Part 2: Technology and the Mathematics Classroom

5
Calculators in Mathematics
Teaching and Learning
Past, Present, and Future

Bert K. Waits

Franklin Demana

THE 1986 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) revealed

that 21 percent of the middle school students in the study and 26 percent of
the senior high school students in the study attended schools that had calcu-
lators available in the mathematics classroom (Dossey et al. 1988, p. 79). In
the 1992 NAEP study, these percents had risen to 81 percent and 92 percent,
respectively (Dossey and Mullis 1997, p. 26). In 1990, NAEP results showed
that 33 percent of eighth graders in public schools were allowed to use calcu-
lators for mathematics tests. By 1996, this percent had risen to 70 percent of
all eighth graders (Shaughnessy, Nelson, and Norris 1998, pp. 93–95, 191),
and nearly 60 percent of eighth graders were using calculators in their math-
ematics classes on a daily basis! Seldom in the history of mathematics educa-
tion has such a rapid change been made with such significant consequences.
In this article we would like to step out of the rushing stream of this technol-
ogy-induced change, pause to reflect on our experiences of the past twenty-
five years, and describe what we see on the horizon for calculators in mathe-
matics education in the twenty-first century.
We begin with a brief history of calculator development and give some les-
sons learned about using calculators in our work dating back to the 1970s. A
statement of our position on the appropriate use of calculator technology is
presented along with a discussion of some of the controversial issues that
have arisen as a consequence of the use of calculators. We describe the
importance of a balanced approach to the teaching and learning of mathe-
matics that uses both technology and paper-and-pencil techniques. Some
research evidence about calculator use is given. Finally, we discuss the status

1
2 LEARNING MATHEMATICS FOR A NEW CENTURY

of the use of calculators in the teaching and learning of mathematics in the

rest of the world, describe some recent advances in calculator technology,
and speculate about the future impact of these advances.

A BRIEF HISTORY
According to Ball (1997), handheld electronic calculators were first introduced
to the world by Canon, Inc., in this 14 April 1970 press release from Japan:
Canon Inc., in close collaboration with Texas Instruments Inc. of the United
States, has successfully developed the world’s first “pocketable” battery-driven
electronic print-out calculator with full large-scale integrated circuitry.
In 1972, Hewlett-Packard introduced the remarkable HP-35, the first “scien-
tific” calculator that evaluated the values of transcendental functions such as
log 3, sin 3, and so on. The last slide rule was manufactured in the United
States in 1975! In 1986, Casio of Japan introduced the first so-called graph-
ing calculator with powerful built-in, computer-like graphing software. In
1996 Texas Instruments introduced the TI-92, the first calculator that con-
tained an easy-to-use computer algebra system (CAS) and a version of Cabri
computer interactive geometry (Waits and Demana 1996). Recently, both
Texas Instruments and Casio introduced flash ROM calculators, which have
many positive implications for the future. Flash technology will enable many
kinds of useful computer programs to run on calculators as well as provide
easy calculator software upgrades electronically. This feature alone could
revolutionize the applicability of calculators in the twenty-first century.

WHAT WE LEARNED ABOUT USING CALCULATORS

IN MATHEMATICS TEACHING
After twenty-five years of using handheld calculators, we have learned
some fundamental principles about the use of calculators in the teaching
and learning of mathematics (Waits and Demana 1994).
We have learned important lessons about change. Arguably the most impor-
tant thing we learned has to do with desktop computers and why they had
very little direct impact on the teaching and learning of school mathematics.
We tried using desktop computers in the 1980s in our early projects in which
we used our own computer graphing software (i.e., Master Grapher [Waits
and Demana 1987]) to enhance the understanding of precalculus and calcu-
lus. Whereas teachers became very excited about the possibilities, most stu-
dents in most schools, we discovered, had very limited, if any, access either to
desktop computers or to mathematics computer software in their mathe-
matics classrooms. We found that our ideas were not being used. Our work
 CALCULATORS IN MATHEMATICS TEACHING AND LEARNING 3

had very little impact on classroom instruction.

