Role of Technology in Calculus Teaching: Beliefs of Novice Secondary Teachers

  • Ralf ErensEmail author
  • Andreas Eichler


The appearance of portable technological tools has given rise to a growing body of research at various levels of mathematics education. The entry of these innovations has implications for the teaching and learning of mathematics posing a challenge for all participants in the classroom. With particular attention to graphing and computer-algebra technology, this report focuses on teachers’ beliefs and their intended instructional planning towards their teaching of calculus at upper-secondary level. First the theoretical framework and methodology is outlined. Afterwards the focus lies on studying how and why secondary-level teachers actually employ the technological device in the teaching and learning of calculus as the central part of upper-secondary mathematics courses in Germany. Results from a qualitative study of pre-service and trainee teachers will be discussed centred on how their beliefs on the role of technology correlate with beliefs on secondary level calculus teaching.


Beliefs Technology Teachers Calculus Instruction 


  1. 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, 245–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Eichler, A., & Erens, R. (2014). Teachers’ beliefs towards teaching calculus. ZDM–The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 46(4), 647–659. Scholar
  3. Eichler, A., & Erens, R. (2015). Domain-specific belief systems of secondary mathematics teachers. In B. Pepin & B. Roesken-Winter (Eds.), From beliefs to dynamic affect systems in mathematics education (pp. 179–200). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  5. Goos, M., & Soury-Lavergne, S. (2010). Teachers and teaching: Theoretical perspectives and issues concerning classroom implementation. In C. Hoyles & J.-B. Lagrange (Eds.), Mathematics education and technology–rethinking the terrain. The 17th ICMI study (pp. 311–328). Dordrecht: Springer. Scholar
  6. Green, T. (1971). The activities of teaching. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  7. Gueudet, G., Bosch, M., Disessa, A., Kwon, O. N., & Verschaffel, L. (2016). Transitions in mathematics education. In Transitions in mathematics education (pp. 1–32). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hannula, M. S. (2012). Exploring new dimensions of mathematics-related affect: Embodied and social theories. Research in Mathematics Education, 14(2), 137–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Heckhausen, H., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1987). Thought contents and cognitive functioning in motivational versus volitional states of mind. Motivation and Emotion, 11(2), 101–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kunter, M., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Klusmann, U., Krauss, S., & Neubrand, M. (2013). Cognitive activation in the mathematics classroom and professional competence of teachers: Results from the COACTIV project. New York; London: Springer Science & Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Levin, B. (2015). The development of teachers’ beliefs. In H. Fives & M. G. Hill (Eds.), International handbook of research on teachers’ beliefs (pp. 48–65). New York: Taylor and Francis Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Mayring, P. (2015). Qualitative content analysis: Theoretical background and procedures. In A. Bikner-Ahsbahs, C. Knipping, & N. C. Presmeg (Eds.), Approaches to qualitative research in mathematics education (pp. 365–380). Advances in Mathematics Education). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Philipp, R. A. (2007). Mathematics teachers’ beliefs and affect. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 257–315). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  15. Richardson, V. (2003). Preservice teachers’ beliefs. In J. Raths & A. McAninch (Eds.), Teacher beliefs and classroom performance: The impact of teacher education (Vol. 6, pp. 1–22). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.Google Scholar
  16. Skott, J. (2015). The promises, problems, and prospects of research on teachers’ beliefs. In H. Fives & M. G. Hill (Eds.), International handbook of research on teachers’ beliefs (pp. 13–30). New York: Taylor and Francis Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Speer, N. M. (2005). Issues of methods and theory on the study of mathematics teachers’ professed and attributed beliefs. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 58, 361–391. Scholar
  18. Tall, D. (2008). Technology and calculus. In M. K. Heid & G. W. Blume (Eds.), Research on technology and the teaching and learning of mathematics: Synthesis, cases and perspectives (Vol. 1.: Research synthesis, pp. 207–258). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  19. Trouche, L. (2005). Instrumental genesis, individual and social aspects. In D. Guin, K. Ruthven, & L. Trouche (Eds.), The didactical challenge of symbolic calculators (pp. 197–230). New York: Springer Science & Business Media US.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Trouche, L., & Drijvers, P. (2010). Handheld technology for mathematics education: Flashback into the future. ZDM–The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 42(7), 667–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wilson, M. S. & Cooney, T. J. (2002). Mathematics teacher change and development. the role of beliefs. In Leder, G, Pehkonen, E., & Törner, G. (Eds.). Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education? (pp. 127–148). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  22. Zbiek, R. M., Heid, M. K., Blume, G., & Dick, T. P. (2007). Research on technology in mathematics education: The perspective of constructs. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research in mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 1169–1207). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Education FreiburgFreiburg im BreisgauGermany
  2. 2.University of KasselKasselGermany

Personalised recommendations