Advertisement

Frameworks for Analysing the Expertise That Underpins Successful Integration of Digital Technologies into Everyday Teaching Practice

  • Kenneth RuthvenEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Mathematics Education in the Digital Era book series (MEDE, volume 2)

Abstract

This chapter examines contemporary frameworks for analysing teacher expertise which are relevant to the integration of digital technologies into everyday teaching practice. It outlines three such frameworks, offering a critical appreciation of each, and then explores some commonalities, complementarities and contrasts between them: the Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework (Koehler & Mishra, Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 2009); the Instrumental Orchestration framework (Trouche, L. (2005). Instrumental genesis, individual and social aspects. In D. Guin, K. Ruthven, & L. Trouche (Eds.), The didactical challenge of symbolic calculators: Turning a computational device into a mathematical instrument (pp. 197–230). New York: Springer.); and the Structuring Features of Classroom Practice framework (Ruthven, Education & Didactique, 3(1), 2009). To concretise the discussion, the use of digital technologies for algebraic graphing, a now well established form of technology use in secondary school mathematics, serves as an exemplary reference situation: each of the frameworks is illustrated through its application in a study of teacher expertise relating to this topic (respectively Richardson, Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(2), 2009; Drijvers, Doorman, Boon, Reed, & Gravemeijer, Educational Studies in Mathematics, 75(2), 213–234, 2010; Ruthven, Deaney, & Hennessy, Educational Studies in Mathematics, 71(3), 279–297, 2009).

Keywords

Instrumental orchestration TPACK Structuring features of classroom practice 

References

  1. Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators. (AMTE). (2009). Mathematics TPACK (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge) Framework. Retrieved February 8, 2012 from http://www.amte.net/sites/all/themes/amte/resources/AMTETechnologyPositionStatement.pdf
  2. 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
  3. Cuban, L. (1989). Neoprogressive visions and organizational realities. Harvard Educational Review, 59(2), 217–222.Google Scholar
  4. Drijvers, P., Doorman, M., Boon, P., Reed, H., & Gravemeijer, K. (2010). The teacher and the tool: Instrumental orchestrations in the technology-rich mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 75(2), 213–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Groth, R., Spickler, D., Bergner, J., & Bardzell, M. (2009). A qualitative approach to assessing technological pedagogical content knowledge. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(4). Retrieved February 8, 2012, from http://www.citejournal.org/vol9/iss4/mathematics/article1.cfm
  6. Guin, D., Ruthven, K., & Trouche, L. (Eds.). (2005). The didactical challenge of symbolic calculators: Turning a computational device into a mathematical instrument. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Guin, D., & Trouche, L. (2002). Mastering by the teacher of the instrumental genesis in CAS environments: Necessity of instrumental orchestrations. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 34(5), 204–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1). Retrieved February 8, 2012 from http://www.citejournal.org/vol9/iss1/general/article1.cfm
  9. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Rabardel, P. (2002). People and Technology: a cognitive approach to contemporary instruments. Retrieved February 8, 2012 from http://ergoserv.psy.univ-paris8.fr/
  11. Richardson, S. (2009). Mathematics teachers’ development, exploration, and advancement of technological pedagogical content knowledge in the teaching and learning of algebra. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(2). Retrieved February 8, 2012 from http://www.citejournal.org/vol9/iss2/mathematics/article1.cfm
  12. Ruthven, K. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ruthven, K. (2009). Towards a naturalistic conceptualisation of technology integration in classroom practice: The example of school mathematics. Education & Didactique, 3(1), 131–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ruthven, K. (2011a). Conceptualising mathematical knowledge in teaching. In T. Rowland & K. Ruthven (Eds.), Mathematical knowledge in teaching (pp. 83–96). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ruthven, K. (2011b). Constituting digital tools and materials as classroom resources: The example of dynamic geometry. In G. Gueudet, B. Pepin, & L. Trouche (Eds.), From text to ‘lived’ resources: Mathematics curriculum materials and teacher development (pp. 83–103). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ruthven, K., Deaney, R., & Hennessy, S. (2009). Using graphing software to teach about algebraic forms: A study of technology-supported practice in secondary-school mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 71(3), 279–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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(3), 281–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Trouche, L. (2005). Instrumental genesis, individual and social aspects. In D. Guin, K. Ruthven, & L. Trouche (Eds.), The didactical challenge of symbolic calculators: Turning a computational device into a mathematical instrument (pp. 197–230). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Wilson, S., Shulman, L., & Richert, A. (1987). ‘150 different ways’ of knowing: Representations of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teacher thinking (pp. 104–124). London: Cassell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations