Studying the Practice of High School Mathematics Teachers in a Single Computer Setting

  • Michal TabachEmail author
  • Galit Slutzky
Part of the Mathematics Education in the Digital Era book series (MEDE, volume 9)


Many studies have examined the teaching of mathematics in technological environments that are accessible both to the teacher and to the students. Nevertheless, some classrooms are equipped with only one computer and a data projector. This study examined case studies of four different teachers who had previously worked in the high-tech industry and then became high school mathematics teachers that used technology in the classroom. Two technological environments were examined: (1) an environment in which teachers used a computer and a projector and (2) an environment that also included an interactive whiteboard (IWB). The study aimed at characterizing teaching practices and teacher knowledge in these two environments. An innovative framework was developed, based on three lenses: (1) the teachers’ goals; (2) the technological resources used; and (3) the way these resources were used. Findings indicate that teachers used a whole-class lecture style of teaching, mostly for explaining concepts. Although the teachers attempted to demonstrate mathematical concepts dynamically, either they tended to use the technology statically or they avoided using it. The teachers mostly used the IWB as a non-digital whiteboard.


  1. Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2000). Interweaving content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach: Knowing and using mathematics. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 83–104). Westport, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
  2. Bruce, B. C., & Hogan, M. C. (1998). The disappearance of technology: Toward an ecological model of literacy. In D. Reinking, M. McKenna, L. Labbo, & R. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transforming in a post-typographic word (pp. 269–281). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Clark-Wilson, A., Sinclair, N., & Robutti, O. (Eds.). (2013). The mathematics teacher in the digital era. Dordrecht: Springer.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. Drijvers, P., Tacoma, S., Besamusca, A., Doorman, M., & Boon, P. (2013). Digital resources inviting changes in mid-adopting teachers’ practices and orchestrations. ZDM Mathematics Education, 45(7), 987–1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. German, T., & Barrett, C. (2005). Functional fixedness in a technologically sparse culture. Psychological Science, 16(1), 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  8. Graeber, A., & Tirosh, D. (2008). Pedagogical content knowledge: A useful or an elusive notion? In P. Sullivan (Ed.), Knowledge and beliefs in mathematics teaching and teaching development (pp. 117–132). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.Google Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Hofer, M., & Harris, J. (2010). Differentiating TPACK development: Using learning activity types with inservice and preservice teachers. In C. D. Maddux, D. Gibson, & B. Dodge (Eds.), Research highlights in technology and teacher education 2010 (pp. 295–302). Chesapeake, VA: Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education (SITE).Google Scholar
  11. Hoyles, C., Noss, R., & Kent, P. (2004). On the integration of digital technologies into mathematics classrooms. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9(3), 309–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kaput, J. (1992). Technology and mathematics education. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 515–556). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  13. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Eds.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators, (pp. 3–30). NY, USA: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Laborde C. (2003). Technology used as a tool for mediating knowledge in the teaching of mathematics: The case of Cabri-geometry. In W-C. Yang, S.C. Chu, T. de Alwis, Ming Gong Lee (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Asian Technology Conference in Mathematics (Vol. 1, pp. 23–38). Hsinchu, Taiwan ROC: Chung Hua University.Google Scholar
  15. Lagrange, J. B., Artigue, M., Laborde, C., & Trouche, L. (2003). Technology and mathematics education: Multidimensional overview of recent research and innovation. In A. J. Bishop, M. A. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & F. K. S. Leung (Eds.), Second international handbook of mathematics education (Vol. 1, pp. 237–270). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lagrange, J. B., & Monaghan, J. (2009). On the adoption of a model to interpret teachers’ use of technology in mathematics lessens. In V. Durand- Guerrier, S. Soury-Lavergne, & F. Arzarello (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 1605–1614). Lyon: INRP. Retrieved on April, 4th, 2011, from
  17. Mioduser, D. (1998). Framework for the study of the cognitive nature and architecture of technological problem solving. Journal of Technology Education and Design, 8(2), 167–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  20. Pepin, B., Gueudet, G., & Trouche, L. (eds.) (2013). Re-sourcing teacher work and interaction: new perspectives on resource design, use and teacher collaboration, special issue of ZDM. The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(7), 929–944.Google Scholar
  21. Pierce, R., & Ball, L. (2009). Perceptions that may affect teachers’ intention to use technology in secondary mathematics classes. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 71(3), 299–317).Google Scholar
  22. Rivera, F. (2007). Accounting for students’ schemes in the development of a graphical process for solving polynomial inequalities in instrumented activity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 65, 281–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Robert, A., & Rogalski, J. (2005). A cross-analysis of the mathematics teacher’s activity. An example in a French 10th-grade class. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 59(1–3), 269–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tabach, M. (2011). A mathematics teacher’s practice in a technological environment: A case study analysis using two complementary theories. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 16(3), 247–265.Google Scholar
  27. Tabach, M. (2013). Applying instrumental orchestration framework to different educational institutions. CERME8- Eight Conference of European Research in Mathematics Education. Retrieved February, 14, 2013, from
  28. Trouche, L. (2004). Managing the complexity of the human/machine interaction in computerized learning environments: guiding students’ command process through instrumental orchestrations. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9(3), 281–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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. doi: 10.1007/s11858-010-0269-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vérillon, P., & Rabardel, P. (1995). Cognition and artifact: A contribution to the study of thought in relation to instrumented activity. European Journal of Psychology in Education, 9(3), 1–33.Google Scholar
  31. Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Pareja Roblin, N., Tondeur, J., & van Braak, J. (2013). Technological pedagogical content knowledge—A review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 29(2), 109–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zevenbergen, R., & Lerman, S. (2008). Learning environments using interactive whiteboards: New learning spaces or reproduction of old technologies? Mathematics Education Research Journal, 20(1), 108–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tel Aviv UniversityTel Aviv-YafoIsrael

Personalised recommendations