ZDM

, Volume 42, Issue 7, pp 683–695 | Cite as

Examining the didactic contract when handheld technology is permitted in the mathematics classroom

Original Article

Abstract

The use of mathematics analysis software (MAS) including handheld scientific and graphics calculators offers a range of pedagogical opportunities. Its use can support change in the didactic contract. MAS may become an alternative source of authority in the classroom empowering students to explore variation and regularity, manipulate simulations and link representations. Strategic use may support students to direct their own learning and explore mathematics, equipping them to share their findings with the teacher and the class with more confidence. This paper offers a framework for examining the impact of the use of MAS on the didactic contract. Lessons were observed in 12 grade 10 classes, with 12 different teachers new to MAS. MAS technology was used with a variety of didactic contracts, mostly traditional. The framework drew attention to many ways in which the teaching differed. Analysis of the didactic contract must consider both the teaching of mathematics and of technology skills, because these have different characteristics. In all classes, both teachers and students saw the teacher as having a responsibility to teach technology skills. Students saw technology skills as the main point of the lesson, but the teachers saw the lesson as primarily teaching mathematics—one of the mismatches which may need negotiation to adapt didactic contracts to teaching with MAS.

Keywords

Mathematics education Technology Didactic contract Computer algebra system Dynamic geometry 

References

  1. Aldon, G. (Ed.). (2009). La fonction de l’enseigne. Mathématiques dynamiques (pp. 46–68). Paris, France: Hachette Livre.Google Scholar
  2. Artigue, M. (2001). Learning mathematics in a CAS environment: The genesis of a reflection about instrumentation and the dialectics between technical and conceptual work. Paper presented at CAME 2001 symposium on communicating mathematics through computer algebra systems. Utrecht, The Netherlands. http://Itsn.mathstore.ac.uk/came/events/freudenthal, Accessed 13 March 2008.
  3. Ball, L., & Stacey, K. (2003). What should students record when solving problems with CAS? Reasons, information, the plan and some answers. In J. T. Fey, A. Cuoco, C. Kieran, L. Mullin, & R. M. Zbiek (Eds.), Computer algebra systems in secondary school mathematics education (pp. 289–303). Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  4. Ball, L., & Stacey, K. (2006). Coming to appreciate the pedagogical uses of CAS. In Proceedings of the 30th conference of the international group for psychology in mathematics education (Vol. 2, pp. 105–112). Prague: PME.Google Scholar
  5. Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berry, J. (1999). CAS as a mentor for the apprentice mathematician. Computer Algebra in Mathematics Education. Weizmann Institiute Israel. http://www.lkl.ac.uk/research/came/events/weizmann/CAME-Keynotes.pdf.
  7. Brousseau, G. (1997). In N. Balacheff, M. Cooper, R. Sutherland, & V. Warfield (Eds. & Trans.), Theory of didactical situations in mathematics : didactique des mathématiques (pp. 1970–1990). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Drijvers, P. (2005). Learning algebra in a computer algebra environment. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 11(3), 77–89.Google Scholar
  9. Drouhard, J.-P. (1997). Communication in the classroom with a CAS: The double didactic pyramid. In J. Berry, J. Monaghan, M. Kronfeller, & B. Kutzler (Eds.), The state of computer algebra in mathematics education (pp. 165–170). Lund, Sweden: Chartwell-Bratt.Google Scholar
  10. Etlinger, L. (1974). The electronic calculator: A new trend in school mathematics. Educational Technology, XIV(12), 43–45.Google Scholar
  11. Geiger, V. (2009). The master, servant, partner, extension-of-self framework in individual, small group and whole class contexts. In R. Hunter, B. Bicknell, & T. Burgess (Eds.), Crossing divides. Proceedings of the 32nd conference of the mathematics education research group of australasia (pp. 201–208). Palmerston North, NZ: MERGA.Google Scholar
  12. Guin, D & Trouche, L. (2002). Mastery by the teacher of the instrumental genesis in CAS environments: Necessity of instrumental orchestrations. In E. Schneider (Ed.), Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematic, 34(5), 204-211.Google Scholar
  13. Heid, M. K. (1988). Resequencing skills and concepts in applied calculus using the computer as a tool. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19(1), 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hersant, M., & Perrin-Glorian, M.-J. (2005). Characterization of an ordinary teaching practice with the help of the theory of didactic situations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 59, 113–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hoyles, C., Noss, R., & Kent, P. (2004). On the integration of digital technologies into mathematical classrooms. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9, 309–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Isoda, M., Stephens, M., Ohara, Y., & Miyakawa, T. (Eds.). (2007). Japanese lesson study in mathematics. Its impact, diversity and potential for educational improvements. Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific.Google Scholar
  17. Kieran, C., & Damboise, C. (2007). “How can we describe the relation between the factored form and the expanded form of these trinomials? We don’t even know if our paper and pencil factorizations are right”: The case for computer algebra systems (CAS) with weaker algebra students. In J. H. Woo, H. C. Lew, K. S. Park, & D. Y. Seo (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 3, pp. 105–112). Seoul: PME.Google Scholar
  18. Laborde, C., & Perrin-Glorian, M.-J. (2005). Teaching situations as object of research: Empirical studies within theoretical perspectives. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 59, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Monaghan, J. (2004). Teachers’ activities in technology-based mathematics lessons. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9, 327–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Norton, S., McRobbie, C., & Cooper, T. (2000). Exploring secondary mathematics teachers reasons for not using computers in their teaching: Five case studies. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(1), 87–109.Google Scholar
  21. Pierce, R., & Stacey, K. (2001a). Observations on students’ responses to learning in a CAS environment. Mathematical Education Research Journal, 3(1), 28–46.Google Scholar
  22. Pierce, R., & Stacey, K. (2001b). Reflections on the changing pedagogical use of computer algebra systems: Assistance for doing or learning mathematics. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 20(1), 141–163.Google Scholar
  23. Pierce, R., & Stacey, K. (2004). A framework for monitoring progress and planning teaching towards effective use of computer algebra systems. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9(1), 59–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pierce, R., & Stacey, K. (2010). Mapping pedagogical opportunities provided by mathematics analysis software. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning. doi:10.1007/s10758-010-9158-6.
  25. Prenksy, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ruthven, K., & Hennesey, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Stacey, K. (1997). Mathematics–What should we tell the children? The International Journal of Computer Algebra in Mathematics Education, 4(4), 387–390.Google Scholar
  28. Stacey, P., & Stacey, K. (1983). Upper school mathematics in the 21st century. In D. Blane (Ed.), The essentials of mathematics education (pp. 384–388). Melbourne, Australia: Mathematical Association of Victoria.Google Scholar
  29. Trouche, L. (2004). Managing the complexity of human/machine interactions in computerized learning environments: Guiding students’ command process through instrumental orchestrations. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9, 281–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Trouche, L. (2005). Instrumental genesis, individual and social aspects. In D. Guin, K. Ruthven, & L. Trouche (Eds.), The didactical challenge of symbolic calculators (pp. 197–230). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vincent, J. (2003). Year 8 students’ reasoning in a Cabri environment. In L. Bragg, C. Campbell, G. Herbert, & J. Mousley (Eds.), Mathematics education researching: Innovation, networking, opportunity. Proceedings of the 26th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 696–703). Sydney: MERGA.Google Scholar
  32. Wander, R., & Pierce, R. (2009). Marina’s fish shop: A mathematically- and technologically-rich lesson. Australian Mathematics Teacher, 65(2), 6–12.Google Scholar
  33. Warfield, V. (2006). Invitation to didactique. http://www.math.washington.edu/~warfield/Didactique.html, Accessed 15 September 2009.
  34. Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 390–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations