INTERNATIONAL ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICS EDUCATION

e-ISSN: 1306-3030. 2018, Vol. 13, No. 3, 139-148

OPEN ACCESS https://doi.org/10.12973/iejme/2704

Impact of Using Graphing Calculator in Problem Solving

Mary Ann Serdina Parrot 1, Kwan Eu Leong 1*

1
University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA

* CORRESPONDENCE: [email protected]

ABSTRACT
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

INTRODUCTION
Almost everything in life is a problem and it has become the central part of human life as well as in the
mathematics field. The beginning of mathematics has been influenced by mathematicians making an effort to
work out challenging problems. For most mathematical scholars, mathematics is tantamount to solving
problems in such a way when we are doing mathematics; looking for patterns, interpreting diagrams, word
problem, proving theorem and so on. A remark made by Paul Halmos, “The mathematician’s main reason for
existence is to solve problems” (Halmos, 1980). The ability to solve problems cannot be learnt separately; it
has to be taught along with other skills as an on-going process building up of experience in acquiring strategies
to solve problems. Hence, the expression of “problem solving” has to be understood as a long-term goal to
achieve and hopefully this skill will be used in everyday life.
With advances in information and communications technology, it is impossible to avoid the impact of
technology on mathematical problem solving. Technology use also contributes to mathematical reflection,
problem identification, and decision making. With guidance from effective mathematics teachers, students at
different levels can use these tools to support and extend mathematical reasoning and sense making, gain
access to mathematical content and problem-solving contexts, and enhance computational fluency. Recently,
a steady increase in interest in using hand-held technologies in particular graphic calculators, has been seen
among mathematics educators, curriculum developers, and teachers (Kissane, 2000). Use of graphing

Article History: Received 20 March 2016  Revised 12 November 2016  Accepted 1 January 2017

© 2018 The Author(s). Open Access terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) apply. The license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in
any medium, on the condition that users give exact credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the
Creative Commons license, and indicate if they made any changes.
Parrot & Leong

calculators in learning mathematics will allow students to explore and model mathematical problems and view
multi representation of mathematical problems. Technology that supports multiple representations can
increase students’ use of visualization in problem solving and lead to gains in understanding (Center for
Technology in Learning, 2007).

PROBLEM STATEMENT
In real life, students need to solve problems because this is a skill needed in the 21st century to succeed in
life. Skills endow people to face with challenges of everyday life, related to making decisions, solving problems
and dealing with unexpected events. To become a good problem solver in mathematics, one must develop a
base of mathematics knowledge (Wilson, Fernandez, & Hadaway, 1993). According to Mayer, there are four
types of knowledge pertaining to problem solving, namely: (1) linguistic and factual knowledge, (2) schema
knowledge, (3) algorithmic knowledge, and (4) strategic knowledge (Mayer, 1982). Difficulty in problem solving
might happen throughout the following phases of knowledge, that is, reading, comprehension, choosing
strategy, executing strategies, transformation, process skill and solution (Newman, 1983).
Mathematics skills such as language, number fact, information and arithmetic are vital in problem-solving.
Deficiency in any of these skills could cause difficulties among students who want to become good problem
solvers (Tambychik, Meerah, & Aziz, 2010). Past research indicated that many students who are lacking in
mathematical skills face difficulties in carrying out mathematical tasks involving problem solving
(Tambychik, 2005; Tay, 2005). The ability to use cognitive abilities in learning is crucial for meaningful
learning to take place. However, many students face hindrances in using these cognitive abilities. They were
reported to face difficulties in making accurate perceptions and interpretations, memorizing and retrieving
facts, concentrating and using their logical thinking (Andersson & Lyxell, 2007; Bryant, 2009; Tambychik,
2005). Students did not totally acquire mathematics skills needed especially in problem-solving; failure in
problem-solving generally resulted from failing to organize the mathematical operations, to choose the most
effective method, to analyze, to understand the point of the problem and to monitor and control operations
carried out (Victor, 2004).
In Malaysia, studies had shown that students faced difficulty in mathematics especially in problem-solving
because they had problems in understanding and retrieving concepts, formulas, facts and procedure; they lack
the ability to visualize mathematics problems and concepts, are inefficient in logic-thinking and lack the
strategic knowledge in problem-solving (Kadir et al., 2003; Tambychik, 2005; Tay, 2005). A study conducted
on 242 Form Four students to evaluate the level of Malaysian students’ problem solving ability showed that
students have fairly good command of basic knowledge and skills but they did not show the use of problem
solving strategies. The common strategy used by students was algorithms and procedures as well as counting;
these students did not use more suitable and effective strategies. Generally, the mastery of problem solving
skills among Malaysian students is still low (Zanzali & Lui, 1999). In the Programme for International Student
Assessment (PISA) on problem solving, Malaysia ranked 39 out of 44 countries, with a mean score of 422
which is below the average (OECD, 2014). It was found that more than one in five Malaysian students could
not even reach basic levels of problem solving.

LITERATURE REVIEW
The information processing theory is the theoretical framework underpinning this study. The basic
characteristics of information processing theory that shape the problem solving efforts are reflected in the
process of receiving, storing and locating new information. It also focuses on the mechanism of the problem
solving process (Laurillard, 2002). In addition, understanding the procedures that students adopt helps
integrate these into a more deterministic account of how students solve problems. Consequently, Polya (1965)
promoted the idea that the application of general problem-solving strategies was important in developing
problem-solving expertise and intellectual performance. The four steps in the problem solving process as
suggested by Polya: understand the problem, devise the plan, carry out the plan and looking back.

Graphing Calculator
Graphic calculators are handheld, battery powered devices equipped with functions to plot graphs, give
numerical solutions to equations and perform statistical calculations, operations on matrices and perform
more advanced mathematical functions such as algebra, geometry and advanced statistics (Kor & Lim, 2003).
In fact, Mitchelmore and Cavanagh noted that the first graphing calculators appeared in the mid-1980s and

140 http://www.iejme.com
 INT ELECT J MATH ED

since then such calculators have become more affordable and powerful (Cavanagh & Mitchelmore, 2000). With
this new technology, the graphing calculator brought many new and exciting changes in the mathematics
curriculum (Choi-Koh, 2003).
Graphing calculators were first seen in 1985, when they were developed by Casio, and later were developed
even further by Texas Instruments in 1995. With the invention of graphing calculators came a new way to
deal with mathematics that provided access to mathematical problem solving that, before this time, could only
be done on computers (Waits & Demana, 1998). Several varieties of graphing calculators exist, but all graphing
calculators have certain functions and capabilities in addition to computation such as graphing, viewing
tables, and running programs and applications. The most recent handheld graphing technology from Texas
Instruments is the TI-Nspire CX. These graphing calculators have all of the capabilities of other graphing
calculators in addition to the ability to view multiple representations on the same screen, to construct and
animate geometric figures, and to receive documents that allow visualizations of solids of revolution.
In a study conducted to investigate the use of graphing calculator (TI-Nspire), there are five roles of
graphing calculator in classroom mathematical practice based on the findings; namely: exploratory tool 1 role,
graphing tool 2, confirmatory tool 3, problem-solving tool 4, and multi-dimensional tool 5 (Ng, 2011). The
researcher concluded that graphing calculator (TI-Nspire) is an effective tool for developing mathematical
concepts, promote learning and problem solving. Doerr and Zangor found that five patterns and modes of
graphing calculator use emerged in the practice: computational tool, transformational tool, data collection and
analysis tool, visualizing tool and checking tool (Doerr & Zangor, 2000).