When graphing calculators were introduced, we saw an obvious opportuni-
ty because they were very inexpensive, handheld (fit in a shirt pocket), and
very computer-like. We immediately began to instruct the teachers in our
projects in the use of graphing calculators. The rest is history, as they say.
Graphing calculators soon became very popular in many countries, including
the United States. The reasons were obvious: every classroom could be turned
into a computer lab, and every student could own his or her own inexpensive
personal computer with built-in mathematics software (Demana and Waits
1992). We note that the same dynamics are true today for CAS. For example,
graphing calculators now have computer algebra systems almost as powerful
as personal computer–based software like Mathematica or Maple.
What we have learned does not imply that desktop computers are not
important in education! All the software and functionality available today on
advanced calculators first appeared on desktop computers. In many ways the
calculator borrows what has been proved effective on the computer and
makes it accessible to many more students. The lesson we learned is that
change can occur if we put the potential for change in the hands of everyone.
The handheld calculator does precisely this for the mathematics teacher and
student. The result is clearly demonstrated by taking a cursory look at the
data presented in our opening paragraph.
The second most important thing we learned about change has to do with
effective professional development in the use of technology. The adoption and
use of technology requires additional teacher in-service training that addresses
conceptual and pedagogical issues. However, our early professional development
methods consisted largely of demonstrating the use of technology to the large
groups of teachers we brought to Ohio State University. This form of teacher in-
service training was not good enough. We cannot expect teachers to make fun-
damental change in their teaching without adequate, ongoing support. Teachers
consistently request intensive start-up assistance and regular follow-up activities.
But the greater lesson we learned is that teaching in the grades K–12 arena is a
profession whose constraints are so complex and abundant that teaching prac-
tice is very difficult to change from the outside. Change has to come from within
the teaching profession and be supported both from within and from without.
Changing practice is full of local issues that must be dealt with by teachers
at that level. Our early top-down, one-dimensional model of professional
development simply had no hope of producing the change we wanted to
extend to all schools and all mathematics teachers. The best thing we ever
did was to turn the professional development activities of our projects over
to practicing teachers who had succeeded in embedding the appropriate use
of calculators into their own practices.
We have learned that on a large scale, it takes practiced teachers to change
the practice of teachers. The Teachers Teaching with Technology (T3) program
4 LEARNING MATHEMATICS FOR A NEW CENTURY

that we founded in 1985–86 is an example of such a professional develop-

ment program. The T3 program has consistently tried to embody the tried-
and-true principles of effective professional development, many of which we
learned the hard way in our projects. (For an excellent analysis of effective
professional development experiences, see Loucks-Horsley et al. [1998].)
T3 offers intensive teacher education institutes, and the regional and annual
T meetings afford teachers opportunities to obtain ongoing professional
3

development. Practicing teachers in the T3 institutes model appropriate calcu-

lator use in teaching specific mathematics and science topics. The T3 organiza-
tion also supports its institutes by providing an extensive Web page filled with
resources for teachers using calculators in their classrooms as well as areas for
discussion, where teachers can get help and share ideas (www.t3ww.org/t3).
We have learned that calculators cause changes in the mathematics that we
teach. These changes often can be very dramatic, as we learned from our per-
sonal teaching experiences before and after calculators were available. For
example, some paper-and-pencil applications have simply become obsolete,
as illustrated by the following examples:
• Complicated arithmetic computation: Compare computing
1789
1.0725
by paper-and-pencil long division with computing the quotient using a
simple four-function calculator.
• Interpolation using transcendental-function tables: Compare computing
1250(1.04125)12 using precalculator, paper-and-pencil logarithmic interpola-
tion with computing the product using an inexpensive scientific calculator.
• Accurate graphing of complicated functions: Compare graphing

()
f x =
x 3 – 17 x + 7
x2 + 1
using traditional paper-and-pencil calculus methods with graphing the
function using a graphing cal-
culator (see fig. 5.1). In the past F1- F2- F3- F4- F5- F6- F7-
Tools Zoom Trace ReGraph Math Draw Pen
the traditional methods for
“graphing” included finding the
derivative, f ′(x), and solving the
equation f ′(x) = 0 by paper-
and-pencil methods only. And
only contrived graphing prob-
lems with accessible paper-and- MAIN RAD AUTO FUNC
pencil solutions would be given.
Fig. 5.1. An accurate graph of the function
Now students can graph far
more functions more accurately ()
f x =
x 3 – 17 x + 7
than before. Also students can x2 + 1
 CALCULATORS IN MATHEMATICS TEACHING AND LEARNING 5

use traditional calculus methods F1- F2- F3- F4- F5- F1-
Tools Algebra Calc Other PrgmID Clean Up
to confirm analytically that the
graph they see is accurate. π
3
• Complicated integrations: Com- (× 2 • )
sin(×) d×
pare computing the value of the 0
-π 2 • √
definite integral + π 3 1
π 18 3

