Abstract
Teachers should and do design tasks for the mathematics classroom, with specific mathematical learning as the objective. Completing the tasks should require students to engage in dialectics of action, formulation and validation (Brousseau in Theory of didactical situations in mathematics : didactique des mathematiques, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997) and to move between the pragmatic/empirical field and the mathematical/systematic field (Noss et al. in Educational Studies in Mathematics, 33(2), 203–233, 1997). In the classroom, students act within a milieu, and where computers are part of this milieu, particular considerations with respect to task design include questions about the mathematics the student does and the mathematics the computer does, and the role of feedback from the computer. Whilst taking into account the role of the computer, the design of tasks can also be guided by theoretical constructs related to obstacles of various kinds; ontogenic, didactical and epistemological (Brousseau in Theory of didactical situations in mathematics : didactique des mathematiques,Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997), and, whereas the first two should be avoided, the third should be encouraged. An example of a task taken from empirical research in an ordinary classroom is used to illustrate some of these ideas, also demonstrating how difficult and complex it is for many teachers to design tasks that use computer software in ways that provoke the sort of student activity that would be likely to lead to mathematical learning. Implications for teacher professional development are discussed.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Ainley, J., & Pratt, D. (2002). Purpose and utility in pedagogic task design. Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 2, 17–24.
Balacheff, N. (1990). Towards a problematique for research on mathematics teaching. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21(4), 258–272. Retrieved from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-8251(199007)21:4<258:TAPFRO>2.0.CO;2-U.
Balacheff, N., & Kaput, J. (1996). Computer-based learning environments in mathematics. In A. J. Bishop (Ed.), International handbook of mathematics education (pp. 469–502). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Balacheff, N., & Sutherland, R. (1994). Epistemological domain of validity of microworlds: the case of Logo and Cabri-geometre. In R. Lewis & P. Mendelsohn (Eds.), Lessons from learning. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science BV. (N. Holland), IFIP.
Becta. (2004). What the research says about the use of ICT in maths. Retrieved from http://publications.becta.org.uk/display.cfm?resID=25808&page=1835.
Bokhove, C., & Drijvers, P. (2010). Digital tools for Algebra education: Criteria and evaluation. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 15(1), 45–62. doi:10.1007/s10758-010-9162-x.
Bokhove, C., & Drijvers, P. (2011). Effects of a digital intervention the development of algebraic expertise. Computers & Education, (3), 3770–3777. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131511001886.
Bokhove, C., & Drijvers, P. (2012). Effects of feedback in an online algebra intervention. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 17(1–2), 43–59. doi:10.1007/s10758-012-9191-8.
Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics: didactique des mathematiques, 1970–1990. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Christiansen, B., & Walther, G. (1986). Task and activity. In B. Christiansen, A. G. Howson, & M. Otte (Eds.), Perspectives on mathematics education (pp. 243–307). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Condie, R., & Munro, B. (2007). The impact of ICT in schools—a landscape review. Report: Becta.
Dörfler, W. (2000). Means for meaning. In P. Cobb, E. Yackel, & K. McClain (Eds.), Symbolizing and communicating in mathematics classrooms; Perspectives on discourse, tools, and instructional design (pp. 99–131). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Goldenberg, E. P. (1988). mathematics, metaphors, and human factors: mathematical, technical, and pedagogical challenges in the educational use of graphical representation of functions. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 7(2), 135–173.
Granberg, C., & Olsson, J. (2015). ICT-supported problem solving and collaborative creative reasoning: Exploring linear functions using dynamic mathematics software. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 37, 48–62. doi:10.1016/j.jmathb.2014.11.001.
Harel, G., & Sowder, L. (2005). Advanced mathematical—thinking at any age: its nature and its development. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 7(1), 27–50.
Hillel, J. (1992). The computer as a problem-solving tool; it gets a job done, but is it always appropriate? In J. P. Ponte, J. F. Matos, J. M. Matos, & D. Fernandes (Eds.), Mathematical problem solving and new information technologies. New York: Springer.
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. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Hoyles, C., Noss, R., Vahey, P., & Roschelle, J. (2013). Cornerstone mathematics: Designing digital technology for teacher adaptation and scaling. ZDM—International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(7), 1057–1070. doi:10.1007/s11858-013-0540-4.
Joubert, M. (2007). Classroom mathematical learning with computers: The mediational effects of the computer, the teacher and the task. University of Bristol.
Laborde, C. (1998). Relationship between the spatial and theoretical in geometry—the role of computer dynamic representations in problem solving (pp. 183–195). London: Chapman and Hall.
Laborde, C. (2002). Integration of technology in the design of geometry tasks with Cabri-Geometry. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6(3), 283–317.
Laborde, C., Kilpatrick, J., Hoyles, C., & Skovsmose, O. (2004). The hidden role of diagrams in students’ construction of meaning in geometry (pp. 1–21). Netherlands: Kluwer.
Laborde, C., & Sträßer, R. (2010). Place and use of new technology in the teaching of mathematics: ICMI activities in the past 25 years. ZDM, 42(1), 121–133. doi:10.1007/s11858-009-0219-z.