Past Research
Researchers in different settings have investigated various studies regarding graphing calculator usage in
teaching, learning, achievement and attitude in various domains of mathematics. Even more significantly,
vast research has shown that using graphing calculator has a positive effect on students’ performance in
problem solving. Rich, in a study of two high school pre-calculus classes, found that students were more willing
to tackle problem-solving activities when they had access to graphing calculators (Rich, 1991). The students
were also able to solve non-routine problems that might have been too difficult for them without the
availability of a graphing utility; this permitted the introduction of problem-solving situations that were of
interest to the students.
Carter found that the graphing calculator seemingly led to improved problem-solving, as less time was
consumed with algebraic manipulations (Carter, 1995). He also reported that the students used the calculators
as a monitoring aid while solving word problems. Bitter and Hatfield also found that students using calculators
showed improved problem-solving skills (Bitter & Hatfield, 1991). Szetela and Super found a better attitude
toward problem-solving when the calculator was used. However, the scores were not significantly higher for
those students using the calculators than for their counterparts who did not use them (Szetela & Super, 1987).
Allison conducted a case study to determine the impact of graphing calculator on four students’
mathematical thinking while solving problems. The researcher adapted Schoenfeld’s model of mathematical
thinking and Berger’s interpretive model of graphing calculator as the theoretical framework. Data were
collected through task-based clinical interviews and the task includes contextual non routine problems, non-
contextual non-routine problems and exploratory problems. The results indicate that graphing calculator is
integrated and serves as impetus for a students’ mathematical problem solving (Allison, 2000). Some of the
researcher’s findings were:
i. Graphing calculator amplified the speed and accuracy of problem solving strategies
ii. Graphing calculator encouraged participants to use graphical approaches to solve problems and
influenced their ways of thinking
iii. Graphing calculator enhanced the participants’ ability to focus on reasoning and to look back at their
answer.
The participants agreed that the graphing calculator added speed and accuracy to their problems solving
efforts.
In an experimental study involving graphing calculator in learning probability, the graphing calculator
formed a “thinking tool” which enabled students to develop conceptual understanding and problem-solving
abilities in mathematics. It provided the opportunity for exploring problem solving and increased the students’
confidence in solving more challenging problems (Tan, Harji, & Lau, 2011).

http://www.iejme.com 141
Parrot & Leong

Dibble performed an action research project to examine the impact of graphing calculators on students’
problem solving abilities and attitudes toward mathematics. Students with similar capabilities were divided
into two groups, the experimental group which used graphing calculator throughout the instruction and the
control group without access to graphing calculator. Pre-survey and post-survey were administered to both
groups to measure their attitudes towards mathematics. Pre-test and post-test were to measure students’
problem solving abilities, assessed through short answer tests and quizzes. The findings of this study
concluded that graphing calculators had no impact on problem solving abilities in the experimental group as
compared to the control group (Dibble, 2013). However, graphing calculator use created higher enjoyment in
mathematics compared to learning without graphing calculator.
Hunter investigated the impact of graphing calculator use on calculus students’ reasoning skills through
a mixed method study. Reasoning skills mentioned previously are related to problem solving according to
Mayer and Wittrock (2006). The researcher adapted the idea of constructivism as the theoretical framework
of the research. The study included a quantitative, quasi-experimental component and a qualitative
component. Results of the quantitative and qualitative analysis indicate that (Hunter, 2011):
i. graphing calculators had a positive impact upon students’ reasoning skills,
ii. graphing calculators were most effective in initiating a strategy and monitoring progress,
iii. students’ reasoning skills were most improved when graphing calculators were used together with the
analytic approach during both instruction and testing, and
iv. students who used the graphing calculator performed equally as well in all elements of reasoning as
those who used pencil and paper to solve problems.
Hatem investigated the relationship between use of graphing calculators and student achievement which
was determined by assessing students’ problem solving skills in his experimental study. He found inconsistent
results regarding the effect of graphing calculator use on student achievement (Hatem, 2010). However,
significantly, his study found that integrating graphing calculators into the learning process improved
students’ perceived progress in their problem solving skills. Lastly, Texas Instrument Education listed out
several effects of graphing calculators on learning outcomes:
i. Students using graphing technology have demonstrated better understanding of functions and
variables, and performed better in solving algebra problems in applied contexts and interpreting
graphs.
ii. Technology that supports multiple representations is shown to increase students’ use of visualization
in problem solving and gains in understanding.
iii. Appropriate use of graphing calculators is shown to provide all students at various levels greater access
to complex mathematical concepts.
Results of past studies varied, with some showing no effect and some showing a positive effect associated
with graphing calculator use. However, there is a need to look at the impact of graphing calculator on problem
solving ability among Malaysian students.

