Advertisement

Factors Affecting Teachers’ Adoption of Innovative Practices with Technology and Mathematical Modelling

  • Vince Geiger
Conference paper
Part of the International Perspectives on the Teaching and Learning of Mathematical Modelling book series (IPTL, volume 1)

Abstract

This chapter contrasts the experiences of two secondary teachers from different education jurisdictions in relation to the adoption of computer algebra systems (CAS) as a supporting technology for teaching mathematical modelling. The study reveals that the differing dispositions and beliefs of these teachers were highly influential in the degree to which CAS-enhanced mathematical modelling was introduced into their classrooms. Thus, the role of technology, specifically CAS, within theoretical models of the process of mathematical modelling, can be viewed as variable and situational rather than fixed.

Keywords

Digital Technology Computer Algebra System Curriculum Document Australian Capital Australian Capital Territory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Blum, W., Galbraith, P., Henn, H., & Niss, M. (Eds.). (2007). Modelling and applications in mathematics education: The 14th ICMI study. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Confrey, J., & Maloney, A. (2007). A theory of mathematical modelling in technological settings. In W. Blum, P. Galbraith, H. Henn, & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education: The 14th ICMI study (pp. 57–68). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Galbraith, P., Renshaw, P., Goos, M., & Geiger, V. (2003). Technology-enriched classrooms: Some implications for teaching applications and modelling. In Ye Qi-Xiao, W. Blum, S. K. Houston, & J. Qi-Yuan (Eds.), Mathematical modelling in education and culture (pp. 111–125). Chichester: Horwood.Google Scholar
  4. Geiger, V., Faragher, R., Redmond, T., & Lowe, J. (2008). CAS enabled devices as provocative agents in the process of mathematical modelling. In M. Goos, R. Brown, & K. Maker (Eds.), Navigating currents and charting directions (Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Brisbane, Qld) (pp. 246–253). Brisbane: MERGA.Google Scholar
  5. Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (2003). What can digital technologies take from and bring to research in mathematics education? In A. J. Bishop (Ed.), Second international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 323–349). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Huntley, M. A., Rasmussen, C. L., Villarubi, R. S., Santong, J., & Fey, J. T. (2000). Effects of standards-based mathematics education: A study of the Core-Plus Mathematics Project Algebra and Function Strand. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31, 328–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kiernan, C., & Yerushalmy, M. (2004). Research on the role of technological environments in algebra learning and teaching. In H. Chick, K. Stacey, & J. Vincent (Eds.), The future of teaching and learning of algebra (Proceedings of the 12th ICMI study conference) (pp. 99–152). Melbourne: The University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
  8. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathe­matics. Reston: NCTM.Google Scholar
  9. Stake, R. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  10. Stillman, G. (2007). Implementing case study: Sustaining curriculum change. In W. Blum, P. Galbraith, H. Henn, & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education: The 14th ICMI study (pp. 497–502). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Stillman, G., & Galbraith, P. (2009). Softly, softly: Curriculum change in applications and modeling in the senior secondary curriculum in Queensland. In R. Hunter, B. Bicknell, & T. Burgess (Eds.), Crossing divides (Proceedings of the 32nd annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Wellington, NZ) (pp. 201–208). Wellington: MERGA.Google Scholar
  12. Thomas, M. O. J. (2001). Building a conceptual algebra curriculum: The role of technological tools. In H. Chick, K. Stacey, J. Vincent & J. Vincent (Eds.), The future of teaching and learning of algebra (Proceedings of the 12th ICMI study conference) (pp. 582–589). Melbourne: The University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
  13. Thomas, M. O. J., Monaghan, J., & Pierce, R. T. (2004). Computer algebra systems and algebra: Curriculum, assessment, teaching and learning. In H. Chick, K. Stacey, & M. Kendal (Eds.), The future of teaching and learning of algebra (Proceedings of the 12th ICMI study conference) (pp. 151–186). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  14. Zbiek, R., Heid, M., Blume, G., & Dick, T. (2007). Research on technology in mathematics education: A perspective on constructs. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 3–38). Charlotte: Information Age Pub.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Australian Catholic UniversityBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations