1.

Relationship between educational technology and student achievement in

mathematics

The penetration of computers into the life of schools is a fact few could deny. The avail-
ability of computers nationally has increased dramatically in recent years, from a
computer for every 125 students in 1983 to a computer for every 9 students in 1995
(Glennan & Melmed, 1996). Many schools now have one computer for every two
students. Yet the response of educators and practitioners has been mixed. Some have
been quite enthusiastic about technology, seeing it as the tool most needed to facilitate
more comprehensive educational reform. Others see it as a passing fad, more a
distraction from school reform than anything else. Not all advocates and critics
subscribe to the views paraphrased below; these are simply illustrations of a few of the
prevailing views regarding technology.

Advocates of technology argue for using technology for the wholesale transformation of
the classroom. They note that computers and supporting technologies have any
number of uses. These are generally of five types: support for individual learning,
group learning, and instructional management; communication; and administration.
Applications to individual learning include drilling students on particular skills, using
CD-ROMs or the Internet to find resources not available in the school, communicating
with experts, word-processing, providing assistance in computations, and
demonstrating simulations of mathematical or scientific concepts. Group learning
applications include using e-mail to support group communication, using presentation
software to allow group presentations on a project, and providing collaboration in
collecting and analyzing data. Applications to instructional management include
integrating standards and assessments, managing student portfolios, and developing
individual student learning plans. Communications applications include communicating
to remote locations such as rural schools and improving communication among
students, teachers, and parents. Finally, applications to administrative functions include
supporting attendance and account- ability functions. Clearly, using technology in all of
these ways would result in the penetration of technology into every aspect of the
school day, theoretically making conventional teaching techniques obsolete.

Others have been quite critical of technology. They agree with the advocates that the
goal of spreading educational technology is to use it to transform instruction; the critics,
however, view this effort as being doomed to failure.3 Their indicator for the success of
technology programs is not the amount of technology available, but whether teachers
are willing to use it. No matter how many computers are available in the classroom, if
teachers are unwilling to use them for instruction, they are unlikely to have much
impact on students. And, in the view of the critics, teachers are by-and-large not
making use of computers. Schools tend to have a few teachers and administrators who
are advocates of technology and use it wisely. The majority of teachers, however, use
technology as little as possible; they only do as much with computers as administrators
require of them.
There are some problems with the assertions made by both advocates and critics
regarding the relationship between technology and educational outcomes. With regard
to the advocates, the CAI(computer assisted instruction) evaluations of drill and
practice computer applications, the evaluation of higher-order applications and the data
from the exemplary programs suffer from certain methodological problems that raise
questions about their findings.4 First, they treat technology as an undifferentiated
characteristic of schools and class- rooms. No distinction is made between different
types of technology program, such as pro- grams that involve intensive professional
development or those that focus on higher- order thinking skills. Without differentiating
between program components, it is not clear which are responsible for overall program
effectiveness; it may be that some uses of technology are more productive than others.
Second, these evaluations focus on a school or school district, but never on statewide
or nationwide uses of technology. Third, evaluations often use a poor measure of
academic achievement; many use tests that have been developed for that particular
study and have not been validated. Fourth, the students in technology-rich
environments may be very different from those in more conventional settings. Many of
these studies do not randomly assign students to different environments, and some do
not even have a group of students in a conventional environment to whom to compare
the students using technology. Apparent gains in achievement may there- fore be
attributable to the student rather than the school.

As technology advocates have asserted, technology does matter to academic

achievement, with the important caveat that whether it matters depends upon how it is
used. The levels of use of computers seem not to matter, and extremely high levels of
use may even be counterproductive. Possibly at such high levels students are using
computers in unproductive ways, such as playing non- educational games. But when
computers are used to perform certain tasks, namely applying higher order concepts,
and when teachers are proficient enough in computer use to direct students toward
productive uses more generally, computers do seem to be associated with significant
gains in mathematics achievement, as well as an improved social environment in the
school. The findings regarding home computers reinforce this point. Students using
home computers frequently had higher levels of achievement. Presumably this was so
because the computer was put to different uses in the two grades. Without having
actual data on how home computers are used by students, it is only possible to
speculate. Disadvantaged groups seem to lag behind in access to those aspects of
technology that do affect educational outcomes, but not in access to those aspects of
technology that do not affect educational outcomes. While minority, poor, and urban
students are no less likely to use computers at school frequently, frequency of use is
not associated with gains in achievement or social environment. Yet minority, poor, and
urban students are less likely to receive exposure to computers for higher- order
learning, and poor and urban students are less likely to have teachers who have
received professional development on technology use. Thus, where technology
matters, there are significant inequities; only where technology does not matter have
these inequities been successfully erased.
While this study does address problems in the prior literature, it has its own
methodological limitations. First, the data used were collected at a single point in time;
technology characteristics occur at the same time as the educational outcomes. There
are no prior measures of mathematics achievement, making it difficult to rule out the
possibility that positive educational outcomes are conducive to certain aspects of
technology use rather than the other way around. All technology measures remained
significantly related to academic achievement and the social environment of the school,
and the sizes and directions of the relationships also remained the same. The one
exception was professional development, which, while still significantly and positively
associated with the educational outcomes, was associated with them to a somewhat
lesser extent. The relative lack of change between the two models suggests that a
study that took prior achievement into account would be unlikely to produce very
different results. Nonetheless, a study that follows students over time, measuring their
academic achievement both before and after their exposure to various uses of
technology would provide a stronger test of the findings from this study. Second, while
the study does take into account teacher characteristics, such as education levels, it
does not take into account more detailed measures of teacher practices. The study
found that when computers were used for higher-order thinking skills, students per-
formed better; yet this does not exclude the possibility that students do better when
teachers tend to teach higher- order thinking skills, regardless of the medium.
Fortunately, this invitation does not undermine the findings of this study. Regardless of
whether other media may also be successful at conveying higher-order thinking, this
study does demonstrate that computers can do so; they are, at a minimum, one of a
limited number of tools that can contribute to this goal. A few other caveats are worth
noting. The study only analyzes technology’s effective- ness in one subject area,
mathematics. Most measures of the uses of technology as well as the measure of
academic achievement are specific to that subject. Computers may be less effective in
other subject areas, such as history and English. Also, the study is limited to only a few
indicators of the organization of technology use; other aspects of technology may be
more or less effective. For instance, the study does not distinguish between the
effectiveness of different types of software. Finally, the study does not incorporate
information about state technology policies, which may have a bearing on technology’s
effectiveness. These three caveats all suggest that it is important for states to collect
more data to evaluate their technology investments; they need to know which policies
and types of software are effective, and for which subject areas computers should be
used.