Problem Solving using Graphing Calculator

Studies have been done on the positive effects of using graphing calculators such as using visualisation
through graphical and numerical approaches in solving problems (Karadeniz, 2015) and positive association
between the usage of graphing calculators and improved mathematics achievement (Wareham, 2016).
Previous researches have established that the usage of graphing calculator in the teaching and learning of
mathematics have benefited students in terms of mathematics achievement, visualization and cognitive
understanding. (Chen & Lai, 2015; Karadeniz, 2015; Wareham, 2016).
Problem solving with a graphing calculator can be enhanced on many levels. It can be argued that the
highest level integrates graphical analysis and lowest level involves simple arithmetic (Crippen, 1999).
According to Kutzler, graphing calculators (the trivialization of arithmetic, graphics and algebra) in teaching
mean that educators or teachers can tackle more complex and realistic problems. Kutzler proposed three steps
of characteristics for problem solving by using graphing calculator (Kutzler, 2000). The first step is choosing
the model and translating the real world problem into the language of the model, which requires us to grasp
and understand the problem. The second step is applying the available algorithms to solve the model problem,
yielding a model solution. Students use the graphing calculator in this phase to calculate and solve. The third

142 http://www.iejme.com
 INT ELECT J MATH ED

or final step is to translate the model solution into a real world solution. However, we need to check the solution
whereby graphing calculator can be used to check back the answer. If it is not correct, then the whole process
needs to be repeated. In this study, the graphing calculator used was TI-NSspire CX.

Purpose and Research Questions

The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of graphing calculator on students’ sucsess in solving
problem involving linear equations and their attitude towards problem solving in mathematics. The study was
guided by the following research questions:
1. Is there a significant difference in students’ success to solve problems on linear equation between
experimental and control group?
2. Is there a significant difference in students’ attitude towards problem solving in mathematics between
experimental and control group?

METHODOLOGY
Whenever the true experimental design is not feasible, the most appropriate research design in
investigating effectiveness of an intervention with the availability of intact groups is quasi experimental
research (Creswell, 2011; Fraenkel, Wallen, & Hyun, 2011). Therefore, the researcher chose to employ the
quasi-experimental non-equivalent control-group design for this study.
The population for the study included Form Four (Grade 10) students in the state of Sarawak in Malaysia.
The study took place in one of the public secondary schools which has approximately 1500 students. The
sample of this study consists of 60 Form Four students who are taking Mathematics as their core subject. The
average age of the students ranged between 15 to 16 years old and they had successfully completed the major
public assessment during Form Three. In the school, there were seven Form Four classes, but only two classes
were randomly chosen for the study. One of the classes served as the experimental group and used the
graphing calculator while the other class or control group learned using the traditional approach.
The type of data collected in this study consists of quantitative data. At the beginning of this study, all
participants were required to complete the pre-test. Graphing calculators were provided to the experimental
group and they were allowed to use them to complete the test. The score from pre-test will be used to check
the similarity between both groups. Throughout this study, the control group received traditional instruction
in learning the concept of linear equation and the experimental group received intervention involving the use
of graphing calculators in a problem based learning environment. Approximately four weeks after
administration of the pre-test and upon completion of the series of lessons, participants from both groups were
required to complete the post-test. The researcher taught both groups.

Instrumentation
Two instruments (test and survey) were used to gather data in this study. The first instrument was the
Linear Equation Problem Solving Test designed to assess the students’ proficiency in each step of the linear
equation problem solving process. This internal consistency of the instrument was measured using the
Cronbach alpha and the value obtained was 0.72. In this study, pre-test and post-test were developed to
measure the changes in participants’ process in solving linear equations. The measurement of change provides
a vehicle for assessing the impact of graphing calculator during participants’ problem solving of linear
equations. The tests comprised four problems that will take 1 hour 20 minutes to complete. Each problem was
broken down into four fundamental questions to probe individual processes in solving the problem. With the
questions, participants are able to write out what they were thinking during the problem solving process. In
this way, the researcher will be able to assess students’ effort in solving the problems. Each problem has a
maximum score of 12 points; that is, maximum of three points to be given for each fundamental question. They
were scored by a modified version of the Analytic Problem Solving Rubric developed by Charles, Lester, and
O’Daffer (1987) and Krulik and Rudnick (1998) which has been widely used in other problem solving research
(Quinones, 2005; Rosli, Goldsby, & Capraro, 2013; Wittcop, 2008; Yeo, 2011).
The second instrument was to measure students’ attitude towards problem solving. The researcher
adapted the student attitudes’ instrument by Charles et al. (1987) and Conway (1996). The Cronbach alpha
value of 0.75 indicates that the instrument has appropriate internal consistency. The Mathematical Problem
Solving Questionnaire contained 20 items which utilized the 5-point Likert scale with the options of “Strongly

