Advertisement

Tensions in the Design of Mathematical Technological Environments: Tools and Tasks for the Teaching of Linear Functions

  • Alison Clark-WilsonEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Mathematics Education in the Digital Era book series (MEDE, volume 8)

Abstract

The design of tasks for the exploration of mathematical concepts involving technology can take several starting points. In many cases the ‘tool’ is predefined as an existing mathematics application with an embedded set of design principles that shape the mathematical tasks that are possible. In other cases, the tool and tasks are designed through a more dynamic process whereby designers and educators engage in a discourse that influences the resulting tasks. The chapter will begin with a brief description of a longitudinal study, and its theoretical framework that resulted in a rubric to inform the design of tasks that privilege the exploration of mathematical variants and invariants (Clark-Wilson and Timotheus in ICMI study 22 task design in mathematics education, UK: Oxford, 2013; Clark-Wilson in How does a multi-representational mathematical ICT tool mediate teachers’ mathematical and pedagogical knowledge concerning variance and invariance? 2010). This rubric is then used as a construct for the post-priori analysis of two tasks that introduced the concept of linear functions and that use different technologies. Conclusions will be drawn that highlight subtle tensions that relate to the mathematical knowledge at stake and to the design principles of the underlying technology and task.

Keywords

Mathematics Digital technology Task design Linear functions 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This chapter draws on research from two studies. The TI-Nspire evaluation study was funded by Texas Instruments and has been subsequently reported in Clark-Wilson (2008). Cornerstone Maths was generously funded by the Li Ka Shing Foundation as a multi-year collaborative project between London Knowledge Lab, UCL Institute of Education and SRI International, USA, and directed by Celia Hoyles, Richard Noss, Jeremy Roschelle and Phil Vahey.