The findings have significant implications for technology policy and practice. First, the
study suggests that federal and state policymakers should redouble their efforts to
ensure that teachers are properly trained to use computers. Yet there are large
disparities in the amount of professional development teachers receive. Federal and
state policy- makers should target teacher training efforts at high-poverty urban and
rural schools, which have much lower percentages of teachers receiving such training.
Also, professional development in technology could refer to anything from a weekend
seminar to a semester-long course. Many of the teachers who do receive professional
development in technology may benefit from more intensive instruction. Federal and
state policymakers should make sure that the quality of the teacher training offered is
high and intensive, since this training is such an important component of making
technology use successful. Second, the study suggests that teachers should focus on
using computers to apply higher-order skills learned elsewhere in class. Computers
should be a component of a seamless web of instruction that includes non-
technological components. For example, teachers might introduce new topics and
convey basic information to their students through general class discussion and
lecture, then assign projects and problems that computers as well as other media
(books, field trips, etc.) can be used to address. While implementing this vision
depends primarily upon the individual preferences and capabilities of teachers, federal
and state policymakers can encourage it to some degree through sup- porting
professional development of teachers that emphasizes this teaching method. Further,
federal and state policymakers can encourage school districts to order soft- ware that
draws on these skills, and assist school districts in connecting to the Internet, which
can be used to obtain outside information for projects and problem solving. As with
teacher development, extra efforts should be made to support these changes in high-
poverty urban and rural school districts, which are at present most likely to be using
computers for drill and practice rather than applications and simulations. This is not to
say that the basics should not be taught where appropriate; the findings merely
suggest that computers are not well-adapted to teaching them. Third, the primary focus
of all technology initiatives should be on middle schools rather than elementary
schools. Further, the sequence of the typical mathematics curriculum suggests that
computers are more crucial for middle school students than elementary school
students. Most higher-order concepts are not introduced before middle school, with
elementary school students focusing on computational skills. To the extent that the
primary benefit of computers lies in applying higher order skills, there may not be much
opportunity to benefit from using computers before middle school. In conclusion,
technology advocates were correct in asserting that technology can be beneficial to
student learning. Used properly, technology can lead to gains in academic
achievement and positively influence the social environment of the school, reducing
teacher and student absenteeism and increasing morale. Yet it is important that the
scope of technology in schools be limited to those areas where it provides benefits,
and reduced in areas where it does not. Thus the notion of technology as a substitute
for conventional forms of instruction, often hoped for by technology advocates and
dreaded by technology critics, may over- state the case for technology use. It may also
be counterproductive, not only introducing computers into areas where other teaching
techniques are more conducive to positive educational outcomes, but also raising
worries among teachers that they are being replaced by machines. By clearly
delineating areas in which computers can be helpful to teachers and areas in which
they cannot, it will be possible to increase the acceptance of computers. Alongside
chalk and blackboards, computers will be tools teachers feel they cannot live without.

No subject is avoided and labeled negatively the way mathematics has been. Probably,
a person experiencing the situation has mathematics anxiety. Mathematics anxiety
involves feelings of tension that interfere with the manipulation of numbers and the
solving of mathematical problems in a wide variety of ordinary and academic situations
(Richardson and Suinn, 1972). It was also described as a"sudden death" (Tobias,
1978), any situation when one experiences anxiety "when confronted with mathematics
in any way" (Byrd, 1982), an irrational phobia (Hodges, 1983), and a rational fear
rooted in real experience of failure and inadequacy (Perry, 2004). While mathematics
anxiety could be seen as early as in elementary pupils (Lazarus, 1974; Jackson and
Leffingwell, 1999; Steele and Arth, 1998), it is disturbing that even pre-service teachers
exhibit mathematics anxiety (Hembree, 1990;Jackson, 2008; Rayner, et al., 2009).

There was a significant difference in the mathematics anxiety level of the males and
females. There is a need for teachers to encourage female students to strive to learn
math. This could be done by explaining to students to do away with the usual
stereotyping issues that mathematics learning is best done by males (Gotz and Bieg, et
al, 2013).The per item analysis of the math anxiety level revealed that the top five
anxiety-provoking situations are those relating to tests, homework and the rudiments of
mathematics, particularly algebra. Many students fear the learning of math, more so,
when their abilities are already tested. There is a need for teachers to devise ways of
assessing mathematics concepts through alternative ways which will not give the total
impression that mathematics tests are like punishments. The respondents were also
anxious about rudiments of mathematics, particularly algebra, which is considered a
highly difficult subject because of its abstraction. The anxiety items revealed that other
than the usual tests and difficult concepts in mathematics, students are not that
anxious with math-related things. In the interviews with selected respondents, the
respondents with high level of math anxiety revealed that they do not necessarily hate
math. They just feel at times that they could not just do math without others helping
them. Lee (1995) calls it Type I math anxiety. It was found out that teachers were
considered the main factor in the students’ harboring a positive or negative outlook on
mathematics (Nur, Tan, Hong, &Usop, 2012; Yenilmez, Girginer, &Uzun, 2007). There
is a need for teachers to reflect and revisit teaching strategies to optimize the success
of the teaching-learning process.There was no significant difference in the math
achievement of the respondents. This means both groups can perform equally well in
mathematics courses. This indicates that the mathematics anxiety level manifested in
the females may be triggered by only selected aspects of mathematics teaching, and
did not in any way, hampered their studying hard to get good grades. A significant
negative correlation was found out between anxiety and achievement. A higher
mathematical anxiety level may mean lower academic achievement of the
respondents. This could further mean that academic achievement may be affected by
the kind of disposition a student has towards mathematics. Whether the anxiety caused

the achievement or the achievement caused the anxiety, there is a dire need for
mathematics teachers to exhaust all efforts to make mathematics learning a
pleasurable experience for students.
Mathematics and technology have also developed a fruitful relationship with each
other. The mathematics of connections and logical chains, for example, has
contributed greatly to the design of computer hardware and programming techniques.
Mathematics also contributes more generally to engineering, as in describing complex
systems whose behavior can then be simulated by computer. In those simulations,
design features and operating conditions can be varied as a means of finding optimum
designs. For its part, computer technology has opened up whole new areas in
mathematics, even in the very nature of proof, and it also continues to help solve
previously daunting problems.