() ∫ ( ×^2sin( × ) , ×, 0, π/3 )
3

∫0 x
2
sin x dx MAIN RAD AUTO FUNC 1/30

using paper-and-pencil methods Fig. 5.2. Using the TI-89 to compute

with computing the value using a the exact value of π

state-of-the-art CAS calculator

()
3

(see fig. 5.2). ∫0

x 2 sin x dx

• Solving complicated equations: Compare finding the real and complex

solutions to the simple cubic polynomial equation 3x 3 + 2x 2 – 7x + 9 = 0
by paper-and-pencil methods (go ahead and try!) with using a calcula-
tor-based graphical or numerical method.
We have learned that before calculators, we often asked students to
solve only contrived problems. The students, therefore, learned methods
that, at least in their minds, were really applicable only in contrived con-
texts. Calculators allow students to apply more-general types of solution
processes even to problems that have no exact solution or to problems
that cannot be solved by traditional paper-and-pencil methods alone, as
illustrated in the next examples.
• Problems not solvable by paper-and-pencil methods taught in schools:
Compare computing the definite integral
2 sin(x )
∫1 x
dx

with paper and pencil to computing the solution using a calculator with
integration functionality. Can you find the indefinite integral as an ele-
mentary function (Demana and Waits 1994)?
• Methods too cumbersome before calculators: The parametric graphing
utility on most graphing calculators makes possible mathematical mod-
eling and simulation to illustrate and solve problems that were impossi-
ble with paper and pencil alone.
Clearly we can solve many more problems using calculators! They facili-
tate problem solving. In general, when it comes to mathematics, we have
learned that the visionary statements made by the eminent mathematician
Henry Pollak are very true (Pollak 1986, pp. 347–48). To paraphrase, he said
that because of technology—
6 LEARNING MATHEMATICS FOR A NEW CENTURY

• some mathematics becomes less important (like many paper-and-pencil

arithmetic and symbol-manipulation techniques);
• some mathematics becomes more important (like discrete mathematics,
data analysis, parametric representations, and nonlinear mathematics);
• some new mathematics becomes possible (like fractal geometry).
We have learned that calculators cause changes in the way we teach and in
the way students learn. Before computers and calculators, it was necessary
for students to spend time mastering and becoming proficient in the use of
paper-and-pencil computational and manipulative techniques. Today
much of this time can be spent on developing deeper conceptual under-
standing and valuable critical-thinking and problem-solving skills. We
have found the following to be true:
• Calculators reduce the drudgery of applying arithmetic and algebraic
procedures when those procedures are not the focus of the lesson. They
provide better ways to compute and manipulate symbols. For example, if
the problem is to find the area of a region bounded by the graphs of two
functions, then the essential challenge for the student is to understand
that a definite integral is needed, determine the limits of integration, and
set up the specific definite integral. Finally, the student needs to deter-
mine whether the answer obtained makes sense in the problem situation.
All these tasks require serious thinking and thorough understanding. The
actual computation of the integral is often best done with (or feasible
only with) calculator or computer technology.
• Calculators with computer interactive geometry allow for investigations
that lead to a much better understanding of geometry (Laborde 1999;
Vonder Embse and Engebretsen 1996).
• Calculators help students see that mathematics has value. Students
using calculators find mathematics more interesting and exciting. Texas
Instruments first introduced a handheld calculator-based-laboratory
(CBL) device in 1994 that connects to the link port of graphing calcula-
tors. This device allows students to make precise measurements of
many scientific phenomena and store the measurements in their calcu-
lators for mathematical analysis. Thus, more than any other classroom
innovation in the past, calculator-based laboratories have connected
school mathematics to the real-world phenomena around the student.
The excitement and interest in both mathematics and science generated
by these real-world connections is impressive (Bruneningsen and
Krawiec 1998).
• Calculators make possible a “linked multiple-representation” approach to
instruction. A graphing calculator makes graphical and numerical repre-
sentations practical learning strategies.
 CALCULATORS IN MATHEMATICS TEACHING AND LEARNING 7

• Before calculators we studied calculus (applications of the derivative) to

learn how to obtain accurate graphs. Today we use accurate graphs pro-
duced by a graphing calculator to help us study the concepts of calculus.

