Handheld technology for mathematics education: Flashback into the future

ZDM - International Journal on Mathematics Education

Volumn 42, Issue 7, 2010, Pages 667-681

  Trouche, Luc ^a   Drijvers, Paul ^b  

^a INRP (National Institute for Pedagogical Research)   (France)

^b UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Handheld technology; Instrumentalisation; Instrumentation; Mathematics education; Orchestration

Indexed keywords

EID: 80052020545     PISSN: 18639690     EISSN: 18639704     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11858-010-0269-2     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Aldon, G., Artigue, M., Bardini, C., Baroux-Raymond, D., Bonnafet, J.-L., Combes, M.-C., et al. (2008). Nouvel environnement technologique, nouvelles ressources, nouveaux modes de travail: Le projet e-CoLab (expérimentation Collaborative de Laboratoires mathématiques). Repères IREM, 72, 51-78.
2. 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.
3. Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactic situations. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
4. Brown, R. G. (2010). Does the introduction of the graphics calculator into system-wide examinations lead to change in the types of mathematical skills tested? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 73(2), 181-203.
5. Burril, G., Allison, J., Breaux, G., Kastberg, S., Leatham, K., & Sanchez, W. (Eds.). (2002). Handheld graphing technology in secondary mathematics: Research findings and implications for classroom practice. Dallas, USA: Texas Instruments.
6. Doerr, H. M., & Zangor, R. (2000). Creating meaning for and with the graphing calculator. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 41, 143-163.
7. Doorman, M., Drijvers, P., & Kindt, M. (1994). De grafische rekenmachine in het wiskundeonderwijs [The graphic calculators in mathematics education]. Utrecht: Freudenthal Instituut.
8. Drijvers, P. (1995). Neem de grafiek over... [Copy the graph...]. Nieuwe Wiskrant, tijdschrift voor Nederlands wiskundeonderwijs, 14(4), 29-35.
9. Drijvers, P. (1998). Assessment and new technologies: Different policies in different countries. The International Journal on Computer Algebra in Mathematics Education, 5(2), 81-93.
10. Drijvers, P. (1999). Op hoeveel nullen eindigt 1998!? [With how many zeros ends 1998!?]. Euclides, 74, 275-277.
11. Drijvers, P. (2009). Tools and tests: Technology in national final mathematics examinations. In C. Winslow (Ed.), Nordic research on mathematics education, proceedings from NORMA08 (pp. 225-236). Rotterdam: Sense.
12. Drijvers, P., & Doorman, M. (1996). The graphics calculator in mathematics education. Journal of Mathematical Behaviour, 14(4), 425-440.
13. 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 (submitted).
14. Drijvers, P., Kieran, C., & Mariotti, M. A. (2009). Integrating technology into mathematics education: Theoretical perspectives. In C. Hoyles & J.-B. Lagrange (Eds.), Digital technologies and mathematics teaching and learning: Rethinking the terrain (pp. 89-132). New York: Springer.
15. Drijvers, P., & Trouche, L. (2008). From artefacts to instruments: A theoretical framework behind the orchestra metaphor. In G. W. Blume & M. K. Heid (Eds.), Research on technology and the teaching and learning of mathematics. Cases and perspectives (Vol. 2, pp. 363-392). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
16. Falcade, R., Laborde, C., & Mariotti, M. A. (2007). Approaching functions: Cabri tools as instruments of semiotic mediation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66, 317-333.
17. Gravemeijer, K. (1999). How emergent models may foster the constitution of formal mathematics. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 1, 155-177.
18. Gueudet, G., & Trouche, L. (2009). Towards new documentation systems for mathematics teachers? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 71, 199-218.
19. 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.
20. 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, 195-227.
21. Habgood, M. P. J., Ainsworth, S. E., & Benford, S. (2005). Endogenous fantasy and learning in digital games. Simulation and Gaming, 36(4), 483-498.
22. Hoyles, C. (2003). From instrumenting and orchestrating convergence to designing and recognising diversity. In Lecture presented at the CAME3 conference, Reims, June 23-24. http://www.lkl.ac. uk/research/came/events/reims/. Accessed 4 Oct 2009.
23. Hoyles, C., Kalas, I., Trouche, L., Hivon, L., Noss, R., & Wilensky, U. (2009). Connectivity and virtual networks for learning. In C. Hoyles & J.-B. Lagrange (Eds.), Digital technologies and mathematics teaching and learning: Rethinking the terrain (pp. 439-462). New York: Springer.
24. Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (2003). What can digital technologies take from and bring to research in mathematics education? In A. J. Bishop, M. A. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & F. K. S. Leung (Eds.), Second international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 323-349). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
