The Role of Digital Technologies in Numeracy Teaching and Learning

  • Vince GeigerEmail author
  • Merrilyn Goos
  • Shelley Dole


This paper presents a model of numeracy that integrates the use of digital technologies among other elements of teaching and learning mathematics. Drawing on data from a school-based project, which includes records of classroom observations, semi-structured teacher interviews and artefacts such as student work samples, a classroom-based vignette is presented, which illustrates possibilities for technology integration into classroom numeracy practice. This vignette provides evidence of the influence of digital tools on students’ development of skills, mathematical knowledge, dispositions and orientation towards using mathematics critically.

Key words

applications digital tools mathematical literacy numeracy technology 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 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
  2. Australian Curriculum, and Assessment and Reporting Authority (2011). Australian curriculum: Mathematics. Retrieved from
  3. Boaler, J. & Greeno, J. (2000). Identity, agency and knowing in mathematics worlds. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 171–200). Palo Alto: Greenwood.Google Scholar
  4. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., DiSessa, A., Lehrer, R. & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cockcroft, W. (1982). Mathematics counts. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  6. Confrey, J. & Maloney, A. (2007). A theory of mathematical modelling in technological settings. In W. Blum, P. Galbraith, H. Henn & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education: The 14th ICMI study (pp. 57–68). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Council of Australian Governments (2008). National numeracy review report. Retrieved 11 March 2013 from
  8. Damlamian, A. & Straesser, R. (2009). ICMI Study 20: Educational interfaces between mathematics and industry. ZDM, 41(4), 525–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Drijvers, P. & Weigand, H. (2010). The role of handheld technology in the mathematics classroom. ZDM, 42(7), 665–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ernest, P. (2002). Empowerment in mathematics education. Philosophy of Mathematics Journal. Retrieved from
  11. Ferrara, F., Pratt, D. & Robutta, O. (2006). The role and uses of technologies for the teaching of algebra and calculus. In A. Gutiérrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education: Past, present and future (pp. 237–273). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  12. Frankenstein, M. (2001, January). Reading the world with math: Goals for a critical mathematical literacy curriculum. Keynote address delivered at the 18th biennial conference of the Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers, Canberra.Google Scholar
  13. Galbraith, P., Renshaw, P., Goos, M. E. & Geiger, V. S. (2003). Technology-enriched classrooms: Some implications for teaching applications and modelling. In Q.-X. Ye, W. Blum, S. K. Houston & Q.-Y. Jiang (Eds.), Mathematical modelling in education and culture (pp. 111–125). Chichester: Horwood Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Geiger, V. (2005). Master, servant, partner and extension of self : A finer grained view of this taxonomy. In P. Clarkson, A. Downton, D. Gronn, M. Horne, A. McDonough, R. Pierce & A. Roche (Eds.), Building connections: Theory, research and practice (Proceedings of the 28th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 369–376). Melbourne: MERGA.Google Scholar
  15. Geiger, V. (2011). Factors affecting teachers’ adoption of innovative practices with technology and mathematical modelling. In G. Kaiser, W. Blum, R. Borromeo-Ferri & G. Stillman (Eds.), Trends in the teaching and learning of mathematical modeling (pp. 305–314). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Geiger, V., Faragher, R. & Goos, M. (2010). CAS-enabled technologies as ‘agents provocateurs’ in teaching and learning mathematical modelling in secondary school classrooms. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 22(2), 48–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Geiger, V., Goos, M. & Dole, S. (2011). Trajectories into professional learning in numeracy teaching. In J. Clarke, B. Kissane, J. Mousley, T. Spencer & S. Thornton (Eds.), Traditions and (new) practices (Proceedings of the 34th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 297–305). Adelaide: MERGA.Google Scholar
  18. Goos, M. (2007). Developing numeracy in the learning areas (middle years). Paper presented at the South Australian Literacy and Numeracy Expo, Adelaide.Google Scholar
  19. Goos, M., Galbraith, P., Renshaw, P. & Geiger, V. (2000). Reshaping teacher and student roles in technology-enriched classrooms. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 12(3), 303–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goos, M., Galbraith, P., Renshaw, P. & Geiger, V. (2003). Perspectives on technology mediated learning in secondary school mathematics classrooms. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 22(1), 73–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goos, M., Geiger, V. & Dole, S. (2010). Auditing the numeracy demands of the middle years curriculum. In L. Sparrow, B. Kissane & C. Hurst (Eds.), Shaping the future of mathematics education (Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 210–217). Fremantle: MERGA.Google Scholar
  22. Goos, M., Geiger, V. & Dole, S. (2011). Teachers’ personal conceptions of numeracy. In B. Ubuz (Ed.), Proceedings of the 35th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 457–464). Ankara: PME.Google Scholar
