Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 75–100 | Cite as

Pivotal teaching moments in technology-intensive secondary geometry classrooms

  • Charity CaytonEmail author
  • Karen Hollebrands
  • Samet Okumuş
  • Ethan Boehm


This study investigates three teachers’ uses of a dynamic geometry program (The Geometer’s Sketchpad) in their high school geometry classes over a 2-year period. The researchers examine teachers’ actions and questions during pivotal teaching moments to characterize mathematics instruction that utilizes technology. Findings support an association between teacher–tool relationships, predominant teacher actions, and questioning.


Geometry and geometrical and spatial thinking Teacher education inservice/professional development Technology High school education Questioning 


  1. Boaler, J., & Brodie, K. (2004). The importance, nature and impact of teacher questions. In D. E. McDougall & J. A. Ross (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 773–781). Toronto: Ontario Institute of Studies in Education/University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  2. Boaler, J., & Humphries, C. (2005). Connecting mathematical ideas: Middle school video cases to support teaching and learning (Vol. 1). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books.Google Scholar
  3. Farrell, A. M. (1996). Roles and behaviors in technology-integrated precalculus classrooms. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 15(1), 35–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fraivillig, J. L., Murphy, L. A., & Fuson, K. C. (1999). Advancing children’s mathematical thinking in everyday mathematics classrooms. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(2), 148–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Franke, M. L., Webb, N. M., Chan, A. G., Ing, M., Freund, D., & Battey, D. (2009). Teacher questioning to elicit students’ mathematical thinking in elementary school classrooms. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(4), 380–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Hollebrands, K., Cayton, C., & Boehm, E. (2013). Pivotal teaching moments in a technology-intensive secondary geometry classroom. In A. M. Lindmeier & A. Heinze (Eds.). Proceedings of the 37th International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol 3, pp. 73–80). Kiel, Germany.Google Scholar
  8. Hufferd-Ackles, K., Fuson, K. C., & Sherin, M. G. (2004). Describing levels and components of a math-talk learning community. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(2), 81–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kendal, M., & Stacey, K. (2002). Teachers in transition: Moving towards CAS-supported classrooms. ZDM: The International Journal of Mathematics Education, 34(5), 196–203.Google Scholar
  10. Laborde, C. (2002). Integration of technology in the design of geometry task with Cabri-Geometry. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6(3), 283–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mason, J. (2000). Asking mathematical questions mathematically. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 31(1), 97–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for math. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  13. Sherin, M., Jacobs, V., & Philipp, R. (Eds.). (2011). Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers’ eyes. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Sinclair, M. (2003). Some implications of the results of a case study for the design of pre-constructed, dynamic geometry sketches and accompanying materials. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 52(3), 289–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Smith, M., & Stein, M. K. (2011). 5 Practices for orchestrating productive mathematics discussions. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  16. Star, J. R., & Strickland, S. K. (2008). Learning to observe: Using video to improve preservice mathematics teachers’ ability to notice. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(2), 107–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W., & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research, 33(2), 455–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Steinbring, H. (1989). Routine and meaning in the mathematics classroom. For the Learning of Mathematics, 9(1), 24–33.Google Scholar
  19. Stockero, S. L., & Van Zoest, L. R. (2013). Characterizing pivotal teaching moments in beginning mathematics teachers’ practice. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 16(2), 125–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Straesser, R. (2002). Cabri-géomètre: Does dynamic geometry software (DGS) change geometry and its teaching and learning. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6(3), 319–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tyminski, A. M. (2010). Teacher lust: Reconstructing the construct for mathematics instruction. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 13(4), 295–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2008). Mathematics teachers’ “learning to notice” in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(2), 244–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wilson, P. H., Lee, H., & Hollebrands, K. (2011). Understanding prospective mathematics teachers’ processes for making sense of students’ work with technology. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 42(1), 39–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wood, T. (1998). Alternative patterns of communication in mathematics classes: Funneling or focusing? In H. Steinbring, M. Bartolini-Bussi, & A. Sierpinska (Eds.), Language and communication in the mathematics classroom (pp. 167–178). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  25. Zaslavsky, O. (2005). Seizing the opportunity to create uncertainty in learning mathematics. Education Studies in Mathematics, 60(3), 297–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zbiek, R. M., Heid, M. K., Blume, G. W., & Dick, T. P. (2007). Research on technology in mathematics education: A perspective of constructs. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 1169–1207). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar
  27. Zbiek, R., & Hollebrands, K. (2008). A research-informed view of the process of incorporating mathematics technology into classroom practice by inservice and prospective teachers. In M. K. Heid & G. Blume (Eds.), Handbook of research on technology in the learning and teaching of mathematics: Syntheses and perspectives (pp. 287–344). Greenwich, CT: Information Age (invited chapter).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charity Cayton
    • 1
    Email author
  • Karen Hollebrands
    • 2
  • Samet Okumuş
    • 2
  • Ethan Boehm
    • 3
  1. 1.East Carolina UniversityGreenvilleUSA
  2. 2.North Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  3. 3.Nansha College Preparatory AcademyNanshaChina

Personalised recommendations