Teachers and Teaching: Theoretical Perspectives and Issues Concerning Classroom Implementation

  • Merrilyn Goos
  • Sophie Soury-Lavergne
  • Teresa Assude
  • Jill Brown
  • Chow Ming Kong
  • Derek Glover
  • Brigitte Grugeon
  • Colette Laborde
  • Zsolt Lavicza
  • Dave Miller
  • Margaret Sinclair
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter analyses and compares various theoretical frameworks that illuminate the teacher's role in technology-integrated learning environments and the inter-relationship between factors influencing teachers' use of digital technologies. The first section of the chapter considers three frameworks drawing on instrumental genesis, zone theory, and complexity theory, and examines their relevance by interpreting lesson excerpts from alternative theoretical perspectives. This section also outlines research on relationships between teachers' beliefs, attitudes, mathematical and pedagogical knowledge, and institutional contexts and their use of digital technologies in school and university mathematics education. The second section considers classroom implementation issues by asking what we can learn from teachers who use, or have tried to use, digital technologies for mathematics teaching. Issues arising here concern criteria for effective use and the nature of what counts as “progress” in technology integration. The final section of the chapter identifies work that needs to be done to further develop, test, and apply useful theoretical frameworks and methodologies.

Keywords

Theoretical frameworks Teachers and teaching Instrumental genesis Zone theory Complexity theory Affordances Teacher beliefs Teacher knowledge Institutional context Technology integration 

References

  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, 245–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Churchhouse, R. F., Cornu, B., Howson, A. G., Kahane, J. P., van Lint, J. H., Pluvinage, F., Ralston, A., & Yamaguti, M. (Eds.) (1986). The influence of computers and informatics on mathematics and its teaching. ICMI Study Series (Vol. 1). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: explaining the apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Davis, B., & Simmt, E. (2003). Understanding learning systems: mathematics education and complexity science. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(2), 137–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Drijvers, P. (2003). Learning algebra in a computer algebra environment: design research on the understanding of the concept of parameter. Utrecht, the Netherlands: CD-β Press.Google Scholar
  6. Farrell, A. (1996). Roles and behaviors in technology-integrated precalculus classrooms. Journal of Mathematical behavior, 15, 35–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fine, A. E., & Fleener, M. J. (1994). Calculators as instructional tools: perceptions of three preservice teachers. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 13(1), 83–100.Google Scholar
  8. Gibson, J. (1979). An ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  9. Goos, M., Galbraith, P., Renshaw, P., & Geiger, V. (2003) Perspectives on technology mediated learning in secondary school mathematics classrooms. Journal of Mathematical behavior, 22, 73–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hoyles, C., Noss, R., & Kent, P. (2004). On the integration of digital technologies into mathematics classrooms. International journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9(3), 309–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hoyles, C., Lagrange, J., Son, L. H., & Sinclair, N. (2006). Mathematics education and digital technologies: rethinking the terrain (Proceedings of the 17th ICMI Study Conference, Hanoi University of Technology, Hanoi, Vietnam, December 3–8). Retrieved 9 February 2008, from http://icmistudy17.didirem.math.jussieu.fr/doku.php.Google Scholar
  12. Kaput, J. J. (1992). Technology and mathematics education. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 515–556). New York: McMillan.Google Scholar
  13. Manoucherhri, A. (1999). Computers and school mathematics reform: implications for mathematics teacher education. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 18(1), 31–48.Google Scholar
  14. Ruthven, K., & Hennessy, S. (2002). A practitioner model of the use of computer-based tools and resources to support mathematics teaching and learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49(1), 47–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Scarantino, A. (2003). Affordances explained. Philosophy of Science, 70, 949–961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–22Google Scholar
  17. Simonsen, L. M., & Dick, T. P. (1997). Teachers' perceptions of the impact of graphing calculators in the mathematics classroom. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 16(2/3), 239–268.Google Scholar
  18. Valsiner, J. (1997). Culture and the development of children's action: a theory of human development (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  19. Vérillon, P., & Rabardel, P. (1995). Cognition and artefacts: a contribution to the study of thought in relation to instrumented activity. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10(1), 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Walen, S., Williams, S., & Garner, B. (2003). Pre-service teachers learning mathematics using calculators: a failure to connect current and future practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(4), 445–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Merrilyn Goos
    • 1
  • Sophie Soury-Lavergne
    • 2
  • Teresa Assude
  • Jill Brown
  • Chow Ming Kong
  • Derek Glover
  • Brigitte Grugeon
  • Colette Laborde
  • Zsolt Lavicza
  • Dave Miller
  • Margaret Sinclair
  1. 1.University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.University Joseph Fourier and IUFM of GrenobleGrenobleFrance

Personalised recommendations