The Interpretative Flexibility,Instrumental Evolution,and Institutional Adoption of Mathematical Software in Educational Practice: The Examples of Computer Algebra and Dynamic Geometry
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online December, 2008
The Interpretative Flexibility,Instrumental Evolution,and Institutional Adoption of Mathematical Software in Educational Practice: The Examples of Computer Algebra and Dynamic Geometry
This article examines three important facets of the incorporation of new technologies into educational practice, focusing on emergent usages of the mathematical tools of computer algebra and dynamic geometry. First, it illustrates the interpretative flexibility of these tools, highlighting important differences in ways of conceptualizing and employing them that reflect their appropriation to contrasting practices of mathematics teaching. Second, it examines the cultural process of instrumental evolution in which mathematical frameworks and teaching practices are adapted in response to new possibilities created by these tools, showing that such evolution remains at a relatively early stage. Third, it points to crucial prerequisites, at both classroom and systemic levels, for effective institutional adoption of such tools: explicit recognition of the interplay between the development of instrumental and mathematical knowledge, including the establishment of a recognized repertoire of tool-mediated mathematical techniques supported by appropriate discourses of explanation and justification.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArtigueM. (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.
2.
ArtigueM. (2005). The integration of symbolic calculators into secondary education: Some lessons from didactical engineering. In GuinD.RuthvenK., & TroucheL. (Eds.), The didactical challenge of symbolic calculators: Turning a computational device into a mathematical instrument (pp. 231–294). New York: Springer.
3.
ArzarelloF.OliveroF.PaolaD., & RobuttiO. (2002). A cognitive analysis of dragging practices in Cabri environments. Zentralblatt fur Didaktik der Mathematik, 34(3), 66–72.
4.
BalacheffN., & KaputJ. (1996). Computer-based learning environments in mathematics. In BishopA. (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics education.Dordrecht: Kluwer.
5.
BallD. L., & CohenD. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is—or might be—The role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform. Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6–8, 14.
6.
BeckerH.RavitzJ., & WongY. (1999). Teacher and teacher-directed student use of computers, teaching, learning, and computing: 1998 National Survey Report #3. Centre for Research on Information Technology and Organizations, University of California Irvine.
7.
ChazanD., & YerushalmyM. (1995). Charting a course for secondary geometry. In LehrerR. & ChazanD. (Eds.), New directions in the teaching and learning of geometry.Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8.
ChevallardY. (1992). Concepts fondamentaux de la didactique: Perspectives apportées par une approche anthropologique [Fundamental concepts of didactics: Perspectives provided by an anthropological approach]. Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques, 12(1), 77–111.
9.
DörflerW. (1993). Computer use and views of the mind. In KeitelC. & RuthvenK. (Eds.), Learning from computers: Mathematics education and technology.Berlin: Springer.
10.
DrijversP., & GravemeijerK. (2005). Computer algebra as an instrument: Examples of algebraic schemes. In GuinD.RuthvenK., & TroucheL. (Eds.), The didactical challenge of symbolic calculators: Turning a computational device into a mathematical instrument (pp. 164–196). New York: Springer.
FeyJ. (2006). Connecting technology and school mathematics: A review of “The didactical challenge of symbolic calculators: Turning a computational device into a mathematical instrument.”Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36(4), 348–352.
13.
FeyJ.HeidM. K.GoodR.SheetsC.BlumeG., & ZbiekR. M. (1995). Concepts in algebra: A technological approach.Dedham, MA: Janson Publications, Inc.
14.
HaggartyL., & PepinB. (2002). An investigation of mathematics textbooks and their use in English, French and German classrooms: Who gets an opportunity to learn what?British Educational Research Journal, 28(4), 567–590.
15.
HölzlR. (1996). How does “dragging” affect the learning of geometry. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 1(2), 169–187.
16.
HowsonG. (1995). Mathematics textbooks: A comparative study of grade 8 texts.Vancouver: Pacific Educational Press.
17.
