Efficiency of blended learning of calculus content during the Covid19 crisis

References

• Adedoyin, O. B., & Soykan, E. (2020). COVID-19 pandemic and online learning: The challenges and opportunities. Interactive Learning Environments, 2(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1813180
   Google Scholar
• Al Salman, S., Alkathiri, M., & Khaled Bawaneh, A. (2021). School off, learning on: Identification of preference and challenges among school students towards distance learning during COVID19 outbreak. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 40(1), 53–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2021.1874554
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anabousy, A., Daher, W., Baya’a, N., & Abu-Naja, M. (2014). Conceiving function transformations in different representations: Middle school student working with technology. Mathematics Education, 9(2), 99–114. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/284
   Google Scholar
• Anthony, B., Kamaludin, A., Romli, A., Raffei, A. F. M., Phon, D. N. A. L. E., Abdullah, A., & Ming, G. L. (2022). Blended learning adoption and implementation in higher education: A theoretical and systematic review. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 27(2), 531–578. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-020-09477-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arzarello, F., Ferrara, F., & Robutti, O. (2012). Mathematical modelling with technology: The role of dynamic representations. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications, 31(1), 20–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/teamat/hrr027
   Google Scholar
• Bakar, A., Mohd Ayub, K. F. A., & Ahmad Tarmizi, R. (2010). Utilization of computer technology in learning transformation. International Journal of Education and Information Technologies, 4(2), 91–99.
   Google Scholar
• Bersin, J. (2004). The blended learning book: Best practices, proven methodologies and lessons learned. San Francisco, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Bodner, G. M. (1986). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education, 63(10), 873–878. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed063p873
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonk, C. J., & Graham, C. R. (2006). The Handbook of blended learning. Pfeiffer.
   Google Scholar
• Borba, M., & Confrey, J. (1996). A student's construction of transformations of functions in a multiple representational environment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 31(3), 319–337. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00376325
   Google Scholar
• Božić, R. (2019). Metodička obrada funkcija sa parametrima uz pomoć računara (Doktorska disertacija, Univerzitet u Novom Sadu). National Repository of Dissertations in Serbia. https://nardus.mpn.gov.rs/handle/123456789/11380
   Google Scholar
• Božić, R., Takači, Đ, & Stankov, G. (2019). Influence of dynamic software environment on students’ achievement of learning functions with parameters. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(4), 655–669. https://doi.org/10.1080/1049820.2019.1602842
   Google Scholar
• Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1993). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. American Society for Curriculum Development.
   Google Scholar
• Crompton, H., & Burke, D. (2018). The use of mobile learning in higher education: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 123, 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.04.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daher, W. M., & Anabousi, A. A. (2015). Students’ recognition of function transformations’ themes associated with the algebraic representation. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 4(2), 179–194. https://doi.org/10.17583/redimat.2015.1110
   Google Scholar
• Devlin, M., & McKay, J. (2016). Teaching students using technology: Facilitating success for students from low socioeconomic status backgrounds in Australian universities. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 32(1), 92–106. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2053
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doorman, M., Drijvers, P., Gravemeijer, K., Boon, P., & Reed, H. (2012). Tool use and the development of the function concept: From repeated calculations to functional thinking. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(6), 1243–1267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-012-9329-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doruk, B. K., Aktumen, M., & Aytekin, C. (2013). Pre-service elementary mathematics teachers’ opinions about using GeoGebra in mathematics education with reference to ‘teaching practices’. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications, 32(3), 140–157. https://doi.org/10.1093/teamat/hrt009
   Google Scholar
• Drijvers, P., Thurm, D., Vandervieren, E., Klinger, M., Moons, F., Van der Ree, H., Mol, A., Barzel, B., & Doorman, M. (2021). Distance mathematics teaching in Flanders, Germany, and the Netherlands during COVID-19 lockdown. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 108(1-2), 35–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-021-10094-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ermete, M., Brackett, N., Powell, K., Krause, E., & Lapp, D. (2010). The Role of Dynamic Representations in Students’ Development of Algebraic Concepts. Program Reports. https://www.cmich.edu/colleges/cst/math/Documents/LURE_2010_Program_Reports.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Fitri, S., & Zahari, C. L. (2019). The implementation of blended learning to improve understanding of mathematics. Journal of Physics Conference Series, 1188 - 012109. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1188/1/012109
   Google Scholar
• Font, V., Godino, J., & D’amore, B. (2018). An ontosemiotic approach to representations in mathematics education. For the Learning of Mathematics, 27(2), 3–9.
   Google Scholar
• Goldin, G., & Kaput, J. (1996). A joint perspective on the idea of representation in learning and doing mathematics. In L. P. Steffe, P. Nesher, P. Cobb, G. A. Goldin, & B. Greer (Eds.), Theories of mathematical learning (pp. 397–430). Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Goldin, G., & Shteingold, N. (2001). System of representations and the development of mathematical concepts. In A. Cuoco & F. R. Curcio (Eds.), The roles of representation in school mathematics (pp. 1–23). NCTM.
   Google Scholar
• Gunbas, N. (2015). Students’ mathematics word problem-solving achievement in a computer-based story. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(1), 78–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12067
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guri-Rosenblit, S. (2005). ‘Distance education’ and ‘e-learning’: Not the same thing. Higher Education, 49(4), 467–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-0040-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guven, B. (2012). Using dynamic geometry software to improve eight grade students’ understanding of transformation geometry. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(2), 364–382. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.878
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hwang, W. Y., & Hu, S. S. (2013). Analysis of peer learning behaviors using multiple representations in virtual reality and their impacts on geometry problem solving. Computers & Education, 62, 308–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iran-Nejad, A. (1995). Constructivism as substitute for memorization in learning: Meaning is created by learner. Education, 116, 16–32.
   Google Scholar
• Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models (2nd Ed. pp. 215–239), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. National Academy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lin, Y. W., Tseng, C. L., & Chiang, P. J. (2017). The effect of blended learning in mathematics course. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(3), 741–770. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00641a
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lisarelli, G. (2017). Exploiting Potentials of Dynamic Representations of Functions with Parallel Axes. The 13th International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching (ICTMT 13). Lyon, Ecole Normale Supérieure de Lyon and the University Lyon.
   Google Scholar
• Lopes, A. P., & Soares, F. (2018). FLIPPING A MATHEMATICS COURSE, A BLENDED LEARNING APPROACH. INTED2018 Proceedings, pp. 3844-3853.
   Google Scholar
• Lorsbach, A., & Tobin, K. (1992). Constructivism as a referent for scince teaching. NARST Research Matters-to the Science Teacher, 30.
   Google Scholar
• Maatuk, A. M., Elberkawi, E. K., Aljawarneh, S., Rashaideh, H., & Alharbi, H. (2022). The COVID-19 pandemic and E-learning: Challenges and opportunities from the perspective of students and instructors. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 34(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-021-09274-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McClaran, R. (2013). Investigating the impact of Interactive applets on students’ understanding of parameter changes to parent functions: An explanatory mixed methods study. Theses and dissertations-science, technology. Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education.
   Google Scholar
• Milenković, A., Takači, Đ, & Božić, R. (2020). On the influence of software application for visualization in teaching double integrals. Interactive Learning Environment, https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1719164
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milovanović, M., Takači, Đ, & Milajić, A. (2011). Multimedia approach in teaching mathematics – example of lesson about the definite integral application for determining an area. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 42(2), 175–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2010.519800
   Google Scholar
• Nakahara, T. (2008). Cultivating mathematical thinking through representation-utilizing the representational system. APEC-TSUKUBA International Congress, Japan.
   Google Scholar
• Naylor, S., & Keogh, B. (1999). Constructivism in classroom: Theory into practice. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10(2), 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009419914289
   Google Scholar
• Ozgun-Koca, S. A. (2008). Ninth grade students studying the movement of fish to learn about linear relationships: The use of video-based analysis software in mathematics classrooms. The Mathematics Educator, 18(1), 15–25.
