# A LITERATURE REVIEW ON THE EFFECTS OF THE USE OF GRAPHIC CALCULATORS IN COLLEGE ALGEBRA COURSES

## Keywords:

graphic calculator, teaching and learning strategies, post-secondary education, college grades, student satisfaction and motivation## Abstract

College algebra has been ignored in previous math research studies even if it is the first official college level math for most students in their total educational programs. The lack of research has created a significant gap in knowledge on the application of graphic calculators and role of this technological tool in the college math curriculum and classroom. College algebra students face the one of the highest failure rates in the U.S. The purpose of this literature review was to explore the impact graphic calculators had on college students’ final grade. Specifically, the researcher focused on the effect of graphic calculators on student performance, motivation, and satisfaction. The theoretical framework comprised of two prongs: constructivist theory and technology-assisted instruction theory. Using these two theories, the researcher reviewed and discussed the theoretical based literature and the evidence-based literature on constructivist approaches to learning that lend to improved student performance, student motivation, and student satisfaction. The researcher then reviewed and discussed the theoretical based literature and the evidence-based literature on technology-assisted approaches to learning in general that lend to improved student performance, student motivation, and student satisfaction. The researcher concluded the review with a discussion of the evidence-based literature focused on the use of the graphic calculator and its application in the math classroom in particular.

## References

I. Abu-Naja, M. (2010). The influence of graphic calculators on secondary school pupils' ways of thinking about the topic: Positivity and negativity of functions. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 15(3), 103-117.

II. Barton, S. D. (2001). What does the research say about achievement of students who use calculator technologies and those who do no? In P. Bogacki (Ed.), Electronic Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual International Conference on Technology in Collegiate Mathematics. Retrieved from http://archives.math.utk.edu/ICTCM/ VOL13/C025/paper.pdf

III. Baylor, A. L., & Ritchie, D. (2002). What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher morale, and perceived student learning in technology-using classrooms? Computers & Education 39(4), 395-414. doi:10.1016/S0360-1315(02)00075-1

IV. Beaudin, M., & Paper presented at the Meeting of the American Mathematical Society (Annual, Washington, DC, Jan 7, 2009), G. (2010). Using symbolic TI calculators in engineering mathematics: Sample tasks and reflections from a decade of practice. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 17(2), 69.

V. Bernard, M. (2014). Effects of project-based inquiry lessons integrated with technology on understanding eighth-grade physics concepts (Master’s thesis). Montana State University, Bozemon, MT.

VI. Berry, J., Graham, E., & Smith, A. (2006). Observing student working styles when using graphic calculators to solve mathematics problems. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 37(3), 291-308.

VII. Brown, R. (2010). Does the introduction of the graphics calculator into system-wide examinations lead to change in the types of mathematical skills tested? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 73(2), 181-203. doi:10.1007/s10649-009-9220-2

VIII. Burns, M. (2005). Looking at how students reason. Educational Leadership, 63(3), 26-31.

IX. Choo-Kim, T., Madhubala, B. H., & Siong-Hoe, L. (2011). Fostering positive attitude in probability learning using graphing calculator. Computers & Education, 57(3), 2011-2024. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.05.005

X. Colburn, A. (2007). Constructivism and conceptual change. The Science Teacher, 74(8), 14-18.

XI. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

XII. Currie, D. (2006). The effect of teachers’ attitudes and practices regarding graphic calculator use on the academic achievement of their students. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (UMI No Union University)

XIII. Dewey, B. L., Singletary, T. J., & Kinzel, M. T. (2009). Graphing calculator use in algebra teaching. School Science & Mathematics, 109(7), 383-393.

XIV. Diperna, J. (2006). Academic enablers and student achievement: Implications for assessment and intervention services in the schools. Psychology in the Schools, 43(1), 7-17.

XV. Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. Retrieved from http://www.principals.in/uploads/pdf/ Instructional_Strategie/ConstructivismImplications.pdf

XVI. Ellington, A.J. (2006). The effects of on-CAS graphing calculators on student achievement and attitude levels in mathematics: A meta-analysis. School Science and Mathematics, 106(1), 16.

XVII. Er, A. N., Liaw, S. C., Lim, T. H., & Marimuthu, R. (2015) Blended to satisfaction: Factors influencing student satisfaction in a language classroom. Esteem Academic Journal 11(2), 55-73. Retrieved from http://ir.uitm.edu.my/

XVIII. Farrell, A. (1996). Roles and behaviors in technology: Integrated precalculus classrooms. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 15, 35-53.

XIX. Faulkenberry, E., &Faulkenberry, T. (2006). Constructivism in mathematics education: A historical and personal perspective. Texas Science Teacher, 35(1). 17-21.

XX. Gabrielle, D. M. (2003). The effects of technology-mediated instructional strategies on motivation, performance, and self-directed learning (Doctoral dissertation). Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL. Retrieved from http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/

XXI. Gales, M. J., & Yan, W. (2001). Relationship between constructivist teacher beliefs and instructional practices to students' mathematical achievement: Evidence from TIMMS. Paper presented at the annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.

XXII. Gerren, S. S. (2008). The relationship between graphing calculator use and the development of classroom norms in an exemplary teacher's college algebra course (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (UMI No. 3333667)

XXIII. Gogus, A. (2006). Individual and situational factors that influence teachers' perspectives and perceptions about the usefulness of graphing calculator for student success (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (UMI No. 3322894)

XXIV. Handal, B., Cavanagh, M., Wood, L., & Petocz, P. (2011). Factors leading to the adoption of a learning technology: The case of graphics calculators. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(2), 343-360.

XXV. Harris, J. L., Al-Bataineh, M. T., & Al-Bataineh, A. (2016). One-to-one technology and its effect on student academic achievement and motivation. Contemporary Educational Technology 7(4), 368-381. Retrieved from http://www.cedtech.net/articles/74/745.pdf

XXVI. Heller, J., Curtis, D., Jaffe, R., & Verboncoeur, C. (2005). The impact of handheld graphing calculator use on student achievement in Algebra I. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed. gov/fulltext/ED493688.pdf

XXVII. Hatem, N. (2010). The effect of graphing calculators on student achievement in college algebra and pre-calculus mathematics courses (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (UMI No. 3438537)

XXVIII. Hoek, D., & Gravemeijer, K. (2011). Changes of interaction during the development of a mathematical learning environment. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14(5), 393–411. doi:10.1007/s10857-011-9184-x

XXIX. Hui, W., Hu, P. J. H., Clark, T. H. K., Tam, K. Y., & Milton, J. (2008). Technology-assisted learning: A longitudinal field study of knowledge category, learning effectiveness and satisfaction in language learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 24(3), 245-259. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00257.x

XXX. Keller, J. M. (2008). First principles of motivation to learn and e (3)‐learning. Distance Education 29(2), 175-185. doi:10.1080/01587910802154970

XXXI. Kodippili, A. & Senaratne, D. (2008). Is computer‐generated interactive mathematics homework more effective than traditional instructor‐graded homework? British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 928 – 932. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00794.x

XXXII. Leng, H. W. (2011). Using an advanced graphic calculator in the teaching and learning of calculus. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 42(7), 925-938. doi:10.1080/0020739X.2011.616914

XXXIII. Loyens, S., Rikers, R., & Schmidt, H. (2007). The impact of students’ conceptions of constructivist assumptions on academic achievement and drop-out. Studies in Higher Education, 32(5), 581-602.

XXXIV. McLoughlin, M. & Padraig, M. M. (2009). Inquiry-based learning: An educational reform based upon content centered teaching. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Mathematical Society, Washington, DC.

XXXV. Muhundan, A. (2005). Effect of using graphing calculators with a numerical approach to students’ learning of limits and derivative in an applied calculus course at a community college. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (UMI No. 3188424)

XXXVI. Nasari, G. Y. (2008). The effect of graphing calculator embedded materials on college students' conceptual understanding and achievement in a calculus I course (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (UMI No. 3296875)

XXXVII. Neo, M., & Neo, T-K. (2009). Engaging students in multimedia-mediated constructivist learning: Students’ perceptions. Educational Technology & Society 12 (2), 254-266. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.12.2.254

XXXVIII. Nie, Y., & Lau, S. (2010). Differential relations of constructivist and didactic instruction to students' cognition, motivation, and achievement. Learning and Instruction 20(5), 411-423. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.04.002

XXXIX. Olsen, A. K., & Chernobilsky, E. (2016). The effects of technology on academic motivation and achievement in a middle school mathematics classroom. Proceedings of the National Economics Research Associates. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/nera-2016/2

XL. Palmer, D. (2005). A Motivational View of Constructivist-informed Teaching. International Journal of Science Education 27(15), 1853-1881. doi:10.1080/09500690500339654

XLI. Paquette, G. (2014). Technology-based instructional design: Evolution and major trends. In J. M. Specto, M. D. Merrill, J. Ellen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, 4th ed. (pp. 661-671). New York: Taylor & Francis Group.

XLII. Pegues, H. (2007). Of paradigm wars: Constructivism, objectivism, and postmodern stratagem. The Educational Forum, 71(4), 316-330.

XLIII. Penglase, M. & Arnold, S (1996). The graphics calculator in mathematics education: A critical review of recent research. Mathematics Education Research Journal 8, 58-90. doi:10. 1007/BF03355481

XLIV. Pilipczuk, C. H. (2006). The effect of graphing technology on students' understanding of functions in a precalculus course (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (UMI No. 1435927).

XLV. Rakes, G. C., Fields, V. S., & Cox, K. E. (2006). The influence of teachers’ technology use on instructional practices. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 38(4), 409-424. doi:10.1080/15391523.2006.10782467

XLVI. Robutti, O. (2010). Graphic calculators and connectivity software to be a community of mathematics practitioners. ZDM Mathematics Education, 42, 77. doi:10.1007/s11858-009-0222-4

XLVII. Schrupp, R. D. (2007). Effects of using graphing calculators to solve quadratics with high school mathematics students (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (UMI No. 1443824)

XLVIII. Simpson, T. (2002). Dare I oppose constructivist theory? The Educational Forum, 66(4), 347-354.

XLIX. Simpson, K. (2006). The effectiveness of cognitive flexibility hypertext in promoting active learning pedagogy: A multiple-case study. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations. (xxxxxx)

L. Tan, C., Harji, M., & Lau, S. (2011). Fostering positive attitude in probability learning using graphing calculators. Computers & Education, 57(3), 2011–2024. doi:10.1016/j. compedu.2011.05.005

LI. Tan, C., & Tan, C. (2015). Teaching probability with graphic calculator instructional approach. The Journal of Developing Areas, 49(5), 11-23.

LII. Wurst, C., Smarkola, C., & Gaffney, M. A. (2008). Ubiquitous laptop usage in higher education: Effects on student achievement, student satisfaction, and constructivist measures in honors and traditional classrooms. Computers & Education 51, 1766-1783. doi:10.1016/ j.compedu.2008.05.006

LIII. Zhu, C. (2012). Student satisfaction, performance, and knowledge construction in online collaborative learning. Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 127-136. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.15.1.127

### Additional Files

## Published

## How to Cite

*International Education and Research Journal (IERJ)*,

*5*(9). Retrieved from http://ierj.in/journal/index.php/ierj/article/view/1882

## Issue

## Section

## License

Copyright (c) 2022 International Education and Research Journal (IERJ)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.