Social Media and the Wall-Less Classroom

  • Marcel DanesiEmail author
Part of the Mathematics Education in the Digital Era book series (MEDE, volume 6)


The social mediaphere has become a crucial one for everyday interactions. The same sphere is used by scientists, academics, teachers, and many others for preofessional purposes. In the case of math education, the mediasphere allows us to extend the classroom beyond its “walled-in” structure, so that teaching and learning can occur across both real space and cyberspace. The pedagogical implications of this, including an analysis of major social media (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube) with respect to math education, are taken up in this chapter. The framework is that of connected intelligence theory and its explanation pf the information society in which we live.


Social Medium Orange Sweet Traditional Classroom Individualist Brain Conceptual Metaphor 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Arnheim, R. (1969). Visual thinking. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  2. Chomsky, N (2002). Media control: The spectacular achievements propaganda. New York: Seven Stories Press.Google Scholar
  3. Danesi, M. (2008). Problem-solving in mathematics: A semiotic perspective for educators and teachers. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  4. Danesi, M. (2011). George Lakoff on the cognitive and neural foundation of mathematics. Fields Notes, 11(3), 14–20.Google Scholar
  5. Danesi, M. (2015). Popular culture: An introduction. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  6. Davis, B. (2015). Where mathematics curriculum comes from. In M. Bockarova, M. Danesi, D. Martinovic, & R. Núñez (Eds.), Mind in mathematics (pp. 3–18). Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
  7. De Kerckhove, D. (1997). Connected intelligence: The arrival of the web society. Toronto: Somerville.Google Scholar
  8. De Kerckhove, Derrick (2015). Connecting intelligence. Retrieved from
  9. Durkheim, É. (1912). The elementary forms of religious life. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  10. Eco, U. (1979). The role of the reader. Explorations in the semiotics of texts (p. 1979). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Eco, U. (1990). The limits of interpretation (p. 1990). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Eco, U. (1992). Interpretation and overinterpretation (p. 1992). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gleick, J. (2011). The information: A history, a theory, a flood. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  14. Gödel, K. (1931). Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme, Teil I. Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik, 38, 173–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Godino, J. D., Font, V., Wilhelmi, M. R., & Lurduy, O. (2011). Why is the learning of elementary arithmetic concepts difficult? Semiotic tools for understanding the nature of mathematical objects. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 77, 247–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gray, J. (2013). History of mathematics and history of science reunited? In M. Pitici (Ed.), The best writing in mathematics 2012 (pp. 176–185). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hellman, H. (2006). Great feuds in mathematics: Ten of the liveliest disputes ever. Hoboken: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  18. Jay, M. (1996). The dialectical imagination: A history of the frankfurt school and the institute for social research 1923–1950. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  19. Kennedy, J. M. (1984). Vision and metaphors. Toronto: Toronto Semiotic Circle.Google Scholar
  20. Kennedy, J. M. (1993). Drawing and the blind: Pictures to touch. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
  23. Lévi-Strauss, C. (1962). La pensée sauvage. Paris: Plon.Google Scholar
  24. Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  25. Logan, R. K. (1986). The alphabet effect. New York: William Morrow.Google Scholar
  26. Marx, K. (1844). The economic and philosophic manuscripts of 1844. New York: Start Publishing.Google Scholar
  27. McLuhan, M. (1960). Classrooms without walls. In E. Carpenter (Ed.), Explorations in communication. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  28. McLuhan, E., & Zingrone, F. (Eds.). (1997). Essential McLuhan. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  30. Mighton, J. (2015). All things being equal: using evidence based approaches to close the achievement gap in math. In M. Bockarova, M. Danesi, D. Martinovic, & R. Núñez (Eds.), Mind in mathematics (pp. 100–104). Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
  31. Neuman, Y. (2014). Introduction to computational cultural psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Nielsen, M. (2012). Reinventing discovery: The new era of networked science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Ong, W. J. (1982). Orality and literacy. New York: Methuen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shannon, C. E. (1951). Prediction and entropy of printed English. Bell Systems Technological Journal, 30, 50–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Skemp, R. R. (1971). The psychology of learning mathematics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  36. Strangelove, M. (2010). Watching YouTube: extraordinary videos by ordinary people. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Victoria CollegeUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations