Exploring the Affordances of Open-Source Sensors in Promoting Authenticity in Mathematics Learning

  • Joshua Lee Shanwei
  • Kenneth Y. T. LimEmail author
  • Yuen Ming De
  • Ahmed Hilmy


This chapter describes the considerations of the learner and disciplinary intuitions in teaching science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). We assert that teachers who possess well-developed STEM pedagogical content knowledge, inquiry-based approach, and the ability to surface learners’ intuitions are well positioned to engage in the process of STEM curriculum design and teaching. We documented an education intervention that incorporated a STEM learning framework based on authentic learning into the Secondary Mathematics 2 curriculum of a Singapore public school. The purpose of the intervention was to promote greater authenticity in students’ learning of mathematical data handling skills, applications, and interests using a real-world learning context and problem involving data collected from open-source sensors. We conclude that a STEM learning framework supported by open-source sensors can be used to create an authentic learning environment, which in turn can leverage learner intuitions and enhance learning.


STEM education Sensors Authentic learning Secondary mathematics education Real-world context Learner intuition Disciplinary intuitions 



The authors would like to express their gratitude to the following persons for their invaluable part in this research project: Mdm. Goh Shwu Jun, Mr. Jeremy Chen, and Mdm. Lee Ching Fong from YCKSS for their collaboration and in shaping shared learning, and to Johnervan and Jonathan Lee for their continual encouragement and help throughout the project. The authors acknowledge the funding support for this project from Nanyang Technological University under the Undergraduate Research Experience on CAmpus (URECA) program.


  1. Aguirre, J. M., Turner, E. E., Bartell, T. G., Kalinec-Craig, C., Foote, M. Q., Roth McDuffie, A., et al. (2013). Making connections in practice: How prospective elementary teachers connect to children’s mathematical thinking and community funds of knowledge in mathematics instruction. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(2), 178–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen, M., Webb, A. W., & Matthews, C. E. (2016). Adaptive teaching in STEM: Characteristics for effectiveness. Theory into Practice, 55(3), 217–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Breiner, J. M., Harkness, S. S., Johnson, C. C., & Koehler, C. M. (2012). What is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burns, R. W., & Brooks, G. D. (Eds.). (1970). Curriculum design in a changing society. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  5. Cho, Y. H., & Hong, S. Y. (2015). Mathematical intuition and storytelling for meaningful learning. In K. Y. T. Lim (Ed.), Disciplinary intuitions and the design of learning environments (pp. 155–168). Singapore: Springer. Scholar
  6. Civil, M. (2002). Culture and mathematics: A community approach. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 23(2), 133–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Civil, M. (2007). Building on community knowledge: An avenue to equity in mathematics education. In N. S. Nasir & P. Cobb (Eds.), Improving access to mathematics: Diversity and equity in the classroom (pp. 105–117). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  8. Darling-Hammond, L., Barron, B., Pearson, P. D., Schoenfeld, A. H., Zimmerman, T., Cervettti, G., et al. (2008). Powerful learning: What we know about teaching for understanding. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  9. Gainsburg, J. (2008). Real-world connections in secondary mathematics teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(3), 199–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Geist, E. (2010). The anti-anxiety curriculum: Combating math anxiety in the classroom. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 37(1), 24–31.Google Scholar
  11. Johnson, C. C. (2013). Conceptualizing integrated STEM education. School Science and Mathematics, 8(113), 367–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kaiser, G. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lave, J. (1992). Word problems: A microcosm of theories of learning (pp. 74–92). Context and Cognition: Ways of Learning and Knowing.Google Scholar
  14. Lim, K. Y. T. (Ed.). (2015). Disciplinary intuitions and the design of learning environments. Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Lombardi, M. M. (2007). Authentic learning for the 21st century: An overview. EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative, 1, 1–12.Google Scholar
  16. Ministry of Education. (2012). Mathematics syllabus secondary one to four express course normal (academic) course. Singapore: Author. Retrieved from
  17. Ormrod, J. E. (2008). Educational psychology: Developing learners (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
  18. Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S. A., Kamp, E. T., … & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Review: Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 1447–1461. doi: Scholar
  19. Popham, W. J. (2008). Timed test for tykes? Educational Leadership, 65(8), 86–87.Google Scholar
  20. Popovic, G., & Lederman, J. S. (2015). Implications of informal education experiences for mathematics teachers’ ability to make connections beyond formal classroom. School Science and Mathematics, 115(3), 129–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Reeves, T. C., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2002). Authentic activities and online learning. In T. Herrington (Ed.), Quality conversations: Research and development in higher education (Vol. 25, pp. 562–567). Jamison, ACT: Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia.Google Scholar
  22. Rittle-Johnson, B., & Alibali, M. W. (1999). Conceptual and procedural knowledge of mathematics: Does one lead to the other? Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 175–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ryan, R. M. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes. Journal of Personality, 63(3), 397–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000a). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000b). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Turner, E. E., & Font, B. T. (2007). Problem posing that makes a difference: Students posing and investigating mathematical problems related to overcrowding at their school. Teaching Children Mathematics, 13(9), 457–463.Google Scholar
  27. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. White, D. W. (2014). What is STEM education and why is it important? Florida Association of Teacher Educators Journal, 1(14), 1–9.Google Scholar
  29. Zeuli, J. S., & Ben-Avie, M. (2003). Connecting with students on a social and emotional level through in-depth discussions of mathematics. In N. M. Haynes, M. Ben-Avie, & J. Ensign (Eds.), How social and emotional development add up: Getting results in math and science education (pp. 36–64). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joshua Lee Shanwei
    • 1
  • Kenneth Y. T. Lim
    • 1
    Email author
  • Yuen Ming De
    • 1
  • Ahmed Hilmy
    • 1
  1. 1.National Institute of EducationNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations