Handheld graphing calculators (GCs) has been a frequently used technological tool in mathematics education for the last three decades since the instructional tools such as calculators, GCs, information and communication technologies and educational computer programs have been developed (Ersoy, 2001, 2005; Burrill et al., 2002; Kastberg & Leatham, 2005). Furthermore, GCs are accepted and proved to be the devices that provide opportunities in exploring, investigating and discovering mathematics (Hennessy et al., 2001; Özgün-Koca, 2009). Moreover, there is considerable number of studies which found evidence that technology use enhance students’ conceptual understanding of mathematics (Burrill et al., 2002; Doerr & Zangor, 2000; Özgün-Koca, 2009).
    Mathematics education should be integrated with advanced and interactive technological tools. Educational tools such as spreadsheets, GCs, dynamic graphing tools, computer algebra systems, dynamic statistical packages, data collection devices, and presentation software are considered as essential tools to be used in teaching and learning of mathematics (NCTM, 2000). New Turkish elementary and secondary mathematics curriculums emphasize technology use more than the previous curriculum (MEB, 2007).
    It is evident that teachers’ views on the use of handheld graphing technologies in teaching and learning mathematics influence their use of technology in mathematics classrooms (Brinkerhoff, 2006; Ersoy & Baki, 2004; Özgün-Koca, 2009; Thompson, 1992). Teachers’ views on the benefits of GCs develop according to their use of the tool (Doerr & Zangor, 2000) and teachers’ views about the roles of GCs would affect their use in mathematics classes (Özgün-Koca, 2010). In other words, teachers who gain experience with a GC more, believe its effectiveness on learning and construction of mathematical concepts more (Mason, 2010).
    In the present study, the purpose is to enable the participants identify exponential and logarithmic functions, and make connections between algebraic expressions of functions with visual representations. Transformation through multiple representations is specified in Turkish elementary mathematics curriculum (MEB, 2007) in the basic aims. It is apparent that teachers should be adequate in transforming mathematical representations in order to guide their students. Moreover, when students express mathematical concepts by using symbols, graphs, tables, real life situations and concrete models this will produce well-qualified learning (MEB, 2007).
    Research in the area of implementing GCs into mathematics education regarding the mathematical subjects in Turkish Mathematics Education Curriculum is very rare (Ersoy, 2000) when the worldwide studies are considered. Obtaining the views of prospective teachers about the process, by examining the needs, complains and advantages they express is believed to provide important data to improve the implementation of GCs in mathematics education. The present study aims to investigate the prospective mathematics teachers’ use of the GCs in mathematics, particularly in exponentials and logarithm. The following research questions guided this study:
a)    What benefits and constraints do prospective mathematics teachers face while working on exponential and logarithmic functions through using ClassPad 330?
b)    In which steps and for which reasons do prospective mathematics teachers use ClassPad 330 while working on exponential and logarithmic functions?

Brinkerhoff, J. (2006). Effects of a long-duration professional development academy on technology skills, computer self-efficacy, and technology integration beliefs and practices. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39, 22-43. Burrill, G., Allison, J., Breaux, G., Kastberg, S., Leatham, K. & Sanchez, W. (2002). Handheld graphing technology in secondary mathematics: Research findings and implications for classroom practice. Dallas, TX: Texas Instruments. Doerr, H. M. & Zangor, R. (2000). Creating meaning for and with the graphing calculator. Educational Studies in Mathematics. 41(2), 141-163. Ersoy, Y. (2005). Matematik eğitimini yenileme yönünde ileri hareketler-i: teknoloji destekli matematik öğretimi. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 4(2), 51-63. Hastings, N. B. and Reynolds, B., (1999). Workshop Calculus with Graphing Calculators, Volume 1, Springer-Verlag New York Hennessy, S., Fung, P. & Scanlon, E. (2001). The role of graphic calculator in mediating graphing activity. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 32, 267-290. Kastberg, S., & Leatham, K. (2005). Research on graphing calculators at the secondary level: Implications for mathematics teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 5(1), 25-37. Ministry of National Education – Head Council of Education and Morality. (2007). Elementary mathematics curriculum program and guide, Ankara: Management Office of Government Books. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics NCTM (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics, Reston, VA: Author. Özgün-Koca, A. S. (2010). Prospective teachers’ views on the use of calculators with Computer Algebra System in algebra instruction. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 13, 49-73. Özgün-Koca, A. S. (2009). The views of preservice teachers about the strengths and limitations of the use of graphing calculators in mathematics instruction. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17(2), 203-227.