Abstract
We discuss the dual teaching roles of university mathematics tutors, as teachers and policy makers, in relation to the classroom implementation of technology while guided by departmental policies. The main contribution of this chapter is the exemplification of these roles in an undergraduate mathematics programme, called Mathematics Integrated with Computers and Applications (MICA), with systemic technology integration. The current classroom practices of tutors in one of the MICA core courses for mathematics majors and future teachers of mathematics are examined. The role of the tutors in this course is to carefully guide the students’ instrumental genesis of programming technology for the investigation of both mathematics concepts and conjectures, and real-world applications. Acting as a mentor, the tutor encourages students’ mathematical creativity as they design, program, and use their own interactive mathematics Exploratory Objects.
Keywords
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
In this chapter that focuses on teaching roles, the term ‘department’ will be used to denote a university administrative unit that has the responsibility to set curriculum, develop the department’s philosophy, etc., and the term ‘tutor’ will be used to denote a person who has a full-time position in the department, and is responsible for teaching university courses.
- 2.
CAS, dynamic geometry software, programming, discrete mathematics software, simulation software, and/or statistical analysis software; i.e., excluding communication technologies, such as emails, text editors, LaTeX, online fora, etc.
- 3.
Both the Object and a summary of the written report (based on the original report submitted as an assignment for the course) are accessible via a web site (Brock Math n.d.).
- 4.
This method had previously been covered in an Exploratory Object assignment.
- 5.
The web-version of Adam’s original EO contains only a static graph summarising this experiment due to the intense computations involved and the time required to produce the results.
- 6.
MICA III has now evolved into two one-term optional courses recommended in the applied mathematics stream.
- 7.
In 2012: three sections of MICA I, for a total of 80 students. In 2002: there were nine students in total enrolled in the course.
- 8.
- 9.
The survey question indicated, “Programming (Java, C++, Fortran, …)”.
- 10.
See footnote 3.
- 11.
See footnote 2.
References
Abrahamson, D., Berland, M., Shapiro, B., Unterman, J., & Wilensky, U. (2006). Leveraging epistemological diversity through computer-based argumentation in the domain of probability. For the Learning of Mathematics, 26(3), 19–45.
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(3), 245–274.
Assude, T. (2007). Teachers’ practices and degree of ICT integration. In D. Pitta- Pantazi & G. N. Philippou (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 1339–1348). Larnaka: Department of Education, University of Cyprus.
Ben-El-Mechaiekh, H., Buteau, C., & Ralph, W. (2007). MICA: A novel direction in undergraduate mathematics teaching. Canadian Mathematics Society Notes, 39(6), 9–11.
Brock Math. (n.d.). http://www.brocku.ca/mathematics-science/departments-and-centres/mathematics/undergraduate-programs/mica/student-learning-objects
Burtch, M. (2003). The evolution of conjecturing in a differential equations course. Retrieved from http://mcli.maricopa.edu/book/export/html/1024
Buteau, C., & Muller, E. (2006, December 3-8). Evolving technologies integrated into undergraduate mathematics education. In L. H. Son, N. Sinclair, J. B. Lagrange, & C. Hoyles (Eds.), Proceedings for the seventeenth ICMI study conference: Digital technologies and mathematics teaching and learning: Revisiting the terrain (8 pp.). Hanoi: Hanoi University of Technology (c42)[CD-ROM].
Buteau, C., & Muller, E. (2010). Student development process of designing and implementing exploratory and learning objects. Proceedings of the sixth conference of European Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 1111–1120). Lyon. Retrieved from http://www.inrp.fr/editions/editions-electroniques/cerme6/working-group-7
Buteau, C., Marshall, N., Jarvis, D., & Lavicza, Z. (2010b). Integrating computer algebra systems in post-secondary mathematics education: Preliminary results of a literature review. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 17(2), 57–68.
