EDUC90958 Assignment 2 - Report on pedagogical opportunities for teaching an aspect of Functions and

Graphs with technology in VCE Mathematical Methods Unit 3

Mathematical analysis software such as the Computer Algebra System (CAS) has been recognised for its potential in
computing mathematics and its integration into the Curriculum has created valuable opportunities for students to
enhance their mathematical understanding. Utilising this technology to teach Functions and Graphs allows both
‘functional and pedagogical’ opportunities to develop students’ conceptual knowledge (Pierce & Stacey, 2010, p.1).
However, the effects relating to the use of CAS to teach mathematics must also be considered.

Section 1
One of the issues that may arise when teaching in a CAS-active classroom is utilising a balance of both pen-and-
paper and technology. While it is reasonable to assume that the CAS is advantageous for many mathematical
problems, this is not always the case. Students must be able to recognise when CAS is or is not helpful and develop
their proficiency in both manual and technology skills (Guin & Trouche, 1999).

The access to CAS allows students to solve problems of greater complexity that is beyond the scope of the pen-and-
paper method. Through the use of CAS, the results generated are quick and free of manipulation errors (Pierce &
Stacey, 2002). This efficiency in technology to manipulate symbols and swap between various representations can
provide students a deeper understanding of functions (Pierce, 2001). In this case, the CAS is functionally used to
produce results in which students can compare, find graphical patterns and generalise, removing the need for tedious
pen-and-paper techniques, allowing the study of mathematics that is outside of the students’ pen-and-paper skills
(Geiger, 2008, as cited in Cameron & Ball, 2015). Rather than being restrained for their inability to solve problems with
pen-and-paper, students can access the CAS to further broaden their thinking and support procedural calculations
(Kutzler, 2000). Ball & Stacey (2002) argue that the use of CAS provides students with an opportunity to focus on
detail in writing down their reasons as this can potentially result in greater mathematical connections and reasoning.
Using technology in combination with pen-and-paper method can allow students to record thinking and aid in
information recall (Ball & Stacey, 2002).

Despite the advantages of using CAS, the overreliance on the functional use of technology to teach can have its
shortcomings as it can hinder students in developing their conceptual understanding. Skemp (1978) discusses the
implications of instrumental learning in which students are focused on the process or “rule for getting the answer”
(p.10) without understanding the underlying reason or the ‘why’ of doing. While instrumental mathematics is easier to
understand, the development of relational understanding, that is, the knowledge of what to do, when and why,
provides students the reasoning and conceptual knowledge that can be more adaptable to broader mathematical
contexts (Skemp, 1978). Jankvisit & Misfeldt (2015) explain how the use of CAS can deprive students of
understanding mathematics relationally to solve tasks. As technology can quickly perform substantial variety of
mathematical procedures, students are more susceptible to implement a range of CAS features in search of the
correct answer without necessarily understanding the fundamentals (Guin & Trouche, 1999). Certainly, a pen-and-
paper approach can also promote solving problems by following procedures, however, the different approaches to
working with mathematics within a CAS-orientated environment can further develop instrumental understanding
(Jankvisit & Misfeldt, 2015).

Students are less likely to develop the ‘symbol sense’ that allows them to think flexibly in terms of interpreting and
modelling the problem, planning the solution and reviewing the result that could not be achieved through the use of
CAS alone (Arcavi, 1994). When teaching and learning the topic functions and graphs, relevant symbols (e.g., ‘f(x)’
and (f ∘ g)) are used to display relationships and express graphical information that requires interpretation (Kop et al.,
2020). Pierce (2001) emphasizes the importance for students to develop ‘algebraic insight’ in order to become aware
of the conventions and basic properties of equations that can inform them of key features. The form of an equation
can provide information on the general shape of the graph which can assist students in monitoring the problem-solving
process through their mathematical intuition (Pierce, 2001).

