Graphic calculators and connectivity software to be a community of mathematics practitioners

ZDM - International Journal on Mathematics Education

Volumn 42, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 77-89

  Robutti, Ornella ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TURIN   (Italy)

Author keywords

Calculator; Community of practice; Connectivity; Function; Humans with media; Mathematical laboratory; Meaning; Modelling; Multimodality; Semiotic cultural approach; Sign

Indexed keywords

EID: 84859602457     PISSN: 18639690     EISSN: 18639704     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11858-009-0222-4     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Arcavi, A. (1994). Symbol sense: Informal sense-making in formal mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics: An International Journal of Mathematics Education, 14(3), 24-35.
2. Arzarello, F. (2006). Semiosis as a multimodal process. RELIME, Revista Latinoamericana de Investigación en Matemática Educativa, Numero Especial (pp. 267-299). Editores Comité Latinoamericano de Matemática Educativa.
3. Arzarello, F., & Edwards, L. (2005). Gesture and the construction of mathematical meaning. In H. L. Chick & J. L. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 1, pp. 123-154). Melbourne: PME.
4. Arzarello, F., Pezzi, G., & Robutti, O. (2007). Modelling body motion: An approach to functions using measuring instruments. In W. Blum, P. L. Falbraith, H. W. Henn, & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education, the 14th ICMI studies (Vol. 10, 3.3.1, pp. 129-136). USA: Springer.
5. Arzarello, F., Robutti, O., Sabena, C., & Paola, D. (2009). Gestures as semiotic resources in the mathematics classroom. Handbook: Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(2), 97-109.
6. Bartolini Bussi, M. G. (1996). Mathematical discussion and perspective drawing in primary school. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 31(1-2), 11-41.
7. Bartolini Bussi, M. G., & Mariotti, M. A. (2008). Semiotic mediation in the mathematics classroom: Artefacts and signs after a Vygotskian perspective. In L. English et al. (Eds.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (2nd ed., pp. 746-783). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8. Bielaczyc, K., & Collins, A. (1999). Learning communities in classrooms: A reconceptualization of educational practice. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models. A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 269-292). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9. Borba, M. C. (1997). Graphing calculators, functions and reorganization of the classroom. In M. C. Borba, T. A. Souza, B. Hudson, & J. Fey (Eds.), Proceedings of working group 16 at ICME8, Seville, Spain, 1996 (pp. 53-60). Sao Paulo, Brasil: UNESP.
10. Borba, M. C. (2005). The transformation of mathematics in on-line courses. In H. L. Chick & J. L. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 2, pp. 169-176). Melbourne: PME.
11. Borba, M. C., & Villarreal, M. E. (2005). Humans-with-media and the reorganization of mathematical thinking: Information and communication technologies, modeling, visualization and experimentation. USA: Springer.
12. Borba, M. C., & Zulatto, R. B. A. (2006). Different media, different types of collective work in online continuing teacher education: Would you pass the pen, please? In J. Novotná, H. Moraová, M. Krátká, & N. Stehlíková (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 2, pp. 201-208). Prague: Charles University, Faculty of Education.
13. Chapman, O., & Robutti, O. (2008). Current problems and challenges in upper secondary mathematics education. In M. Niss (Ed.) Proceedings of ICME10, Copenhagen, 4-11 July 2004 (pp. 514-518). Denmark: IMFUFA, Department of Science, Systems and Models, Roskilde University.
14. Dougherty, B. J., & Hobbs, M. (2007). The effects of the TINavigator system on student achievement and attitude in algebra. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on technology in mathematics teaching, 1-4 July 2007. Hradec Králové.
15. Drijvers, P., Doorman, M., Gisbergen, S., & Reed, H. (2009). Teachers using technology: Orchestrations and profiles. In Proceedings of the PME33 conference, Tessaloniki, Gereece, July 2009 (in press).
16. Edwards, L. (2009). Gestures and conceptual integration in mathematical talk. Handbook: Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(2), 127-141.
17. Ferrara, F., Pratt, D., & Robutti, O. (2005). The role and uses of technologies for the teaching of algebra and calculus. In A. Gutiérrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook on research on the psychology of mathematics education. past, present and future (pp. 237-273). Rotterdam/Taipei: Sense Publishers.
18. Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G. (2005). The brain's concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 21, 1-25.
19. Hivon, L., Pean, M., & Trouche, L. (2008). From a network of calculators to collaborative knowledge construction in the class, Repères IREM no. 72, http://educmath.inrp.fr/Educmath/lectures/dossier_mutualisation/crome-english.pdf. Accessed 17 June 2009.
20. Hudson, B. (1997). Group work with multimedia: An example of classroom use and some suggestions for future development. In M. C. Borba, T. A. Souza, B. Hudson, & J. Fey (Eds.), Proceedings of working group 16 at ICME8, Seville, Spain, 1996 (pp. 105-112). Sao Paulo, Brasil: UNESP.
21. Jaworski, B., Fuglestad, A. B., Bjuland, R., Breiteig, T., Goodchild, S., & Grevholm, B. (2007). Learning communities in mathematics. Bergen, Norway: Caspar Forlag As.
22. Jonassen, D. H. (2007). Engaging and supporting problem-solving in online learning. In R. Luppicini (Ed.), Online learning communities (pp. 109-127). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
23. Kaput, J. J., & Roschelle, J. (1998). The mathematics of change and variation from a millennial perspective: New content, new context. In C. Hoyles, C. Morgan, & G. Wodhouse (Eds.), Rethinking the mathematics curriculum (pp. 155-170). New York: Routledge.
24. Laborde, C., Hollebrands, K., Kynigos, C., & Strässer, R. (2006). Teaching and learning geometry with technology. In A. Gutiérrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook on research on the psychology of mathematics education. past, present and future (pp. 275-304). Rotterdam/Taipei: Sense Publishers.
25. Lagrange, J. B. (1997). Using a computer algebra system in the mathematics classroom: In a computer room or with hand held calculators? In M. C. Borba, T. A. Souza, B. Hudson, & J. Fey (Eds.), Proceedings of working group 16 at ICME8, Seville, Spain, 1996 (pp. 113-118). Sao Paulo, Brasil: UNESP.
26. Legrand, M. (1993). Débat scientifique en cours de matheématique et spécificité de l'analyse. Repères-IREM, 10, 123-158.
27. Leung, F. K. S. (2008). P: Information and communication technology in mathematics education. In M. Niss (Ed.) Proceedings of ICME10, Copenhagen, July 4-11 2004 (pp. 228-243). Denmark: IMFUFA, Department of Science, Systems and Models, Roskilde University.
28. Noss, R., Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (1997). The construction of mathematical meanings: Connecting the visual with the symbolic. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 33(2), 203-233.
29. Radford, L. (2006). The anthropology of meaning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61, 39-65.
30. Radford, L. (2009). Why do gestures matter? Sensuous cognition and the palpability of mathematical meanings. Handbook: Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(2), 111-126.
31. Robutti, O. (2006) Motion, technology, gesture in interpreting graphs. Digital technologies in mathematics education: selected papers from ICTMT. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education 13(3):117-126.
32. Robutti, O. (2007). Interactions in classroom with technologies: Signs and meanings, La matematica e la sua didattica. Anno, 20(1), 39-50.
33. Robutti, O. (2009). Space-time representations in young children: Thinking through gestures in motion experiments. In C. Andersen, N. Scheuer, M. del Puy, & L. Pérez Echeverría, E. Teubal (Eds.), Representational systems and practices as learning tools in different fields of knowledge (pp. 59-75). Rotterdam/Taipei: Sense Publishers.
34. Robutti, O., Ravera, M. T., Ghirardi, S., & Manassero, M. (2009). What students want: An environment where learning to be in mathematics. In Proceedings of CIEAEM 59, Dobogoko, Hungary, 23-29 July 2007.
35. Sowder, J. T. (1992). Estimation and number sense. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 371-389). New York: Macmillan.
36. Sutherland, R. (1993). Consciousness of the Unknown. For the Learning of Mathematics, 13(1), 44-46.
37. Tall, D. (1989). Concept Images, Generic Organizers, Computers and Curriculum Change. For the Learning of Mathematics, 9(3), 37-42.
38. Teasley, S. D., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Constructing a joint problem space: The computer as a tool for sharing knowledge. In S. P. Lajoie & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
39. 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.
40. Trouche, L., & Hivon, L. (2009). Connectivity: New challenges for the ideas of webbing and orchestrations. In J. B. Kagrange & C. Hoyles (Eds.), ICMI conference mathematical education and digital technologies: Rethinking the terrain, Hanoi (in press).
41. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.