The use of technology has a long history in mathematics education. Many societies, for
example, introduce arithmetic with an abacus, for two reasons. First, the abacus
supports computation. Second, the abacus presents a tangible image of mathematics,
which helps students understand difficult concepts. Computation and representation go
hand-in-hand, both historically and in the present. For example, in primary school
classrooms, many teachers use concrete manipulatives, such as Geoboards (allowing
children to make geometric figures by stretching rubber bands over a grid of nails) or
Dienes Blocks (providing children with a physical model of the place-value system in
which “473” means four hundreds, seven tens and 3 ones). In secondary school,
researchers have found that more advanced tools are necessary. These advanced
tools help students learn by supporting computation and by giving abstract ideas a
more tangible form. Researchers havefound that whereas physical manipulatives are
the right tangible form for elementary school, ICT-based tools are the right tangible
form for secondary school (Kaput, 1992; Kaput 2007). Researchers have found that
ICT can support learning when appropriately integrated with teaching techniques,
curriculum, and assessments (Means & Haertel, 2004). Thus for more specific
guidance, teachers should look for research on integrated use of ICT in mathematics
teaching. In this research brief, we discuss two elements of successful integrations:
focusing student thinking and making ideas tangible.

All people face limits in the number of levels or details they can keep track of during
problem solving. In addition to the unavoidable difficulty of a particular math problem,
learners may experience additional cognitive load (i.e., thinking difficulties) in the
materials and tools they use. Teachers should minimize load that is unimportant to the
current learning goal and direct student activity to thinking that is germane to what they
should be learning (Sweller, 1988). Technology can be useful to the extent it focuses
student thinking in ways that are germane, not extraneous. What is important or
germane depends on the math topic and age of the student. In primary school, it is
important to learn to do arithmetic fluently. Using technology to do this thinking for the
student would be inappropriate. In secondary school, however, students have
mastered arithmetic and should be focused on more advanced skills and concepts.
Computational supportfor lower-order details can then be very important.

For example, researchers have found that when calculators are available to offload
details computations, teachers can better focus on (Burrill et al., 2002; Ellington, 2003):

*ƒ More realistic or important problems.

*ƒ Exploration and sense-making with multiple representations.

*ƒ Development of flexible strategies.

* Mathematical meaning and concepts.

Modern ICTs not only handle arithmetic detail; they can also handle the detail of
graphing, transforming algebraic expressions, computing geometric properties, and
more.

Piaget discovered that children first develop ideas concretely and later progress to
abstractions (Piaget, 1970). In designing learning environments, it is often helpful to
apply this principle in reverse: to help students learn an abstract idea, provide them
with more tangible visualizations. For example, it is easier to see how the variable m in
f(x) = mx + c represents a rate of change when the function is graphed and students
can explore the connection between m and the gradient (slope) of the line (Roschelle
et al., 2007).

Although drawings on paper or on the teacher’s board can make ideas tangible, static
drawings often fail to convey math principles. For example, many students think a
triangle is an isosceles triangle if it looks like one and do not understand how to
establish the property formally. With an ICT-based geometry tool, students can grab
and drag a corner of a geometric construction of a triangle and see how it behaves
under transformations. Playing with this tangible image can prepare students to
understand the formal proof, which is much more abstract. Researchers have found
that when technology makes abstract ideas tangible, teachers can more easily
(Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999; Roschelle et al., 2001;diSessa, 2001):

ƒ * Build upon students’ prior knowledge and skills.

ƒ * Emphasize the connections among mathematical concepts.

ƒ * Connect abstractions to real-world settings.

ƒ * Address common misunderstandings.

ƒ * Introduce more advanced ideas.

As discussed in other research notes in the series, integrating technology into the
classroom can improve mathematics teaching. In addition, teachers can use
technology to introduce better mathematics (Roschelle et al., 2000). For example,
teachers can focus less on memorizing facts and performing routine calculations and
more on developing ideas, exploring consequences, justifying solutions, and
understanding connections – the real heart of mathematics (Heid, 1988). In addition,
teachers can introduce more advanced mathematical topics earlier. Both the
opportunity to teach math better and to teach better math should be considered in
school technology plans and teacher professional development.
REFERENCES

http://www.project2061.org/publications/sfaa/online/chap2.htm

Jackson, E. (2008) Mathematics anxiety in student teachers.Practitioner Research in

Higher Education Vol 2 (1): page 36-42

Karimi, A &Venkatesan, S. (2009) Mathematics Anxiety, Mathematics Performance

and Academic Hardiness in High School Students.International Journal of Education
and Science, 1(1): 33-37 (2009)

Lazarus, M. (1974).Mathephobia: Some personal speculations. National Elementary

Principal, 53, 16-22.

Lee, Queena N. (1995). Eureka. Anvil Publishing, Inc., 58-60

Ma, X. (1999).A meta-analysis of the relationship between anxiety toward mathematics

and achievement in mathematics.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30,
520–540

http://www.westeastinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/RONATO-S.-
BALLADO.pdf

Becker, H. J. (1994b). How exemplary computer-using teachers differ from other

teachers: Impli- cations for realizing the potential of com- puters in schools. Journal of
Research on Computing in Educa- tion, 26, 291-320.

Sweller, J., Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning, Cognitive
Science, 12, 257-285 (1988).

Means, B., & Haertel, G. (Eds.). (2004). Using technology evaluation to enhance
student learning. New York: Teachers College Press.

Piaget, J. (1970). Structuralism. New York: Basic Books.

2. Effect of homework activities and teaching strategies for mathematics topics

in achievement of college students in the Philippines

Many students said their homework burden led to sleep deprivation and other health
problems. The researchers asked students whether they experienced headaches,
exhaustion, sleep deprivation, weight loss, and stomach problems.

The researchers also found that spending too much time on homework meant that
students were not meeting their developmental needs or cultivating other critical life
skills. Students were more likely to forgo activities, stop seeing friends or family, and
not participate in hobbies. What’s more, many students felt forced or obligated to
choose homework over developing other talents or skills.

Many students said that they often do homework they see as "pointless" or "mindless" in
order to keep their grades up. To this, Pope argues that homework assignments should
have a purpose and benefit, and it should be designed to cultivate learning and
development.

