## Abstract

This paper develops an understanding of the issues, interests and concerns within the mathematics education community related to the use of computers and other digital technologies in the teaching and learning of mathematics. It begins by arguing for the importance of understanding this landscape of interests and concerns, and then turns to the theoretical and methodological choices made in this study, explaining how it has drawn on the approach developed by the STELLAR European Network of Excellence. By analysing the titles and abstracts of a conference chosen to represent the mathematics education community, it maps out the landscape framed by three “Grand Challenges”, finding that an understanding of orchestrating learning is at the heart of the interests of the community, and that the community is interested in exploring new and different contexts for the teaching and learning of mathematics. However, there is currently less interest in investigating and exploiting the increasing connectedness of learners within this community. Further, while the “Grand Challenges” framing is useful in mapping the landscape, it fails to take into account both the personal concerns of teachers and students, such as attitude and confidence, and issues related to doing research and understanding research concerns.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

## Notes

I use landscape in this paper as shorthand for interests, issues and concerns

“Affordances” is used in this paper in the original sense that it encompasses both the potential and constraints of the software as perceived by the user.

STELLAR uses the term Grand Challenges in a thematic way, rather than suggesting that their “Grand Challenges” are challenges. Their Grand Challenge Problems could be described more as challenges which are achievable and measureable.

## References

Alagic, M. (2003). Technology in the mathematics classroom: Conceptual orientation.

*Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 22*(4), 381–400. AACE Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.Alagic, M., & Palenz, D. (2006). Teachers explore linear and exponential growth: Spreadsheets As cognitive tools.

*Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14*(3), 633–649.Anfara, V. A., & Mertz, N. T. (2006). Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research.

*Sage Publications*. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip062/2005030919.htmlArnold, S. (2004). Mathematics education for the third millennium: Visions of a future for handheld classroom technology. In I. Putt, R. Faragher, & M. McLean (Eds.),

*Mathematics education for the third millennium: Towards 2010 (Proceedings of the 27th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia)*(pp. 16–28). Sydney: MERGA.Artigue, M. (2010). The future of teaching and learning mathematics with digital technologies. In C. Hoyles & J. B. Lagrange (Eds.),

*Mathematics Education and Technology-Rethinking the Terrain*(pp. 463–475). New York: Springer.Bauersfeld, H. (1997). Review: Research in mathematics education: A well-documented field?

*Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28*(5), 612–625.Bazzini, L. (2002). From grounding metaphors to technological devices: A call for legitimacy in school mathematics 1.

*Educational Studies in Mathematics*, 259–271.Beatty, R., & Geiger, V. (2010). Technology, communication, and collaboration: Re-thinking communities of inquiry, learning and practice. In C. Hoyles & J. B. Lagrange (Eds.),

*Mathematics Education and Technology-Rethinking the Terrain*(pp. 251–284). New York: Springer.Bonsignore, E. (2011). Sharing stories “in the wild”: A mobile storytelling case study.

*Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems*(pp. 917–922). Vancouver: ACM.Borba, M. (2009). Potential scenarios for Internet use in the mathematics classroom.

*ZDM, 41*(4), 453–465.Bottino, R. M., & Chiappini, G. (2009). Using Activity Theory to study the relationship between technology and the learning environment in the arithmetic domain. In L. English, M. Bussi, G. Jones, R. Lesh, & B. Sriraman (Eds.),

*Handbook of international research in mathematics education*(2nd ed., pp. 838–861). New York: Routledge.Churchhouse, R. F. (Ed.). (1986).

*The influence of computers and informatics on mathematics and its teaching*. Cambridge: CUP Archive.Clark-Wilson, A., Oldknow, A., & Sutherland, R. (2011).

*Digital technologies and mathematics education: A report from a working group of the Joint Mathematical Council of the United Kingdom*. London.Condie, R., & Munro, B. (2007).

*The impact of ICT in schools - a landscape review*. Report: Becta.Dillenbourg, P. (2011).

*Trends in classroom orchestration: Second Research & Technology Scouting report*(pp. 1–61). Milton Keynes.Drijvers, P., Doorman, M., Boon, P., Reed, H., & Gravemeijer, K. (2010). The teacher and the tool: Instrumental orchestrations in the technology-rich mathematics classroom.

