In this article, we seek to understand how university students learn to use programming as an instrument for ‘authentic’ mathematical investigations. We use the instrumental approach as a framework, focusing on how the transformation of the programming language into an instrument requires that the user develops or mobilizes multiple schemes at different stages of the task development. Moreover, we propose to adapt Assude’s instrumental integration model for teachers and shift its focus to students to describe four instrumental stages of student development (i.e. instrumental genesis) of their schemes. These four stages are illustrated by examining two undergraduates’ engagement at different times during a first-year, programming-based, mathematics course. The proposed approach takes into account not only individual scheme development, but also the development of a complex web of schemes. It incorporates the concept of schemes in the different instrumental stages for students and also unfolds Brennan and Resnick’s three-dimensional computational thinking development framework (for mathematics) as students appropriate programming as an instrument.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
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.
Assude, T. (2007). Teachers’ practices and degree of ICT integration. In D. Pitta-Pantazi & G. Philippou (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth congress of the European Society for Research in mathematics education (pp. 1339–1348). Larnaka, Cyprus: ERME.
Benton, L., Hoyles, C., Kalas, I., & Noss, R. (2017). Bridging primary programming and mathematics: Some findings of design research in England. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 3(2), 115–138.
Bozkurt, G., Uygan, C., & Turgut, M. (2018). Instrumental genesis of a preservice mathematics teacher: Instrumented actions on the perpendicular line construction. In H.-G. Weigand, A. Clark-Wilson, A. Donevska-Todorova, E. Faggiano, N. Grønbæk, & J. Trgalova (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th ERME topic conference MEDA (pp. 43–50). Copenhagen, Denmark: University of Copenhagen/ERME.
Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In Paper presented at the 2012 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Vancouver: Canada.
Broley, L. (2015). La programmation informatique dans la recherche et la formation en mathématiques au niveau universitaire. Unpublished Master’s thesis. Montréal, QC: Université de Montréal. https://papyrus.bib.umontreal.ca/xmlui/handle/1866/12574.
Broley, L., Buteau, C., & Muller, E. (2017). (legitimate peripheral) computational thinking in mathematics. In T. Dooley & G. Gueudet (Eds.), Proceedings of the tenth congress of the European Society for Research in mathematics education (pp. 2515–2523). Dublin, Ireland: DCU Institute of Education and ERME.
Broley, L., Caron, F., & Saint-Aubin, Y. (2018). Levels of programming in mathematical research and university mathematics education. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 4(1), 33–55.
Buteau, C., Gueudet, G., Muller, E., Mgombelo, J. & Sacristán, A. (2019a), Online. University students turning computer programming into an instrument for ‘authentic’ mathematical work. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology.
Buteau, C., & Muller, E. (2010). Student development process of designing and implementing exploratory and learning objects. In V. Durand-Guerrier, S. Soury-Lavergne, & F. Arzarello (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth congress of European Society for Research in mathematics education (pp. 1111–1120). Lyon, France: ERME.
Buteau, C., Muller, E., & Marshall, N. (2015a). When a university mathematics department adopted core mathematics courses of an unintentionally constructionist nature: Really? Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 1(2/3), 133–155.
Buteau, C., Muller, E., & Ralph, B. (2015b). Integration of programming in the undergraduate mathematics program at Brock University. In online proceedings of the. London, ON: Math + Coding Symposium. https://researchideas.ca/coding/docs/ButeauMullerRalph-Coding+MathProceedings-FINAL.pdf.
Buteau, C., Muller, E., Dreise, K., Mgombelo, J., & Sacristán, A. (2019c). Students’ process and strategies as they program for mathematical investigations and applications. In U. Jankvist, M. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, & M. Veldhuis (Eds.), Proceedings of the eleventh congress of the European Society for Research in mathematics education. ERME: Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Buteau, C., Muller, E., Marshall, N., Sacristán, A., & Mgombelo, J. (2016). Undergraduate mathematics students appropriating programming as a tool for modelling, simulation, and visualization: A case study. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 2(2), 142–166.
Buteau, C., Muller, E., Mgombelo, J., & Sacristán, A. (2018). Computational thinking in university mathematics education: A theoretical framework. In A. Weinberg, C. Rasmussen, J. Rabin, M. Wawro, & S. Brown (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st annual conference on research in undergraduate mathematics education (pp. 1171–1179). San Diego, CA: RUME.
Buteau, C., Muller, E., Mgombelo, J. & Sacristán, A. (2019b). Stages of students’ instrumental genesis of programming for mathematical investigations. In M. graven, H. Venkat, A. Essien & P. Vale (Eds), Proceedings of the 43rd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (vol. 4, p. 127). Pretoria, South Africa: PME.