Buteau, C., Jarvis, D., & Lavicza, Z. (forthcoming). On the integration of computer algebra systems (CAS) by Canadian mathematicians: Results of a national survey. Accepted for publication in Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education.
Chae, S., & Tall, D. (2001). Construction of conceptual knowledge: The case of computer-aided exploration of period doubling. Research in Mathematics Education, 3(1), 199–209.
Dubinsky, E., & McDonald, M. (2002). APOS: A constructivist theory of learning. In D. Holton (Ed.), The teaching and learning of mathematics at university level: An ICMI study (pp. 275–282). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Dubinsky, E., & Tall, D. (1991). Advanced mathematical thinking and the computer. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 231–248). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Elliott, P. (1976). Programming – an integral part of an elementary mathematics methods course. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 7(4), 447–454.
Ervynck, G. (1991). Mathematical creativity. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 42–53). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Goos, M., & Cretchley, P. (2004). Teaching and learning mathematics with computers, the internet and multimedia. In B. Perry, G. Anthony, & C. Diezmann (Eds.), Research in mathematics education in Australasia 2000–2003 (pp. 151–174). Flaxton, Queensland, Australia: Post Pressed.
Goos, M., & Soury-Lavergne, S. (2010). Teachers and teaching: Theoretical perspectives and classroom implementation. In C. Hoyles & J.-B. Lagrange (Eds.), ICMI Study 17, technology revisited, ICMI study series (pp. 311–328). New York: Springer.
Gravemeijer, K. (1999). How emergent models may foster the constitution of formal mathematics. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 1(2), 155–177.
Halvorson, M. (2010). Microsoft Visual Basic 2010 step by step (p. 579). Washington, USA: Microsoft Press.
Healy, L., & Kynigos, C. (2010). Charting the microworld territory over time: Design and construction in mathematics education. ZDM, 42(1), 63–76. doi:10.1007/s11858-009-0193-5.
Holton, D. (Ed.). (2001). The teaching and learning of mathematics at university level (ICMI study series: New ICMI study series, Vol. 7, p. 560). Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Holton, D. (2005). Tertiary mathematics education for 2024. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 36(2–3), 305–316.
Howson, A. G., & Kahane, J. P. (Eds.). (1986). The influence of computers and informatics on mathematics and its teaching (ICMI study series, Vol. 1, p. 155). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hoyles, C., & Lagrange, J.-B. (Eds.). (2010). Mathematics education and technology – rethinking the terrain: The 17th ICMI study (p. 494). Springer: New York.
Jonassen, D. H. (1996). Computers in the classroom: Mindtools for critical thinking. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Jonassen, D. H. (2006). Modeling with technology: Mindtools for conceptual change (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Karian, Z. A. (Ed.). (1992). Symbolic computation in undergraduate mathematics education (MAA Notes, Vol. 24, p. 200). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
Keynes, H., & Olson, A. (2001). Professional development for changing undergraduate mathematics instruction. In D. Holton (Ed.), The teaching and learning of mathematics at the university level: An ICMI study (pp. 113–126). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
King, K., Hillel, J., & Artigue, M. (2001). Technology – a working group report. In D. Holton (Ed.), The teaching and learning of mathematics at university level: An ICMI study (pp. 349–356). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Kynigos, C. (2012). Constructionism: Theory learning or theory of design? Proceedings of the 12th International Congress on Mathematical Education (ICME 12), 8–15 July 2012, Seoul (Korea). 24 pp.
Lagrange, J. B., Artigue, M., Laborde, C., & Trouche, L. (2003). Technology and mathematics education: Multidimensional over- view of recent research and innovation. In F. K. S. Leung (Ed.), Second international handbook of mathematics education (Vol. 1, pp. 237–270). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Lavicza, Z. (2010). Integrating technology into mathematics teaching at the university level. ZDM, 42, 105–119.