Love, E., Burton, L., & Jaworski, B. (1995). Software for mathematics education. Lund: Chartwell-Bratt.
Love, E., & Mason, J. (1992). Teaching mathematics: Action and awareness. Milton Keynes: Open University.
Margolinas, C., & Drijvers, P. (2015). Didactical engineering in France; an insider’s and an outsider’s view on its foundations, its practice and its impact. ZDM—Mathematics Education, 47(6), 893–903. doi:10.1007/s11858-015-0698-z.
Mariotti, M. A. (2000). Introduction to proof: The mediation of a dynamic software environment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44(1), 25–53.
Martin, L., & Pirie, S. (2003). Making images and noticing properties: The role of graphing software in mathematical generalisation. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 15(2), 171–186. doi:10.1007/BF03217377.
Mason, J. (1989). Mathematical abstraction as the result of a delicate shift of attention. For the Learning of Mathematics, 9(2), 2–8.
Mavrikis, M., Noss, R., Hoyles, C., & Geraniou, E. (2013). Sowing the seeds of algebraic generalization: Designing epistemic affordances for an intelligent microworld. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 29(1), 68–84. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00469.x.
McNeil, N., & Jarvin, L. (2007). When theories don’t add up: Disentangling he manipulatives debate. Theory into Practice, 46(4), 309–316. doi:10.1080/00405840701593899.
Monaghan, J., & Trouche, L. (2016). Tasks and digital tools. In J. Monaghan, L. Trouche, & J. M. Borwein (Eds.), Tools and mathematics (pp. 391–415). Switzerland: Springer.
Nevile, L., Burton, L., & Jaworski, B. (1995). Looking at, through, back at: Useful ways of viewing mathematical software. Lund: Chartwell-Bratt.
Noss, R., Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (1997). The construction of mathematical meanings: Connecting the visual with the symbolic. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 33(2), 203–233.
Olivero, F. (2003). The proving process within a dynamic geometry environment. Advanced mathematical thinking (Vol. PhD). PhD thesis. Graduate School of Education: University of Bristol.
Orton, A., & Frobisher, L. J. (1996). Insights into teaching mathematics. London: Cassell.
Pimm, D. (1995). Symbols and meanings in school mathematics. London: Routledge.
Resnick, L. B. (1984). A developmental theory of number understanding. Pittsburg: Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburg.
Romberg, T., & Kaput, J. (1999). Mathematics worth teaching, mathematics worth understanding. In E. Fennema & T. Romberg (Eds.), Mathematics classrooms that promote understanding (pp. 3–19). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Roschelle, J. (1997). Learning in interactive environments prior knowledge and new experience. Exploratorium Institute for Inquiry: University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth.
Ruthven, K., Hennessy, S., & Brindley, S. (2004). Teacher representations of the successful use of computer-based tools and resources in secondary-school English, Mathematics and Science. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(3), 259–275.
Säljö, R. (1999). Learning as the use of tools: A sociocultural perspective on the human-technology link. In Learning with Computers: Analysing Productive Interaction Table of Contents, pp. 144–161.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1988). When good teaching leads to bad results: The disasters of “well-taught” mathematics courses. Educational Psychologist, 23(2), 145–166.
Schwarz, B. B., & Hershkowitz, R. (2001). Production and transformation of computer artifacts toward construction of meaning in Mathematics. Mind Culture and Activity, 8(3), 250–267.
Sfard, A. (2000). Symbolizing mathematical reality into being—or how mathematical discourse and mathematical objects create each other. In Symbolizing and communicating: Perspectives on Mathematical discourse, tools, and instructional design, pp. 37–98.
Sierpinska, A. (2000). The “theory of didactic situations”: Lecture notes for a graduate course with samples of students’ work. master in the teaching of mathematics. Concordia University. Retrieved 2006 from http://alcor.concordia.ca/~sierp/TDSLecture%202.pdf.
Sierpinska, A. (2004). Research in mathematics education through a keyhole: Task problematization. For the Learning of Mathematics, 24(2), 7–15.
Sutherland, R. (2007). Teaching for learning mathematics. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Sutherland, R., & Balacheff, N. (1999). Didactical Complexity of Computational Environments for the Learning of Mathematics. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 4(1), 1–26.
Swan, M. (2006). Collaborative learning in mathematics: A challenge to our beliefs and practices. In S. M. Wilson & J. Berne (Vol. 24). London: NRDC.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Watson, A., et al. (2013). Task design in mathematics education proceedings of ICMI study 22. In C. Margolinas (Ed.), Task Design in Mathematics Education Proceedings of ICMI Study 22. Oxford.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Joubert, M. (2017). Revisiting Theory for the Design of Tasks: Special Considerations for Digital Environments. In: Leung, A., Baccaglini-Frank, A. (eds) Digital Technologies in Designing Mathematics Education Tasks. Mathematics Education in the Digital Era, vol 8. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43423-0_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43423-0_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-43421-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-43423-0
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)