Collaborative Engagement Through Mobile Technology in Mathematics Learning

  • Mina Sedaghatjou
  • Sheree Rodney
Part of the Mathematics Education in the Digital Era book series (MEDE, volume 12)


When a group of students come together to engage in negotiation about mathematical ideas and activities, they draw on each other’s cultural experiences for a shared understanding of mathematical meanings. This chapter considers how mobile technologies, along with children’s collaborative engagements, can enhance mathematical learning. We adapted previous findings regarding touchscreen-based interactions to assess and analyse how mathematical learning occurs when learners interact with mobile technologies and with their peers. We also utilized StudioCode software to analyse children’s interactions with a mathematical tool in order to better understand their collaborative practices and how they reflect using touchscreen-based devices. Our conclusions emerge from children's use of an iPad application called TouchCounts, which aims to develop number sense. Overall, we found that the one-to-one multimodal touch, sight, and auditory feedback via a touchscreen mobile device served to assist children’s collaborative engagement and helped children develop their number sense.


Engagement iPad Numbers Touchscreen-based device Mathematics Mobile technologies Interaction Collaborative engagement Reflection 


  1. Ainley, M., & Ainley, J. (2011). Student engagement with science in early adolescence: The contribution of enjoyment to students’ continuing interest in learning about science. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1), 4–12.Google Scholar
  2. Arzarello, F., Bairral, M. A., & Danè, C. (2014). Moving from dragging to touchscreen: Geometrical learning with geometric dynamic software. Teaching mathematics and its applications, 33(1), 39–51.Google Scholar
  3. Calder, N. S. (2005). “I type what I think and try it”: Children’s initial approaches to investigate through spreadsheets. In P. Clarkson, A. Downton, D. Gronn, M. Horne, A. McDonough, R. Pierce & A. Roche (Eds.), Building Connections: Theory, Research and Practice, (Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia) (pp. 185–192). Melbourne, Sydney: MERGA.Google Scholar
  4. Clements, D. H. (2000). From exercises and tasks to problems and projects: Unique contributions of computers to innovative mathematics education. Journal of Mathematical behavior, 19, 9–47.Google Scholar
  5. Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., Yelland, N. J., & Glass, B. (2008). Learning and teaching geometry with computers in the elementary and middle school. In M. K. Heid & G. Blume (Eds.), Research on technology and the teaching learning of mathematics: Research syntheses (Vol. 1, pp. 109–159). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.Google Scholar
  6. Cochrane, T., & Bateman, R. (2010). Smartphones give you wings: Pedagogical affordances of mobile web 2.0. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
  7. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. MacMillan, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Donato, R. (2004). Aspects of collaboration in pedagogical discourse. In M. McGroarty (Ed.), Annual review of applied linguistics: Advances in language pedagogy (pp. 284–302). West Nyack, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Drijvers, P., Mariotti, M. A., Olive, J., & Sacristán, A. I. (2010). Introduction to section two. In C. Hoyles & J.-B. Lagrange (Eds.), Mathematics education and technology-rethinking the terrain: The 17th ICMI study (Online).Google Scholar
  10. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfield, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research 74(1), 59–109.Google Scholar
  11. Gadanidis, G., & Geiger, V. (2010). A social perspective on technology enhanced mathematical learning—From collaboration to performance. ZDM, 42(1), 91–104.Google Scholar
  12. Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. ACM Computers in Entertainment, 1(1). New York: Palgrave McMillon.Google Scholar
  13. Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordance. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting and knowing perceiving, acting, and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology (pp. 67–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  14. Harper, S. R., & Quaye, S. J. (Ed.) (2009). Student engagement in higher education. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Hilda, K., Kabali, M. D., Matilde, M., Irigoyen, M. D., Nunez-Davis, R., Jennifer, G., et al. (2015). Exposure and use of mobile media devices by young children. Pediatrics, 136(6), 1044–1050.
  16. Hoyles, C., & Lagrange J. B. (Ed.), (2010). Mathematics education and technology—Rethinking the terrain: The 17th ICMI study 13, 81–88. USA: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Hollerbands, K., Laborde, C., & Strasser, R. (2008). Technology and the learning of geometry at the secondary level. In M. K .Heid & G. Blume (Eds.), Research on technology and the teaching learning of mathematics: Research syntheses (Vol. 1, pp. 109–159). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.Google Scholar
  18. Hu, S., & Kuh, G. D. (2001). Being (Dis) Engaged in educationally purposeful activities: the influences of student and institutional characteristics. In Paper Presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Conference (pp. 10–14). Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
  19. Jackiw, N., & Sinclair, N. (2014). TouchCounts. Application for the iPad. Burnaby, BC: Tangible Mathematics Project.Google Scholar
  20. Laborde, C., Kynigos, C., Hollebrands, K., & Strasser, R. (2006). Teaching and learning geometry with technology. In A. Gutierrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education: Past present and future. (pp. 275–304). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  21. Lai, C. H., Yang, J. C., Chen, F. C., Ho, C. W., Liang, J. S. & Chan, T. W. (2007). Affordances of mobile technologies for experiential learning: interplay of technology and pedagogical practices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(4), 326–337.Google Scholar
  22. Lave, J., Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Moyer-Packenham, P. S., Bullock, E. K., Shumway, J. F., Tucker, S. I., Watts, C. M., Westenskow, A., … Jordan, K. (2016). The role of affordances in children’s learning performance and efficiency when using virtual manipulative mathematics touch-screen apps. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 28(1), 79–105.
  24. Newman, F. W, Wehalage, G. G., & Lamborn, S. D. (1992). The significance and sources of student engagement. New York, NY: Teachers college press.Google Scholar
  25. Noss, R. & Hoyles, C. (1996). Windows on mathematical meanings: Learning cultures and computers. In Mathematics education library (Vol. 17). Boston, London: Kluwer Academic publisher.Google Scholar
  26. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas. New York (NY): Basic Books.Google Scholar
  27. Petrovsky, A. V. (1985). The collective and the individual. Moscow: Progress.Google Scholar
  28. Pierce, R., & Stacey, K. (2010). Mapping pedagogical opportunities provided by mathematics analysis software. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 15(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
  29. Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective thinking. Teachers College Columbia University, 104(4), 842–866.Google Scholar
  30. Sacristan, A., & Noss, R. (2008). Computational construction as a means to coordinate representations of infinity. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 13(1), 47–70.
  31. Sacristan, A. I., Calder, N., Teresa, R., Santos-Trigo, M., Friedlander, A., Hartwig, M., … Perrusquia, E. (2010). The influence of shaping of digital technologies on the learning—and learning trajectories—of mathematical concepts. In C. Hoyles, & J.-B. Lagrange (Eds.), Mathematics education and technology—Rethinking the terrain (Vol. 13, pp. 179–226). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  32. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York (NY): Basic Books.Google Scholar
  33. Sedaghatjou, M., & Campbell, S. R. (2017). Exploring cardinality in the era of touchscreen-based technology. Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology (Online).
  34. Sinclair, N., Chorney, S., & Rodney, S. (2016). Rhythm in number: exploring the affective, social and mathematical dimensions of using TouchCounts. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 28(1), 31–51.
  35. Sinclair, N., & Heyd-Metzuyanim, E. (2014). Learning number with TouchCounts: The role of emotions and the body in mathematical communication. Tech Know Learn, 19(1), 81–99.
  36. Sinclair, N., Arzarello, F. (2010). Implementing digital technologies at a national scale. In C. Hoyles & J.-B. Lagrange (Eds.), Mathematics education and technology—Rethinking the terrain (pp. 61–78). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  37. Sinclair, N. (2005). Mathematics on the internet. In S. Johnston-Wilder & D. Pimm (Eds.), Teaching secondary mathematics with ICT (pp. 203–216). Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Stone, D., Jarrett C., Woodroffe M., & Minocha, S. (2005). User Interface Design and Evaluation. San Francisco, Elsevier: Morgan Kaufmann Publisher Inc.Google Scholar
  39. Vogel, R., & Jung, J. (2013). Video coding—A methodological research approach to mathematical activities of kindergarten children. In Proceedings of the Eighth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education in Antalya (pp. 6–10). Turkey, Ankara.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Brock UniversitySt. CatharinesCanada

Personalised recommendations