Teacher’s preferences on the use of CAS to solve tasks can affect when students choose to use technology or pen-
and-paper (Artigue & Lagrange, 1997, as cited in Cameron & Ball, 2015). Teachers can decide which attributes of the
CAS support their own beliefs and values about mathematics, either highlighting its functional or pedagogical use
(Garner, 2004). Due to its ability to accurately generate graphical and numeric representations of mathematical
models and functions, students may feel more inclined to use their CAS to solve problems. While there are multiple
reasons for CAS use, Cameron & Ball (2015) highlights the two key factors that influence the decision to use
technology: speed and accuracy. As CAS is not always the most time-efficient method to solve tasks, for example,
when inputting syntax is too long and time consuming, students should rely on pen-and-paper skills to compensate
(Cameron & Ball, 2015). Therefore, the teacher plays a significant role in helping students develop good technological
practices including making decisions on when to use its affordances.

Another issue related to teaching Functions and Graphs is understanding the mechanics of CAS and its conventions.
As different brands have its specific mechanical conventions, students must be aware this and become familiar with
their CAS. When using the CAS, students need to be acquainted with the appropriate commands and syntax entry as
it requires precise notation in order to find the correct solution. This includes careful placements of brackets and
definition of variables. Due to this, students need to develop the ability to interpret their CAS display involving
recognising when results are unexpected and identifying incorrect syntax (Drijvers, 2004). Technology outputs a
specific form and an emphasis must be placed on how to manipulate the results provided by the CAS to obtain
equivalent forms (Flynn, 2007). Drijvers (2000) highlights that one of the challenges students have when working with
CAS is the lack of ability to manipulate results from the CAS display and recognise equivalent pen-and-paper
answers, which would be of particular importance during multiple choice question where students must select the
correct form. Lagrange (1999) found that students tend to concentrate on how the results are represented and
outputted by the CAS, which inhibits the formation of their mathematical conceptualisation. Therefore, Flynn (2007)
highlights the importance of providing opportunities for students to develop mathematical insight and reflect on
unexpected CAS outputs.

When students transcribe the details from CAS directly onto paper, often technology syntax is present in their answers
which is an indicator of poor CAS use. This impacts students’ ability to develop and use correct mathematical notation
(Ball & Stacey, 2003). Ball & Stacey (2003) discuss how students can lack the skills to communicate the process of
solving a mathematical problem and their reasoning. As the CAS only outputs the result in one line, the routine steps
that are considered important will not be accessible to students (Ball & Stacey, 2003).

The challenges related to teaching Functions and Graphs is understanding the impacts of technology in learning. Its
incorporation into classrooms prompts teachers to consider the current teaching methods as well as new techniques
that have arisen in developing a bridge between tasks and the theory to support students’ understanding (Lagrange,
2005). Kendal & Stacey (2002) anticipate that teachers may have difficulty in adjusting their teaching approach to
incorporate the use of CAS in a way that does not conflict their beliefs about learning and encourages promotion of
“understanding” rather than “rules and procedures” when learning to maximise the pedagogical use of CAS (p.202).

Furthermore, Flynn (2007) discusses the challenges of integrating “new and interesting” (p.10) tasks to accompany
learning through the use of CAS rather than simply replicating by-hand problems. As the use of CAS increases the
number of possible ways in which the problem can be solved, it provides students with flexibility when solving
mathematical problems (Ball & Stacey, 2002). Pierce & Stacey (2002) discuss how the functional use of the CAS
creates opportunities for teachers to change how mathematics is taught and learned. Understanding that CAS can
complete the technical and procedural work of mathematics allows teachers to focus more on improving learning tasks
(Pierce & Stacey, 2002). While the availability of the CAS provides opportunities to explore mathematical ideas, it is
important to engage students who view mathematics simply as answer-getting. Because of this, the potential of
technology would not be seen due to their comfort in “doing routine calculations” (Pierce & Stacey, 2002, p.2).