   Google Scholar
• Poon, J. (2014). A cross-country comparison on the use of blended learning in property education. Property Management, 32(2), 154–175. https://doi.org/10.1108/PM-04-2013-0026
   Google Scholar
• Psotka, J. (2022). Exemplary online education: For whom online learning can work better. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(2), 199–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2031065
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rau, M., Michaelis, J., & Fay, N. (2015). Connection making between multiple graphical representations: A multi-methods approach for domain-specific grounding of an intelligent tutoring system for chemistry. Computers & Education, 82, 460–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.12.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Şengören, S. K. (2014). Prospective physics teachers’ use of multiple representations for solving the image formation problems. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 13(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/14.13.59
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Setyaningrum, W. (2019). Blended learning: Does it help students in understanding mathematical concepts? Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Matematika, 5(2), 244–253. https://doi.org/10.21831/jrpm.v5i2.21428
   Google Scholar
• Sever, G., & Yerushalmy, M. (2007). To sense and to visualize functions: The case of graphs’ stretching. In P. P. Demetra & P. George (Eds.), The fifth Conference of the European Society for research in mathematics Education (CERME5) (pp. 1509–1518). Department of Education, University of Cyprus.
   Google Scholar
• Sjoberg, S. (2010). Constructivism and learning. In B. McGaw & P. Peterson (Eds.), International encyclopaedia of education (3rd Edition, pp. 485–490). Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Stevanović, A., Božić, R., & Radović, S. (2021). Higher education students’ experiences and opinion about distance learning during the Covid-19 pandemic. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(6), 1682–1693 https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12613
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stols, G. (2012). Does the use of technology make a difference in the geometric cognitive growth of pre-service mathematics teachers? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(7), 1233–1247. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.799
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taber, K. S. (2011). Constructivism as educational theory: Contingency in learning, and optimally guided instruction. In J. Hassaskhan (Ed.), Educational theory (pp. 39–61). Nova Science Publishers, Hauppauge.
   Google Scholar
• Takači, Đ., Pešić, D., & Tatar, J. (2006). On the continuity of functions. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Tehnology, 37(7), 783–791.
   Google Scholar
• Takači, Đ., Stankov, G., & Milanović, I. (2015). Efficiency of learning environment using GeoGebra when calculus contents are learned in collaborative groups. Computers & Education, 82, 421–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.12.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tall, D. (1992). The transition to advanced mathematical thinking: Functions, limits, infinity, and proof. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 495–511). Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Tall, D. (2003). Using technology to support an embodied approach to learning concepts in mathematics. In L. M. Carvalho & L. C. Guimarães (Eds.), História e Tecnologia no Ensino da Matemática (vol. 1, pp. 1–28). Brasil.
   Google Scholar
• Tarhini, A., Hone, K., Liu, X., & Tarhini, T. (2017). Examining the moderating effect of individual-level cultural values on users’ acceptance of E-learning in developing countries: A structural equation modeling of an extended technology acceptance model. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(3), 306–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2015.1122635
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teo, T., & Milutinovic, V. (2015). Modelling the intention to use technology for teaching mathematics among pre-service teachers in Serbia. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(4), 363–380. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1668
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tobin, K., & Tippins, D. (1993). Constructivism as a referent for teaching and learning. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education (pp. 3–22). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• van der Meij, J., & de Jong, T. (2011). The effects of directive self-explanation prompts to support active processing of multiple representations in a simulation-based learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(5), 411–423. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00411.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Venema, S., & Lodge, J. M. (2013). Capturing dynamic presentation: Using technology to enhance the chalk and the talk. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(1), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.62
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. Falmer Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wekerle, C., Daumiller, M., & Kollar, I. (2022). Using digital technology to promote higher education learning: The importance of different learning activities and their relations to learning outcomes. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 54(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1799455
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yerushalmy, M. (1991). Student perceptions of aspects of algebraic function using multiple representation software. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7(1), 42–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.1991.tb00223.x
   Google Scholar