WHY THE CONTROVERSY ABOUT USING

CALCULATORS IN MATHEMATICS EDUCATION?
Controversy is associated with using technology in the teaching and learn-
ing of mathematics. It is human nature not to want to change. It is comfort-
able to teach in the way we were taught. One of the great problems we face in
mathematics education is communicating the real nature and value of math-
ematics. Before the publication of the Curriculum and Evaluation Standards
for School Mathematics (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
[NCTM] 1989) and before the extensive use of calculators in mathematics
classrooms, most students viewed mathematics as a bag of tricks and rules to
memorize for computing or solving something. All too many students still
do. Personal experience and evidence from the 1986 NAEP (Dossey et al.
1988, p. 102) strongly support this observation. Students also think of mathe-
matics as tedious, boring work, particularly when they remember only the
endless drill exercises—the “do it until it hurts” kind. We must communicate
the true nature of mathematics and build a case that the appropriate use of
technology will enhance the teaching and learning of mathematics. If the true
nature of mathematics is understood, then the use of technology in the learn-
ing of mathematics will be seen as natural enhancements and extensions.
Paper-and-pencil arithmetic and algebraic symbol-manipulation proce-
dures were very important in the past because they were the only procedures
available for computing and solving. Today, teachers must examine on a
case-by-case basis which paper-and-pencil arithmetic and algebraic manipu-
lation procedures should still be emphasized in the curriculum. It will
become clear that many techniques we teach are still emphasized in the cur-
riculum only because they were the only methods possible in the past. We
must distinguish between applying mathematics algorithms and doing real
mathematics (Ralston 1999).
What does the research tell us?
We have strong evidence from careful research studies to support the use
of technology in the teaching and learning of mathematics. A recent com-
prehensive listing and analysis of calculator research has been completed by
Dunham (in press). One of the most compelling arguments for the use of
calculators in mathematics teaching and learning is the meta-analysis of
eighty-eight studies on the use of calculators that was conducted by Hem-
bree and Dessart (1992). Only one of these studies reported negatively about
8 LEARNING MATHEMATICS FOR A NEW CENTURY

calculator use. We cite one of the conclusions drawn from Hembree and
Dessart’s analysis.
The preponderance of research evidence supports the fact that calculator use for
instruction and testing enhances learning and the performance of arithmetical
concepts and skills, problem solving, and attitudes of students. Further research
should dwell on the best ways to implement and integrate the calculator into the
mathematics curriculum. (P. 30)

The studies reviewed by Hembree and Dessart typically were conducted in

classrooms in which the students were taught the traditional paper-and-pencil
skills while or before they used calculators. In a longitudinal study done
between 1986 and 1992 in Great Britain, the children were never taught the
traditional paper-and-pencil algorithms for arithmetic, but over the years the
children used calculators and successfully invented their own paper-and-pen-
cil processes for the arithmetic operations (Shuard 1992). One of the interest-
ing, albeit ambiguous, results of the Third International Mathematics and Sci-
ence Study (TIMSS) was that internationally, on all the tests at the advanced
level, students who reported using calculators in their daily coursework per-
formed well above those who rarely or never used them (TIMSS 1998). In
general, it is fair to say that the research indicates that the use of calculators
does not degrade the basic skills of students. In the review conducted by
Hembree and Dessart (1992), calculators did appear to have positive effects on
students’ problem-solving abilities and attitudes toward mathematics.

How can we make the best use of this technology?

If we want to see both the basic skills and the problem-solving skills of our
students improve in contexts that allow the regular use of calculators, then
we must continue to develop methods that we might agree to call “appropri-
ate uses,” not only for calculators but for paper-and-pencil techniques as
well. In this regard, we have come to the conclusion that a balanced
approach of paper-and-pencil techniques and technology in the teaching
and learning of mathematics is essential. We need to communicate that some
traditional arithmetic and algebraic skills are still very important. Indeed, we
believe they will be even more important in the future as we move to more
computer-intensive learning environments. For example, without using cal-
culators, students need to be able to multiply quickly two numbers, one of
which contains a single digit or is a power of 10, and be able to divide a
number by a single-digit divisor or a power of 10. Computing the products
and quotients of other numbers can be left to the calculator. We want stu-
dents to be able to explain why 16! = 215 • 36 • 53 • 72 • 11 • 13, but we would not
ask them to use paper and pencil to obtain the factorization.
Brolin and Björk (1992) and Wheatley and Shumway (1992) support our
position. In a national project in Sweden, training in arithmetic algorithms
 CALCULATORS IN MATHEMATICS TEACHING AND LEARNING 9

in grades 4–6 was reduced in favor of extending the use of calculators for
solving more-complicated problems (Brolin and Bjork 1992). For example, it
was considered sufficient if students could divide by single digits. The results
of the project showed that students who used the calculator did not lose
important basic skills in algorithmic calculations. Wheatley and Shumway
(1992) state that “it would be much more important that students know
when to subtract than that they be able to use a prescribed and complex sub-
traction algorithm efficiently” (p. 2).
Balance means the appropriate use of paper-and-pencil and calculator
techniques on a regular basis. Used properly, paper and pencil and calcula-
tors can complement each other. It is important to know how to estimate an
answer before doing a computation using either a calculator or paper and
pencil. It is important that students have enough number sense to recognize
when answers are correct and that they know methods of checking answers
without doing the problem over. And it is important for students to under-
stand at least on an intuitive level why procedures work and when they are
applicable. Balance does not mean that we quit teaching such skills as long
division or factoring. No one should simply dictate that. However, it does
mean that our objectives for mastery and understanding shift from speedy
paper-and-pencil computation in division and factoring problems to mak-
ing sense of the operations and their proper use.
Time must be provided in the curriculum for appropriate practice of these
needed skills. One method teachers use to achieve a good balance is to have
students routinely employ each of the following three strategies:
1. Solve problems using paper and pencil and then support the results
using technology
2. Solve problems using technology and then confirm the results using
paper-and-pencil techniques
3. Solve problems for which they choose whether it is most appropriate
to use paper-and-pencil techniques, calculator techniques, or a combi-
nation of both
These approaches help students understand the proper use of technology.
Another approach to achieving balance is to use manipulatives and paper-
and-pencil techniques during the initial concept development and use calcu-
lators in the extension and generalizing phases. There is a vast difference
between achieving precision in a paper-and-pencil procedure and explaining
why the paper-and-pencil procedure works. Solving systems of two linear
equations in two unknowns provides a good illustration of this difference.
We could expect students to solve several systems using paper-and-pencil
substitution. Then using this knowledge, students could extend their under-
standing by solving the same systems, step-by-step, with a computer algebra
system. Transferring the process to a computer algebra system requires that
10 LEARNING MATHEMATICS FOR A NEW CENTURY

