Friend or foe?: examining CAS use in mathematics research

ABSTRACT

Computer Algebra Systems (CAS) provide sophisticated functionality to assist with mathematical problem solving. Despite their widespread adoption, however, little work in the HCI community has examined the extent to which these computational tools support domain experts. In this paper, we report findings from a qualitative study investigating the work practices and tools of nine mathematicians in a research setting. Counter to our expectations, our data suggests that computational tools play only a minor role in their workflow, with the limited use of CAS owing primarily to four factors: (1) the need for transparency in CAS's reasoning to explain computed results; (2) the problem of rigidity and formality in CAS's input/output style dialogue; (3) the need for 2D input to support a wide range of annotations, diagrams, and in-place manipulation of objects of interest; and (4) the need for collaboration, particularly in early stages of problem solving. While grounded in the study of mathematicians, these findings (particularly the first) have implications for the design of computational systems intended to support complex problem solving.

REFERENCES

• 1: Adoption of Maple 10 into Academic Market Exceeds All Expectations. www.marketwire.com/press-release/Maplesoft-563405.html.
• 2: Lisa Anthony , Jie Yang , Kenneth R. Koedinger, Evaluation of multimodal input for entering mathematical equations on the computer, CHI '05 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, April 02-07, 2005, Portland, OR, USA [doi>10.1145/1056808.1056872]
• 3: M. Artigue. Learning mathematics in a CAS environment: The genesis of a reflection about instrumentation and the dialectics between technical and conceptual work. Int. J. of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 7:245--274, 2002.
• 4: Derive. www.chartwellyorke.com/derive.html.
• 5: François Guimbretière, Paper augmented digital documents, Proceedings of the 16th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, p.51-60, November 02-05, 2003, Vancouver, Canada [doi>10.1145/964696.964702]
• 6: J. Hadamard. The psychology of invention in the mathematical field. Dover Publications, Inc., New York, N.Y., 1945.
• 7: G. Labahn, E. Lank, M. Marzouk, A. Bunt, S. MacLean, and D. Tausky. MathBrush: A case study for pen-based interactive mathematics. In Proc. of SBIM, 2008.
• 8: Joseph J. LaViola, Jr., Calligraphic Interfaces: An initial evaluation of MathPad²: A tool for creating dynamic mathematical illustrations, Computers and Graphics, v.31 n.4, p.540-553, August, 2007 [doi>10.1016/j.cag.2007.04.008]
• 9: Joseph J. LaViola, Jr. , Robert C. Zeleznik, MathPad²: a system for the creation and exploration of mathematical sketches, ACM SIGGRAPH 2004 Papers, August 08-12, 2004, Los Angeles, California
• 10: C. Leinback, D. Pountney, and T. Etchells. Appropriate use of a CAS in the teaching and learning of mathematics. Int. J. of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 33(1):1--14, 2002.
• 11: Mathematica for Students. www.wolfram.com/products/student/mathforstudents.
• 12: Mathjournal. www.xthink.com/MathJournal.html.
• 13: Sharon Oviatt , Alex Arthur , Julia Cohen, Quiet interfaces that help students think, Proceedings of the 19th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, October 15-18, 2006, Montreux, Switzerland [doi>10.1145/1166253.1166284]
• 14: R. Pierce, S. Herbert, and J. Giri. CAS: Student engagement requires unambiguous advantages. In Proc. of the 27th Annual Conf. of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, pages 462--469, 2004.
• 15: R. Pierce and K. Stacey. Observations on students' responses to learning in a CAS environment. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 13(1):28--46, 2001.
• 16: K. Ruthven. Instrumenting mathematical activity: Reflections on key studies of the eductional use of computer algebra systems. Int. J. of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 7:275--291, 2002.
• 17: D. Schon. The reflective practitioner: How professional think in action. 1983.
• 18: David Tausky , George Labahn , Edward Lank , Mirette Marzouk, Managing ambiguity in mathematical matrices, Proceedings of the 4th Eurographics workshop on Sketch-based interfaces and modeling, August 02-03, 2007, Riverside, California [doi>10.1145/1384429.1384454]
• 19: J. vanMerrienboer and J. Sweller. Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2):147--177, 2005.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.m MISCELLANEOUS

Additional Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.2 User Interfaces (D.2.2, H.1.2, I.3.6)

General Terms:
Human Factors

Keywords:
computer algebra systems, mathematical problem solving