Advertisement

From Acorns to Oak Trees: Charting Innovation Within Technology in Mathematics Education

  • Susana Carreira
  • Alison Clark-Wilson
  • Eleonora Faggiano
  • Antonella MontoneEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Mathematics Education in the Digital Era book series (MEDE, volume 9)

Abstract

Technology has created an expectation in all levels of education that requires us to understand how we can harness its potential for improving the depth and quality of mathematical learning. It is highly unlikely that there is a universal recipe or formula for how technology should be used that would satisfy every context or culture, but there have been recurring trends in the process of designing and implementing such innovative environments. By considering the papers included in proceedings of the past International Conferences on Technology in Mathematics Teaching (ICTMT), this chapter aims to highlight how a few key innovations have been seeded and taken root within this community. We begin by describing the ways in which innovation has been presented at ICTMT conferences with a view to exploring this from the perspectives of technology designers, researchers and teachers/lecturers from all levels of education. Given the extensive literature on this topic, it is not feasible to carry out a comprehensive survey of the complete literature base, however it is anticipated that the analysis of key ICTMT papers will be sufficient to present an informative and insightful picture and highlight some important knowledge and experience that has been elicited and disseminated.

References

  1. Adu-Gyamfi, K. (1993). External multiple representations in mathematics teaching. A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of North Carolina State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science.Google Scholar
  2. Amado, N., & Carreira, S. (Eds.). (2015). Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching. Faro, Portugal: University of Algarve.Google Scholar
  3. 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. doi: 10.1023/A:1022103903080 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bardini, C. Fortin, P. Oldknow, A., & Vagost D. (Eds.). (2009). Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching. Metz, France.Google Scholar
  5. Bartolini Bussi, M. G., & Mariotti, M. A. (2008). Semiotic mediation in the mathematics classroom: Artifacts and signs after a Vygotskian perspective. In L. English, M. Bartolini Bussi, G. Jones, R. Lesh, & D. Tirosh (Eds.), Handbook of International Research in Mathematics Education (2nd ed., pp. 746–805). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Borba, M. C., & Confrey, J. (1996). A student’s construction of transformation of functions in a multiple representational environment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 31(3), 319–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borovcnik, M, & Kautschlitsch, H (Eds.). (2002a). 5th International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching: Plenary lectures and strands. Klagenfurt, Austria.Google Scholar
  8. Borovcnik, M., & Kautschlitsch, H. (Eds.). (2002b). 5th International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching: Special groups and working groups. Klagenfurt, Austria.Google Scholar
  9. de Freitas, E., & Sinclair, N. (2013). New materialist ontologies in mathematics education: The body in/of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83(3), 453–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. diSessa, A., & Cobb, P. (2004). Ontological innovation and the role of theory in design experiments. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 77–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dreyfus, T. (1991). On the status of visual reasoning in mathematics and mathematics education. In F. Furinghetti (Ed.), Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 33–48). Genova, Italy: University of Genova.Google Scholar
  12. Faggiano, E., & Montone, A. (Eds.). (2013). Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching. Bari, Italy: University of Bari.Google Scholar
  13. Fey, J. T. (1989). Technology and mathematics education: A survey of recent developments and important problems. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 20(3), 237–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fischer, G. (2001). External and shareable artifacts as opportunities for social creativity in communities of interest. In J. S. Gero and M. L. Maher (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Computational and Cognitive Models of Creative Design (pp. 67–89). Sydney: University of Sydney.Google Scholar
  15. Fraunholz, W. (Ed.). (1997). Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching. Koblenz, Germany: University of Koblenz.Google Scholar
  16. Guin, D., & Trouche, L. (1999). The complex process of converting tools into mathematical instruments: The case of calculators. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 3(3), 195–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gutiérrez, A. (1996). Visualization in 3-dimensional geometry: In search of a framework. In L. Puig & A. Gutiérrez (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 1, pp. 3–19). Valencia: Universidad de Valencia.Google Scholar
  18. Hoyles, C., & Lagrange, J.-B. (Eds.). (2009). Mathematics education and technology—Rethinking the terrain: The 17th ICMI study. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (2003). What can digital technologies take from and bring to research in mathematics education? In A. Bishop, M. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & F. Leung (Eds.), Second international handbook of mathematics education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  20. Jaworski, B. (Ed.). (1993). A bridge between teaching and learning. Proceedings of the International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching. University of Birmingham, UK, LG Davis.Google Scholar
  21. Joubert, M., Clark-Wilson, A., & McCabe, M. (Eds.). (2011). Enhancing mathematics education through technology. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching. Portsmouth, UK: University of Portsmouth.Google Scholar
  22. Kafai, Y. B., & Resnick, M. (1996). Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  23. Kaput, J. (1999). Representations, inscriptions, descriptions and learning: A kaleidoscope of windows. Journal of Mathematical Behavior (special issue), 17(2), 265–281.Google Scholar
  24. Laborde, C., & Sträßer, R. (2010). Place and use of new technology in the teaching of mathematics: ICMI activities in the past 25 years. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 42(1), 121–133.Google Scholar
  25. Linn, M. C., & Peterson, A. C. (1985). Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 56, 1479–1498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Maull, W., & Sharp, J. (Eds.). (1999). Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching. Plymouth, UK: University of Plymouth.Google Scholar
  27. Milkova, E. (Ed.). (2007). Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching. (CD-Rom) and online at http://fim.uhk.cz/ictmt8/seznam/?nazev=&autor=&typ=&v=1&Submit=Search (abstracts only).
  28. Moreno-Armella, L., Hegedus, S., & Kaput, J. (2008). From static to dynamic mathematics: Historical and representational perspectives. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 68, 99–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  30. National Research Council. (1989). Everybody counts. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  31. Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (1996). Windows on mathematical meanings: Learning cultures and computers. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  32. Olivero, F., & Sutherland, R. (Eds.). (2005). Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching (Vols. 1 and 2). Bristol, UK: Bristol University.Google Scholar
  33. Ozgun-Koca, S. A. (1998). Students’ use of representations in mathematics education. In S. B. Berenson, et al. (Eds.), Procedings of the Twentieth Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, (Vol. 2, p. 812) Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.Google Scholar
  34. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  35. Park, D., Lee, J.-H., & Kim, S. (2011). Investigating the affective quality of interactivity by motion feedback in mobile touchscreen user interfaces. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 69(12), 839–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ruthven, K., & Hennessy, S. (2002). A practitioner model for the use of computer-based tools and resources to support mathematics teaching and learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49, 47–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schwarz, B., Dreyfus, T., & Bruckheimer, M. (1990). A model of the function concept in a three-fold representation. Computers & Education, 14(3), 249–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shaffer, D., & Kaput, J. (1999). Mathematics and virtual culture: An evolutionary perspective on technology and mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 37, 97–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Skemp, R. (1978). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Arithmetic Teacher, 26, 9–15.Google Scholar
  40. Tartre, L. A. (1990). Spatial orientation skill and mathematical problem solving. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21(3), 216–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Triandafillidis, T., & Hatzikiriakou, K. (Eds.). (2003). Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching. Volos, Greece: University of Thessally.Google Scholar
  42. Verillon, P., & Rabardel, P. (1995). Cognition and artefacts: A contribution to the study of thought in relation to instrumented activity. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10(1), 77–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Yeh, A., & Nason, R. (2004). Towards a semiotic framework for using technology in mathematics education: The case of learning 3D geometry. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computers in Education. Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  44. Yook, H. (2009). A study on the types of interactive motions in Mobile touch interface (Doctoral dissertation). Korea, HK: Hongik University.Google Scholar

