher educator into grade K-12 (student ages 5-18 years) teachers’ practices, as presented in this study, involves more than simply implementing lessons with teachers. Rather, the mathematics teacher educator navigates iterative instructional cycles alongside the participating teacher, serving as sounding board, interventionist, epistemic student, and colleague. Results of teacher-educator embedding are presented, indicating participating teachers increased their content knowledge, engaged their students in more rigorous mathematics, demonstrated increased self-efficacy and more frequently engaged students in mathematical sense making, reasoning, modelling, generalizing, and communicating.
Keywords: mathematics teacher education, professional learning, teacher educator-embedding
Abt Associates Inc. (2015, March). A guide for reporting on evaluations for the U.S. Department of Education Mathematics and Science Partnerships (MSP): A user-friendly guide for MSP project officials and evaluators. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.
Achieve the Core. (n.d.). Mathematics: Focus by grade level. New York, NY: Student Achievement Partners. Retrieved from https://achievethecore.org/category/774/mathematics-focus-by-grade-level
Amrein-Beardsley A., Osborn Popp S. E. (2012). Peer observations among faculty in a college of education: investigating the summative and formative uses of the Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP). Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 24, 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-011-9135-1
Bacharach, N., Heck, T. W., & Dahlberg, K. (2010). Changing the face of student teaching through co- teaching. Action in Teacher Education, 32(1), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2010.10463538
Bruce, C. D., Esmonde, I., Ross, J., Dookie, L., & Beatty, R. (2010). The effects of sustained classroom-embedded teacher professional learning on teacher efficacy and related student achievement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(8), 1598-1608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.06.011
Clarke, D. (1994). Ten key principles from research for the professional development of mathematics teachers. In D. B. Aichele and A. F. Coxford (Eds.), Professional Development for Teachers of Mathematics, 1994 Yearbook (pp. 37–48), Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Cook, L. & Friend, M. (1995). Co-Teaching: Guidelines for creating effective practices. Focus on Exceptional Children, 28(3), 1-16.
Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). (2005). Surveys of enacted curriculum: A guide for SEC state and local coordinators. Washington, DC: Author.
Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). (2009). SEC self-guided tour of data charts: Introduction to data reported through the surveys of enacted curriculum online report generator. Washington, DC: Author.
Courtney, S. (2017). What teachers understand of model lessons. Cogent Education, 4(1), 1-23.
Covey, S. R. (2004). The seven habits of highly effective people: Powerful lessons in personal change. New York: Free Press/Simon & Schuster.
Darling-Hammond, L, & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597-604.
Dieker, L. A., & Murawski, W. W. (2003). Co-teaching at the secondary level: Unique issues, current trends, and suggestions for success. The High School Journal, 86(4), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1353/hsj.2003.0007
Ebert-May D., Derting T. L., Hodder J., Momsen J. L., Long T. M., Jardeleza S. E. (2011). What we say is not what we do: Effective evaluation of faculty professional development programs. Bioscience, 61(7), 550-558. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2011.61.7.9
Fernandez, C., Cannon, J., & Chokshi, S. (2003). A U.S.-Japan lesson study collaborative reveals critical lenses for examining practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 171-185. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00102-6
Florida State University. (2017). CPALMS. Tallahassee, FL: Author. Retrieved from http://www.cpalms.org/Public/
Friend, M. (2008). Co-teaching: A simple solution that isn’t simple after all. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 2(2), 9-19. https://doi.org/10.3776/joci.2008.v2n2p9-19
Gleason, J., Livers, S., & Zelkowski, J. (2017). Mathematics Classroom Observation Protocol for Practices (MCOP2): A validation study. Investigations in Mathematics Learning, 9, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/19477503.2017.1308697
Guskey, T. R., & Yoon, K. S. (2009). What works in professional development? Phi Delta Kappan, 90(7), 495–500. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170909000709
Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematics knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371-406. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312042002371
Hill, H. C., Schilling, S. G., & Ball, D. L. (2004). Developing measures of teachers’ mathematics knowledge for teaching. Elementary School Journal, 105(1), 11-30. https://doi.org/10.1086/428763
Idol, L. (2006). Toward inclusion of special education students in general education: A program evaluation of eight schools. Remedial and Special Education, 27(2), 77-94. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325060270020601
Ingvarson, L. (2005). Getting professional development right. ACER Annual Conference Proceedings 2005, Using Data to Support Student Learning. Melbourne, Australia: ACER Press.
