Advertisement

Digital Tools in Lower Secondary School Mathematics Education: A Review of Qualitative Research on Mathematics Learning of Lower Secondary School Students

Chapter
Part of the ICME-13 Monographs book series (ICME13Mo)

Abstract

Mathematics-specific digital technology has an ever-increasing presence in school mathematics learning, and qualitative research has shed light on the potential nature of that learning. Particularly for students at the critical early teen age (ages 10–14, or lower secondary school students), the incorporation of mathematics-specific digital technology in their mathematics instruction can change the representations they see, the mathematical activity in which they engage, and the mathematical content they learn. Research on the impact of mathematics-specific digital technology on lower secondary school students has focused on the mediation of the technology on the relationships between the student and mathematical representation, mathematical activity, and/or mathematical content. To examine the nature of understanding of mathematics learning that can be gleaned from this research, a review of the qualitative research literature on the mathematics learning of lower secondary students in the context of mathematics-specific digital technology was conducted. Fifty-three relevant studies were identified and examined based on a pyramidal model describing the mediation by digital technology of the relationships between the student, and some combination of mathematical activity, mathematical representation, and mathematical content. This chapter uses selected studies from that review to represent ways in which qualitative research probes students’ mathematical work. The selected studies are used to illuminate the breadth and depth of students’ experience with mathematical activity, mathematical representation, and mathematical content, and the relationships among them.

Keywords

Digital technology Lower secondary school Mathematical activity Mathematical content Mathematical representation 

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(3), 245–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bazzini, L. (2001). From grounding metaphors to technological devices: A call for legitimacy in school mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47, 259–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bishop, J. P. (2013). Mathematical discourse as a process that mediates learning in SimCalc classrooms. In S. J. Hegedus & J. Roschelle (Eds.), The SimCalc vision and contributions (pp. 233–249). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Bragg, L. (2007). Students’ conflicting attitudes towards games as a vehicle for learning mathematics: A methodological dilemma. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 19(1), 29–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics (N. Balacheff, M. Cooper, R. Sutherland & V. Warfield, Eds. and Trans.) Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  6. Drijvers, P. (2004). Learning algebra in a computer algebra environment. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 11(3), 77–90.Google Scholar
  7. Drijvers, P., Godino, J. D., Font, V., & Trouche, L. (2013). One episode, two lenses. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 82(1), 23–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gravemeijer, K. (1999). How emergent models may foster the constitution of formal mathematics. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 1, 155–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hadas, N., Hershkowitz, R., & Schwarz, B. B. (2000). The role of contradiction and uncertainty in promoting the need to prove in dynamic geometry environments. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44(1–2), 127–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hegedus, S. J., & Roschelle, J. (Eds.). (2013). The SimCalc vision and contributions: Democratizing access to important mathematics. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Herbert, S., & Pierce, R. (2008). An ‘emergent model’ for rate of change. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 13(3), 231–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jones, K. (2000). Providing a foundation for deductive reasoning: Students’ interpretations when using dynamic geometry software and their evolving mathematical explanations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44(1), 55–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kordaki, M., & Balomenou, A. (2006). Challenging students to view the concept of area in triangles in a broad context: Exploiting the features of Cabri-II. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 11, 99–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kordaki, M., & Potari, D. (2002). The effect of area measurement tools on student strategies: The role of a computer microworld. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 7(1), 65–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lagrange, J. B., & Psycharis, G. (2014). Investigating the potential of computer environments for the teaching and learning of functions: A double analysis from two research traditions. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 19(3), 255–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mor, Y., Noss, R., Hoyles, C., Kahn, K., & Simpson, G. (2006). Designing to see and share structure in number sequences. The International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 13(2), 65–78.Google Scholar
  17. Muir, T. (2014). Google, Mathletics and Khan Academy: Students’ self-initiated use of online mathematical resources. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 26, 833–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Noble, T., Nemirovsky, R., Dimattia, C., & Wright, T. (2004). Learning to see: Making sense of the mathematics of change in middle school. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9, 109–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Papadopoulos, I., & Dagdilelis, V. (2008). Students’ use of technological tools for verification purposes in geometry problem solving. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 27(4), 311–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Parnafes, O., & Disessa, A. (2004). Relations between types of reasoning and computational representations. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9(3), 251–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pea, R. D. (1987). Cognitive technologies for mathematics education. Cognitive Science and Mathematics Education, 89–122.Google Scholar
  22. Robutti, O. (2006). Motion, technology, gestures in interpreting graphs. The International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 13(3), 117–125.Google Scholar
  23. Skemp, R. (1978). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Arithmetic Teacher, 26(3), 9–15.Google Scholar
  24. Stevens, R., & Hall, R. (1998). Disciplined perception: Learning to see in technoscience. In M. Lampert & M. L. Blunk (Eds.), Talking mathematics in school: Studies of teaching and learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Tabach, M., Hershkowitz, R., & Arcavi, A. (2008). Learning beginning algebra with spreadsheets in a computer intensive environment. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 27, 48–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Talmon, V., & Yerushalmy, M. (2004). Understanding dynamic behavior: Parent–child relations in dynamic geometry environments. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 57, 91–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Vérillon, P., & Rabardel, P. (1995). Cognition, and artifact: A contribution to the study of thought in relation to instrumented activity. European Journal of Psychology in Education, 9(3), 1–33.Google Scholar
  28. Yerushalmy, M. (2006). Slower algebra students meet faster tools: Solving algebra word problems with graphing software. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 356–387.Google Scholar
  29. 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 Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 1169–1207). Charlotte, NC: Infoage.Google Scholar