Teachers should not abandon homework. Instead, they should improve its
instructional quality.
Homework has been a perennial topic of debate in education, and attitudes toward it
have been cyclical (Gill & Schlossman, 2000). Throughout the first few decades of the
20th century, educators commonly believed that homework helped create disciplined
minds. By 1940, growing concern that homework interfered with other home activities
sparked a reaction against it. This trend was reversed in the late 1950s when the
Soviets' launch of Sputnikled to concern that U.S. education lacked rigor; schools
viewed more rigorous homework as a partial solution to the problem. By 1980, the trend
had reversed again, with some learning theorists claiming that homework could be
detrimental to students' mental health. Since then, impassioned arguments for and
against homework have continued to proliferate.
We now stand at an interesting intersection in the evolution of the homework debate.
Arguments against homework are becoming louder and more popular, as evidenced by
several recent books as well as an editorial in Time magazine (Wallis, 2006) that
presented these arguments as truth without much discussion of alternative
perspectives. At the same time, a number of studies have provided growing evidence of
the usefulness of homework when employed effectively.
Homework is typically defined as any tasks “assigned to students by school teachers
that are meant to be carried out during nonschool hours” (Cooper, 1989a, p. 7). A
number of synthesis studies have been conducted on homework, spanning a broad
range of methodologies and levels of specificity (see fig. 1). Some are quite general and
mix the results from experimental studies with correlational studies.
The Case Against Homework
Although the research support for homework is compelling, the case against homework
is popular. The End of Homework: How Homework Disrupts Families, Overburdens
Children, and Limits Learning by Kralovec and Buell (2000), considered by many to be
the first high-profile attack on homework, asserted that homework contributes to a
corporate-style, competitive U.S. culture that overvalues work to the detriment of
personal and familial well-being. The authors focused particularly on the harm to
economically disadvantaged students, who are unintentionally penalized because their
environments often make it almost impossible to complete assignments at home. The
authors called for people to unite against homework and to lobby for an extended
school day instead.
A similar call for action came from Bennett and Kalish (2006) in The Case Against
Homework: How Homework Is Hurting Our Children and What We Can Do About It.
These authors criticized both the quantity and quality of homework. They provided
evidence that too much homework harms students' health and family time, and they
asserted that teachers are not well trained in how to assign homework. The authors
suggested that individuals and parent groups should insist that teachers reduce the
amount of homework, design more valuable assignments, and avoid homework
altogether over breaks and holidays.
In a third book, The Homework Myth: Why Our Kids Get Too Much of a Bad
Thing (2006a), Kohn took direct aim at the research on homework. In this book and in a
recent article in Phi Delta Kappan (2006b), he became quite personal in his
condemnation of researchers. For example, referring to Harris Cooper, the lead author
of the two leading meta-analyses on homework, Kohn noted,
A careful reading of Cooper's own studies . . . reveals further examples of his
determination to massage the numbers until they yield something—anything—on which
to construct a defense of homework for younger children. (2006a, p. 84)
He also attacked a section on homework in our book Classroom Instruction that
Works (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001).
Kohn concluded that research fails to demonstrate homework's effectiveness as an
instructional tool and recommended changing the “default state” from an expectation
that homework will be assigned to an expectation that homework will not be assigned.
According to Kohn, teachers should only assign homework when they can justify that
the assignments are “beneficial” (2006a, p. 166)—ideally involving students in activities
appropriate for the home, such as performing an experiment in the kitchen, cooking,
doing crossword puzzles with the family, watching good TV shows, or reading. Finally,
Kohn urged teachers to involve students in deciding what homework, and how much,
they should do.
Some of Kohn's recommendations have merit. For example, it makes good sense to
only assign homework that is beneficial to student learning instead of assigning
homework as a matter of policy. Many of those who conduct research on homework
explicitly or implicitly recommend this practice. However, his misunderstanding or
misrepresentation of the research sends the inaccurate message that research does not
support homework. As Figure 1 indicates, homework has decades of research
supporting its effective use. Kohn's allegations that researchers are trying to mislead
practitioners and the general public are unfounded and detract from a useful debate on
effective practice.1
The Dangers of Ignoring the Research
Certainly, inappropriate homework may produce little or no benefit—it may even
decrease student achievement. All three of the books criticizing homework provide
compelling anecdotes to this effect. Schools should strengthen their policies to ensure
that teachers use homework properly.
If a district or school discards homework altogether, however, it will be throwing away a
powerful instructional tool. Cooper and colleagues' (2006) comparison of homework with
no homework indicates that the average student in a class in which appropriate
homework was assigned would score 23 percentile points higher on tests of the
knowledge addressed in that class than the average student in a class in which
homework was not assigned.
Perhaps the most important advantage of homework is that it can enhance achievement
by extending learning beyond the school day. This characteristic is important because
U.S. students spend much less time studying academic content than students in other
 countries do. A 1994 report examined the amount of time U.S. students spend studying
core academic subjects compared with students in other countries that typically
outperform the United States academically, such as Japan, Germany, and France. The
study found that “students abroad are required to work on demanding subject matter at
least twice as long” as are U.S. students (National Education Commission on Time and
Learning, 1994, p. 25).
To drop the use of homework, then, a school or district would be obliged to identify a
practice that produces a similar effect within the confines of the school day without
taking away or diminishing the benefits of other academic activities—no easy
accomplishment. A better approach is to ensure that teachers use homework
effectively. To enact effective homework policies, however, schools and districts must
address the following issues.
Grade Level
Although teachers across the K–12 spectrum commonly assign homework, research
has produced no clear-cut consensus on the benefits of homework at the early
elementary grade levels. In his early meta-analysis, Cooper (1989a) reported the
following effect sizes (p. 71):
 Grades 4–6: ES = .15 (Percentile gain = 6)
 Grades 7–9: ES = .31 (Percentile gain = 12)
 Grades 10–12: ES = .64 (Percentile gain = 24)
The pattern clearly indicates that homework has smaller effects at lower grade levels.
Even so, Cooper (1989b) still recommended homework for elementary students
because
homework for young children should help them develop good study habits, foster
positive attitudes toward school, and communicate to students the idea that learning
takes work at home as well as at school. (p. 90)
The Cooper, Robinson, and Patall (2006) meta-analysis found the same pattern of
stronger relationships at the secondary level but also identified a number of studies at
grades 2, 3, and 4 demonstrating positive effects for homework. In The Battle over
Homework (2007), Cooper noted that homework should have different purposes at
different grade levels:
 For students in the earliest grades, it should foster positive attitudes, habits, and
character traits; permit appropriate parent involvement; and reinforce learning of simple
skills introduced in class.
 For students in upper elementary grades, it should play a more direct role in fostering
improved school achievement.
 In 6th grade and beyond, it should play an important role in improving standardized test
scores and grades.
Time Spent on Homework
One of the more contentious issues in the homework debate is the amount of time
students should spend on homework. The Cooper synthesis (1989a) reported that for
junior high school students, the benefits increased as time increased, up to 1 to 2 hours
of homework a night, and then decreased. The Cooper, Robinson, and Patall (2006)
study reported similar findings: 7 to 12 hours of homework per week produced the
 largest effect size for 12th grade students. The researchers suggested that for 12th
graders the optimum amount of homework might lie between 1.5 and 2.5 hours per
night, but they cautioned that no hard-and-fast rules are warranted. Still, researchers
have offered various recommendations. For example, Good and Brophy (2003)
cautioned that teachers must take care not to assign too much homework. They
suggested that
homework must be realistic in length and difficulty given the students' abilities to work
independently. Thus, 5 to 10 minutes per subject might be appropriate for 4th graders,
whereas 30 to 60 minutes might be appropriate for college-bound high school students.
(p. 394)
Cooper, Robinson, and Patall (2006) also issued a strong warning about too much
homework:
Even for these oldest students, too much homework may diminish its effectiveness or
even become counterproductive. (p 53)
Cooper (2007) suggested that research findings support the common “10-minute rule”
(p. 92), which states that all daily homework assignments combined should take about
as long to complete as 10 minutes multiplied by the student's grade level. He added that
when required reading is included as a type of homework, the 10-minute rule might be
increased to 15 minutes.
Focusing on the amount of time students spend on homework, however, may miss the
point. A significant proportion of the research on homework indicates that the positive
effects of homework relate to the amount of homework that the
student completes rather than the amount of time spent on homework or the amount of
homework actually assigned. Thus, simply assigning homework may not produce the
desired effect—in fact, ill-structured homework might even have a negative effect on
student achievement. Teachers must carefully plan and assign homework in a way that
maximizes the potential for student success (see Research-Based Homework
Guidelines).
Parent Involvement
Another question regarding homework is the extent to which schools should involve
parents. Some studies have reported minimal positive effects or even negative effects
for parental involvement. In addition, many parents report that they feel unprepared to
help their children with homework and that their efforts to help frequently cause stress
(see Balli, 1998; Corno, 1996; Hoover-Dempsey, Bassler, & Burow, 1995; Perkins &
Milgram, 1996).
Epstein and colleagues conducted a series of studies to identify the conditions under
which parental involvement enhances homework (Epstein, 2001; Epstein & Becker,
1982; Van Voorhis, 2003). They recommended interactive homework in which
 Parents receive clear guidelines spelling out their role.
 Teachers do not expect parents to act as experts regarding content or to attempt to
teach the content.
 Parents ask questions that help students clarify and summarize what they have
learned.
Good and Brophy (2003) provided the following recommendations regarding parent
involvement:
Especially useful for parent-child relations purposes are assignments calling for
students to show or explain their written work or other products completed at school to
their parents and get their reactions (Epstein, 2001; Epstein, Simon, & Salinas, 1997) or
to interview their parents to develop information about parental experiences or opinions
relating to topics studied in social studies (Alleman & Brophy, 1998). Such assignments
cause students and their parents or other family members to become engaged in
conversations that relate to the academic curriculum and thus extend the students'
learning. Furthermore, because these are likely to be genuine conversations rather than
more formally structured teaching/learning tasks, both parents and children are likely to
experience them as enjoyable rather than threatening. (p. 395)

Going Beyond the Research

Although research has established the overall viability of homework as a tool to
enhance student achievement, for the most part the research does not provide
recommendations that are specific enough to help busy practitioners. This is the nature
of research—it errs on the side of assuming that something does not work until
substantial evidence establishes that it does. The research community takes a long time
to formulate firm conclusions on the basis of research. Homework is a perfect example:
Figure 1 includes synthesis studies that go back as far as 60 years, yet all that research
translates to a handful of recommendations articulated at a very general level.
In addition, research in a specific area, such as homework, sometimes contradicts
research in related areas. For example, Cooper (2007) recommended on the basis of
60-plus years of homework research that teachers should not comment on or grade
every homework assignment. But practitioners might draw a different conclusion from
the research on providing feedback to students, which has found that providing
“feedback coupled with remediation” (Hattie, 1992) or feedback on “testlike events” in
the form of explanations to students (Bangert-Drowns, Kulik, Kulik, & Morgan, 1991)
positively affects achievement.
Riehl (2006) pointed out the similarity between education research and medical
research. She commented,
When reported in the popular media, medical research often appears as a blunt
instrument, able to obliterate skeptics or opponents by the force of its evidence and
arguments. . . . Yet repeated visits to the medical journals themselves can leave a much
different impression. The serious medical journals convey the sense that medical
research is an ongoing conversation and quest, punctuated occasionally by important
findings that can and should alter practice, but more often characterized by continuing
investigations. These investigations, taken cumulatively, can inform the work of
practitioners who are building their own local knowledge bases on medical care. (pp.
27–28)
If relying solely on research is problematic, what are busy practitioners to do? The
answer is certainly not to wait until research “proves” that a practice is effective. Instead,
educators should combine research-based generalizations, research from related
areas, and their own professional judgment based on firsthand experience to develop
specific practices and make adjustments as necessary. Like medical practitioners,
education practitioners must develop their own “local knowledge base” on homework
and all other aspects of teaching. Educators can develop the most effective practices by
observing changes in the achievement of the students with whom they work every day.

The amount of homework children bring home every day can be overwhelming. A 2004
University of Michigan study found that the amount of homework has increased 51
percent since 1981. While many educators use homework to supplement the material
learned in class, homework doesn't always improve academic performance, and a 2003
"Review of Educational Research" study found that the current way teachers assign
homework is not academically beneficial. Students who struggle with homework or who
get a large volume of homework each night can experience negative effects in their
family and social relationships

Time Constraints
Homework takes time away from other pursuits. Children who have a large quantity of
homework have less time to spend with their families and friends. According to the
textbook, "Child Psychology," regular social interaction plays a critical role in brain
development. Children who get plenty of opportunities to interact with friends and family
can gain valuable social, conflict management and impulse control skills. When
homework reduces this time, children's social development may suffer.

Family Stress
According to a 2004 study published in "Current Issues in Education," homework can
greatly increase family stress. Parents may spend an inordinate amount of time fighting
with their children over homework, enforcing homework rules and mastering concepts
they need to help their children excel. The study found that stress, frustration and
conflicts over homework are particularly pronounced in families with a child who is
struggling academically.

Less Active Learning

Active learning is learning that occurs in context and that encourages participation. For
example, a child who goes on a scavenger hunt with his friend and, upon seeing a frog,
decides to watch the frog and learn about its movement is engaged in active learning.
When homework takes children away from their friends and families, it decreases
opportunities for active learning. This can decrease opportunities for parents to be
involved in their children's education in a fun, mutually fulfilling way, and it reduces the
amount of time children have to engage in active learning with their friends.

