Abstract
This chapter examines the appropriation of digital resources into the mainstream practice of secondary-school mathematics teaching, taking the particular example of dynamic geometry to illustrate this process. It highlights some crucial but often overlooked facets of the changes in teaching practice and teacher knowledge that accompany the constitution of digital tools and materials as classroom resources. First, the chapter demonstrates the interpretative flexibility surrounding a resource and the way in which wider educational orientations influence conceptions of its use. It does so by showing how such conceptions of dynamic geometry have shifted between pioneering advocates and mainstream adopters; and how these conceptions vary across such adopters according to their wider approaches to teaching mathematics. Second, the chapter outlines a conceptual framework intended to make visible and analysable the way in which certain structuring features shape the incorporation of new technologies into classroom practice. This conceptual framework is then used to examine the case of a teacher leading what – for him – is an innovative lesson involving dynamic geometry, and specifically to identify how his professional knowledge is being adapted and extended. This shows how the effective integration of new technologies into everyday teaching depends on a more fundamental and wide-ranging adaptation and extension of teachers’ professional knowledge than has generally been appreciated.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Abboud-Blanchard, M., Cazes, C., & Vandebrouck, F. (2007). Teachers’ activity in exercises-based lessons. Some case studies. In D. Pitta-Pantazi & G. Philippou (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 1826–1836). Larnaca, Cyprus: CERME-5. Retrieved 31, January, 2011, from http://ermeweb.free.fr/CERME5b/WG9.pdf
Amarel, M. (1983). Classrooms and computers as instructional settings. Theory into Practice, 22, 260–266.
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 Mathematical Learning, 7(3), 245–274.
Arzarello, F., Olivero, F., Paola, D., & Robutti, O. (2002). A cognitive analysis of dragging practises in Cabri environments. Zentralblatt fur Didaktik der Mathematik [now known as ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education], 34(3), 66–72.
Assude, T. (2005). Time management in the work economy of a class. A case study: Integration of Cabri in primary school mathematics teaching. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 59(2), 183–203.
Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is –or might be– the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform. Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6–8 & 14.
Bauer, J., & Kenton, J. (2005). Towards technology integration in schools: Why it isn’t happening. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 519–546.
Becker, H., Ravitz, J., & Wong, Y. (1999). Teacher and teacher-directed student use of computers, teaching, learning, and computing: 1998 National Survey Report #3. Centre for Research on Information Technology and Organizations. California: University of California Irvine. Retrieved 31, January, 2011, from http://www.crito.uci.edu/TLC/FINDINGS/.../REPORT_3_PDF_REV.PDF
Brown, S., & McIntyre, D. (1993). Making sense of teaching. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Bueno-Ravel, L., & Gueudet, G. (2007). Online resources in mathematics: Teachers’ genesis of use. In D. Pitta-Pantazi & G. Philippou (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 1369–1378). Larnaca, Cyprus: CERME-5. Retrieved 31, January, 2011, from http://ermeweb.free.fr/CERME5b/WG9.pdf
Burns, R. B., & Anderson, L. W. (1987). The activity structure of lesson segments. Curriculum Inquiry, 17(1), 31–53.
Burns, R. B., & Lash, A. A. (1986). A comparison of activity structures during basic skills and problem-solving instruction in seventh-grade mathematics. American Educational Research Journal, 23(3), 393–414.
Chazan, D., & Yerushalmy, M. (1998). Charting a course for secondary geometry. In R. Lehrer & D. Chazan (Eds.), New directions in the teaching and learning of geometry. (pp. 67–90). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 255–296). New York: Macmillan.
Crisan, C., Lerman, S., & Winbourne, P. (2007). Mathematics and ICT: A framework for conceptualising secondary school teachers’ classroom practices. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 16(2), 21–39.
Hoyles, C., Foxman, D., & Küchemann, D. (2001). A comparative study of geometry curricula. London: Institute of Education.
Jenson, J., & Rose, C. B. (2006). Finding space for technology: Pedagogical observations on the organization of computers in school environments. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 32(1). Retrieved 31, January, 2011, from http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/59/56
Jewitt, C., Moss, G., & Cardini, A. (2007). Pace, interactivity and multimodality in teachers’ design of texts for interactive whiteboards in the secondary school classroom. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 303–317.
Laborde, C. (2001). Integration of technology in the design of geometry tasks with Cabri-Geometry. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6(3), 283–317.
Lagrange, J.-B. (2008). ‘Ordinary’ teachers using technology: Concerns, theoretical approaches, case studies. Regular lecture at ICME-11. Abstract accessed on 31, January, 2011, at http://icme11.org/node/1441
Leinhardt, G. (1988). Situated knowledge and expertise in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Teachers’ professional learning (pp. 146–168). London: Falmer.
