Technology in Mathematics Teacher Education on Trust and Pitfalls

  • Rina ZazkisEmail author


Availability of easily accessible computational tools undoubtedly affects teaching and learning of mathematics. However, with technological advances often comes a blind trust in the reliability and accuracy of the digital information and unquestioned dependence on it. I focus on pitfalls in understanding mathematical ideas associated with the use of digital technology. I analyze examples in which the accessed or derived information is either incorrect or incomplete and therefore misleading, and argue for further attention to fidelity of technology in teacher education.


Fidelity of technology TPACK Script-writing 


  1. Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators. (2009). Mathematics TPACK (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge) Framework. Retrieved Dec 1, 2017 from
  2. Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators. (2017). Standards for preparing teachers of mathematics. Available online at Retrieved December 1, 2017 from
  3. Bos, B. (2009a). Virtual math objects with pedagogical, mathematical, and cognitive fidelity. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 521–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bos, B. (2009b). Technology with cognitive and mathematical fidelity: What it means for the math classroom. Computers in the Schools, 26(2), 107–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burrill, G. (2017). Designing interactive dynamic technology activities to support the development of conceptual understanding. In A. Leung & A. Baccaglini-Frank (Eds.), Digital technologies in designing mathematics education tasks: Potential and pitfalls (pp. 303–328). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dick, T. P. (2007). Keeping the faith, fidelity in technological tools for mathematics education. In G. W. Blume & M. K. Heid (Eds.), Research on technology and the teaching and learning of mathematics: Vol. 2. Cases and perspectives (pp. 333–339). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar
  7. Harel, G. (2008). DNR perspective on mathematics curriculum and instruction, part II (Vol. 40, pp. 893–907). Zentralblatt für Didaktikder Mathematik.Google Scholar
  8. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1). Retrieved July 8, 2017 from
  9. Koichu, B., & Zazkis, R. (2013). Decoding a proof of Fermat’s Little Theorem via script writing. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 32, 364–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kontorovich, I., & Zazkis, R. (2016). Turn vs. shape: Teachers cope with incompatible perspectives on angle. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 93(2), 223–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and refutations. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Leung, A., & Baccaglini-Frank, A. (2017). Introduction. In A. Leung & A. Baccaglini-Frank (Eds.), Digital technologies in designing mathematics education tasks: Potential and pitfalls (pp. vii–xvi). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mason, J., & Zazkis, R. (2019, online first). Fooled by rounding. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education.Google Scholar
  14. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Olive, J., Makar, K., Hoyos, V., Kor, L., Kosheleva, O., & Strässer. (2010). Mathematical knowledge and practices resulting from access to digital technologies. In C. Hoyles & J. Lagrange (Eds.), Mathematics education and technology – Rethinking the terrain (the 17th ICMI study) (pp. 133–178). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Polygon. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved December 2, 2017, from
  17. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sirotic, N., & Zazkis, R. (2007). Irrational numbers: The gap between formal and intuitive knowledge. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 65(1), 49–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Stavy, R., & Tirosh, D. (2000). How students (mis-)understand science and mathematics: Intuitive rules. NewYork, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  20. Talk: polygon. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved December 13 2014, from
  21. Thanheiser, E., Whitacre, I., & Roy, G. J. (2014). Mathematical content knowledge for teaching elementary mathematics: A Focus on whole-number concepts and operations. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 11(2), 217.Google Scholar
  22. Zazkis, D. (2014). Proof-scripts as a lens for exploring students’ understanding of odd/even functions. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 35, 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Zazkis, R., & Kontorovich, I. (2016). A curious case of superscript (-1): Prospective secondary mathematics teachers explain. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 43, 98–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Zazkis, R., Sinclair, N., & Liljedahl, P. (2013). Lesson play in mathematics education: A tool for research and professional development. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Zazkis, R., & Sirotic, N. (2010). Representing and defining irrational numbers: Exposing the missing link. Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education, 7, 1–27.Google Scholar
  26. Zazkis, R., & Zazkis, D. (2014). Script writing in the mathematics classroom: Imaginary conversations on the structure of numbers. Research in Mathematics Education, 16(1), 54–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zazkis, R., Liljedahl, P. & Sinclair, N. (2009). Lesson Plays: Planning teaching vs. teaching planning. For the Learning of Mathematics, 29(1), 40–47.Google Scholar
  28. 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 (pp. 1169–1207). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationSimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada

Personalised recommendations