Inside Mathematics. (2017). Common core state standards for mathematical content. Austin, TX: The Charles A. Dana Center, The University of Texas at Austin. Retrieved from http://www.insidemathematics.org/
Institute for Advanced Study/Park City Mathematics Institute. (2011). Resources to supplement rubric implementing mathematical practices. Princeton, NJ: Author, Secondary School Teachers Program.
Krauss, S., Baumert, J., & Blum, W. (2008). Secondary mathematics teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and content knowledge: validation of the COACTIV constructs. ZDM, 40(5), 873-892. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-008-0141-9
Lewis, C. (2002). Lesson study: A handbook of teacher-led instructional change. Philadelphia, PA: Research for Better Schools.
Lewis, C. C., Perry, R. R., & Hurd, J. (2009). Improving mathematics instruction through lesson study: A theoretical model and North American case. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 12(4), 285–304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-009-9102-7
Lewis, C., Perry, R., & Hurd, J. (2004, February). A deeper look at lesson study. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 18-22.
Lewis, C., Perry, R., Hurd, J., & O’Connell, M. P. (2006). Lesson study comes of age in North America. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(4), 273–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170608800406
Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S., Love, N., & Hewson, P. W. (2010). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Lyle, J. (2003). Stimulated recall: A report on its use in naturalistic research. British Educational Research Journal, 29(6), 861-878. https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192032000137349
Mathematics Assessment Project. (2015). Common core state standards. Oakland: CA: Shell Center for Mathematics Education, University of Nottingham (Shell Center), the University of California, Berkeley (UC Berkeley). Retrieved from http://map.mathshell.org/materials/index.php
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers (NGA Center & CCSSO) (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: Authors.
Nebraska State Board of Education. (2015). Nebraska’s college and career ready standards for mathematics. Lincoln, NE: Nebraska Department of Education.
New York State Education Department. (n.d.). EngageNY. Albany, NY: Author. Retrieved from https://www.engageny.org/
Nguyen, N. T., McFadden, A., Tangen, D., & Beutel, D. (2013). Video-stimulated recall interviews in qualitative research. Paper presented at the AARE Annual Conference, Adelaide, Australia.
Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC). (2017, November). PARCC model content frameworks: Mathematics, Grades 3-11 (Version 5.0). Austin, TX: New Meridian Corporation.
Perry, R. R., & Lewis, C. C. (2009). What is successful adaptation of Lesson Study in the U.S.? Journal of Educational Change, 10(4), 365–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-008-9069-7
Piaget, J. (1962). Comments on Vygotsky’s critical remarks concerning The Language and Thought of the Child, and Judgment and Reasoning in the Child (A. Parsons, Trans., & E. Hanfmann & G. Vakar, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.
Piburn, M., & Sawada, D. (2000). Reformed teaching observation protocol (RTOP): Reference manual (ACET Tech. Rep. No. IN00-3). Tempe: Arizona Collaborative for Excellence in the Preparation of Teachers, Arizona State University.
Rea, P. J., McLaughlin, V. L., & Walther-Thomas, C. (2002). Outcomes for students with learning disabilities in inclusive and pullout programs. Exceptional Children, 68(2), 203-222. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290206800204
Rice, D., & Zigmond, N. (2000). Co-teaching in secondary schools: Teacher reports of developments in Australian and American classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15(4), 190-197. https://doi.org/10.1207/SLDRP1504_3
Rosenbaum, D. A. (1972). The theory of cognitive residues: A new view of fantasy. Psychological Review, 79(6), 471-486. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0033548
Rowe, V. (2009). Using video-stimulated recall as a basis for interviews: Some experiences from the field. Music Education Research, 11(4), 425–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613800903390766
Salomon, G., Globerson, T., & Guterman, E. (1989). The computer as a zone of proximal development: Internalizing reading-related metacognition from a reading partner. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(4), 620-627. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-06188.8.131.520
Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20(3), 2-9. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X020003002
Sawada, D., Piburn, M., Turley, J., Falconer, K., Benford R., Bloom, I., & Judson, E. (2000) Reformed teaching observation protocol (RTOP) training guide (ACET Tech. Rep. No. IN00-2). Tempe: Arizona Collaborative for Excellence in the Preparation of Teachers, Arizona State University.
Silverman, J. (2005). Examining the relationships between teachers’ understandings of mathematics content and their developing pedagogy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt University.
