Thesis (M.Ed.)--Regis University, Denver, Colo., 2006. / Title from PDF title page (viewed on Sept. 25, 2006). Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (M.A.)--University of Toronto, 2007. / Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 45-06, page: 2787.

Things make us smart. Tools are made by humans aiming not only at solving technical problem but also developing high-order thinking. In a manner different from traditional mathematics lessons involving direct transmission of knowledge from teachers to students, tool-based mathematics classrooms fabricate an interactive teaching and learning environment. This environment fosters teachers' professional guidance based on students' manipulation of tools. The design of tool-based task aims to formulate students' learning experience via their own acquisition of knowledge through tool manipulations. Mathematics concepts can be visualized and manipulated by students through engaging in activities with tools generating tool-based signs and mathematics signs in a semiotic process. The role of mathematics teachers in tool-based mathematics classrooms is to provide well designed tool-based tasks and implement tool-based lessons in order to orchestrate students' learning, coupled with the endeavour of students' manipulating of tools.;Two new ideas, named didactical interactions and Tool-Task dialectics, were proposed in the study to effectively enforce mathematics teachers' instruction through tool-based pedagogy in interactive classrooms. The main objective of this study was to holistically investigate the implementation processes of tool-based lessons by mathematics teachers based on some theoretical perspectives. A multiple-case study, consisting of three cases with similar and different backgrounds, was conducted. Didactical cycle was one of the main theoretical frameworks, which framed analysis of the study. Based on in-depth analysis within and across cases, didactical interactions and Tool-Task dialectics were empirically developed to enrich tool-based education theories allowing teachers to demystify the cognitive development of students in tool-based lessons. The analysis of flows of the lessons uttered transition directions of critical phases ground on the theory; while pragmatic manipulations of tools operated by students and teachers' orchestration provided strong evidence to illustrate interplay between tools and tasks. Thus, the findings of the study potentially contributed to some aspects of tool-based mathematics education research.;Keywords: tool-based task design, tool of semiotic mediation, didactical cycle, didactical interactions, tool-task dialectic, mathematics classroom.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Oregon State University, 2008. / Printout. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 146-152). Also available on the World Wide Web.

Master's thesis - - State University of New York College at Cortland, 2007 - - Department of Mathematics. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 27-8).

Thesis (D.Ed.)--University of Delaware, 2009. / Principal faculty advisor: Robert Hampel, School of Education. Includes bibliographical references.

The purpose of this document is to review the incorporation of technology into a math classroom. With technology becoming more a part of our growing society it is important for teachers and students to stay up with the times.

The study reported here examined the move towards online assessments and addressed the question of whether or not different assessment tools affect student scores and student learning. The research activities covered a three-week period, from June 5, 2006 to June 23, 2006. During this time, seventeen third grade students served as their own control group by taking several math tests online and several math tests with paper and pencil. Results were compared to see if performance on computer-based tests would be more successful than pencil-and-paper tests. A follow-up survey to evaluate and interpret the quantitative results was also used. Findings revealed that 59% of the students did better on the paper tests. Further analysis revealed that the overall average of the computer tests was 71.9%, while paper tests revealed an average of 69.9%. In summary, these findings report that there is no significant difference in scores when taking a test on the computer or a test on paper. Suggestions for further research and recommendations are included.