Appendix 1. The ICTMT Conference Series and Proceedings

  1. ICTMT1—Birmingham, 1993. Jaworski, B. (Ed.). (1993). A bridge between teaching and learning. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching, University of Birmingham, UK, LG Davis.Google Scholar
  2. ICTMT2—Edinburgh, 1995. Scott, T. (Ed.). (1995). Informal Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching. Edinburgh: Napier University.Google Scholar
  3. ICTMT3—Koblenz, 1997. Fraunholz, W. (Ed.). (1997). Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching Koblenz, Germany: University of KoblenzGoogle Scholar
  4. ICTMT4—Plymouth, 1999. Maull, W., & Sharp, J. (Eds.). (1999). Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching. Plymouth, UK: University of Plymouth.Google Scholar
  5. ICTMT5—Klagenfurt, 2001. Borovcnik, M, & Kautschlitsch, H (Eds.). (2002). The 5th International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching: Plenary lectures and strands. Klagenfurt, Austria.Google Scholar
  6. and Borovcnik, M, & Kautschlitsch, H (Eds.). (2002). The 5th International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching: Special groups and working groups. Klagenfurt, Austria.Google Scholar
  7. ICTMT6—Volos, 2003. Triandafillidis, T, & Hatzikiriakou, K. (Eds.). (2003). Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching. Volos, Greece: University of Thessally.Google Scholar
  8. ICTMT7—Bristol, 2005. Olivero, F., & Sutherland, R. (Eds.). (2005). Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching (Vols. 1 and 2). Bristol, UK: Bristol University.Google Scholar
  9. ICTMT8—Hradec Králové, 2007. Milkova, E. (Eds). (2007). Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching. (CD-Rom) and online at http://fim.uhk.cz/ictmt8/seznam/?nazev=&autor=&typ=&v=1&Submit=Search (abstracts only).
  10. ICTMT9—Metz, 2009. Bardini, C., Fortin, P., Oldknow, A., & Vagost D. (Eds.). (2009). Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching. Metz, France.Google Scholar
  11. ICTMT10—Portsmouth, 2011. Joubert, M., Clark-Wilson, A., & McCabe, M. (Eds.). (2011). Enhancing mathematics education through technology. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching. Portsmouth, UK: University of Portsmouth.Google Scholar
  12. ICTMT11—Bari, 2013. Faggiano, E. & Montone, A. (Eds.). (2013). Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching. Bari, Italy: University of Bari.Google Scholar
  13. ICTMT12—Faro, 2015. Amado, N. & Carreira, S. (Eds.). (2015). Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching. Faro, Portugal: University of Algarve.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susana Carreira
    • 1
    • 2
  • Alison Clark-Wilson
    • 3
  • Eleonora Faggiano
    • 4
  • Antonella Montone
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.University of Algarve, and UIDEFFaroPortugal
  2. 2.Institute of EducationUniversity of LisbonLisbonPortugal
  3. 3.University College LondonLondonUK
  4. 4.Università di Bari Aldo MoroBariItaly

Personalised recommendations