http://www.iejme.com 143
Parrot & Leong

Table 1. Mean Score Differences between Group using Independent t-test

Group Mean SD t-value Sig (2 tailed)
Experimental (n = 30) 7.50 3.57 1.51 .14
Control (n = 30) 6.07 3.79

Table 2. Independent t-Test for Post-test

Group Mean SD t-value Sig (2 tailed)
Experimental (n = 30) 24.27 6.51 7.80 .000
Control (n = 30) 13.03 4.46

Table 3. Mean Score Differences between Group using Paired Samples

Group Mean SD t-value Sig (2 tailed)
Experimental (n = 30) 16.77 5.71 16.08 .000
Control (n = 30) 6.97 6.36 6.00 .000

Disagree”, “Disagree”, “Undecided”, “Agree” and “Strongly Agree”. In the questionnaire, the rating of 1 implies
the option “Strongly Disagree” followed by the rating of 2 for “Disagree” and ending with 5 for “Strongly Agree”.
Both the instruments were checked by lecturers and experts in the problem solving area to improve the content
validity.

RESULTS
Research Question 1
To answer the first research question regarding students’ ability to solve problems involving linear
equations, the researcher used the Linear Equation Problem Solving Test. It was intended to find out if
students who used graphing calculators in class were better problem solvers than those who did not use them.
The first research question was analyzed using independent t-test. The dependent variable is students’ score
in the test and the independent variable is the treatment type for both groups. Independent t-test has three
assumptions which are the independency of scores, normality and homogeneity of variances. For the first
assumption, scores were independent since data were collected from two different groups. For normality,
results from Shapiro-Wilk’s test were used. Levene’s test of equality was used to determine the equality of
variance assumption.
Table 1 shows that the experimental group scored higher with a mean score of 7.50 while the control group
obtained a mean score of 6.07. However, the p-value was 0.14 (p > .05) indicating that the difference in the
mean score of the two groups was not significant. This result illustrated that both groups have similar abilities
before the intervention was administered.
Students’ scores in the experimental and control groups were normally distributed, as assessed by Shapiro-
Wilk’s test (p > .05). There was homogeneity of variances for test score between the control and experimental
groups, as assessed by Levene’s test for equality of variances (p = .092). The experimental group score (M =
24.27, SD = 6.51) was higher than the control group score (M = 13.03, SD = 4.46), a statistically significant
difference: M = 11.23, 95% CI [8.35, 14.11], t(58) = 7.80, p = .000. The effect size of this analysis (d = 2.01), was
found to exceed Cohen’s (1988) convention for a large effect (d = .80). This indicates that the average students
in the experimental group would score higher than 98% of the control group.
Next, a paired-samples t-test was used to determine whether there was a statistically significant mean
difference between the pre-test and post-test scores of both groups. Results for the test are shown in Table 3.
The mean score difference between the post-test and pre-test of the experimental group was 16.77 as compared
to the control group with 6.97. There was a significant difference between the pre and post-test score with the
t-value was 16.08 and p-value less than .05 in the experimental group. Whereas in the control group, the result
reveals that the t-value was 6.00 and p-value less than .05 suggests that there was a significant difference as
well. This implies that the individual students’ score on the post-test was significantly higher than on the pre-
test.