students understand the process. Finally, with the computer algebra system
we can challenge the students to solve a general system of two linear equa-
tions in two unknowns to obtain their own version of Cramer’s rule.
Whatever our methods may be for achieving the balance we are calling for,
we must not back off on the full, regular, and integrated use of available tech-
nology, including graphing calculators with computer algebra, computer
interactive geometry, and computer software microworlds, discussed below,
in all school mathematics classes.
In order to achieve the balance we are calling for, assessment needs to be
given a more prominent role in professional development activities. High
school teachers being introduced to calculators with CAS often remark that if
they allowed such calculators in their classrooms, they would have to change
all their tests and quizzes! Professional development could address such con-
cerns by discussing when to test with technology and when to test without it.
It is all right to give some tests without technology. It is not all right to give all
tests without technology because doing so makes technology seem unimpor-
tant and an add-on to the curriculum. The use of technology must be truly
integrated into the fabric of classroom practice. Indeed, new textbooks are
needed that integrate technology into the fabric of the curriculum.
Whenever students use calculator technology on a regular basis, we run
the risk that some will develop misconceptions because of the limitations of
the calculators or inappropriate use. For example, many instances of inap-
propriate calculator use stem from a lack of understanding of how a calcula-
tor draws a graph. (It samples only a discrete number of function values and
connects the associated points.) Errors can obviously occur when a discrete
device like a graphing calculator is used to model continuous functions
(Demana and Waits 1988). Designers of professional development programs
must understand that with every advance in calculator technology, teachers
must not only be updated but also be made keenly aware of the limitations
of the technology.
Teachers’ fears about technology need to be understood and addressed.
New CAS calculators can perform most of the traditional algebra and calcu-
lus symbolic manipulations. Unfortunately, most classroom teachers today
spend the majority of their time on the very same manipulations using
paper-and-pencil techniques, some of which will soon be obsolete. CAS
tools do the manipulations faster and more accurately than any teacher or
student. Student use of these new tools will require many changes. Curricula
will change. Tests will change. Expectations will change. Teachers who are
not willing to change will indeed fear technology.
At a higher level, to achieve the called-for balance, new state tests are need-
ed that acknowledge technology. Documents like the Principles and Stan-
dards for School Mathematics (NCTM 2000) should be used as a catalyst for
the discussion of such issues. New, generally applicable pedagogical
 CALCULATORS IN MATHEMATICS TEACHING AND LEARNING 11

approaches need to be developed, tested, and disseminated. For example,

some Austrians have developed little-known but powerful strategies for
using computer algebra systems in algebra and calculus. These strategies are
known as the black-box–white-box and the scaffolding principles (Heugl,
Klinger, and Lechner 1996). Consider teaching long division of polynomials.
In the white-box phase no calculators would be used except perhaps to check
results. Paper-and-pencil procedures would be developed that illustrate the
division algorithm and why it works. Later in the year, when division is
needed in a problem, students would be allowed to use a calculator for the
computation (black-box phase).

