Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Inscription, Translation and Re-Inscription of Technology for Mathematical Learning

  • Published:
Technology, Knowledge and Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Seeking to contribute to our understanding of the role of educational technology in mathematical learning, this paper takes a socio-genetic approach to tracing the ways technology becomes part of classroom mathematical activity. It illuminates the reflexive processes of inscription, translation and re-inscription as technologies evolve by examining the development and classroom use of Texas Instruments’ TI-Nspire™. To investigate the development and use of TI-Nspire, research from the field of Science and Technology Studies is drawn on that provides insights into the relationship between development, technology, and users while avoiding essentialist positions that obscure either technological or human aspects of the relationship. The findings show that rather than being a linear process where the technology is passed from developer to teacher to student, the development and use of TI-Nspire involves multiple feedback loops with constant reconfiguration. These loops occur at several levels as teachers and students integrate the technology into their mathematical activity and these reconfigurations feed into new versions of the technology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akrich, M. (1992). The description of technical objects. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 205–224). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akrich, M. (1995). User representations: Practices, methods and sociology. In A. Rip & T. Misa (Eds.), Managing technology: The approach of constructive technology assessment (pp. 167–184). New York: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akrich, M., & Latour, B. (1992). A summary of a convenient vocabulary for the semiotics of human and nonhuman assemblies. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/Building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 259–264). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Artigue, M. (2002). Learning mathematics in a CAS environment: The genesis of a reflection about instrumentation and the dialectics between technical and conceptual work. International Journal of Computers for Mathematics Learning, 7, 245–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baulac, Bellermain, & Laborde, J.-M. (1988). Cabri-Géomètre [Computer software]. Grenoble: Cabrilog.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bijker, W. E. (1997). Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieuc bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge? (pp. 196–223). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clements, D., Battista, M., & Sarama, J. (2001). Logo and geometry: JRME monograph number 10. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, M. (2004). User stories applied: For agile software development. Boston: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Confrey, J., Hoyles, C., Jones, D., Kahn, K., Maloney, A. P., Nguyen, K. H., et al. (2010). Designing software for mathematical engagement through modeling. In C. Hoyles & J.-B. Lagrange (Eds.), Mathematics education and technology: Rethinking the terrain (pp. 19–45). Boston, MA: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2007). Designerly ways of knowing. Basel: Birkhäuser.

    Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. (2001). Changing minds: Computers, learning, and literacy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorst, K., & Dijkhuis, J. (1995). Comparing paradigms for describing design activity. Design Studies, 16, 261–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drijvers, P. (2000). Students encountering obstacles using CAS. International Journal of Computers for Mathematics Learning, 5(3), 189–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ernest, P. (1999). Forms of knowledge in mathematics and mathematics education: Philosophical and rhetorical perspectives. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 38, 67–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fenwick, T., & Edwards, R. (2010). Actor-network theory in education. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrio, T., Phipps, A., & Schaar, R. (1997). Building a breakthrough business concept. TI Technical Journal 26–32.

