 |
Conclusion: Studies indicate that students' operational and problem solving skills improve when they use graphing calculators during both instruction and testing.
Virginia Commonwealth University
A peer-reviewed meta-analysis of 54 of studies with the strongest form of evidence, high-quality experimental and quasi-experimental studies concluded:
|
| • | Students' operational skills and problem solving improved when graphing calculators were an integral part of instruction and testing. |
 Reference: (Ellington 2003)
|
|
Conclusion: Benefits of using graphing calculators are strongest when teaching focuses on their use for conceptual understanding and problem solving strategies.
Michigan State University
A review of 43 key comparative and interpretive studies found:
|
| • | The greatest benefits come from investigations which center on "what if…?" or "why?" questions. |
| Reference: (Burrill, Allison et al. 2002)
|
|
INRP
A review of 10 quantitative and qualitative studies in France concluded:
|
| • | Students widely use calculators, even complex ones, only for simple tasks. |
| • | Integration of the tool in a rational process of exploration, conjecture and evidence depends on the teacher to lead this integration in the classroom. |
| Reference: (Sabra 2008)
|
|
Conclusion:Appropriate use of graphing calculators in teaching does not interfere with building students' math skills.
Michigan State University
A review of 43 key comparative and interpretive studies examined this issue. The review concluded:
|
| • | No significant differences in procedural skills were found between students who use handheld graphing technology and those who do not (in the areas examined). |
| • | Extensive use of the technology does not necessarily interfere with students' acquisition of skills. |
| Reference: (Burrill, Allison et al. 2002)
|
|
Conclusion: Students who use technology are more successful when teaching emphasizes concepts and connections between representations rather than procedural algebraic approaches
Michigan State University
A review of 43 key comparative and interpretive studies concluded:
|
| • | Students whose teachers illustrated connections between representations and emphasized concepts had greater success than did students whose teachers focused on technological and algebraic approaches. |
| • | These teachers seemed to create classrooms with more conjecturing, multiple approaches and higher levels of discourse. |
| • | Teachers also used technology as an extension of the way they always taught. |
| Reference: (Burrill, Allison et al. 2002)
|
|
Conclusion:
• Access to and use of graphing calculators seems to increase achievement
• Achievement decreases for both users and nonusers of calculators as the cognitive demand of the tasks increases
• While the background and experience of the teachers appear to make a difference for the top 75 percent of the students, some students perform at very low levels with or without the technology Michigan State University
This exploratory study focused on what students learned in algebra, how it was different for students with differential access to graphing calculators, the use of the technology on tasks of different cognitive demand, and whether the teachers' background and experience with graphing calculators might be related to student outcomes. The study considered two conditions: high quality professional development and high frequency calculator use on the part of the students, and involved three different populations: 1) teachers who seldom or never used graphing calculators in their classrooms; 2) teachers who used graphing calculators in their classrooms but without a high degree of support and ongoing professional development; and 3) teachers with a high degree of support and ongoing professional development in the use of graphing calculators for instruction. Statistically significant results (p<.004 or better) indicate that access to and use of graphing calculators seems to increase achievement, achievement decreases for both users and nonusers of calculators as the cognitive demand of the tasks increases, and while the background and experience of the teachers seems to make a difference for the top 75 percent of the students, some students perform at very low levels with or without the technology. |
| Reference: (Burrill and Breaux 2009)
|
