Advertisement

ZDM

, Volume 42, Issue 7, pp 747–761 | Cite as

Emergent pedagogies and the changing role of the teacher in the TI-Nspire Navigator-networked mathematics classroom

  • Alison Clark-WilsonEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

It is generally accepted that the introduction of networked technologies to the mathematics classroom can stimulate an irreversible change within the classroom concerning: the role of the teacher; the nature of the classroom tasks; and the way in which students engage in the process of learning mathematics. This article will use the context of a classroom-based study into teachers’ developing practices with the TI-Nspire Navigator-networked system of handhelds to explore the nature of these practices and the implications for the mathematics classroom. The emergence of a range of formative assessment practices is described and the implication of these practices on desirable learning opportunities (as described by the teachers themselves) is discussed.

Keywords

Networked handheld technology Teacher development Formative assessment Mathematics 

References

  1. Artigue, M. (1998). Teacher training as a key issue for the integration of computer technologies. In D. Tinsley & D. Johnson (Eds.), Proceedings of the IFIP TC3/WG3.1 working conference on secondary school mathematics in the world of communication technology: Learning, teaching, and the curriculum: Information and communications technologies in school mathematics (Vol. 119, pp. 121–130). London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blume, G., & Heid, K. (Eds.). (2008). Research on technology in the learning and teaching of mathematics: Syntheses, cases and perspectives. Cases and perspectives (Vol. 2). Charlotte: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics/Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  5. Burrill, G. (2002). Handheld graphing technology in secondary mathematics: Research findings and implications for classroom practice. Michigan, US: Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  6. Center for Technology in Learning. (2008). How does classroom use of TI-Nspire and the TI-Nspire Navigator system enhance student engagement, collaboration and learning? Research note 13. California, US: SRI International.Google Scholar
  7. Clark-Wilson, A. (2008). Evaluating TI-Nspire™ in secondary mathematics classrooms: Research report. Chichester: University of Chichester.Google Scholar
  8. Diem Pham Thi, N., Iksal, S., Choquet, C., & Klinger, E. (2009). UTL-CL: A declarative calculation language proposal for a learning tracks analysis process. In I. Sebastien, C. Christophe, & K. Evelyne (Eds.), 2009 Ninth IEEE international conference on advanced learning technologies (pp. 681–685). Riga: Latvia.Google Scholar
  9. Doerr, H., & Zangor, R. (2000). Creating meaning for and with the graphing calculator. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 41, 143–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dougherty, B. (2005). TI-Navigator™ technology and algebra I. Curriculum Research and Development Group, University of Hawaii.Google Scholar
  11. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York, NY: Aldine.Google Scholar
  12. Guin, D., & Trouche, L. (1999). The complex process of converting tools into mathematical instruments: The case of calculators. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 3(3), 195–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Guin, D., & Trouche, L. (2002). Mastering by the teacher of the instrumental genesis in CAS environments: Necessity of instrumental orchestrations. ZDM, 34(5), 204–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Wearne, D., Murray, H., et al. (1997). Making sense: Teaching and learning mathematics with understanding. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  15. Hivon, L., Pean, M., & Trouche, L. (2008). From a network of calculators to collaborative knowledge construction in the class. Repères-IREM, 72, 79–102.Google Scholar
  16. Hoyles, C., & Lagrange, J. B. (Eds.). (2009). Mathematics education and technology—rethinking the terrain: The 17th ICMI Study. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Hoyles, C., Noss, R., & Kent, P. (2004). On the integration of digital technologies into mathematics classrooms. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9(3), 309–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Laborde, C. (2001). Integration of technology in the design of geometry tasks with cabri-geometry. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6(3), 283–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Laurence, V. (2009). A generic specification of the data-flow issue in the learning design field. In L. B.-L. Miguel, I. A.-P. Juan, & D. Yannis (Eds.), 2009 Ninth IEEE international conference on advanced learning technologies (pp. 56–58). Riga: Latvia.Google Scholar
  20. Penuel, W. (2008). Making the most of 1:1 computing in networked classrooms. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. QSR International. (2008). Nvivo8. Melbourne: QSR International.Google Scholar
  22. Rodd, M., & Monaghan, J. (2002). Graphic calculator use in Leeds schools: Fragments of practice. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 11(1), 93–108.Google Scholar
  23. Roschelle, J., & Pea, R. (2002). A walk on the WILD side: How wireless handhelds may change computer-supported collaborative learning. International Journal of Cognition and Technology, 1(1), 145–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ruthven, K. (2008). The interpretative flexibility, instrumental evolution, and institutional adoption of mathematical software in educational practice: The examples of computer algebra and dynamic geometry. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 39(4), 379–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sinclair, M. (2008). TI-Navigator Study Interim Report. ON, Canada: York University.Google Scholar
  26. Texas Instruments. (2009). TI-Nspire™ Navigator™. Dallas, TX: Texas Instruments Inc.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of ChichesterChichesterUK

Personalised recommendations