Disrupted Routines
Many families have established routines, such as eating dinner at a certain time or
reading together before bed. These routines can increase closeness, make it easier to
manage stress and ensure that a household runs smoothly. The study in "Current
Issues In Education" found that homework can disrupt family routines. A child who has
several hours of homework, for example, might not be able to eat dinner with her
parents, and a parent might have to alter her schedule to help her child with homework.

Researchers at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina have reviewed more than 60
studies on homework between 1987 and 2003, and concluded that homework does
have a positive effect on student achievement.

Harris Cooper, a professor of psychology and director of Duke's Program in Education,

said the review that he led showed this positive link with homework was much stronger
for secondary students (grades 7 through 12) than those in elementary school. While it's
clear that homework is a critical part of the learning process, the research also showed
that too much homework can be counter-productive for students of any grade level.

Professor Cooper noted that the study was consistent with the "10 minute rule", a
commonly accepted practise in which teachers add 10 minutes of homework for each
grade a student completes. A grade 4 student, for example, would be expected to
complete 40 minutes of homework a night, while a senior-level high school student
would be expected to do about 2 hours. More than 2 hours of homework per evening
did not result in higher achievement for the student.

The study suggests a number of reasons why older students benefit more from
homework than younger students:

 younger children are less able than older children to tune out distractions in their
environment, and have yet to develop effective study habits.
 teachers perhaps use homework to help younger students develop better time
management and study skills, not to improve their achievement in specific
subjects.

To avoid homework "burn out", the amount and type of home studies should vary
according the individual child's developmental level and home circumstances. The
bottom line for the authors of the study is that kids should be doing homework. For
young students, the assignments should be short, able to be completed without much
struggle, occasionally involve parents and, when possible, use after-school activities
that kids enjoy, such as sports or high-interest reading.

Professor Cooper points out that there are limitations to current research on homework.
For instance, little research has been done to assess whether a student's race,
socioeconomic status or ability level affects the importance of homework in his or her
achievement.

This is Prof. Cooper's second synthesis of homework research. His first was published
in 1989 and covered nearly 120 studies in the 20 years before 1987. His recent paper
reconfirms many of the findings from the earlier study. Prof. Cooper is the author of
"The Battle over Homework: Common Ground for Administrators, Teachers, and
Parents" (Corwin Press, 2001)
REFERENCES

Alanne, N., & Macgregor, R. (2007). Homework:

The upsides and downsides – towards an effective
policy and practice in Australian schools
. Retrieved December 23, 2011, from
http://www.acsso.org.
au/homework.pdf
Blazer, C. (2009).
Literature Review: Homework
. Miami: Miami Dade County Public Schools. Retrieved
January 12, 2012, from
http://drs.dadeschools.net/LiteratureReviews/Homework.pdf
Borgonovi, F., Ikeda, M., Park, S. & Programme for International Student Assessment &
Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2011). Quality time for students: learning
in and out of
school. Paris: OECD
Canadian Council on Learning. (2009).
A systematic review of literature examining the impact of
homework on academic achievement
. Retrieved January 12, 2012, from
http://www.ccl-cca.ca/pdfs/
SystematicReviews/SystematicReview_HomeworkApril27-2009.pdf
Canadian Education Association, & Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University
of Toronto.
(CEO&OISE) (2010).
The Facts on Education: How Useful is Homework?
(2010). Retrieved January 13,
2012, from
http://www.cea-ace.ca/sites/cea-ace.ca/files/cea-2010-foe-homework.pdf
Cooper, H. (1989). Synthesis of Research in Homework,
Educational Leadership
, 47, 3, 85-91.
Cooper, H., & Valentine, J. (2001). Using research to answer practical questions about
homework.
Educational Psychologist
, 36, 143-153.
Cooper, H., Robinson, J., & Patall, E. (2006). Does homework improve academic
achievement? A
synthesis of research, 1987-2003.
Review of Educational Research
, 76, 1-62.
Dettmers, S., Trautwein, U., & Lüdtke, O. (2009). The relationship between homework
time and
achievement is not universal: Evidence from multilevel analyses in 40 countries.
School Effectiveness and
School Improvement
, 20,375-405. EJ861792
Dixon, N., Parliamentary Library. (2007).
Homework for the 21st century
. Brisbane: Research Publications
and Resources Section Queensland Parliamentary Library.
Eren, O., & Henderson, D. (2011). Are We Wasting Our Children’s Time by Giving them
More
Homework?”
Economics of Education Review
, 30, 950-961. IZA Discussion Paper 5547. Retrieved
January 13, 2012, from
http://www.unlv.edu/projects/RePEc/pdf/0907.pdf
Forster, K. (2000). Homework: A bridge too far?
Issues in Educational Research
, 10(1), 21-37
Moorman, C., & Haller, T. (2011).
Synthesis of Research Findings on Homework
. Retrieved January
12, 2012, from
http://www.janebluestein.com/articles/hw_research.html
. NSW Department of
Education. (1968). Handbook: Instructions and Information for the Guidance of
Teachers. Sydney:
Government Printer.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development & Programme for
International Student
Assessment. (2004).
Learning for tomorrow’s world: first results from PISA 2003
. Paris: OECD. Retrieved
January 13, 2012, from
http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/1/60/34002216.pdf
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2011). OECD
Economic Surveys: United
Kingdom. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved
January 13, 2012,
fromhttp://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/oecd-economic-surveys-united-kingdom-
2011_eco_surveys-gbr-2011-en
Patall, E., Cooper, H., & Robinson, J. (2008). Parent Involvement in Homework: A
Research Synthesis.
Review of Educational Research
, 78(4), 1039-110
3. What mathematical knowledge is needed for teaching mathematics of
architectural students?

The teachers, being the focal figure in education must be competent and
knowledgeable in order to impart the knowledge they could give to their students. Good
teaching is a very personal manner. Effective teaching is concerned with the students
as a person and with his general development. The teacher must recognize individual
differences among his/her students and adjust instructions that best suit to the
learners. It is always a fact that as educators, we play varied and vital roles in the
classroom. Teachers are considered the light in the classroom. We are entrusted with
so many responsibilities that range from the very simple to most complex and very
challenging job. Everyday we encounter them as part of the work or mission that we
are in. It is very necessary that we need to understand the need to be motivated in
doing our work well, so as to have motivated learners in the classroom. When students
are motivated, then learning would easily take place. However, motivating students to
learn requires a very challenging role on the part of the teacher. It requires a variety of
teaching styles or techniques just to capture students' interests. Above all, the teacher
must himself come into possession of adequate knowledge of the objectives and
standards of the curriculum, skills in teaching, interests, appreciation and ideals. He
needs to exert effort to lead children or students into a life that is large, full, stimulating
and satisfying. Some students seem naturally enthusiastic about learning, but many
need or expect their instructors or teachers to inspire, challenge or stimulate them.
"Effective learning in the classroom depends on the teacher's ability to maintain the
interest that brought students to the course in the first place (Erickson, 1978). Not all
students are motivated by the same values, needs, desires and wants. Some students
are motivated by the approval of others or by overcoming challenges.