Maplesoft. (n.d.). http://www.maplesoft.com/
Marshall, N. (2012a). Simulation and Brock University’s MICA Program – reflections of a graduate. In E. R. Muller, J-P. Villeneuve & P. Etchecopar (Eds.), Using simulation to develop students’ mathematical competencies – post secondary and teacher education, Proceedings of Canadian Mathematics Education Study Group/GCEDM 2011 meeting (pp. 59–76).
Marshall, N. (2012b). Contextualizing the learning activity of designing and experimenting with interactive, dynamic mathematics exploratory objects. Unpublished M.Sc. thesis, Brock University, St.Catharines.
Martinovic, D., Muller, E., & Buteau, C. (2013). Intelligent partnership with technology: Moving from a mathematics school curriculum to an undergraduate program. Computers in the Schools, 30(1–2), 76–101.
Mason, J. H. (2002). Mathematics teaching practice – a guide for university and college lecturers. Chichester: Horwood Publishing.
Mason, J., Burton, L., & Stacey, K. (1985). Thinking mathematically. Wokingham: Addison-Wesley.
Mathematical Association of America. (2004). In W. Barker et al. (Eds.), Undergraduate programs and courses in the mathematical sciences: CUPM curriculum guide. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
Mgombelo, J. R., Orzech, M., Poole, D., & René de Cotret, S. (2006). Report of the CMESG working group: Secondary mathematics teacher development (La formation des enseignants de mathématiques du secondaire). In L. Peter (Ed.), Proceedings of the annual meeting of Canadian Mathematics Education Study Group (CMESG), University of Calgary, Calgary
Microsoft Visual Studio. (n.d.). http://www.microsoft.com/visualstudio/fr-ca
Morselli, F. (2006). Use of examples in conjecturing and proving: An exploratory study. In Novotnà et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th conference of the international group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 185–192), Prague.
Muller, E., Buteau, C., Ralph, B., & Mgombelo, J. (2009). Learning mathematics through the design and implementation of Exploratory and Learning Objects. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 16(2), 63–73.
National Science Foundation. (1996). Shaping the future: New expectations for undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. Arlington: National Science Foundation.
Noss, R. (1999). Learning by design: Undergraduate scientists learning mathematics. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 30(3), 373–388.
Pea, R. D. (1987). Cognitive technologies for mathematics education. In A. H. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Cognitive science and mathematics education (pp. 89–122). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Profetto, A. (2005). Mandelbrot Set Exploratory Object. http://www.brocku.ca/mathematics/resources/learningtools/learningobjects/mathobjects/mandelbrot/executable/mainpage.swf
Ralph, B. (1999). Journey through Calculus. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole/Thomson Learning. (CD)
Ralph, B. (2001). Mathematics takes an exciting new direction with MICA program. Brock Teaching, 1(1), 1. Retrieved October 30, 2011 from http://www.brocku.ca/webfm_send/18483
Schurrer, A., & Mitchell, D. (1994). Technology and the mature department. Electronic Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Technology in Collegiate Mathematics. Retrieved June 29, 2012 from http://archives.math.utk.edu/ICTCM/VOL07/C002/paper.txt
Tall, D. (1991). Reflections. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 251–259). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Wilensky, U. (1995). Paradox, programming, and learning probability: A case study in a connected mathematics framework. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 14(2), 253–280.
Willis, S., & Kissane, B. (1989). Computer technology and teacher education in mathematics. In Department of employment, education and training, discipline review of teacher education in mathematics and science (Vol. 3, pp. 57–92). Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Publishing Service.
Wolfram Mathematica. (n.d.). http://www.wolfram.com/mathematica/
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Buteau, C., Muller, E. (2014). Teaching Roles in a Technology Intensive Core Undergraduate Mathematics Course. In: Clark-Wilson, A., Robutti, O., Sinclair, N. (eds) The Mathematics Teacher in the Digital Era. Mathematics Education in the Digital Era, vol 2. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4638-1_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4638-1_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-4637-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-4638-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)