Leinhardt, G., Putnam T., Stein, M. K., & Baxter, J. (1991). Where subject knowledge matters. Advances in Research in Teaching, 2, 87–113.
Leinhardt, G., Weidman, C., & Hammond, K. M. (1987). Introduction and integration of classroom routines by expert teachers. Curriculum Inquiry, 17(2), 135–176.
MacKenzie, D., & Wajcman, J. (Eds.). (1999). The social shaping of technology (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Miller, D., & Glover, D. (2006). Interactive whiteboard evaluation for the Secondary National Strategy: Developing the use of interactive whiteboards in mathematics: Final report. Keele: Keele University. Retrieved 31, January, 2011, from http://nationalstrategies.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/node/96272
Monaghan, J. (2004). Teachers’ activities in technology-based mathematics lessons. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9, 327–357.
Morgan, C. (1990). Carry on SMILEing. Micromath, 6(3), 14–15.
Olive, J. (2002). Implications of using dynamic geometry technology for teaching and learning. In M. Saraiv, J. Matos, & I. Coelho (Eds.), Ensino e Aprendizagem de Geometria. Lisbon, Portugal: SPCE. Retrieved 31, January, 2011, from http://www.spce.org.pt/sem/JO.pdf
Remillard, J. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75, 211–246.
Ruthven, K. (2002). Instrumenting mathematical activity: Reflections on key studies of the educational use of computer algebra systems. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 7(3), 275–291.
Ruthven, K. (2009). Towards a naturalistic conceptualisation of technology integration in classroom practice: The example of school mathematics. Education & Didactique, 3(1), 131–149.
Ruthven, K. (2010). Constituer les outils et les supports numériques en ressources pour la classe. In G. Gueudet & L. Trouche (Eds.), Ressources vives, le travail documentaire des professeurs en mathématiques (pp. 183–199). Rennes, France: Presses Universitaires de Rennes/Institut National de Recherche Pédagogique.
Ruthven, K., Deaney, R., & Hennessy, S. (2009). Using graphing software to teach about algebraic forms: A study of technology-supported practice in secondary-school mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 71(3), 279–297.
Ruthven, K., & Hennessy, S. (2002). A practitioner model of the use of computer-based tools and resources to support mathematics teaching and learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49(1), 47–88.
Ruthven, K., Hennessy, S., & Deaney, R. (2005). Incorporating Internet resources into classroom practice: Pedagogical perspectives and strategies of secondary-school subject teachers. Computers and Education, 44(1), 1–34.
Ruthven, K., Hennessy, S., & Deaney, R. (2008). Constructions of dynamic geometry: A study of the interpretative flexibility of educational software in classroom practice. Computers and Education, 51(1), 297–317.
Scher, D. (2000). Lifting the curtain: The evolution of the Geometer’s Sketchpad. The Mathematics Educator, 10(1), 42–48.
Smerdon, B., Cronen, S., Lanahan, L., Anderson, J., Iannotti, N., Angeles, J., et al. (2000). Teachers’ tools for the 21st century: A report on teachers’ use of technology. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved 31, January, 2011, from nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/2000102.pdf
Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431.
Trouche, L. (2005). Instrumental genesis, individual and social aspects. In D. Guin, K. Ruthven, & L. Trouche (Eds.), The didactical challenge of symbolic calculators: Turning a computational device into a mathematical instrument (pp. 197–230). New York: Springer.
Williams, R., & Edge, D. (1996). The social shaping of information and communications technologies. Research Policy, 25(6), 856–899.
Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458–477.
Zucker, A., & McGhee, R. (2005). A study of one-to-one computer use in mathematics and science instruction at the secondary level in Henrico County public schools. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved 31, January, 2011, from ubiqcomputing.org/FinalReport.pdf
Acknowledgements
Particular thanks are due to the teacher colleague featured in the case study; to Rosemary Deaney who carried out the fieldwork for it; and to the UK Economic and Social Research Council which funded the associated research project. This chapter draws on and develops ideas and material from two earlier publications (Ruthven, 2009, 2010). These publications drew, in turn, on papers discussed at the CERME conferences in 2007 and 2009, in the RME and TACTL SIGs at the AERA conference in 2009, and at the CAL conference in 2009.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ruthven, K. (2011). Constituting Digital Tools and Materials as Classroom Resources: The Example of Dynamic Geometry. In: Gueudet, G., Pepin, B., Trouche, L. (eds) From Text to 'Lived' Resources. Mathematics Teacher Education, vol 7. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1966-8_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1966-8_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-1965-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-1966-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)