*Educational Studies in Mathematics, 75*(2), 213–234.Drijvers, P., Kieran, C., Mariotti, M. A., Ainley, J., Andresen, M., Chan, Y. C., et al. (2010). Integrating technology into mathematics education: Theoretical perspectives. In C. Hoyles & J. B. Lagrange (Eds.),

*Mathematics Education and Technology-Rethinking the Terrain*(pp. 89–132). New York: Springer.English, L. (2009). Setting an agenda for international research in mathematics education. In L. English, M. Bartolini Bussi, G. Jones, R. Lesh, & B. Sriranam (Eds.),

*Handbook of international research in mathematics education*(2nd ed., pp. 3–19). New York: Routledge.Fischer, F., & Dillenbourg, P. (2006). Challenges of orchestrating computer-supported collaborative learning.

*87th annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA)*.Forgasz, H. J. (2002). Teachers and computers for secondary mathematics.

*Education and Information Technologies, 7*(2), 111–125.Galbraith, P. (2006). Students, mathematics, and technology: Assessing the present – challenging the future.

*International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 37*(3), 277–290. Taylor & Francis.Goos, M. (2009). Investigating the professional learning and development of mathematics teacher educators: A theoretical discussion and research agenda. In R. Hunter, B. Bicknell, & T. Burgess (Eds.),

*Crossing divides: Proceedings of the 32nd annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (Vol. 1)*. Palmerston North: MERGA.Goos, M., & Bennison, A. (2008). Surveying the technology landscape: Teachers’ use of technology in secondary mathematics classrooms.

*Mathematics Education Research Journal, 20*(3), 102–130.Goos, M., Soury-Lavergne, S., Assude, T., Brown, J., Kong, C. M., Glover, D., et al. (2010). Teachers and teaching: Theoretical perspectives and issues concerning classroom implementation. In C. Hoyles & J. B. Lagrange (Eds.),

*Mathematics Education and Technology-Rethinking the Terrain*(Vol. 13, pp. 311–328). New York: Springer.Greeno, J. G. (1994). Gibson’s affordances.

*Psychological Review, 101*(2), 336–342.Haapasalo, L. (2007). Adapting mathematics education to the needs of ICT.

*Electronic Journal of Mathematics and Technology, 1*(1), 1–10.Healy, L., & Kynigos, C. (2010). Charting the microworld territory over time: design and construction in mathematics education.

*ZDM, 42*(1), 63–76.Hegedus, S. J., & Penuel, W. R. (2008). Studying new forms of participation and identity in mathematics classrooms with integrated communication and representational infrastructures.

*Educational Studies in Mathematics, 68*(2), 171–183.Heid, M. K. (2005). Technology in mathematics education: Tapping into visions of the future. In W. J. Masalski (Ed.),

*Technology-supported mathematics learning environments (67th yearbook)*(Vol. 67, p. 347). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Retrieved from http://my.nctm.org/ebusiness/ProductCatalog/product.aspx?ID=12850Hew, K., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research.

*Educational Technology Research and Development, 55*(3), 223–252. Springer Boston.Hoyles, C., Kalas, I., Trouche, L., Hivon, L., Noss, R., & Wilensky, U. (2010). Connectivity and virtual networks for learning. In C. Hoyles & J. B. Lagrange (Eds.),

*Mathematics education and technology-Rethinking the terrain*(pp. 439–462). New York: Springer.Hoyles, C., & Lagrange, J. B. (2009). Introduction to mathematics education and technology-rethinking the terrain: The 17th ICMI Study. In C. Hoyles & J. B. Lagrange (Eds.),

*Mathematics education and technology-Rethinking the terrain: The 17th ICMI Study*(Vol. 13, pp. 1–15). New York: Springer.Hoyles, C., & Lagrange, J. B. (2010).

*Mathematics education and technology-Rethinking the terrain: The 17th ICMI Study*. New York: Springer.Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (2009). The technological mediation of mathematics and its learning.

*Human Development, 52*(2), 129–147.Jones, K., Mackrell, K., & Stevenson, I. (2010). Designing digital technologies and learning activities for different geometries. In C. Hoyles & J. B. Lagrange (Eds.),

*Mathematics education and technology-Rethinking the terrain*(pp. 47–60). New York: Springer.Kaput, J., & Hegedus, S. J. (2002). Exploiting classroom connectivity by aggregating student constructions to create new learning opportunities. In A. Cockburn & E. Nardi (Eds.),

*Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education*(Vol. 3, pp. 177–185). Norwich: University of East Anglia.Kaput, J., Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (2009). Developing new notations for a learnable mathematics in the computational era. In L. English, M. Bartolini Bussi, G. Jones, R. Lesh, & B. Sriranam (Eds.),

*Handbook of international research in mathematics education*(2nd ed., pp. 693–715). New York: Routledge.Keong, C. C., Horani, S., & Daniel, J. (2005). A study on the use of ICT in mathematics teaching.

*Malaysian Online Journal of Instructional Technology (MOJIT), 2*(3), 43–51.Laborde, C., & Sträßer, R. (2010). Place and use of new technology in the teaching of mathematics: ICMI activities in the past 25 years.

*ZDM, 42*(1), 121–133.Langford, D. P., & Cleary, B. A. (1995).

*Orchestrating learning with quality*. Milwaukee: American Society for Quality.Li, Q. (2003). Would we teach without technology? A professor’s experience of teaching mathematics education incorporating the Internet.

*Educational Research, 45*(1), 61–77.Lopez-Morteo, G., & López, G. (2007). Computer support for learning mathematics: A learning environment based on recreational learning objects.

*Computers in Education, 48*(4), 618–641.Lynch, J. (2006). Assessing effects of technology usage on mathematics learning.

*Mathematics Education Research Journal, 18*(3), 29–43.Mariotti, M. A. (2002). The influence of technological advances on students’ mathematics learning. In L. English (Ed.),

*Handbook of international research in mathematics education*(pp. 695–723). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.McGrenere, J. (2000). Affordances: Clarifying and evolving a concept.

*Interface*, (May), 1–8.Paola, D. (2006). Sensing mathematics in the classroom through the use of new technologies.

*Proceedings CIEAEM 58 –SRNI*(pp. 15–22). Czech Republic.Pierce, R., & Ball, L. (2009). Perceptions that may affect teachers’ intention to use technology in secondary mathematics classes.

*Educational Studies in Mathematics, 71*(3), 299–317.Psycharis, G., & Kynigos, C. (2009). Normalising geometrical figures: Dynamic manipulation and construction of meanings for ratio and proportion.

*Research in Mathematics Education, 11*(2), 149–166.Skovsmose, O. (2006). Research, practice, uncertainty and responsibility.

*The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 25*(4), 267–284.STELLAR. (2008).

*STELLAR Description of Work*. Milton Keynes.Sutherland, R. (2007).

*Teaching for learning mathematics*. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Sutherland, R., & Joubert, M. (2009).

*The STELLAR Vision and Strategy Statement*. Retrieved from http://dspace.ou.nl/bitstream/1820/2823/1/20090929_d1-1___vision-and-strategy.pdf.Taylor, R. (1980). In R. Taylor (Ed.),

*The Computer in the school: Tutor, tool, tutee*. Totowa: Teachers College Press.Thomas, M. O. J. (2006). Teachers using computers in mathematics: A longitudinal study. In J. Novotna, H. Moraováa, M. Krátkáa, & N. Steklikováa (Eds.),

*Proceedings 30th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education*(pp. 265–272). Prague: PME.Trouche, L., & Drijvers, P. (2010). Handheld technology for mathematics education: Flashback into the future.

*ZDM, 42*(7), 667–681.van den Besselaar, P., & Heimeriks, G. (2006). Mapping research topics using word-reference co-occurrences: A method and an exploratory case study.

*Scientometrics, 68*(3), 377–393.Weigand, H. G. (2010). Hoyles, C. and Lagrange, J. B. (eds.) (2010): Mathematics education and technology: Rethinking the terrain. The 17th ICMI Study.

*ZDM*,*42*(7), 801–808.Wild, F., Scott, P., Valentine, C., Gillet, D., Sutherland, R., Herder, E., et al. (2009).

*Report on the state of the art in TEL*. Milton Keynes. Retrieved from http://www.telearn.org/warehouse/Stellar_del7-1_(002688v1).pdfWiliam, D., & Lester, F. K. (2008). On the purpose of mathematics education research. In L. English (Ed.),

*Handbook of international research in mathematics education*(2nd ed., p. 32). Abdingdon: Taylor & Francis.

## Author information

### Authors and Affiliations

### Corresponding author

## Rights and permissions

## About this article

### Cite this article

Joubert, M. Using digital technologies in mathematics teaching: developing an understanding of the landscape using three “grand challenge” themes.
*Educ Stud Math* **82**, 341–359 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9430-x

Published:

Issue Date:

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9430-x