Section 2
The aspect of Functions and Graphs that will be focused on is “the relationship between the graph of an original
function and the graph of a corresponding transformed function” outlined in the Mathematics Study Design (VCAA,
2016, p.72). Pierce & Stacey (2010) discuss ten pedagogical opportunities provided by the CAS to support the
teaching and learning of students. As aforementioned, the teacher greatly influences how students perceive the uses
of CAS. Their beliefs and perceived value on the purpose of technology will greatly reflect how the CAS will be used in
teaching, emphasising either its functional or pedagogical role (Kendal & Stacey, 2002). Lagrange (2005) states that
the contribution of CAS in students’ learning is “more than just ‘pushing a button’” (p.118) and that it has potential in
enhancing their problem solving and understanding of mathematical concepts.

Based on the article, the pedagogical opportunity that will be discussed is “explore regularity and variation” in
transformation of functions (Pierce & Stacey, 2010, p.5). Through this pedagogical opportunity, the affordance of
technology will provide students greater access and exposure to the types of graphs at an improved speed and
accuracy (Pierce & Stacey, 2010). As the CAS allows students to vary the parameters in a quick and correct manner,
the strategy aims to support students in linking representations, generalising patterns and encourage investigation into
making connections (Heugl, 1997, as cited in Pierce & Stacey, 2010, p.9). For example, students may graph the
original function then add another function with a varied parameter in order to see the effect of the transformation
(Pierce & Stacey, 2010). This use of CAS assists students in developing the conceptual knowledge of functions and
transformations by transitioning from specific examples to a generalised understanding (Lagrange, 2003, as cited in
Pierce & Stacey, 2010).

A study by Baker et al., (2001) also supports the notion that the use of technology as visualisation tools alongside
pen-and-paper tasks aids in developing a stronger understanding on the concepts of transformations. Explorative
activities that are guided by the teacher can assist students in seeing patterns and links between the graphs, in this
case, the graph of the original function and its transformed function (Pierce, 2010). The improved speed and accuracy
that the CAS provides in switching between representations allows students to focus more on the graphical
transformations rather than the redundant hand calculations and graphing (Kendal & Stacey, 2002). Through the
functional use of the CAS to illustrate multiple representations, this pedagogical opportunity supports visualisation and
exploration that would otherwise be complicated or time-consuming (Pierce, 2005).

It is suggested that when teaching this aspect of Functions and Graphs, it is important to integrate both pragmatic and
epistemic uses of technology to first develop a strong conception of functions (Baker et al., 2001; Kendal & Stacey,
2002). Students who lack this understanding will not be able to comprehend the underlying concept of transformations
regardless of the concrete visualisation produced by the CAS (Baker et al., 2001). Baker et al. (2001) explains that
students will be capable in making connections, however, without the intuition, this will promote an instrumental
understanding. In doing so, students tend to develop a heavy reliance on being able to “see the graph of a function” to
describe its transformations, often relying on CAS to verify their answers (p.96). As students appear to have more
difficulties understanding horizontal transformations compared to vertical transformations due to its effect on the
independent variable, teachers should allow more time for students to investigate horizontal transformations (Baker et
al., 2001). This can be accomplished by utilising a worked problem to illustrate the issues and considerations.

Teachers can also use CAS as a supplement to poor pen-and-paper skills to improve students’ feelings towards
mathematics and supporting intellectual engagement (Pierce & Stacey, 2010). Pierce & Stacey (2010) outlines that
through the CAS, students can experience more success in problem solving which in turn, promotes confidence and
engagement. As the CAS opens up greater opportunities to explore mathematics, teachers can integrate real-world
contexts related to student interest to facilitate engagement with the tasks (Pierce & Stacey, 2010).