144 http://www.iejme.com
 INT ELECT J MATH ED

Table 4. Overall Mean Differences between Group for Pre-Survey

Group Mean SD t-value Sig (2 tailed)
Experimental (n = 30) 3.48 .59 .45 .653
Control (n = 30) 3.42 .26

Table 5. Overall Mean Differences between Group for Post-Survey

Group Mean SD t-value Sig (2 tailed)
Experimental (n = 30) 3.77 .39 7.24 .000
Control (n = 30) 3.08 .35

Research Question 2
The second research question which used the Mathematical Problem Solving Questionnaire measured the
students’ attitude toward problem solving. The survey was conducted twice which is before and after the
intervention. The results are presented in Table 4 and Table 5.
The assumption of normality test for the pre-survey and post-survey for both groups were normally
distributed, as provided by Shapiro-Wilk’s test (p > .05). According to Levene’s test, the homogeneity of
variances assumption was satisfied (p = .092).
The overall mean of students’ attitude towards problem solving in mathematics in the pre-survey of the
experimental group was 3.48 (SD = .59) while the control group mean was 3.42 (SD = .26). An independent t-
test showed the difference in means was not significant, t = .45, p > .05. Meanwhile, the overall mean of
students’ attitude toward learning mathematics in the post-survey of the experimental group was higher (M
= 3.77, SD = .39) compared to the control group (M = 3.08, SD = .35). An independent t-test showed the
difference in means was significant, t = 7.24, p < .05. The results indicated that there was significant difference
in the overall mean of students’ attitude towards problem solving in mathematics in the post-survey between
the experimental and control groups. These findings indicate that both groups have different attitude toward
problem solving in mathematics after the intervention. The experimental group had a better attitude toward
problem solving in mathematics compared to the control groups. The value of the effect size in this analysis
was, d = 1.86. According to Cohen’s (1988) measure, this was considered as a large effect size. This indicates
that the average students in the experimental group would score higher than 96% of the control group for an
effect size of 1.86.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Problem solving is viewed as an important part of understanding and learning in Mathematics, and
emphasis increasingly is being placed upon improving problem solving abilities in mathematics. It is therefore
important to investigate ways for improving problem solving skills; graphing calculator is one of the ways
suggested to improve these skills. The purpose of the current study was to investigate the impact of graphing
calculator on students’ ability to solve problems involving linear equations.
Previous researches showed that students who have access to the graphing calculator significantly score
higher in problem solving compare to their counterparts who did not use the graphing calculator (Allison,
2000; Bitter & Hatfield, 1991; Carter, 1995; Hatem, 2010; Rich, 1991; Tan et al., 2011). These findings are
compatible with the results obtained in this study. An independent sample t-test was conducted in order to
determine whether significance differences exist between those using the traditional approach and those using
graphing calculator. Results obtained show that the experimental group which had access to graphing
calculator during the lesson and test scored significantly higher than the control group. This indicates that
the use of graphing calculator had a positive impact on students’ ability to solve problems. This was supported
by other researchers who reviewed that students are better problem solvers when graphing calculator was
used in class and during assessment (Pilipczuk, 2006; Schrupp, 2007). However, the discrepancy in scores
could be due to either the teaching approach used or the individual difference in problem solving skill. From
visual inspection, students who used graphing calculator were exposed to different strategies in solving
problems.
With respect to students’ attitude toward problem solving, students who underwent the intervention had
a better outlook and perception on the problem solving task compared to those who underwent the traditional
approach without access to the graphing calculator. This result supports the findings obtained by Szetela and

http://www.iejme.com 145
Parrot & Leong

Super (1987) and Dibble (2013) who reported that students had a better attitude toward problem solving when
the graphing calculator was used. A number of reasons account for this result; one of the unique features in
the graphing calculator technology is that it allows students to view more than one representation in the split-
screen mode. This multiple representation of linear equation involved was in the form of graphical, tabular,
and computation. Besides, the representation can be dynamically linked so that changes are made to each
representation. Students have more time to think on the problem itself without worrying about long algebraic
procedures. Graphing calculators are advantageous because the multiple representation of a concept enhances
clarity and understanding. Thus, it is highly recommended that students be allowed to use graphing calculator
for a longer period to enable familiarity with its varied functions.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Mary Ann Serdina Parrot – University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Kwan Eu Leong – University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

REFERENCES
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.

146 http://www.iejme.com
 INT ELECT J MATH ED

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.

http://www.iejme.com 147
Parrot & Leong

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

http://www.iejme.com

148 http://www.iejme.com