Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education

, Volume 19, Issue 2–3, pp 227–241 | Cite as

Supporting primary-level mathematics teachers’ collaboration in designing and using technology-based scenarios



In this article, we address how the design of educational scenarios can support teachers’ adoption of both technology and open-ended projects indorsing creativity and innovation. We do that by describing how groups of teachers develop digital learning environments supporting using a combination of GeoGebra and Google sites. Both teachers and pupils work with the concept of “game” as something they design, and furthermore, the pupils immerse themselves into the scenarios that the teachers create in a way similar to “playing a game.” We investigate teachers participation in collaborative development and testing through qualitative means, aiming to describe the teachers’ appropriation of (1) GeoGebra as a tool for doing and teaching mathematics, and (2) game as a metaphor supporting open-ended projects addressing creativity and innovation in the classroom. The data from the project suggest that the notion of “game” can support collaborative scenario design is a viable way of introducing technology and open-ended projects to primary school teachers.


Teacher in-service education Technology Scenario-based education Instrumental genesis 


  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. Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 7(3), 245–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barth, F. (2002). An anthropology of knowledge. Current Anthropology, 43(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cobb, P., & Gravemeijer, K. (2008). Experimenting to support and understand learning processes. In A. E. Kelly, R. A. Lesh, & J. Y. Baek (Eds.), Handbook of design research methods in education: Innovations in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics learning and teaching (pp. 68–95). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Cobb, P., Zhao, Q., & Dean, C. (2009). Conducting design experiments to support teachers’ learning: A reflection from the field. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(2), 165–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dreyfus, T. (1994). The role of cognitive tools in mathematics education. In R. Biehler (Ed.), Didactics of mathematics as a scientific discipline (pp. 201–211). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  8. Gueudet, G., Pepin, B., & Trouche, L. (2012). From text to “lived” resources: Mathematics curriculum materials and teacher development. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gueudet, G., Buteau, C., Mesa, V., & Misfeldt, M. (2014). Instrumental and documentational approaches: From technology use to documentation systems in university mathematics education. Research in Mathematics Education, 16(2), 139–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Guin, D., Ruthven, K., & Trouche, L. (2005). The didactical challenge of symbolic calculators turning a computational device into a mathematical instrument. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hanghøj, T., Misfeldt, M., Bundsgaard, J., & Fougt, S. S. (n.d.) Teaching with game-oriented educational scenarios: Understanding knowledge translations and framings across domains. (Unpublished book).  Google Scholar
  12. Jankvist, U. T. & Misfeldt, M. (2015). CAS-induced difficulties in learning mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 35(1), 15–20.Google Scholar
  13. Jaworski, B. (2003). Research practice into/influencing mathematics teaching and learning development: Towards a theoretical framework based on co-learning partnerships. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 54(2–3), 249–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kaput, J. J., & Thompson, P. W. (1994). Technology in mathematics education research: The first 25 years in the JRME. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(6), 676–684. doi: 10.2307/749579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kynigos, C., & Kalogeria, E. (2012). Boundary crossing through in-service online mathematics teacher education: The case of scenarios and half-baked microworlds. ZDM, 44(6), 733–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Laborde, C., & Strasser, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lagrange, J. (2005). Using symbolic calculators to study mathematics: The case of tasks and techniques. In D. Guin, K. Ruthven, & L. Trouche (Eds.), The didactical challenge of symbolic calculators: Turning a computational device into a mathematical instrument (pp. 113–135). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mariotti, M. A. (2002). Influence of technologies advances on students’ math learning. In L. English, M. G. Bartolini Bussi, G. Jones, R. Lesh, & D. Tirosh (Eds.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Misfeldt. (2013). Instrumental genesis in GeoGebra-based board game design. In B. Ubuz, C. Haser, & M. A. Mariotti (Eds.), Papers for the CERME 8 conference (pp. 2664–2673). Ankara: Middle East Technical University.Google Scholar
  20. Misfeldt, M. (n.d) Making meaning of creativity and mathematics teaching. In proceedings of the seventh nordic conference on mathematics education, NORMA 14. Google Scholar
  21. Misfeldt, M., & Zacho, L. (2013). Evalueringsrapport kreativ digital matematik (evaluation of creative digital mathematics. Aalborg, Denmark: Aalborg University.Google Scholar
  22. Misfeldt, M., & Shaffer, D. W. (2014). Teacher facilitation, reflection and educational games. In: Abstract for designs for learning. Google Scholar
  23. Misfeldt, M., & Ejsing-Duun, S. (2015). Learning mathematics through programming: An instrumental approach to potentials and pitfalls. Accepted for proceedings of the 9th congress of European research on mathematics education. Google Scholar
  24. Nardi, B. A. (1996). Context and consciousness activity theory and human-computer interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Niss, M. (1999). Aspects of the nature and state of research in mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 40(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  27. Plauborg, H., Vinther Andersen, J., & Bayer, M. (2007). Aktionslæring: læring i og af praksis (eng. Action learning in and of practice). Copenhagen: Hans Reitzel.Google Scholar
  28. Rabardel, P., & Bourmaud, G. (2003). From computer to instrument system: A developmental perspective. Interacting with Computers, 15, 665–691. doi: 10.1016/S0953-5438(03)00058-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stigler, J. W., Gonzales, P., Kawanaka, T., Knoll, S., & Serrano, A. (1998). Video examples from the TIMMS videotape classroom study eighth grade mathematics in Germany, Japan, and the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  30. Tabach, M. (2013). Developing a general framework for instrumental orchestration. In B. Ubuz, C. Haser, & M. A. Mariotti (Eds.), Proceedings of the eighth congress of the European society for research in mathematics education: CERME 8. (pp. 2744–2753). Ankara, Turkey: Middle East Technical University, Publisher.Google Scholar
  31. Trouche, L. (2005). Instrumental genesis, individual and social aspects. In D. Guin, K. Ruthven, & L. Trouche (Eds.), The didactical challenge of symbolic calculators turning a computational device into a mathematical instrument (pp. 197–230). New York, NY: Springer. Retrieved from
  32. Trouche, L., Drijvers, P., Gueudet, G., & Sacristán, A. I. (2013). Technology-driven developments and policy implications for mathematics education. In M. A. Clements, A. J. Bishop, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & F. K. S. Leung (Eds.), Third international handbook of mathematics education SE—24 (Vol. 27, pp. 753–789). New York, NY: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-4684-2_24.Google Scholar
  33. Verillon, P., & Rabardel, P. (1995). Cognition and artifacts: A contribution to the study of thought in relation to instrumented activity. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10, 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Winsløw, C. (2003). Semiotic and discursive variables in CAS-based didactical engineering. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 52(3), 271–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Winsløw, C., Matheron, Y., & Mercier, A. (2013). Study and research courses as an epistemological model for didactics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 2013(83), 267–284. doi: 10.1007/s10649-012-9453-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aalborg UniversityCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Skolen Ved SøerneFrederikbergDenmark

Personalised recommendations