Articles and Chapters in the Body of Reviewed Publications

  1. Ainley, J., Bills, L., & Wilson, K. (2005). Designing spreadsheet-based tasks for purposeful algebra. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 10(3), 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bazzini, L. (2001). From grounding metaphors to technological devices: A call for legitimacy in school mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47(3), 259–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bishop, J. P. (2013). Mathematical discourse as a process that mediates learning in SimCalc classrooms. In S. J. Hegedus & J. Roschelle (Eds.), The Simcalc vision and contributions (pp. 233–249). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Bragg, L. (2007). Students’ conflicting attitudes towards games as a vehicle for learning mathematics: A methodological dilemma. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 19(1), 29–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Calder, N., Brown, T., Hanley, U., & Darby, S. (2006). Forming conjectures within a spreadsheet environment. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 18(3), 100–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cedillo, T. E. (2001). Toward an algebra acquisition support system: A study based on using graphic calculators in the classroom. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 3(4), 221–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark, G., & Redden, T. (2000). Using logo as a scaffolding to develop algebraic thinking in a virtual classroom. The International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 7(2), 105.Google Scholar
  8. Drijvers, P. (2004). Learning algebra in a computer algebra environment. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 11(3), 77–90.Google Scholar
  9. Drijvers, P., Godino, J. D., Font, V., & Trouche, L. (2013). One episode, two lenses; A reflective analysis of student learning with computer algebra from instrumental and onto-semiotic perspectives. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 82(1), 23–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Graham, A. T., & Thomas, M. O. (2000). Building a versatile understanding of algebraic variables with a graphic calculator. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 41(3), 265–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gueudet, G. (2008). Learning mathematics with e-exercises: A case study about proportional reasoning. International Journal of Technology in Mathematics Education, 14(4), 169–182.Google Scholar
  12. Hadas, N., Hershkowitz, R., & Schwarz, B. B. (2000). The role of contradiction and uncertainty in promoting the need to prove in dynamic geometry environments. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44(1–2), 127–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hegedus, S. J., & Penuel, W. R. (2008). Studying new forms of participation and identity in mathematics classrooms with integrated communication and representational infrastructures. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 68(2), 171–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hegedus, S. J., & Roschelle, J. (Eds.). (2013). The SimCalc vision and contributions: Democratizing access to important mathematics. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Heid, M. K. (2002). How theories about the learning and knowing of mathematics can inform the use of CAS in school mathematics: One perspective. The International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 9(2), 95.Google Scholar
  16. Herbert, S., & Pierce, R. (2008). An ‘emergent model’ for rate of change. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 13(3), 231–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hoffmann, R., & Klein, R. (2007). Adjusting mathematics teaching and learning to technological changes: Introducing algorithmic problems into elementary school mathematics. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 14(1), 21–30.Google Scholar
  18. Jones, K. (2000). Providing a foundation for deductive reasoning: Students’ interpretations when using dynamic geometry software and their evolving mathematical explanations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44(1–2), 55–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kieran, C. (2007). Interpreting and assessing the answers given by the CAS expert: A reaction paper. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 14(2), 103.Google Scholar
  20. Kieran, C., & Drijvers, P. (2006). The co-emergence of machine techniques, paper-and-pencil techniques, and theoretical reflection: A study of CAS use in secondary school algebra. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 11(2), 205–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kieran, C., & Saldanha, L. (2007). Designing tasks for the co-development of conceptual and technical knowledge in CAS activity: An example from factoring. In G. Blume & M. K. Heid (Eds.), Research on technology and the teaching and learning of mathematics: Cases and perspectives (pp. 393–414). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.Google Scholar
  22. Kordaki, M., & Balomenou, A. (2006). Challenging students to view the concept of area in triangles in a broad context: Exploiting the features of Cabri-II. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 11(1), 99–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kordaki, M., & Potari, D. (2002). The effect of area measurement tools on student strategies: The role of a computer microworld. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 7(1), 65–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kuiper, E., & de Pater-Sneep, M. (2014). Student perceptions of drill-and-practice mathematics software in primary education. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 26(2), 215–236.Google Scholar
  25. Kynigos, C., & Psycharis, G. (2013). Designing for instrumentalisation: Constructionist perspectives on instrumental theory. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 20(1), 15–20.Google Scholar
