Mathematics Education Research Journal

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 303–320 | Cite as

Reshaping teacher and student roles in technology-enriched classrooms

  • Merrilyn Goos
  • Peter Galbraith
  • Peter Renshaw
  • Vince Geiger

Abstract

This paper draws on data from a three-year longitudinal study of secondary school classrooms to examine pedagogical issues in using technology resources in mathematics teaching—in particular, graphics calculators and overhead projection panels that allow screen output to be viewed by the whole class. We theorise four roles for technology in relation to such teaching and learning interactions—master, servant, partner, and extension of self—and illustrate this taxonomy with observational data from five senior secondary mathematics classrooms. Our research shows how technology can facilitate collaborative inquiry during both small group interactions and whole class discussions when students use their calculators and the overhead projection panel to share their mathematical understanding.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers. (1996).Statement on the use of calculators and computers for mathematics in Australian schools. Adelaide: Author.Google Scholar
  2. Australian Education Council (1991).A national statement on mathematics for Australian schools. Melbourne: Curriculum Corporation.Google Scholar
  3. Barrett, G., & Goebel, J. (1990). The impact of graphics calculators on the teaching and learning of mathematics. In T. J. Cooney & C. R. Hirsch (Eds.),Teaching and learning mathematics in the 1990s (pp. 205–211). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  4. Demana, F., & Waits, B. K. (1990). Enhancing mathematics teaching and learning through technology. In T. J. Cooney & C. R. Hirsch (Eds.),Teaching and learning mathematics in the 1990s (pp. 212–222). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  5. Geiger, V. (1998). Students’ perspectives on using computers and graphics calculators during mathematical collaborative practice. In C. Kanes, M. Goos, & E. Warren (Eds.),Teaching mathematics in new times (Proceedings of the 21st annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, pp. 217–224). Gold Coast, QLD: MERGA.Google Scholar
  6. Goos, M. (1998). Technology as a tool for transforming mathematical tasks. In P. Galbraith, W. Blum, G. Booker, & I. Huntley (Eds.),Mathematical modelling: Teaching and assessing in a technology rich world (pp. 103–113). Chichester, England: Horwood.Google Scholar
  7. Goos, M., Galbraith, P., & Renshaw, P. (1999). Establishing a community of practice in a secondary mathematics classroom. In L. Burton (Ed.),Learning mathematics: From hierarchies to networks (pp. 36–61). London, England: Falmer.Google Scholar
  8. Heid, M. K., Sheets, C., & Matras, M. A. (1990). Computer-enhanced algebra: New roles and challenges for teachers and students. In T. J. Cooney & C. R. Hirsch (Eds.),Teaching and learning mathematics in the 1990s (pp. 194–204). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  9. Jones, P., & McCrae, B. (1996). Assessing the impact of graphics calculators on mathematics examinations. In P. Clarkson (Ed.),Technology in mathematics education (Proceedings of the 19th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, pp. 306–313). Melbourne: MERGA.Google Scholar
  10. Lesmeister, L. M. (1997). The effect of graphics calculators on secondary mathematics achievement. (MS thesis, University of Houston, 1996).Masters Abstracts International, 35/01, 39.Google Scholar
  11. Maldonado, A. R. (1998). Conversations with Hypatia: The use of comptiters and graphics calculators in the formulation of mathematical arguments in college calculus. (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas, 1998).Dissertation Abstracts International, 59/06A, 1955.Google Scholar
  12. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989).Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  13. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1991).Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  14. Olsen, F. (1999). The promise and problems of a new way of teaching math.The Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(7), 31–35.Google Scholar
  15. Penglase, M., & Arnold, S. (1996). The graphics calculator in mathematics education: A critical review of recent research.Mathematics Education Research Journal, 8, 58–90.Google Scholar
  16. Portafoglio, A. (1998). The effects of pair collaboration in community college computer calculus laboratories. (Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University Teachers College, 1998).Dissertation Abstracts International, 59/07A, 2407.Google Scholar
  17. Ramsden, P. (1997, June).Mathematics in education: Old wine in new bottles or a whole new vineyard? Paper presented at the Second International Mathematica Symposium, Rovamiemi, Finland.Google Scholar
  18. Resnick, L. B., Pontecorvo, C., & Säljö, R. (1997). Discourse, tools, and reasoning. In L. B. Resnick, R. Säljö, C. Pontecorvo, & B. Bürge (Eds.),Discourse, tools, and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition (pp. 1–20). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Shneiderman, B., Borkowski, E., Alavi, M., & Norman, K. (1998). Emergent patterns of teaching/learning in electronic classrooms.Educational Technology, Research and Development, 4 (4), 23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Simmt, E. (1997). Graphics calculators in high school mathematics.Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 16, 269–289.Google Scholar
  21. Simonsen, L. M., & Dick, T. P. (1997). Teachers’ perceptions of the impact of graphics calculators in the mathematics classroom.Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 16, 239–268.Google Scholar
  22. Stuve M. J. (1997). 48 children, 2 teachers, 1 classroom, and 4 computers: A personal exploration of a network learning environment (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, 1997 [Abstract]. Retrieved 14 March 2000 from Pro Quest-Digital Dissertations (No. AAT 9737263) on the World Wide Web:http://wwwlib.umi.com/dissertations/ Google Scholar
  23. Templer, R., Klug, D., & Gould, I. (1998). Mathematics laboratories for science undergraduates. In C. Hoyles., C. Morgan., & G. Woodhouse (Eds.),Rethinking the mathematics curriculum (pp 140–154). London, England: Falmer.Google Scholar
  24. Tharp, M. L., Fitzsimmons, J. A., & Ayers, R. L. B. (1997). Negotiating a technological shift: Teacher perception of the implementation of graphics calculators.Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 16, 551–575.Google Scholar
  25. Thorpe E. T. (1998). Changes in teaching behavior and teacher attitudes toward computer technology: A grounded theory (diffusion of innovation) (Doctoral dissertation, Texas A & M University, 1998) [Abstract]. Retrieved 14 March 2000 from Pro Quest: Digital Dissertations (No. AAT 9817893) on the World Wide Web: http://wwwlib.umi.com/dissertations/ Google Scholar
  26. Weber, T. E. (1999). Graphing technology and its effect on solving inequalities (Doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, 1998).Dissertation Abstracts International, 60/01A, 88.Google Scholar
  27. Wertsch, J. V. (1985).Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia Inc. 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Merrilyn Goos
    • 1
  • Peter Galbraith
    • 1
  • Peter Renshaw
    • 1
  • Vince Geiger
    • 2
  1. 1.Graduate School of EducationThe University of QueenslandAustralia
  2. 2.Hillbrook Anglican SchoolEnoggeraAustralia

Personalised recommendations