Silverman, J., & Thompson, P. W. (2008). Toward a framework for the development of mathematical knowledge for teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(6), 499-511. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-008-9089-5
Simon, M. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(2), 114-145. https://doi.org/10.2307/749205
Steffe, L. P., & Thompson, P. W. (2000). Interaction or intersubjectivity? A reply to Lerman. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(2), 191-209. https://doi.org/10.2307/749751
Swafford, J. O., Jones, G. A., Thornton, C. A., Stump, S. L., & Miller, D. R. (1999). The impact on instructional practice of a teacher change model. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 32(2), 69-82.
Sztajn, P., Marrongelle, K, & Smith, P. (2011). Supporting implementation of the common core state standards for mathematics: Recommendations for professional development. Raleigh, NC: College of Education, North Carolina State University.
Taylor, A. R., Anderson, S., Meyer, K., Wagner, M. K., & West, C. (2005). Lesson study: A professional development model for mathematics reform. Rural Educator, 26(2), 17–22.
Thompson, P. W. (2006). What makes a conversation conceptual? Retrieved from http://tpc2.net/Courses/Func1F05/ConceptConv.html
Thompson, P. W. (2009, August). The didactic triad in mathematics teacher professional development. Invited presentation given at the University of Michigan College of Education, Ann Arbor, MI.
Thompson, P. W. (2013). In the Absence of Meaning. In K. Leatham (Ed.), Vital Directions for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 57-93), New York, NY: Springer, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6977-3_4
Thompson, P. W. (2016). Researching mathematical meanings for teaching. In English, L., & Kirshner, D. (Eds.), Handbook of International Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 435-461). London: Taylor and Francis.
Valero, P. (2010). Mathematics education as a network of social practices. In V. Durand-Guerier, S. Soury-Lavergne, & F. Arzarello (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. LIV-LXXX). Lyon, France: Institut National de Recherche Pedagogique.
Walsh, J. M. (2012). Co-teaching as a school system strategy for continuous improvement. Preventing School Failure, 56(1), 29-36. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2011.555792
Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional development through understanding authentic professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 702-739. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308330970
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Wisconsin Center for Education Research (WCER). (2018). Surveys of Enacted Curriculum (SEC). Madison, WI: WCER, School of Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
|View Abstract References Full text PDF|
The Quaterniontonic and Octoniontonic Fibonacci Cassini’s Identity: An Historical Investigation with the Maple’s Help
Francisco Regis Vieira Alves
pp. 125-138 | Article Number: iejme.2018.011
This paper discusses a proposal for exploration and verification of numerical and algebraic behavior correspondingly to Generalized Fibonacci model. Thus, it develops a special attention to the class of Fibonacci quaternions and Fibonacci octonions and with this assumption, the work indicates an investigative and epistemological route, with assistance of software CAS Maple. The advantage of its use can be seen from the algebraic calculation of some Fibonacci’s identities that showed unworkable without the technological resource. Moreover, through an appreciation of some mathematical definitions and recent theorems, we can understand the current evolutionary content of mathematical formulations discussed over this writing. On the other hand, the work does not ignore some historical elements which contributed to the discovery of quaternions by the mathematician William Rowan Hamilton (1805 – 1865). Finally, with the exploration of some simple software’s commands allows the verification and, above all, the comparison of the numerical datas with the theorems formally addressed in some academic articles.
Keywords: Fibonacci’s model, historical investigation, Fibonacci quaternions, Fibonacci octonions, CAS Maple
Brother, A. U. (1965). An introduction to Fibonacci Discovery. Santa Clara: Santa Clara University, California.
Bicknell-Johnson, M., & Spears, C. P. (1996). Classes of Identities for the Generalized Fibonacci Numbers from the matrices. The Fibonacci Quaterly, 34(2), May, 121 – 129.
Brousseau, A. (1971). Linerar recursion and Fibonacci sequences. Santa Clara: Santa Clara University, California.
Catarino, P. M. (2016). The h(x) – Fibonacci Quaternion Polynomials: some combinatorial properties. Advanced Mathematical Algebras, 26(1), 71–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00006-015-0606-1
Conway, J. H., & Smith, A. D. (2003). On quaternions and octonions: their geometry, arithmetic and symmetry. Massachusetts: A. K. Peters.
Fálcon, S., & Plaza, Á. (2007). The k-Fibonacci sequence and the Pascal 2-triangle. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, 33(1), 38-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2006.10.022
Fálcon, S. (2014) Generalized Fibonacci numbers. General Mathematical Notes, 25(2), 148 – 158.
Hadamard, J. (1945). An essay on the Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field, United Kingdom: Dover Publications.
Hanson, A. (2006). Visualizing Quaternions, New York: Elsevier.
Halici, S. (2012). On Complex Fibonacci quaternions. Advanced Applied Clifford Algebras, 23(1), 105–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00006-012-0337-5
Halici, S. (2015). On dual Fibonacci octonions. Advanced Applied Clifford Algebras, 23(1), 105–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00006-015-0550-0
Halici, S., & Karatas, A. (2016). Some matrix representations of Fibonacci quaternions and octonions. Advanced Applied Clifford Algebras, 26(1), 1–11.
Horadam. A. F. (1963). Complex Fibonacci Numbers Quaternions, Americal Mathematical Monthly, 70, 289–291. https://doi.org/10.2307/2313129
Horadam, A. F. (1967). Special Properties of the sequence . The Fibonacci Quaterly, 5(5), 424–435.
Iakin, A. L. (1977). Generalized Quaternions with Quaternion Components. The Fibonacci Quarterly, 15(4), 225 – 230.
Iakin, A. L. (1981). Extended Binet Forms for Generalized Quaternions of Higher Order. The Fibonacci Quarterly, 19(5), 410–414.
Iver, M. S. (1969). Some results of Fibonacci quaternions, The Fibonacci Quarterly, 15(4), 225–230.
Jeannin, A. R. (1991). Generalized Complex and Lucas functions. The Fibonacci Quarterly, 29(1), 13–19.
Kantor, I. L., & Solodovnikov, A. S. (1989). Hypercomplex numbers: an elementary introduction to algebras. London: Springer-Verglag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3650-4
Keçilioglu, O., & Akkus, I. (2014). The Fibonacci octonions. Advanced Applied Clifford Algebras, 25(1), 105–112.
King, C. (1968). Conjugate Generalized Fibonacci Sequences. The Fibonacci Quarterly, 6(1), 46–50.
Koshy, T. (2007). Fibonacci and Lucas numbers with applications. London: Wiley Interscience.
Nurkan, S. K., & Güven, I. A. (2015). On dual Fibonacci quaternions. Advanced Applied Clifford Algebra, 25(2), 403–414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00006-014-0488-7
Polatli, E., & Kesim, S. (2015). A note on Catalan’s identity for the k-fibonacci Quaternions. Journal of Integer Sequences, 18(1), 1–4.
Ramirez, J. L. (2015). Some Combinatorial Properties of the k-Fibonacci and the k-Lucas Quaternions. VERSITA, 23(2), 201–212. https://doi.org/10.1515/auom-2015-0037
Reiter. (1993). Fibonacci Numbers: Reduction Formulas and Short Periods. The Fibonacci Quarterly, 31(4), 315–325.
Savin, D. (2015). Some properties of Fibonacci numbers, Fibonacci octonions and Generalized Fibonacci Lucas octonions. Advanced in Difference Equation, 16(2), 298–312. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13662-015-0627-z
Scott, A. M. (1968). Continuous Extensions of Fibonacci Identities. The Fibonacci Quarterly, 6(4), 245–250.
Swamy, M. N. S. (1973). On generalized Fibonacci quaternions. The Fibonacci Quarterly, 31(4), 315–325.
Tauber, S. (1968). On Q-Fibonacci polynomials, The Fibonacci Quarterly, 6(2), 315–325.
Waddill, M. E., & Sacks, L. (1967). Another Generalized Fibonacci Sequence. The Fibonacci Quartely, 5(3), 209–222.
|View Abstract References Full text PDF|
Impact of Using Graphing Calculator in Problem Solving
Mary Ann Serdina Parrot, & Kwan Eu Leong
pp. 139-148 | Article Number: iejme.2018.012
The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of graphing calculator on students’ problem solving success in solving linear equation problems and their attitude toward problem solving in mathematics. A quasi-experimental non-equivalent control and treatment group using the pre-test post-test design was employed in this study to test the hypotheses. The sample of the study involved two Form Four classes from one public secondary school in Sarawak, Malaysia. Students in the experimental group received problem solving based instruction using graphing calculator while the control group students underwent the traditional chalk and talk method without the graphing technology. Two instruments were used in this study, namely the Linear Equation Problem Solving Test and the Mathematical Problem Solving Questionnaire. Findings of this study show existence of a significant difference in the mean scores between the two groups; students who used graphing calculator performed better in problem solving tasks compared to students without access to graphing calculator. Furthermore, a questionnaire was used to obtain students’ attitude toward problem solving in mathematics. Results from the survey revealed that students who use graphing calculator have a better attitude toward problem solving in mathematics. This study is pertinent as it investigates a different approach in teaching linear equation through problem solving while integrating the latest graphing calculator technology in the lessons.