25. Kieran, C., & Drijvers, P. (2006). The co-emergence of machine techniques, paper-and-pencil techniques, and theoretical reflection: A study of CAS use in secondary school algebra. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 11(2), 205-263.
26. Kindt, M. (1992a). Functie-onderzoek begint met de grafiek I [Function investigation starts with the graph I]. Euclides, 67, 200-204.
27. Kindt, M. (1992b). Functie-onderzoek begint met de grafiek II [Function investigation starts with the graph II]. Euclides, 67, 227-230.
28. Laborde, C., & Capponi, B. (1994). Cabri-géomètre Constituant d'un Milieu pour l'Apprentissage de la Notion de Figure Géométrique. Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques, 14, 165-210.
29. Lagrange, J.-B. (1999). Complex calculators in the classroom: Theoretical and practical reflections on teaching pre-calculus. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 4, 51-81.
30. Maschietto, M., & Trouche, L. (2010). Mathematics learning and tools from theoretical, historical and practical points of view: The productive notion of mathematics laboratories. ZDM, 42, 33-47.
31. Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (1996). Windows on mathematical meanings. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
32. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.
33. Parzysz, B. (1988). Knowing vs seeing, problems of the plane representation of space geometry figures. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 19(1), 79-92.
34. Patton, C. M., Tatar, D., & Dimitriadis, Y. (2008). Trace theory, coordination games and GroupScribbles. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 921-994). New York: Springer.
35. Rabardel, P. (2002). People and technology-A cognitive approach to contemporary instruments. http://ergoserv.psy.univ-paris8.fr. Accessed 20 Dec 2005.
36. Roschelle, J. (2003). Unlocking the learning value of wireless mobile devices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(3), 260-272.
37. Ruthven, K. (1990). The influence of graphic calculator use on translation from graphic to symbolic forms. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 21(5), 431-450.
38. Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67-98). Chicago: Open Court.
39. Sfard, A. (1991). On the dual nature of mathematical conceptions: Reflections on processes and objects as different sides of the same coin. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22, 1-36.
40. Tall, D., & Vinner, S. (1981). Concept image and concept definition in mathematics with particular reference to limits and continuity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12, 151-169.
41. Thomas, M. O. J., Wilson, A. J., Corballis, M. C., & Lim, V. K. (2008). Neuropsychological evidence for the role of graphical and algebraic representations in understanding function. In M. Goos, K. Makar, & R. Brown (Eds.), Navigating currents and charting directions, proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the mathematics education research group of Australasia (Vol. 2, pp. 515-521). Brisbane: MERGA Inc.
42. Trgalova, J., Jahn, A. P., & Soury-Lavergne, S. (2009). Quality process for dynamic geometry resources: the Intergeo project. In V. Durand-Guerrier, S. Soury-Lavergne & F. Arzarello (Eds.), Proceedings of CERME 6 (pp. 1161-1170). Lyon: INRP.
43. Trouche, L. (1994). Calculatrices graphiques, la grande illusion. Repères IREM, 20, 39-55.
44. Trouche, L. (1998). Expérimenter et prouver, 38 variations sur un thème imposé [Experimentation and evidence, 38 variations to an imposed theme]. Montpellier: IREM, Université Montpellier 2.
45. Trouche, L. (2000). La parabole du gaucher et de la casserole à bec verseur: Étude des processus d'apprentissage dans un environnement de calculatrices symboliques [The parable of the lefthanded and the skillet: Study on the learning process in a symbolic calculator environment]. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 41, 239-264.
46. Trouche, L. (2004). Managing complexity of human/machine interactions in computerized learning environments: Guiding students' command process through instrumental orchestrations. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9, 281-307.
47. Trouche, L. (2005). Construction et conduite des instruments dans les apprentissages mathématiques: Nécessité des orchestrations. Recherches en didactique des mathématiques, 25, 91-138.
48. Vergnaud, G. (1996). Au fond de l'apprentissage, la conceptualisation. In R. Noirfalise & M.-J. Perrin (Eds.), Actes de l'école d'été de didactique des mathématiques (pp. 174-185). Clermont-Ferrand: IREM, Université Clermont-Ferrand 2.
49. Weigand, H.-G. (1989). Über die Anzahl der Endnullen bei n!. Praxis der Mathematik, 31, 343-349.