HoylesC.FoxmanD., & KüchemannD. (2001). A comparative study of geometry curricula.London: Institute of Education.
18.
HoylesC., & NossR. (2003). What can digital technologies take from and bring to research in mathematics education? In BishopA. J.ClementsM. A.KeitelC.KilpatrickJ. & LeungF. K. S. (Eds.), Second international handbook of mathematics education.Dordrecht: Kluwer.
19.
KaiserG. (2002). Educational philosophies and their influence on mathematics education—An ethnographic study in English and German mathematics classrooms. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 34(6), 241–257.
20.
KendalM., & StaceyK. (2001). The impact of teacher privileging on learning differentiation with technology. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6(2), 143–165.
21.
KendalM.StaceyK., & PierceR. (2005). The influence of a computer algebra environment on teachers' practice. In GuinD.RuthvenK., & TroucheL. (Eds.), The didactical challenge of symbolic calculators: Turning a computational device into a mathematical instrument (pp. 83–112). New York: Springer.
22.
KlineR., & PinchT. (1999). The social construction of technology. In MacKenzieD. & WajcmanJ. (Eds.), The social shaping of technology.Buckingham: Open University Press.
23.
LabordeC. (2001). Integration of technology in the design of geometry tasks with Cabri-Geometry. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6(3), 283–317.
24.
LagrangeJ. B. (2001). L'intégration des instruments informatiques dans l'enseignement: Une approche par les techniques [The integration of computer instruments into teaching: An approach through techniques]. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 43(1), 1–30.
25.
LagrangeJ.-B., & Caliskan-DedeogluN. (in press). Usages de la technologie dans des conditions ordinaires: Le cas de la géométrie dynamique au collège: Potentialités, attentes, pratiques [Usages of technology under ordinary conditions: The case of dynamic geometry in the lower-secondary school: Potentialities, expectations, practices]. Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques.
26.
LampertM. (1993). Teachers' thinking about students' thinking about geometry: The effects of new teaching tools. In SchwartzJ.YerushalmyM., & WilsonB. (Eds.), The geometric supposer: What is it a case of?Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
PeaR. D. (1985). Beyond amplification: Using the computer to reorganize mental functioning. Educational Psychologist, 20(4), 167–182.
29.
RabardelP. (2002). People and technology: A cognitive approach to contemporary instruments. Retrieved December 12, 2008, from http://ergoserv.psy.univ-paris8.fr/
30.
RabardelP., & BourmaudG. (2003). From computer to instrument system: A developmental perspective. Interacting with Computers, 15, 665–691.
31.
RabardelP., & WaernY. (2003). From artefact to instrument. Interacting with Computers, 15, 641–645.
32.
RemillardJ. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers' use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211–246.
33.
RuthvenK. (2002). Instrumenting mathematical activity: Reflections on key studies of the educational use of computer algebra systems. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 7(3), 275–291.
34.
RuthvenK.HennessyS., & DeaneyR. (2008). Constructions of dynamic geometry: A study of the interpretative flexibility of educational software in classroom practice. Computers and Education, 51(1), 297–317.
35.
ScherD. (2000). Lifting the curtain: The evolution of the Geometer's Sketchpad. The Mathematics Educator, 10(1), 42–48.
36.
TroucheL. (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(3), 281–307.
37.
TroucheL. (2005). Instrumental genesis, individual and social aspects. In GuinD.RuthvenK., & TroucheL. (Eds.), The didactical challenge of symbolic calculators: Turning a computational device into a mathematical instrument (pp. 197–230). New York: Springer.
38.
WertschJ. (1990). The voice of rationality in a sociocultural approach to mind.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
39.
WilliamsR., & EdgeD. (1996). The social shaping of information and communications technologies. Research Policy, 25(6), 856–899.
40.
WiskeM. S., & HoudeR. (1993). From recitation to construction: Teachers change with new technologies. In SchwartzJ.YerushalmyM., & WilsonB. (Eds.), The geometric supposer: What is it a case of?Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