Keywords: graphing calculator, linear equations, problem solving success, secondary students
Allison, J. A. (2000). High school students’ problem solving with a graphing calculator. (9994081 Ph.D.), University of Georgia, Ann Arbor. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/304595892?accountid=28930 ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global database
Andersson, U., & Lyxell, B. (2007). Working memory deficit in children with mathematical difficulties: a general or specific deficit? Journal of Exceptional Children Psychology, 96(3), 197-228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2006.10.001
Bitter, G. G., & Hatfield, M. M. (1991). Here’s a math-teaching strategy that’s calculated to work. Executive Educator, 13, 19-21.
Bryant, D. P. (2009). Working with your child’s teacher to identify and address math disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.ldonline.org/article/34659/
Carter, H. H. (1995). A visual approach to understanding the function concept using graphing calculators. (9602812 Ph.D.), Georgia State University, Ann Arbor. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/304199069?accountid=28930 ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global database.
Cavanagh, M., & Mitchelmore, M. (2000). Student misconceptions in interpreting basic graphic displays. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 24th annual conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Hiroshima, Japan.
Center for Technology in Learning. (2007). Why should a teacher use technology in his or her mathematics classroom? In T. Instruments (Ed.). United Kingdom: SRI International.
Charles, R., Lester, F., & O’Daffer, P. (1987). How to evaluate progress in problem solving. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Chen, J. C., & Lai, Y. N. (2015). A Brief review of researchers on the use of graphing calculator in mathematics classrooms. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 14(2), 163-172.
Choi-Koh, S. S. (2003). Effect of a Graphing Calculator on a 10th-Grade Student’s Study of Trigonometry. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(6), 359-368. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670309596619
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York, NY: Routledge Academic.
Conway, K. E. (1996). Differential effects of single-sex versus coed education on the mathematical reasoning ability, verbal reasoning ability, and self-concept of high school girls. Dissertation Abstracts International, 57(12), 5047A.
Creswell, J. W. (2011). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research: Pearson College Division.
Crippen, K. J. (1999). Problem solving suggestions for graphing calculators Retrieved from http://dwb.unl.edu/calculators/help/variables.html
Dibble, A. J. (2013). Impact of Graphing Calculators on Students’ Problem-Solving Abilities and Students’ Attitudes towards Mathematics. (1523829 M.S.E.), Southwest Minnesota State University, Ann Arbor. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1441947194?accountid=28930 ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global database.
Doerr, H. M., & Zangor, R. (2000). Creating Meaning for and with the Graphing Calculator. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 41(2), 143-163. https://doi.org/10.2307/3483187
Fraenkel, J., Wallen, N., & Hyun, H. (2011). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education: McGraw-Hill Education.
Halmos, P. R. (1980). The Heart of Mathematics. The American Mathematical Monthly, 87(7), 519-524. https://doi.org/10.2307/2321415
Hatem, N. (2010). The effect of graphing calculators on student achievement in college algebra and pre-calculus mathematics courses. (3438537 Ed.D.), University of Massachusetts Lowell, Ann Arbor. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/847259113?accountid=28930 ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global database.
Hunter, J. S. (2011). The Effects of Graphing Calculator use on High-School Students’ Reasoning in Integral Calculus. (3463473 Ph.D.), University of New Orleans, Ann Arbor. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/879337423?accountid=28930 ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global database.
Kadir, Z. A., Kadir, Z. A., Bejor, J., Nathiman, R., Moamed, B., & Khamis, J. (2003). Meningkatkan Kemahiran Membentuk Ungkapan Kuadratik. Jurnal Penyelidikan Pendidikan, 7(2003), 12-19.
Karadeniz, I. (2015). UCSMP Teachers’ Perspectives when Using Graphing Calculators in Advanced Mathematics. Graduate Theses and Dissertations. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/5712
Kissane, B. (2000). Technology and the curriculum: The case of the graphics calculator. Paper presented at the An International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Education, Auckland, New Zealand.
Kor, L. K., & Lim, C. S. (2003). Learning statistics with graphic calculator: A case study. Paper presented at the Proceedins of 1st National Conference on Graphing Calculators, Penang, Malaysia.
