Questions

=Questions=

Hey Dr. Lapp What exactaly do you want us to put under connection to Geometry? Is it just working with graphs, because it feels to early to introduce that.

I would leave this alone for now. We can talk about it later and insert what we think is appropriate then.

Where did the represented world vs. representing world come from, I know we talked about it, but we can't remember where it came from?

If memory serves me correctly, he discussed this idea in the following. I have both of these books in my office, but I believe the library also has both.

=
Kaput, J.J. (1989). Linking representations in the symbolic systems of algebra. In S. Wagner & C. Kieran (Eds.), Research agenda for mathematics education: Research issues in the learning and teaching of algebra (pp.167- 194). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. ======

Kaput, J.J. (1987). Towards a theory of symbol use in mathematics. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of repre- sentation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 159-195). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

In the "technology as a tool" section in the outline/lit review should we mention specifics like using CAS or should we be more general and just say Technology?

I think specifics might be good since the type of technology may impact the type of "tool" it is. What do you think?

​ How does specific like CAS but not specifics like N-Spire sound? Yes. That is what I mean.

How much history do we want/need in the literature review.

Maybe just some historical background to set the stage for discussing the nature of algebra and how it developed. Maybe we can also link this to how concepts develop from a cognitive perspective.

I was thinking about adding "unpacking" of symbols in to our lit. review and I was wondering if there was a source for that or if you had coined the term? Thanks!