Teachers must recognize the diversity and complexity in the classroom, be it the
ethnicity, gender, culture, language abilities and interests. Getting students to work
and learn in class in largely influenced in all these areas. Classroom diversity exists
not only among students and their peers but may be also exacerbated by language
and cultural differences between teachers and students.

Since 2003, many foreign professional teachers particularly from the Philippines came
in New York City to teach with a little knowledge of American school setting. Filipino
teachers have distinct styles and expressions of teaching. They expect that: education
is interactive and spontaneous; teachers and students work together in the teaching-
learning process; students learn through participation and interaction; homework is
only part of the process; teaching is an active process; students are not passive
learners; factual information is readily available; problem solving, creativity and critical
thinking are more important; teachers should facilitate and model problem solving;
students learn by being actively engaged in the process; teachers need to be
questioned and challenged. However, many Filipino teachers encountered many
difficulties in teaching NYC public schools. Some of these problems may be attributed
to: students' behavior such as attention deficiency, hyperactivity disorder, disrespect
among others; and language barrier such as accent and poor understanding of
language other than English (e.g. Spanish).As it has been said, what happens in the
classroom depends on teacher's ability to maintain student's interests. Thus, teachers
play a vital role in effecting classroom changes.

As stressed in the Educator's Diary published in 1995, "teaching takes place only when
learning does." Considering one's teaching style and how it affects students' motivation
greatly concerns the researchers. Although, we might think of other factors, however,
emphasis has been geared towards the effect of teacher's teaching style and student
motivation.

Research revealed that teachers in other countries receive more training in advanced
math topics as well as in practical ways to teach math that foster understanding, such
as how to ask students targeted questions. In Taiwan and South Korea, for example,
future teachers typically covered about 80 percent or more of advanced math topics in
their training, while those in Mexico and the U.S. covered less than 50 percent. The
training for U.S. teachers had a greater concentration on theoretical aspects, such as
the psychology of education.

“One of the most important characteristics of higher performance among students is that
math topics are ordered in a coherent way,” Schmidt says. “Because U.S. teachers
receive less education in math, they take a fragmented approach to the subject, so kids
may not see how different elements of math are connected to each other.”

In the lower levels, teacher’s math training can be even more limited. The average
elementary school teacher takes only 1.3 courses in math during their education. “Most
elementary teachers haven’t taken high levels of college math,” says Life LeGeros,
Massachusetts’ director of Statewide Mathematics Initiatives, who manages the Intel
Math program in that state. “Even in middle school, many teachers may only understand
mathematics from a procedural perspective, and may lack the conceptual knowledge
required to address the content deeply and in different ways.”

The quality of mathematics teaching depends on teachers’ knowledge of the subject

shouldnot be a surprise. Yet rarely do improvement efforts take this into account.
Equally unsurprisingis that many Filipino teachers lack sound mathematical
understanding and skill. This is unsurprisingbecause teachers –– like all other adults in
this country –– are graduates of the system we seekto improve. Their own opportunities
to learn mathematics have been uneven, and ofteninadequate, just like those of their
non-teaching peers.
Studies over the past 15 years have revealed over and over just how thin many
teachers’ knowledge is. Invisible in this research,however, is that the mathematical
knowledge of most American adults is as weak, and often weaker. We are simply failing
to reach reasonable standards of mathematical proficiency with
most of our students, and those students become our nation’s adults. And many
becometeachers, equipped with that same mathematics education. It is a big problem.
What is less obvious is the remedy.
The usual solution is to require teachers to study more mathematics. Many propose
additional coursework for teachers, and some argue that elementary teachers should be
specialists. But increasing the quantity of teachers’ mathematics coursework will only
improve the quality of mathematics teaching if teachers learn mathematics in ways that
make a difference for the skill
with which they are able to do their work. The goal is not to produce teachers who know
more mathematics. The goal is to improve students’ learning. Teachers’ opportunities to
learn must equip them with the mathematical knowledge and skill that will enable them
to teachmathematics effectively.We will miss the mark if we specify necessary
professional qualifications –– and the recommended education needed to attain those
qualifications –– based solely on the content of
the school curriculum. Teaching is a professional practice that demands knowledge and
skill beyond what is visible from an examination of the curriculum. An adequate portrait
of the mathematical knowledge needed for effective instruction depends on an analysis
of the work of teaching. What do teachers do with mathematics in the course of their
work? In what sorts of mathematical reasoning do they engage regularly? What kinds of
mathematical problems do they
regularly face? Without such examination of the mathematical demands of teaching,
ideas about what teachers need to know are likely to underestimate and misestimate
what is entailed. First, teachers need to know the same things that we would want any
educated member of our society to know, but much more. That “more” is not the more
of more conventional mathematics