  • Goldenberg, E., Scher, D., & Feurzeig, N. (2008). What lies behind dynamic interactive geometry software? In K. Heid & G. Blume (Eds.), Research on technology and the teaching and learning of mathematics: Vol. 2. Cases and perspectives (pp. 53–87). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Häkkinen, P. (2002). Challenges for design of computer-based learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(4), 461–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamrick, K. (1996). The history of the hand-held electronic calculator. The American Mathematical Monthly, 103(8), 633–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (2001). Software tools for geometrical problem solving: Potentials and pitfalls. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6, 235–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hegedus, S., & Moreno-Armella, L. (2010). Accomodating the instrumental genesis framework within dynamic technological environments. For the Learning of Mathematics, 30(1), 26–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heid, M., & Edwards, M. (2001). Computer algebra systems: Revolution or retrofit for today’s mathematics classrooms? Theory Into Practice, 40(2), 128–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (2003). What can digital technologies take from and bring research in mathematics education? In A. Bishop, M. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & F. Leung (Eds.), Second international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 323–349). Dordrecht: Kulwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jackiw, N. (1988). The geometer’s sketchpad [Computer software]. Emoryville, CA: Key Curriculum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J. (1998). Mixing humans and nonhumans together: The sociology of a door-closer. Social Problems, 35(3), 298–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kidwell, P., Ackerberg-Hastings, A., & Roberts, D. (2008). Tools of American mathematics teaching, 1800–2000. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kieran, C., & Yerushalmy, M. (2006). Research on the role of technological environments in algebra learning and teaching. In K. Stacey, H. Chick, & M. Kendal (Eds.), The future of the teaching and learning of algebra: The 12th ICMI study (pp. 97–152). London: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laborde, C., & Laborde, J.-M. (2008). The development of a dynamical geometry environment: Cabri-géomètre. In G. Blume & M. K. Heid (Eds.), Research on Technology in the Learning and Teaching of Mathematic, Vol. 2. Cases and Perspectives (pp. 31–52). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lagrange, J.-B. (1999). Complex calculators in the classroom: Theoretical and practical reflections on teaching pre-calculus. International Journal of Computers for Mathematics Learning, 4(1), 51–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1996). Aramis or the love of technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (2007). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Law, J. (1992). Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity. Systems Practice, 5(4), 379–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Law, J., & Mol, A. (2001). Situating technoscience: An inquiry into spatialities. Society and Space, 19, 609–621.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindsay, C. (2005). From the shadows: Users as designers, producers, marketers, distributors, and technical support. In N. Oudshoorn & T. Pinch (Eds.), How users matter: The co-construction of users and technology (pp. 29–50). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mavrou, K., Douglas, G., & Lewis, A. (2007). The use of Transana as a video analysis tool in researching computer-based collaborative learning in inclusive classrooms in Cyprus. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 30(2), 163–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meira, L. (1998). Making sense of instructional devices: The emergence of transparency in mathematical activity. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(2), 121–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monochristou, V., & Vlachpoulou, M. (2007). Requirements specification using user stories. In I. Stamelos & P. Sfetsos (Eds.), Agile software development quality assurance. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noss, R., Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (1997). The construction of mathematical meanings: Connecting the visual with the symbolic. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 33, 203–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oudshoorn, N., & Pinch, T. (2005). How users matter: The co-construction of users and technology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J. (1990). Designing for conversations. In: Proceedings from the AAAI symposium on Computer Based Environments for Learning and Teaching, Stanford, CA.

  • Roschelle, J., & Jackiw, N. (1999). Technology design as educational research: Interweaving imagination, inquiry, and impact. In A. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 777–798). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J., Kaput, J., Stroup, W., & Kahn, T. M. (1998). Scalable integration of educational software: exploring the promise of component architectures. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 98(6), 1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer, D., & Clinton, K. (2006). Toolforthoughts: Reexamining thinking in the digital age. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 13(4), 283–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. (1992). Sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, E. (2007). STS goes to school: Spatial imaginaries of technology, knowledge and presence. Critical Social Studies, 2, 15–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • SRI International. (2006). TI-Nspire math and science learning handhelds: What research says and what educators can do. Retrived from http://www.education.ti.com/sites/US/downloads/pdf/research_nspire_handhelds.pdf.

  • Suchman, L. (2007). Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tatar, D., Lin, S., & Dickey, M. (2005). Visualizing handheld-based classroom activity. In Proceedings of the 2005 International Symposium on Collaborative Technologies and Systems (pp. 313–320). St. Louis: IEEE.

  • Trouche, L., & Drijvers, P. (2010). Handheld technology for mathematics education: Flashback into the future. ZDM, doi:10.1007/s11858-010-0269-2.

  • Verillon, P., & Rabardel, P. (1995). Cognition and artifacts: a contribution to the study of though in relation to instrumented activity. European journal of psychology of education, 10(1), 77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language (revised ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woods, D., & Fassnacht, C. (2009). Transana v2.41. Madison, WI: The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yaneva, A. (2009). Making the social hold: Towards an actor-network theory of design. Design and Culture, 1(3), 273–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Education, Communication and Learning, University of Gothenburg, PO Box 300, 405 30, Gothenburg, Sweden

    Thomas Hillman

Authors
  1. Thomas Hillman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Hillman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hillman, T. The Inscription, Translation and Re-Inscription of Technology for Mathematical Learning. Tech Know Learn 16, 103–124 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-011-9182-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-011-9182-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation