Advertisement

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

  • Thomas Hillman
Article
First Online:

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.

Keywords

Educational technology development Technology for mathematical learning Mathematics education Science and Technology Studies Actor-network theory 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baulac, Bellermain, & Laborde, J.-M. (1988). Cabri-Géomètre [Computer software]. Grenoble: Cabrilog.Google Scholar
  6. Bijker, W. E. (1997). Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Clements, D., Battista, M., & Sarama, J. (2001). Logo and geometry: JRME monograph number 10. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, M. (2004). User stories applied: For agile software development. Boston: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Cross, N. (2007). Designerly ways of knowing. Basel: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
  12. diSessa, A. (2001). Changing minds: Computers, learning, and literacy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Dorst, K., & Dijkhuis, J. (1995). Comparing paradigms for describing design activity. Design Studies, 16, 261–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Drijvers, P. (2000). Students encountering obstacles using CAS. International Journal of Computers for Mathematics Learning, 5(3), 189–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ernest, P. (1999). Forms of knowledge in mathematics and mathematics education: Philosophical and rhetorical perspectives. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 38, 67–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fenwick, T., & Edwards, R. (2010). Actor-network theory in education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Ferrio, T., Phipps, A., & Schaar, R. (1997). Building a breakthrough business concept. TI Technical Journal 26–32.Google Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Häkkinen, P. (2002). Challenges for design of computer-based learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(4), 461–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hamrick, K. (1996). The history of the hand-held electronic calculator. The American Mathematical Monthly, 103(8), 633–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (2001). Software tools for geometrical problem solving: Potentials and pitfalls. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6, 235–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Heid, M., & Edwards, M. (2001). Computer algebra systems: Revolution or retrofit for today’s mathematics classrooms? Theory Into Practice, 40(2), 128–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jackiw, N. (1988). The geometer’s sketchpad [Computer software]. Emoryville, CA: Key Curriculum Press.Google Scholar
  26. Johnson, J. (1998). Mixing humans and nonhumans together: The sociology of a door-closer. Social Problems, 35(3), 298–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jonassen, D. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kidwell, P., Ackerberg-Hastings, A., & Roberts, D. (2008). Tools of American mathematics teaching, 1800–2000. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Latour, B. (1996). Aramis or the love of technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Latour, B. (2007). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Law, J. (1992). Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity. Systems Practice, 5(4), 379–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Law, J., & Mol, A. (2001). Situating technoscience: An inquiry into spatialities. Society and Space, 19, 609–621.Google Scholar
  36. 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
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Oudshoorn, N., & Pinch, T. (2005). How users matter: The co-construction of users and technology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  42. Roschelle, J. (1990). Designing for conversations. In: Proceedings from the AAAI symposium on Computer Based Environments for Learning and Teaching, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  43. 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
  44. 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
  45. Shaffer, D., & Clinton, K. (2006). Toolforthoughts: Reexamining thinking in the digital age. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 13(4), 283–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Simon, H. (1992). Sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  47. Sørensen, E. (2007). STS goes to school: Spatial imaginaries of technology, knowledge and presence. Critical Social Studies, 2, 15–27.Google Scholar
  48. 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.
  49. Suchman, L. (2007). Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. 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.Google Scholar
  51. Trouche, L., & Drijvers, P. (2010). Handheld technology for mathematics education: Flashback into the future. ZDM, doi: 10.1007/s11858-010-0269-2.
  52. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language (revised ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  55. Woods, D., & Fassnacht, C. (2009). Transana v2.41. Madison, WI: The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System.Google Scholar
  56. Yaneva, A. (2009). Making the social hold: Towards an actor-network theory of design. Design and Culture, 1(3), 273–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Education, Communication and LearningUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options