Second, knowledge for teaching mathematics is different from the mathematical

knowledge needed for other mathematically-intensive occupations and professions. The
mathematical problems and challenges of teaching are not the same as those faced by
engineers, nurses, physicists, or astronauts. Interpreting someone else’s error,
representing ideas in multiple forms, developing alternative explanations, choosing a
usable definition –– these are all examples of the
problems that teachers must solve. These are genuine mathematical problems central
to the work of teaching.
And, third, the mathematical knowledge needed for teaching must be usable for those
mathematical problems. Mathematical knowledge for teaching must be serviceable for
the mathematical work that teaching entails, from offering clear explanations, to posing
good problems to students, to mapping across alternative models, to examining
instructional materialswith a keen and critical mathematical eye, to modifying or
correcting inaccurate or incorrect expositions.
The mathematical knowledge needed for teaching, even at the elementary level, is
not a watered-down version of “real” mathematics. Teaching mathematics is a serious
and demanding arena of mathematical work. The improvement of mathematics teaching
in this country depends on, among other things, the improvement of our understanding
of its mathematical nature and demands, and the provision of opportunities for
professionals to acquire
the appropriate mathematical knowledge and skill to do that work well.
This is no small order. Few mathematics courses offer opportunities to learn
mathematics in ways that would produce such knowledge. Even when teachers learn
more mathematics in carefully-designed courses and workshops, they do not
necessarily learn mathematics in ways they will need to use it in their work.
Teaching requires knowing more than this “fact.” Why is it
true? Teaching requires fluency with representations to recognize that, on one hand,
commutativity is far from obvious in terms of iterated addition: Why do 15 baskets of 27
apples contain the same number of apples as 27 baskets of 15 apples? On the other
hand, this property is easily shown in the rectangle model, first counting by rows, and
then by columns. Knowing the importance of these ideas and being able to make
strategic use of them in teaching is essential. Being interested in alternative methods is
another valuable mathematical disposition,
and the skills to inspect methods, to consider their potential for generalization, and to
have tools to do so, is another aspect of the mathematical knowledge needed for
teaching. Opportunities to learn to do these things are not a typical part of many
mathematics courses and workshops, often taught more just as other “regular”
mathematics courses are taught. Designing courses in
mathematical knowledge for teaching, helping instructors and professional
developersteach them well, and doing so at scale, will be no small task. But it must be
done. It will take the cooperation of people with different kinds of expertise including
mathematics as a discipline, mathematics as it arises in teaching and learning, and
mathematics as it is developed in curricular materials.
Moreover, ongoing research in this area is crucial. For example, knowledge and skill
with what domains and practices of mathematics topics and skills have high leverage for
teachers’ capacity to teach mathematics with integrity and effectiveness? How can
teachers be helped to learn mathematics in ways that are usable for teaching
mathematics? What is the impact of teachers’
knowledge on their effectiveness? How can curriculum materials support teachers’
learning of mathematics, and, conversely, what do teachers need to learn so that they
can use curriculum materials critically and skillfully?
Improving the mathematics learning of every child depends on making central the
learning opportunities of our teachers. Teachers cannot be expected to know or do what
they have not had opportunities to learn. This will require an deliberate and sustained
focus on identifying the mathematics knowledge needed for teaching mathematics, on
understanding its specific uses in teaching, and the careful development of well-
designed and taught courses and workshops,
materials and supports.

We must study alternative solutions to these issues, and compare their

effects, at scale, holding the goal of high quality effective mathematics instruction at the
center.

Professors should have enough knowledge of the following for teaching architecture.

Geometry
Geometry is the study of shapes and how they interact with each other, as well as how
the size of shapes relate in proportion to the space they take up. Because so much of
designing the angles, corners and lines of a building rely on an understanding of
shapes, geometry is a required course for any architectural degree. Students of
architecture are required to take basic geometry, as well as more focused geometry
courses, such as "The Anatomy of Buildings," required by the University of Illinois
Architectural Studies degree program. Architectural geometry courses also include
analytical geometry, which teaches how to create scale models and drawings of your
designs.

Trigonometry
Trigonometry is a specific type of mathematics that deals with the angles, sides and
corners of triangles. This branch of math is essential for architects because it teaches
how to include angles and corners in architectural designs. Like geometry, this course
enables an architect to draw buildings to scale, so that when they are constructed, they
are sturdy. For example, a clear understanding of trigonometry enables an architect to
properly design load-bearing walls in the right places in a building so it doesn't collapse.
Understanding trigonometry is also essential for designing weight-bearing foundations
that don't sink or crack. The study of trigonometry also enables you to actually draw
clear and concise designs so they can be used by construction workers as they turn
your design into a finished product.

Calculus
Calculus is the study of mathematical change. Architectural students are required to
take many calculus classes because they teach building design based on a series of
construction details, according to the College Board's "Book of Majors." More
specifically, students are required to take engineering calculus courses to learn how to
properly place electrical elements, ventilation and heating ducts, for example.

Finite Math
Finite math is the opposite of calculus in that it requires analytical thinking instead of a
focus on mathematical change. Architectural students take a series of finite math
courses to learn how to create mathematical models and calculate probability and
statistical equations. You'll also take linear programming, which teaches about the
relationship between a design and its construction, as well as its profit potential. Most
importantly, finite math courses teach you how to fit every element of your designs into
one cohesive product that can be turned into an actual structure.

Probability and Statistics

are two related but separate academic disciplines. Statistical analysis often uses
probability distributions, and the two topics are often studied together. However,
probability theory contains much that is mostly of mathematical interest and not directly
relevant to statistics. Moreover, many topics in statistics are independent of probability
theory
Linear Programming

is a method to achieve the best outcome (such as maximum profit or lowest cost) in a
mathematical model whose requirements are represented by linear relationships. Linear
programming is a special case of mathematical programming (mathematical
optimization).

More formally, linear programming is a technique for the optimization of a linear

objective function, subject to linear equality and linear inequality constraints. Its feasible
region is a convex polytope, which is a set defined as the intersection of finitely many
half spaces, each of which is defined by a linear inequality. Its objective function is a
real-valued affine function defined on this polyhedron. A linear programming algorithm
finds a point in the polyhedron where this function has the smallest (or largest) value if
such a point exists

REFERENCES

REFERENCES
[1] Albeverio, S., Sala, N., Note del corso di Matematica dell'Accademia
, Parti 1, 2, 3. Accademia di Architettura Mendrisio, 1999 - 2000.
[2] Boyer, C. History of Mathematics John Wiley, New York, 1968.
[3] Cromwell, P. R. Polyhedra Cambridge University Press, 1997.
[4] Dürer, A. Underweyssung der Messung mit de
m Zyrkel und Rychtscheyd. Nuremberg, 1525.
[5] Emmer, M. Art and Mathematics: The Platonic Solids.
Leonardo , Vol. 15 N0. 4, pp. 277 – 282, 1982.
[6] Fowler, D. The Mathematics of Plato’s Academy . Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1999.
[7] Francois Gabriel, ed.,
Beyond the Cube: The Architecture of Space Frames and Polyhedra John Wiley, New
York, 1997.
[8] Hart, G., Virtual Polyhedra The Encyclopedia of Polyhedra
. Resource available online: http://www.georgehart.com/
[9] Kepler, J. Harmonices Mundi Libri VLinz, 1619.
[10] MacGillavry, C. H. The Polyhedron in A.
Durer's 'Melancolia I': An Over 450 Years Old
Puzzle Solved ? Netherland Akad Wetensch. Proc.,1981.
http://www.kdietrich.com/thesis/d9a-
research/section%206%20mathematics/section%206-0%20mathematics.pdf
http://www.cecm.sfu.ca/~pborwein/pborwein_resources/Architecture.pdf
https://iiscn.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/nexus-iv-march_pp9-35.pdf