80 likes | 166 Views
Software Requirements for Interactive Mathematics Textbooks. Catherine Schell CSC 509 Winter 2005. Introduction. New phase of work on paper from 508 Goal for first phase: develop a set of requirements for interactive mathematics textbooks. I developed a set of goals
E N D
Software Requirements for Interactive Mathematics Textbooks Catherine Schell CSC 509 Winter 2005
Introduction • New phase of work on paper from 508 • Goal for first phase: develop a set of requirements for interactive mathematics textbooks. • I developed a set of goals • I translated several of the goals into requirements that could be refuted, measured, and tested • Goal for second phase: evaluate a computer algebra system and an interactive mathematics textbook using my set of goals.
Previous Work • Previous work: two approaches used are • Develop a set of requirements for IMT’s • Point out problems with other IMT’s and computer algebra systems (CAS’s), then describe a newly developed IMT that fixes those problems.
Previous Attempts to Develop a Set of Requirements • Two papers found that attempt to develop a set of requirements: • Robert Sinclair, “Interactive Mathematics Textbooks” ACM SIGPLAN Notices, February 2003 • Carol Scheftic,“Interactive Mathematics Texts: Ideas for Developers” Proceedings of the Maple Summer Workshop and Symposium on Mathematical Computation with Maple V: Ideas and Applications, June 28 – 30, 1993.
Previous Attempts to Develop a Set of Requirements cont’d • One paper presented a survey of CAS’s, and described some problems: • Norbert Kajler and Neil Soiffer, “A Survey of User Interfaces for Computer Algebra Systems” Journal of Symbolic Computation, 25 (1998). • Problems described were • Expressions are entered in a linear syntax. • Selecting and editing expressions, either using commands or a mouse, is problematic. • Expressions are not displayed well.
Open Problems • The requirements listed aren’t really requirements, since they are not refutable, measurable, or testable. • They are more accurately described as goals. • I was able to translate several of the goals into requirements
Evaluating an IMT and a CAS • These are the systems that I chose to evaluate: • LiveMath Maker (CAS) • ALEKS - Assessment and LEarning in Knowledge Spaces; IMT) • Reasons for choosing these systems: • Developed for algebra students • ALEKS is used in two lower-division math courses at Cal Poly • Free trial use • Evaluated them using the set of goals • I also evaluated IMT’s and CAS’s using the requirements I developed • Literature review
Conclusion • Hopefully this paper will serve as a basis for further work in IMT’s and CAS’s • More complete requirements • Better ideas for design of user interface