Stratton 1

Abbi Stratton

Education 302/303

Professor Leo

30 November 2017

Professional Literature Review

Bidwell, J. (1972). A Physical Model for Factoring Quadratic Polynomials. The Mathematics

Teacher, 65(3), 201-205. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/27958791

Gibb, A. (1974). More on Physical Models for Factoring Polynomials. The Mathematics

Teacher, 67(2), 133-138. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/27959586

The first of these articles is a case for using unit, x, x^2, and x^3 manipulatives to help

students learn to factor equations by making perfect squares or cubes, and the second is an

extension of the first article that looks more at the benefits and limitations of using such

manipulatives. While these articles are quite dated and their reasoning for using the geometric

and physical approach is not the same one we would use today (Bidwell says that this technique

is guaranteed to enliven a frequently dull portion of the algebra class (205)), the visual we can

use for factoring is quite timeless. Students can be aided by this physical representation, and

while one of Gibbs concerns is that this technique cannot be physically extrapolated to

dimensions higher than three, it is important to keep in mind that when teaching factoring we are

not just teaching reverse-foiling, but we are actually splitting up a polynomial into a perfect

square or cube.
 Stratton 2

Jennifer Bready, & Sharon Sterken. (2017). Polynomials on Pictures with Different Platforms.

The Mathematics Teacher, 111(2), 144-148. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5951/mathteacher.111.2.0144

In this article Bready and Sterken compare and contrast two different computer programs

in which students can upload pictures and use them to make polynomial functions. The two

proposed platforms are Geogebra and Desmos. Both platforms are free, but in order to upload a

picture, Geogebra must be downloaded, but Desmos can be used online. In both platforms,

students upload a picture. The article then walks the reader through steps of how to plot points on

the different platforms. On Desmos, students must type in points (which takes higher

mathematical ability), but on Geogebra students can just click on points. After finding points

which correlate with a polynomial they see in their picture, they must fit a graph to it. On

Geogebra, students only have to list the degree of the polynomial, and with Desmos students

have to put the generic formula for the polynomial and use the regression points to then graph

the line. The author describes how with either platform the students can then use their line to

describe the end behavior of the graph, describe the degree of the graph, find the zeros and y-

intercept, and other important characteristics of their polynomial.

This article was written for the algebra teacher and the authors are attempting to give

teachers an objective comparison between the two different programs. The authors assume that

teachers are looking for ways to implement technology and activities into their curriculum, and

so they write this, giving teachers an idea of how to do this.

I hope to implement either Desmos or Geogebra into my unit plan. It was helpful to read

this article and get an idea of how to use both of the platforms, and even though Geogebra seems

like it might be easier to use and explain how to use, because of time constraints, Desmos seems
 Stratton 3

like a better use of time. It would be a good homework activity to have students find a picture

that can be made into a polynomial and have the Do-Now be creating their polynomial and

writing down the important features of the polynomial. This would be an engaging practice and

review that students of all levels can glean something from, even if they simply are reminded of

how to plot points.

Mathew D. Felton-Koestler, & Courtney Koestler. (2017). Should Mathematics Teacher

Education Be Politically Neutral? Mathematics Teacher Educator, 6(1), 67-72.

doi:10.5951/mathteaceduc.6.1.0067

In this article the authors discuss the importance of realizing that teaching mathematics

does not exist in a vacuum. When mathematics teachers accept the status quo and believe that

mathematics is taught objectively, the authors argue that they are perpetuating injustices in the

system of education. The authors encourage teachers to engage with the questions of how they

can challenge and disrupt teacher-centered pedagogies, ability grouping and sorting, deficit

perspectives, stereotypes of mathematicians, and mathematics as disconnected from social

justice. By engaging in these questions, teachers can fight for change in mathematics. They can

connect mathematics to the real-world and justice issues as well as help all students achieve in

this gatekeeper subject. Some practical ways that the authors propose for implementing these

things into the classroom are to make learning discovery-based (realizing that students have as

much to contribute to mathematics as anyone else), challenge the notion of ability and see all

students as capable of learning and having funds of knowledge even though they might look
 Stratton 4

different from that of your own, and putting mathematics into the broader context of society to

challenge the norms of society.

I hope to think about these things in my unit plan in multiple ways. While polynomials do

not necessarily lend themselves to social justice exploration, there are ways that I can make my

classroom more student-oriented. I can implement learning activities and have students share

with the class some of their findings. On a more personal level, too, I can challenge any deficit

perspectives I might have about students in my classroom. I want to be able to see a students

abilities rather than their failures. This can be hard in mathematics, but I hope to be able to value

all students perspectives, even if they solve a problem in a different way than myself. Hopefully

by doing these things I will be helping contribute to a classroom environment where all students,

regardless of age, race, nationality, or ability is able to think critically about the mathematics that

they are doing.