RECENT ADVANCES IN CALCULATOR TECHNOLOGY

Perhaps the single most significant advance in calculator technology that
has huge ramifications for the future of calculators in mathematics class-
rooms has been the invention of “flash ROM.”
What does flash ROM in a calculator do?
Flash ROM is a new type of calculator memory first introduced by Texas
Instruments in 1998. Until recently calculators had only two types of distinct
memory, ROM and RAM. ROM, or read only memory, can be programmed
only once and never changed. All the built-in functionality that comes with a
calculator is stored in ROM. ROM is relatively inexpensive, so the amount of
ROM used in calculators has increased over the years as more and more
functionality has been included. If a calculator had only ROM memory, it
would not be possible to enter numbers, store values into variables, or even
graph a given function. For these operations, the calculator needs RAM, or
random access memory, which allows new information to be stored.
RAM can be rewritten an unlimited number of times. It is used as scratch
space during calculations and also as a place to store information such as
equations, lists, programs, and so on. RAM has the drawback that it requires
more power to operate than ROM, an important consideration for low-power,
battery-operated devices like calculators. Also, RAM has the drawback of being
relatively expensive. It is usually the second most expensive part of a calculator,
after the display. Despite the drop in prices over the last few years for computer
RAM, calculator RAM prices have not dropped as fast because calculators use
a different type of RAM. To keep the price of calculators low, the amount of
RAM in calculators has been restricted. Flash ROM combines the benefits of
both RAM and ROM in that it is ROM but it can be rewritten like RAM,
although it is currently limited to about one hundred thousand rewrites.
Flash ROM supplies much more memory in a calculator. Already, flash cal-
culators can have six to ten times the amount of user memory found on non-
flash graphing calculators. Flash ROM allows calculators to be upgraded elec-
12 LEARNING MATHEMATICS FOR A NEW CENTURY

tronically. A new version of the built-in mathematical software, or base code,

can be downloaded to the calculator, replacing the previous version. Stu-
dents will be able to upgrade their calculators and add the latest features
without buying a new calculator. Also, calculator companies will be able to
distribute maintenance upgrades that improve the underlying system with-
out replacing the calculator itself. This feature is very important to teachers
and parents for economic reasons, since it will make calculator “boxes” last
longer.
Perhaps the most significant implication of flash ROM is that it enables
calculator software applications, also called flash applications, which will
allow the calculators of the future to become small computer platforms for
software applications!
What are flash applications?
Flash applications are software programs that run on a calculator. They
can do more than user programs developed in the calculator’s program edi-
tor because they are written in more-powerful software languages (C and
assembly language) that tap into more of the underlying calculator system.
Flash applications can also be faster than user programs for the same reason.
Flash applications provide a way of adding on to the built-in functionality,
or base code, with additional software that is similar in construction. Like
the base code, flash applications are stored in flash ROM and remain there
while running. Therefore, they do not take up valuable RAM space the way
user programs do, they stay on the calculator unless they are deliberately
deleted, and they can’t be accidentally removed by resetting RAM or if the
calculator’s batteries die.
Flash applications can dramatically change the functionality of a calcula-
tor, since they are able to control what is displayed on the calculator screen
down to the level of individual pixels. Flash applications are not limited to
displaying the menus, home screen, tables, and graphs of a standard graph-
ing calculator but can also display pictures, animations, icons, new types of
menus, and so on. Lessons and activities that used to be delivered as work-
sheets or textbook exercises can be illustrated, animated, and electronically
linked to the calculator’s computational features.
For example, Puzzle Tanks (Sunburst Communications1999) is a flash
application for developing mathematical problem-solving skills. Puzzle Tanks
animates the standard problem of obtaining a given quantity of liquid using
tanks of different fixed sizes. It shows the tanks and liquid levels on the calcu-
lator display and updates them interactively as the student enters estimates
(fig. 5.3). The game involves four levels of play, each level increasing with dif-
ficulty. Notice the remarkable change in the look of the traditional graphing
calculator screen due to the flash application. Anyone familiar with the wide
array of educational software available today can see from this example the
 CALCULATORS IN MATHEMATICS TEACHING AND LEARNING 13

C GOAL 12 Champ B GOAL 17 B GOAL 17

H E E
A 9 NO CHAMP G 8 G 8
M 7 I I Well done, JJJ!!
3 Tries Tries
P N 3 N You got your 8
I Tries N N Lucky Lotion
O E Total E T tal
2 8 17
N R R

FILL MOVE EMPTY IMP OPTS 8 3 3 BACK Press any key …

Fig. 5.3. TI-73 screen dumps from Puzzle Tanks

educational threshold that calculators are about to cross because of flash

ROM. (For other examples, see www.ti.com/calc/flash/73apps .htm#pt.)