Pierce & Stacey (2010) encourages the use of CAS to support the learning of pen-and-paper skills. For example,
when learning to graph polynomial functions, rather than using the automatic ‘graph’ command, students can
determine the key points of the function using the CAS. This way, it encourages students to learn the strategy without
the hassle of accurate algebraic computations and manipulation (Pierce & Stacey, 2010). The potential to quickly
generate many answers with the assurance of accuracy helped students develop their pen-and-paper ability (Kieran &
Damboise, 2007, as cited in Pierce & Stacey, 2010). However, teachers should be conscious of teaching through a
‘multiple representations’ approach as too many representations introduced at once can lead to confusion (Kendal &
Stacey, 2002). Instead, Kendal & Stacey (2002) suggests a more ‘streamlined’ approach in teaching that involves
selecting methods tactfully rather than allowing students to freely explore a whole variety of techniques, resulting in an
“explosion of methods” (p.202).
References
Baker, B., Trigueros, M., & Hemenway, C. (2001). On transformations of functions. In Proceedings of the Twenty-
Third Annual Meeting, North American Chapter of the International Group for PME, 1, 91-98.

Ball, L., & Stacey, K. (2003). What should students record when solving problems with CAS? Reasons, information,
the plan and some answers. J. Fey, A. Cuoco, C. Kieran, L. McMullin, & R. M. Zbeik (Eds.), Computer
Algebra Systems in secondary school mathematics education, 289–303. National Council of Mathematics
Teachers.

Cameron, S., & Ball, L. (2015). CAS or pen-and-paper: Factors that influence student’s choices. Mathematics
Education in the Margins (Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education
Research Group of Australasia), 141–149.

Drijvers, P. (2000). Students encountering obstacles using a CAS. International Journal of Computers for
Mathematical Learning, 5(3), 189-209. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1009825629417

Drijvers, P. (2004). Learning algebra in a computer algebra environment. The International Journal of Computer
Algebra in Mathematics Education, 11(3), 77-90.

Flynn, P. (2007). CAS in Australia: a brief Perspective. Proceedings of CAME. Retrieved from

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.587.1803&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Garner, S. (2004). The CAS Classroom. Australian Senior Mathematics Journal, 18(2), 28-42.

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(3), 195-227.

https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1009892720043

Jankvist, U. T., & Misfeldt, M. (2015). CAS-induced difficulties in learning mathematics?. For the Learning of
Mathematics, 35(1), 15-20. Retrieved from
https://flm-journal.org/Articles/2E7E6AF3366228E24E9234C049547C.pdf

Kendal, M., & Stacey, K. (2002). Teachers in transition: Moving towards CAS-supported classrooms. ZDM, 34(5),
196–203.

Kop, P., Janssen, F., Drijvers, P., & van Driel, J. (2020). The relation between graphing formulas by hand and
students’ symbol sense. Educational Studies In Mathematics, 105(2), 137-161.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-020-09970-3

Kutzler, B. (2000). The Algebraic Calculator as a Pedagogical Tool for Teaching Mathematics. The International
Journal of Computer Algebra in Mathematics Education, 7(1), 5-23.

Lagrange, J. (1999). Complex calculators in the classroom: Theoretical and practical reflections on teaching
precalculus. International Journal Of Computers For Mathematical Learning, 4(1), 51-81.
https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1009858714113

Lagrange, J. (2005). Using symbolic calculators to study mathematics. In D. Guin, K. Ruthven, & L. Trouche (Eds.),
The didactical challenge of symbolic calculators: Turning a computational device into a mathematical
instrument (pp. 113–135). The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Pierce, R. (2001). Using CAS-calculators requires algebraic insight. Australian Mathematics Teacher, 15(2), 59–63.
Pierce, R. (2005). Using CAS to enrich the teaching and learning of mathematics. Proceedings of the 10th Asian
Technology Conference in Mathematics, 47-57.

Pierce, R., & Stacey, K. (2010). Mapping pedagogical opportunities provided by mathematics analysis software.
International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 15(1), 1-20.

Pierce. R., & Stacey, K. (2002). Monitoring effective use of computer algebra systems. In B. Barton, K.C. Irwin, M.
Pfannkuck & M. O. J. Thomas (Eds.), Mathematics Education in the South Pacific (Proceedings of the 25th
Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia), 575 - 582. Auckland:
MERGA.

Richard R. Skemp. (1978). Relational Understanding and Instrumental Understanding. The Arithmetic Teacher, 26(3),
9–15.