Krulik, S., & Rudnick, J. A. (1998). Assessing reasoning and problem solving: A sourcebook for elementary school teachers. New York: Allyn & Bacon.
Kutzler, B. (2000). The Algebraic Calculator as a Pedagogical Tool for Teaching Mathematics. International Journal of Computer Algebra in Mathematics Education, 7(1), 5-23.
Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking University Teaching: A Conversational Framework for the Effective Use of Educational Technology. London: RoutledgeFalmer. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203304846
Mayer, R. (1982). The psychology of mathematical problem solving. In F. K. Lester & J. Garofalo (Eds.), Mathematical problem solving: Issues in research (pp. 1-13). Philadelphia: The Franklin Institute Press.
Mayer, R. E., & Wittrock, R. C. (2006). Problem solving. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 287–304). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Newman, A. (1983). The Newman Language of Mathematics Kit: Strategies for diagnosis and remediation: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Ng, W. L. (2011). Using an advanced graphing calculator in the teaching and learning of calculus. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 42(7), 925-938. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2011.616914
OECD. (2014). PISA 2012 Results: Creative Problem Solving (Vol. V): OECD Publishing.
Pilipczuk, C. H. (2006). The effect of graphing technology on students’ understanding of functions in a precalculus course. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/305324162?accountid=28930
Polya, G. (1965). Mathematical discovery. On understanding, learning, and teaching problem solving. New York: John Wiley.
Quinones, C. K. (2005). The Effects of Journal Writing on Student Attitudes and Performance in Problem Solving. (Master of Education in K-8 Mathematics and Science), University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida.
Rich, B. S. (1991). The effect of the use of graphing calculators on the learning of function concepts in precalculus mathematics. (9112475 Ph.D.), The University of Iowa, Ann Arbor. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/303868313?accountid=28930 ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global database.
Rosli, R., Goldsby, D., & Capraro, M. M. (2013). Assessing Students’ Mathematical Problem-Solving and Problem-Posing Skills Asian Social Science, 9(16), 7. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v9n16p54
Schrupp, R. D. (2007). Effects of using graphing calculators to solve quadratics with high school mathematics students. (1443824 M.S.E.), Southwest Minnesota State University, Ann Arbor. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/304705471?accountid=28930 ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global database.
Szetela, W., & Super, D. (1987). Calculators and instruction in problem solving in grade 7. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 18(3), 215-229. https://doi.org/10.2307/749058
Tambychik, T. (2005). Penggunaan Kaedah Nemonik Berirama dalam Pembelajaran Matematik bagi Pelajar Lemah: Satu Kajian kes. (Master Degree), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Malaysia.
Tambychik, T., Meerah, T. S. M., & Aziz, Z. (2010). Mathematics skills difficulties: A mixture of intricacies. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 7(C)(2010), 171-180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.10.025
Tan, C.-K., Harji, M. B., & Lau, S.-H. (2011). Graphing calculator for probability students: How was it perceived? IBIMA Business Review 2011(2011). https://doi.org/10.5171/2011.167702
Tay, L. H. (2005). Problem Solving Abilities and Strategies in Solving Multistep Mathematical Problems among Form 2 Students. (Master Degree), University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Victor, A. M. (2004). The effects of metacognitive instruction on the planning and academic achievement of first and second grade children. (Doctoral), Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago.
Waits, B. K., & Demana, F. (1998). The role of graphing calculators in mathematics reform.
Wareham, K. (2016). Calculators and Mathematics Achievement: What the NAEP Mathematics Results Tell Us. Paper presented on Jan. 3 at the (14th) 2016 Hawaii International Conference On Education. Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.
Wilson, J. W., Fernandez, M. L., & Hadaway, N. (1993). Mathematical Probelm Solving. In P. S. Wilson (Ed.), Research Ideas for the Classroom: High School Mathematics. New York: MacMillan.
Wittcop, M. A. (2008). The Effects of Problem Solving Strategy Instruction, Journal Writing and Discourse on 6th Grade Advanced Mathematics Student Performance. (Master of Education), University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida.
Yeo, K. K. J. (2011). An Exploratory Study of Primary Two Pupils’ Approach to Solve Word Problems. Journal of Mathematics Education, 4(1), 9.
Zanzali, N. A. A., & Lui, L. N. (1999). Evaluating the levels of problem solving abilities in mathematics. Research Management Centre, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Retrieved from http://math.unipa.it/~grim/Jzanzalinam.pdf
|View Abstract References Full text PDF|