  23. Greeno, J. (1991). A view of mathematical problem solving in school. In M. U. Smith (Ed.), Toward a unified theory of problem solving (pp. 69–98). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  24. Gresalfi, M. S. & Cobb, P. (2006). Cultivating students’ discipline-specific dispositions as a critical goal for pedagogy and equity. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 1(1), 49–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Guin, D., Ruthven, K. & Trouche, L. (2005). The didactical challenge of symbolic calculators: Turning a computational device into a mathematical instrument. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and human interest. Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
  27. Hoyles, C., Wolf, A., Molyneux-Hodgson, S., & Kent, P. (2002). Mathematical skills in the workplace. Final Report to the Science, Technology and Mathematics Council. Foreword and Executive Summary. London: Institute of Education, University of London; Science,Technology and Mathematics Council.Google Scholar
  28. Jablonka, E. (2003). Mathematical literacy. In A. Bishop, M. A. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick & F. Leung (Eds.), Second international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 75–102). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jorgensen Zevenbergen, R. (2011). Young workers and their dispositions towards mathematics: Tensions of a mathematical habitus in the retail industry. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 76(1), 87–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kieran, C. & Guzma’n, J. (2005). Five steps to zero: Students developing elementary number theory concepts when using calculators. In W. J. Masalski & P. C. Elliott (Eds.), Technology-supported mathematics learning environments (pp. 35–50). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  31. Kloosterman, P. (2002). Beliefs about mathematics and mathematics learning in the secondary school: Measurement and implications for motivation. In G. C. Leder, E. Pehkonen & G. Törner (Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education (pp. 247–269). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  32. Laborde, C., Kynigos, C., Hollebrands, K. & Straesser, R. (2006). Teaching and learning geometry with technology. In A. Gutiérrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education: Past, present and future (pp. 275–304). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  33. Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K., Mundry, S. & Hewson, P. (2003). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  34. McLeod, D. (1992). Research on affect in mathematics education: A reconceptualization. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 575–596). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  35. Ministry of Education (1959). 15 to 18: A report of the Central Advisory Council for Education. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  36. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  37. Niss, M., Blum, W. & Galbraith, P. (2007). Introduction. In W. Blum, P. Galbraith, H. Henn & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education: The 14th ICMI study (pp. 3–32). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Noss, R. (1998). New numeracies for a technological culture. For the Learning of Mathematics, 18(2), 2–12.Google Scholar
  39. Noss, R., Hoyles, C. & Pozzi, S. (2000). Working knowledge: Mathematics in use. In A. Bessot & J. Ridgeway (Eds.), Education for mathematics in the workplace (pp. 17–35). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  40. OECD. (2004). Learning for tomorrow’s world: First results from PISA 2003. Paris: OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pea, R. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Perkins, D., Tishman, S., Ritchhart, R., Donis, K. & Andrade, A. (2000). Intelligence in the wild: A dispositional view of intellectual traits. Educational Psychology Review, 12(3), 269–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Peters, C., Geiger, V., Goos, M. & Dole, S. (2012). Numeracy in health and physical education. The Australian Mathematics Teacher, 68(1), 21–27.Google Scholar
  44. Schoenfeld, A. (2006). Design experiments. In G. C. P. B. Elmore & J. Green (Eds.), Complementary methods for research in education (pp. 193–206). Washington: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  45. Steen, L. (1999). Numeracy: The new literacy for a data-drenched society. Educational Leadership, October, 8–13.Google Scholar
  46. Steen, L. (2001). The case for quantitative literacy. In L. Steen (Ed.), Mathematics and democracy: The case for quantitative literacy (pp. 1–22). Princeton: National Council on Education and the Disciplines.Google Scholar
  47. Straesser, R. (2007). Didactics of mathematics: More than mathematics and school! ZDM, 39(1), 165–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Valanides, N. & Angeli, C. (2008). An exploratory study about the role of epistemological beliefs and dispositions on learners’ thinking about an ill-defined issue in solo and duo problem-solving contexts. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing, knowledge and beliefs: Epistemological studies across diverse cultures (pp. 197–218). Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Villarreal, M., Esteley, C. & Mina, M. (2010). Modeling empowered by information and communication technologies. ZDM, 42(3), 405–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zevenbergen, R. (1995). Towards a socially critical numeracy. Critical Forum, 3(1&2), 82–102.Google Scholar
  51. Zevenbergen, R. (2004). Technologizing numeracy: Intergenerational differences in working mathematically in new times. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 56(1), 97–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zevenbergen, R. & Zevenbergen, K. (2009). The numeracies of boatbuilding: New numeracies shaped by workplace technologies. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(1), 183–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationVirginiaAustralia

Personalised recommendations