DeJarnette, A. (2019). Students’ challenges with symbols and diagrams when using a programming environment in mathematics. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 5(1), 36–58.
Drijvers, P., Godino, J., Font, V., & Trouche, L. (2013). One episode, two lenses. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 82(1), 23–49.
EMS (2011). Position paper of the European mathematical society on the European Commission’s contributions to European research. Zürich, Switzerland: European Mathematical Society. (http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/pdf/contributions/post/european_organisations/european_mathematical_society.pdf).
Goos, M. & Soury-Lavergne, S., with others (2010). Teachers and teaching: Theoretical perspectives and issues classroom implementation. In C. Hoyles & J.-B. Lagrange (Eds), Mathematics education and technology: Rethinking the terrain (pp. 311–328). New York, NY: Springer.
Gueudet, G., Buteau, C., Muller, E., Mgombelo, J. and Sacristán, A. (submitted). Programming as an artefact: What do we learn about university students’ activity? Submitted to the Third Conference of the International Network for Didactic Research in University Mathematics (INDRUM 2020), March 2020, Bizerte, Tunisia.
Gueudet, G., Misfeld, M., Mesa, V., & Buteau, C. (2014). Technologies, resources and instruments in university mathematics education. Research in Mathematics Education, 16(2), 139–155.
Guin, D., & Trouche, L. (1999). The complex process of converting tools into mathematical instruments: The case of calculators. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 3(3), 195–227.
Hoadley, C. (2012). What is a community of practice and how can we support it? In D. Jonassen & S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (2nd ed., pp. 287–300). New York, NY: Routledge.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Marshall, N., & Buteau, C. (2014). Learning by designing and experimenting with interactive, dynamic mathematics exploratory objects. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 21(2), 49–64.
MICA (n.d.). Exploratory and learning objects created by Brock students in mathematics courses (www.brocku.ca/mathematics/studentprojects).
Muller, E., Buteau, C., Ralph, B., & Mgombelo, J. (2009). Learning mathematics through the design and implementation of exploratory and learning objects. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 16(2), 63–74.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Rabardel, P. (2002). Les hommes et les technologies: Approche cognitive des instruments contemporains [people and technology: A cognitive approach to contemporary instruments]. Paris, France: Armand Colin. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01017462/document.
Ralph, W. (2001). Mathematics takes an exciting new direction with MICA program. Brock Teaching, 1(1), 1.
Ralph, W. (2017a). MICA I assignment guidelines. (http://ctuniversitymath.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/mica-i-assignments.pdf).
Ralph, W. (2017b). MICA I lab guidelines. (https://ctuniversitymath.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/mica-i-labs.pdf).
Roorda, G., Vos, P., Drijvers, P., & Goedhart, M. (2016). Solving rate of change tasks with a graphing calculator: A case study on instrumental genesis. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 2(3), 228–252.
Roschelle, J., Noss, R., Blikstein, P., & Jackiw, N. (2017). Technology for learning mathematics. In J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for research in mathematics education (pp. 853–878). Reston, VA: National Council for Teachers of Mathematics.
Trouche, L. (2004). Managing the complexity of human/machine interactions in computerized learning environments: Guiding students’ command process through instrumental orchestrations. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9(3), 281–307.
Trouche, L., & Drijvers, P. (2010). Handheld technology: Flashback into the future. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 42(7), 667–681.
Vergnaud, G. (1998). Towards a cognitive theory of practice. In A. Sierpinska & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), Mathematics education as a research domain: A search for identity (pp. 227–240). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Vergnaud, G. (2013). Pourquoi la théorie des champs conceptuels? Infancia y Aprendizaje, 36(2), 131–161.
Vermersch, P. (2006). Les fonctions des questions. Expliciter, 65, 1–6.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(1), 127–147.
Wing, J. (2014). Computational thinking benefits society. Social Issues in Computing. [Web blog post]. http://socialissues.cs.toronto.edu/index.html%3Fp=279.html.
We thank Ghislaine Gueudet for her insightful comments throughout the development of this manuscript, in particular for her suggestions regarding mathematical schemes in a programming technology context. We also thank all of the research assistants for their valuable work toward our research project. This work is funded by SSHRC (#435-2017-0367) and has received ethics clearance (REB #17-088).
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Buteau, C., Muller, E., Mgombelo, J. et al. Instrumental Genesis Stages of Programming for Mathematical Work. Digit Exp Math Educ 6, 367–390 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-020-00060-w
- Investigation project
- Instrumental genesis
- Instrumental integration
- Web of schemes
- Authentic mathematical investigation