References

  1. Aldon, G. (2011). Interactions didactiques dans la classe de mathématiques en environnement numérique: construction et mise à l’épreuve d’un cadre d’analyse exploitant la notion d’incident. Thèse de doctorat, Université Lyon 1, Lyon.Google Scholar
  2. Artigue, M. (1998). Teacher training as a key issue for the integration of computer technologies. In D. Tinsley & D. Johnson (Eds.), Proceedings of the IFIP TC3/WG3.1 Working Conference on Secondary School Mathematics in the World of Communication Technology: Learning, Teaching, and the Curriculum: Information and Communications Technologies in School Mathematics (Vol. 119, pp. 121–129). London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  3. Bussi, M. G. B., & Mariotti, M. A. (2008). Semiotic mediation in the mathematics classroom: Artifacts and signs after a Vygotskian perspective. In L. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (2nd ed., pp. 746–783). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Clark-Wilson, A. (2008). Evaluating TI-Nspire TM in secondary mathematics classrooms: research report. Chichester, UK: University of Chichester.Google Scholar
  5. Clark-Wilson, A. (2010). How does a multi-representational mathematical ICT tool mediate teachers’ mathematical and pedagogical knowledge concerning variance and invariance? Institute of Education, PhD thesis.Google Scholar
  6. Clark-Wilson, A., Hoyles, C. & Noss, R. (2015a). Conceptualising the scaling of mathematics teachers’ professional development concerning technology. In J. Novotna (Ed.), 9th congress of european research on mathematics education, Prague, Czech Republic, 4th –8th February 2015. Czech Republic: Charles University.Google Scholar
  7. Clark-Wilson, A., Hoyles, C., Noss, R., Vahey, P., & Roschelle, J. (2015b). Scaling a technology-based innovation: Windows on the evolution of mathematics teachers’ practices. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(1), 79–92. doi: 10.1007/s11858-014-0635-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark-Wilson, A. & Timotheus, J. (2013). Designing tasks within a multi-representational technological environment: An emerging rubric. In C. Margolinas (Ed.), ICMI study 22 task design in mathematics education (Vol. 1, pp. 47–54). UK: Oxford.Google Scholar
  9. Department for Children Schools and Families (2007). National curriculum for mathematics. London, UK: Qualifications and Curriculum Agency.Google Scholar
  10. Department of Education (2013). The national curriculum in England: Key stages 3 and 4 framework document London: Department of Education.Google Scholar
  11. Drijvers, P. (2012). Teachers transforming resources into orchestrations. In G. Gueudet, B. Pepin, & L. Trouche (Eds.), From text to lived resources: Mathematics curriculum material and teacher development. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Drijvers, P., & Trouche, L. (2008). From artifacts to instruments: A theoretical framework behind the orchestra metaphor. In G. Blume & K. Heid (Eds.), Research on technology in the learning and teaching of mathematics: Syntheses, cases and perspectives (Vol. 2, pp. 363–392)., Cases and perspectives Charlotte: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics/Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Godwin, S., & Sutherland, R. (2004). Whole-class technology for learning mathematics: The case of functions and graphs. Education Communication and Information, 4(1), 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gueudet, G., & Trouche, L. (2009). Towards new documentation systems for mathematics teachers? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 71(3), 199–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haspekian, M. (2014). Teachers’ instrumental geneses when integrating spreadsheet software. In A. Clark-Wilson, O. Robutti, & N. Sinclair (Eds.), The mathematics teacher in the digital era: an international perspective on technology focused professional development (pp. 241–276). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hegedus, & Roschelle, J. (2013). The SimCalc vision and contributions. Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hoyles, C., Noss, R., Vahey, P., & Roschelle, J. (2013). Cornerstone Mathematics: Designing digital technology for teacher adaptation and scaling. ZDM, 45(7), 1057–1070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kaput, J. (1986). Information technology and mathematics: Opening new representational windows. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 5(2), 187–207.Google Scholar
  20. Kaput, J., & Schorr, R. (2008). Changing representational infrastructures changes most everything: The case of SimCalc, algebra and calculus. In G. Blume, & K. Heid (Eds.), Research on technology in the learning and teaching of mathematics: Syntheses, cases and perspectives. Vol 2 Cases and perspectives (Vol. 2, pp. 211–254). Charlotte: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics/Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  21. Leung, A., & Bolite-Frant, J. (2015). Designing mathematics tasks: The role of tools. In Anne Watson & Minoru Ohtani (Eds.), Task Design in Mathematics Education: The 22nd ICMI Study (New ICMI Study Series) (pp. 191–225). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Margolinas, C. (2013). Proceedings of the ICMI Study Conference 22: Task design in mathematics education (Vol. 1). UK: Oxford.Google Scholar
  23. Mason, J., Graham, A., & Johnston-Wilder, S. (Eds.). (2005). Developing thinking in algebra. London: Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  24. Noss, R., Sutherland, R., & Hoyles, C. (1991). Final Report of the Microworlds Project Vol. II: Teacher attitudes and interactions. London: Institute of Education.Google Scholar
  25. Office for Standards in Education. (2008). Mathematics: Understanding the score. London: Department for Children, Schools and Families.Google Scholar
  26. Office for Standards in Education. (2012). Mathematics: Made to measure. London: Department for Children, Schools and Families.Google Scholar
  27. Pierce, R., & Stacey, K. (2008). Using pedagogical maps to show the opportunities afforded by CAS for improving the teaching of mathematics. Australian Senior Mathematics Journal, 22(1), 6–12.Google Scholar
  28. Ruthven, K., & Hennessy, S. (2003). A teacher perspective on successful ICT use in secondary mathematics teaching. Micromath, 19(2), 20–24.Google Scholar
  29. SRI International, C. f. T. i. L., & Institute of Education, U. o. L. (2013). Teacher guide: Designing mobile games: A module on linear functions. London: Institute of Education.Google Scholar
  30. Texas Instruments (2007b). TI-Nspire TM Software Guide. Dallas, TX: Texas Instruments.Google Scholar
  31. 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, 281–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vahey, P., Knudsen, J., Rafanan, K., & Lara-Meloy, T. (2013). Curricular activity systems supporting the use of dynamic representations to foster students’ deep understanding of mathematics. In C. Mouza & N. Lavigne (Eds.), Emerging technologies for the classroom: A learning sciences perspective (pp. 15–30). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Verillon, 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), 77–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wertsch, J. (1981). The concept of activity in Soviet psychology. New York: ME Sharpe.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UCL Knowledge LabUniversity College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations