Building European collaboration in technology-enhanced learning in mathematics

Technology-Enhanced Learning: Principles and Products

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 73-87

  Bottino, Rosa Maria ^a   Artigue, Michele ^b   Noss, Richard ^c  

^a Istituto Tecnologie Didattiche   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITÉ PARIS DESCARTES   (France)

^c UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cross experiments; Learning environments; Techno mathematical literacy; Technology enhanced mathematics education; Theoretical frameworks

Indexed keywords

EID: 70350583797     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-9827-7_5     Document Type: Chapter

References (34)

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.
2. Artigue. M. (2007). Digital technologies: A window on theoretical issues in mathematics education. In D. Pitta-Oantazi & G. Philippou (Eds.), Proceedings of CERME5 (pp. 68-82). Cyprus: Cyprus University Editions.
3. Artigue. M. (Ed.). (2005). Methodological tools for comparison of learning theories in technology enhanced learning in mathematics. Retrieved May 2007, from http://telearn. noekaleidoscope.org/warehouse/Artigue-Kaleidoscope- 2006.pdf
4. Artigue. M. (Ed.). (2006). A report on the comparison of theories in technology enhanced learning in mathematics. Retrieved May 2008, from http://telma.noe-kaleidoscope.org/outcomes
5. Artigue. M., Bottino, R. M., Cerulli, M., Georget, J. P., Maffei, L., Maracci, M., et al. (2007). Technology enhanced learning in mathematics: The cross-experimentation approach adopted by the TELMA European research team. La Matematica e la sua Didattica, 1, 67-74.
6. Balacheff, N., & Sutherland. R. (1994). Epistemological domain of validity of microworlds, the case of Logo and Cabri-Geometre. In R. Lewis & P. Mendelshon (Eds.), Proceedings of the IFIP TC3/WG3.3: Lessons from Learning (pp. 137-150). Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing.
7. Bartolini Bussi, M. G., & Mariotti, M. A. (2008). Semiotic mediation in the mathematics classroom: Artifacts and signs after a Vygotskian perspective. In L. D. English (Ed.). Handbook of international research in mathematics (2nd end.). New York & London: Routledge, 746-783.
8. Bottino. R. M. (2004). The evolution of ICT-based learning environments: Which perspectives for the school of the future? British Journal of Educational Technology, 35, 553-567.
9. Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics. Dordrecht. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
10. Cerulli. M., Pedemonte, B., & Robotti, E. (2007). An integrated perspective to approach technology in mathematics education. In M. Bosh (Ed.). Proceedings of CERME 4 (pp. 1389-1399). Sant Feliu de Guixols, Spain: IQS Fundemi Business Institute.
11. Chevallard, Y. (1992). Concepts fondamentaux de la didactique: Perspectives apportees par une approche anthropologique [Fundamental concepts of didactics: Perspectives from an anthropological approach]. Recherches en Didactique des Mathematiques, 12, 73-112.
12. Cole. M., & Engestrom, Y. (1991). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.). Distributed cognition (pp. 1-47). Cambridge. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
13. Cornu. B., & Ralston. A. (Eds.). (1992). The influence of computers and infonnatics on mathematics and its teaching (Science and Technology Education Series. 44). Paris. France: UNESCO. Division of Science. Technical, and Environmental Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 359 073).
14. De Corte, E. (1996). Changing views of computer supported learning environments for the acquisition of knowledge and thinking skills. In S. Vosniadou, E. de Corte. R. Glaser & H. Mandl (Eds.), International perspectives on the designing of technology-supported learning environments (pp. 129-145). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15. European Commission (DG Education and Culture) (2004). Study on innovative learning environments in school education. Retrieved May 2007, from http://insight.eun.org/ww/en/pub/insight/misc/library.cfm.
16. Grasha, A. F., & Yangarber-Hicks. N. (2000). Integrating teaching styles and learning styles with instructional technology. College Teaching, 48, 2-10.
17. Griffiths. D., & Blat, J. (2005). The role of teachers in editing and authoring units of learning using IMS learning design. International Journal on Advanced Technology for Learning, 2 (4).
18. Hoyles. C. (1993). Micro wo rlds/Schoolwo rids: The transformation of an innovation. In C. Keitel & K. Ruthven (Eds.), Learning from computers: Mathematics education and technologyi (pp. 1-17). New York: Springer.
19. Jones. K. (2005, April). The shaping of student knowledge with dynamic geometry software. Paper presented at the Computer Assisted Learning Conference. 2005(CAL05), Bristol. United Kingdom. Retrieved September 2006, from: http://eprints.soton. ac.uk/18817/.
20. Kent. P., Hoyles. C., Noss, R., Guile. D., & Bakker, A. (Eds.). (2007). Learning technologies at work [Special issue]. Mind Culture and Activity, 14 (1-2).
21. Lagrange. J. B., Artigue, M., Laborde, C., & Trouche, T. (2003). Technology and mathematics education: A multidimensional study of the evolution of 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 (pp. 239-271). Dordrecht. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
22. Lee. C. P. (2007). Boundary negotiating artifacts: Unbinding the routine of boundary objects and embracing chaos in collaborative work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 16, 307-339.
23. Monaghan. J. (2004). Teachers' activities in technology-based mathematics lessons. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9, 327-357.
24. Noss. R. (1995). Computers as commodities. In A. A. di Sessa, C. Hoyles & R. Noss (Eds.), Computers and exploratory learning (pp. 363-381). Berlin. Germany: Springer.
25. Noss. R., Bakker. A., Hoyles. C., & Kent. P. (2007). Situating graphs as workplace knowledge. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 65, 367-384.
26. Papert, S. (2006). Afterward: After how comes what. In K. R. Sawyer (Ed.). Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 581-586). Cambridge. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
27. Pelgrum, W. J. (1996). The educational potential of new information technologies: Where are we now? In B. A. Collis, G. A. Knezek, K.-W. Lai. K. T. Miyashita, T. Sakamoto et al. (Eds.), Children and computers in school (pp. 118-119). Mahwah. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
28. Rabardel, P. (1995). Les homines & les technologies. Approche cognitive des instruments contemporains [Human beings and technologies: A cognitive approach of contemporary instruments]. Paris: A. Colin.
29. Sutherland. R. (2004). Designs for learning: ICT and knowledge in the classroom. Computers and Education, 43, 5-16.
30. Vakkari, P. (1999). Task complexity, problem structure and information actions - Integrating studies on information seeking and retrieval. Infonnation Processing and Management, 35, 819-837.
31. Venezky, R. L., & Davis. C. (2002). Quo vademus? The transfonnation of schooling in a networked world [OECD/CERI, Version 8c. March 06]. Retrieved November 2007, from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/20/2073054.pdf.
32. Vygotsky. L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.
33. Warfield. V. M. (2006). Invitation to didactique. Retrieved January 2008, from http://www.math. washington. edu/~warfield/Inv%20to%20Did66%207-22-06.pdf.
34. Wilensky, U. (2003). Statistical mechanics for secondary school: The Gas Lab multi-agent modeling toolkit. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 8, 1-4.