THE MARRIAGE OF CALCULATORS AND COMPUTERS

AND OTHER PREDICTIONS
No one can know with any certainty what tomorrow will bring in the area
of classroom calculator technology. However, we believe our crystal ball is
clear enough to make a few conjectures about the immediate horizon:
• New flash ROM calculators will hasten the current “engagement” of cal-
culators and computers into a real marriage. Flash calculators will quickly
become viewed as pocket, or handheld, computers because most computer
software packages now available on desktop personal computers will be
adaptable to run on tomorrow’s calculators. We believe this will have the
effect of tremendously accelerating the use of “computer” software by all stu-
dents in schools. Just imagine the “microworlds” for teaching mathematics
described by visionaries in the 1980s, and even those envisioned today,
implemented on inexpensive flash calculators (see, e.g., James Kaput’s Sim-
Calc Web page, www.simcalc.umassd.edu/)! Imagine spreadsheets, three-
dimensional geometry, Logo, and other powerful mathematical tools run-
ning on the calculators of tomorrow! A note of caution is in order, however.
As calculators and computers assume more-prominent roles in education,
integration among software applications and between software and curricula
is essential for the wide-scale adoption of technology in schools (Bork 1995).
Roschelle et al. (1998) point out the problem in the abstract of their paper:
Technology-rich learning environments can accelerate and enhance core curricu-
lum reform in science and mathematics by enabling more diverse students to
learn more complex concepts with deeper understanding at a younger age. Unfor-
tunately, today’s technology research and development efforts result not in a rich-
ly integrated environment, but rather with a fragmentary collection of incompat-
ible software application islands.
• The Internet is causing profound changes in our society and has allowed
anyone to access the network using a personal computer. We believe the
same changes will soon occur with networked calculators, linking them to
14 LEARNING MATHEMATICS FOR A NEW CENTURY

one another, to computers, and to the Internet. This networking will have a
profound effect on the classrooms of tomorrow similar to that experienced
when graphing calculators brought the power of computer visualization to
thousands of students who had little or no access to computers.
• We are also likely to see textbook publishers move to integrate more cal-
culator-driven computer software into their lessons. Textbooks might even
become thinner!
• The marriage of calculators and computers will allow us to resolve some
of the intractable equity issues of our educational system. We predict that
the inexpensive flash calculator will become the personal computer for every
mathematics and science student and students in other disciplines, as well.
• Looking to the future, we cannot fail to note that school mathematics and
science standards should be a catalyst for a discussion of the fundamental issues
raised in this article. We note also that standardized tests must change to reflect
the advances technology has made and will continue to make in the curriculum.
Used unwisely, standardized tests can have a very detrimental effect on teachers’
and textbook publishers’ willingness to make needed changes and tackle the
hard calculator issues. It will be no different in the twenty-first century unless we
as a society allow our old prejudices to be put on the table for discussion.
As we conclude this article, we would be remiss not to point out a trend
toward globalization that has been happening for a long time but with little
fanfare. Because of the information technologies of the late twentieth centu-
ry, we believe, this trend has just entered the steep part of an exponential
curve of change. We all know that because of technology the world is becom-
ing a smaller place. Innovations no longer remain dormant in isolated
regions of the world. The use of graphing calculators in school mathematics
is rapidly increasing worldwide. For example, they are used extensively in
France, Germany, Scotland, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, 3
Australia,
Portugal, and Canada. There are now organizations like T in twenty-one
countries worldwide, including Japan. National tests in Sweden, Denmark,
Portugal, and France require graphing calculators. Many countries have cen-
tralized provincial curricula and tests and require graphing calculators on
these tests. In France, students are allowed to use CAS calculators on the
final National Lycée exams used for university entrance. (And French high
school students achieved the top score on the advanced mathematics part of
the recent TIMSS study.) With the capabilities already visible on the horizon
of tomorrow’s calculators and with calculators’ intimate connection with the
other rapidly developing computer and software technologies, the impact of
calculator and computer technologies on the classrooms of tomorrow will
become an international issue. These classroom technologies will very much
serve as a catalyst, perhaps even more than studies like TIMSS, for bringing
mathematics curricula around the world closer together.
 CALCULATORS IN MATHEMATICS TEACHING AND LEARNING 15

REFERENCES
Ball, Guy. “Texas Instruments Cal-Tech, World’s First Pocket Electronic Calculator.”
1997. www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/7227/caltech.html
Bork, Alfred M. “Why Has the Computer Failed in Schools and Universities?” Journal
of Science Education and Technology 2 (December 1995): 97–102.
Brolin, Hans, and Lars-Eric Björk. “Introducing Calculators in Swedish Schools.” In
Calculators in Mathematics Education, 1992 Yearbook of the National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics, edited by James T. Fey, pp. 226–32. Reston, Va.: National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1992.
Bruneningsen, Chris, and Wesley Krawiec. Exploring Physics and Mathematics with
the CBL System. Dallas, Tex.: Texas Instruments, 1998.
Demana, Franklin, and Bert K. Waits. “A Computer for All Students.” Mathematics
Teacher 85 (February 1992): 94–95.
. “Graphing Calculator Intensive Calculus: A First Step in Calculus Reform
for All Students.” In Proceedings of the Preparing for a New Calculus Conference,
edited by Anita Solow, pp. 96–102. Washington, D.C.: Mathematics Association of
America, 1994.
. “Pitfalls in Graphical Computation, or Why a Single Graph Isn’t Enough.”
College Mathematics Journal 19 (March 1988): 177–83.
Dossey, John A., and Ina V. Mullis.“NAEP Mathematics—1990–1992: The National, Trial
State, and Trend Assessments.” In Results from the Sixth Mathematics Assessment of the
National Assessment of Educational Progress, edited by Patricia Ann Kenney and Edward
A. Silver, pp.17–32. Reston, Va.: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1997.
Dossey, John A., Ina V. Mullis, Mary M. Lindquist, and Donald L. Chambers. The Mathe-
matics Report Card: Are We Measuring Up? New York: Educational Testing Service, 1988.
Dunham, Penny. “Hand-Held Calculators in Mathematics Education: A Research
Perspective.” Paper presented at the NCTM Conference on Technology and Stan-
dards 2000, Arlington, Va., June 1998.
Hembree, Ray, and Donald J. Dessart. “Research on Calculators in Mathematics Edu-
cation.” In Calculators in Mathematics Education, 1992 Yearbook of the National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics, edited by James T. Fey, pp. 23–32. Reston, Va.:
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1992.
Heugl, Helmut, Walter Klinger, and Josef Lechner. Mathematikunterricht mit Comput-
eralgebra-Systemen: Ein didaktisches Lehrerbuch mit Erfahrungen aus dem österre-
ichischen DERIVE-Projekt. Bonn, Germany: Addison-Wesley Publishing, Ltd., 1996.
Laborde, Colette.“Vers un Usage banalisé de Cabri-Géomètre avec la TI 92 en classe de sec-
onde: Analyse des facteurs de l’intégration.” In Calculatrices symboliques et géométriques
dans l’enseignement des mathématiques, edited by Dominique Guin, pp. 79–94. Montpel-
lier, France: Institut de Recherche sur l’Enseignement des Mathématiques, 1999.
Loucks-Horsley, Susan, Peter W. Hewson, Nancy Love, and Katherine E. Stiles.
Designing Professional Development for Teachers of Sciences and Mathematics.
Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press, 1998.
16 LEARNING MATHEMATICS FOR A NEW CENTURY

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Curriculum and Evaluation Standards

for School Mathematics. Reston, Va.: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics,
1989.
. Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, Va.: National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2000.
Pollak, Henry O. “The Effects of Technology on the Mathematics Curriculum.” In
Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress on Mathematical Education, edited
by Marjorie Canss, pp. 346–51. Boston.: Birkhauser Press, 1986.
Ralston, Anthony. “Let’s Abolish Pencil-and-Paper Arithmetic.” Journal of Computers
in Mathematics and Science Teaching 18 (1999): 173–94.
Roschelle, Jeremy, Jim Kaput, Walter Stroup, and Ted M. Kahn. “Scaleable Integra-
tion of Educational Software: Exploring the Promise of Component Architec-
tures.” Journal of Interactive Media in Education 98 (October 1998). www
.jime.open.ac.uk/98/.
Shaughnessy, Catherine A., Jennifer E. Nelson, and Norma A. Norris. NAEP 1996
Mathematics Cross-State Data Compendium for the Grade 4 and Grade 8 Assess-
ment. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, 1998.
Shuard, Hilary. “CAN: Calculator Use in the Primary Grades in England and Wales.”
In Calculators in Mathematics Education, 1992 Yearbook of the National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics, edited by James T. Fey, pp. 33–45. Reston, Va.: National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1992.
Sunburst Communications. “Puzzle Tanks.” Pleasantville, N.Y.: Sunburst Communi-
cations, 1999. For more information, see www.sunburst.com/new_products
_software.html.
Third International Mathematics and Science Study. “International Study Finds the
Netherlands and Sweden Best in Mathematics and Science Literacy.” Press release
of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study, 24 February 1998.
TIMSS.bc.edu/TIMSS1/presspop3.html.
Vonder Embse, Charles, and Arne Engebretsen. “Using Interactive Geometry Software
for Right-Angle Trigonometry.” Mathematics Teacher 89 (October 1996): 602–5.
Waits, Bert K.,
2
and Franklin Demana. “The Calculator and Computer Precalculus
Project (C PC): What Have We Learned in Ten Years?” In Impact of Calculators on
Mathematics Instruction, edited by George Bright, Hersholt C. Waxman, and Susan
E. Williams, pp. 91–110. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1994.
. “A Computer for All Students—Revisited.” Mathematics Teacher 89
(December 1996): 712–14.
. Master Grapher (computer software). Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley
Publishing Co., 1987.
Wheatley, Grayson H., and Richard Shumway. “The Potential for Calculators to Trans-
form Elementary School Mathematics.” In Calculators in Mathematics Education,
1992 Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, edited by James
T. Fey, pp. 1–8. Reston, Va.: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1992.