  26. Lachmy, R., & Koichu, B. (2014). The interplay of empirical and deductive reasoning in proving “if” and “only if” statements in a dynamic geometry environment. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 36, 150–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lagrange, J. B., & Psycharis, G. (2014). Investigating the potential of computer environments for the teaching and learning of functions: A double analysis from two research traditions. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 19(3), 255–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lee, H. S., & Hollebrands, K. F. (2006). Students’ use of technological features while solving a mathematics problem. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 25(3), 252–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Leischner, P. (2002). The collection of interactive solid figures and spatial situations in the Cabri-geometre. The International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 9(3), 243.Google Scholar
  30. Leung, A., & Lee, A. M. S. (2013). Students’ geometrical perception on a task-based dynamic geometry platform. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 82(3), 361–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lin, X. (2001). Reflective adaptation of a technology artifact: A case study of classroom change. Cognition and Instruction, 19(4), 395–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Miller, D., Glover, D., & Averis, D. (2005, March). Presentation and pedagogy: The effective use of interactive whiteboards in mathematics lessons. In Proceedings of the Sixth British Congress of Mathematics Education (Vol. 30, pp. 105–112).Google Scholar
  33. Miyazaki, M., Kimiho, C., Katoh, R., Arai, H., Ogihara, F., Oguchi, Y., et al. (2012). Potentials for spatial geometry curriculum development with three-dimensional dynamic geometry software in lower secondary mathematics. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 19(2), 73–79.Google Scholar
  34. Mor, Y., Noss, R., Hoyles, C., Kahn, K., & Simpson, G. (2006). Designing to see and share structure in number sequences. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 13(2), 65–78.Google Scholar
  35. Muir, T. (2014). Google, Mathletics and Khan Academy: Students’ self-initiated use of online mathematical resources. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 26(4), 833–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Noble, T., Nemirovsky, R., Dimattia, C., & Wright, T. (2004). Learning to see: Making sense of the mathematics of change in middle school. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9(2), 109–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Norton, S. (2006). Pedagogies for the engagement of girls in the learning of proportional reasoning through technology practice. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 18(3), 69–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Olive, J. (2011, November). Research on technology in mathematics education: Theoretical frameworks and practical examples. Paper presented at Korea Society of Educational Studies in Mathematics Conference, Seoul, South Korea.Google Scholar
  39. Papadopoulos, I., & Dagdilelis, V. (2008). Students’ use of technological tools for verification purposes in geometry problem solving. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 27(4), 311–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Parnafes, O., & Disessa, A. (2004). Relations between types of reasoning and computational representations. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9(3), 251–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pierce, R., & Stacey, K. (2004). Monitoring progress in algebra in a CAS active context: Symbol sense, algebraic insight and algebraic expectation. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 11(1), 3.Google Scholar
  42. Pihlap, S., Sild, S., & Kreutzberg, K. (2013). Notice mathematics around You. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 20(3), 109–114.Google Scholar
  43. Pitta-Pantazi, D., & Christou, C. (2009). Cognitive styles, dynamic geometry and measurement performance. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(1), 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Robutti, O. (2006). Motion, technology, gestures in interpreting graphs. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 13(3), 117–125.Google Scholar
  45. Roschelle, J., Tatar, D., Shechtman, N., & Knudsen, J. (2008). The role of scaling up research in designing for and evaluating robustness. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 68(2), 149–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Soucie, T., Radovic, N., Svedrec, R., & Kokic, I. (2011). Teaching and assessing polygons using technology. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 18(4), 165–170.Google Scholar
  47. Tabach, M., Hershkowitz, R., & Arcavi, A. (2008). Learning beginning algebra with spreadsheets in a computer intensive environment. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 27(1), 48–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Talmon, V., & Yerushalmy, M. (2004). Understanding dynamic behavior: Parent–child relations in dynamic geometry environments. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 57(1), 91–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Turgut, M., & Uygan, C. (2015). Designing spatial visualization tasks for middle school students with 3D modelling software: An instrumental approach. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 22(2), 45–51.Google Scholar
  50. Vale, C. M., & Leder, G. C. (2004). Student views of computer-based mathematics in the middle years: Does gender make a difference? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 56(2–3), 287–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. White, T. (2009). Encrypted objects and decryption processes: Problem-solving with functions in a learning environment based on cryptography. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72(1), 17–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yerushalmy, M. (2006). Slower algebra students meet faster tools: Solving algebra word problems with graphing software. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37(5), 356–387.Google Scholar
  53. Zaslavsky, O. (2005). Seizing the opportunity to create uncertainty in learning mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 60(3), 297–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations