The inscription, translation and re-inscription of technology for mathematical learning

Technology, Knowledge and Learning

Volumn 16 2, Issue , 2011, Pages 103-124

  Hillman, Thomas ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Actor network theory; Educational technology development; Mathematics education; Science and Technology Studies; Technology for mathematical learning

Indexed keywords

ACTOR NETWORK THEORY; HUMAN ASPECTS; LINEAR PROCESS; MATHEMATICS EDUCATION; MULTIPLE FEEDBACK; SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY STUDIES; TEXAS INSTRUMENTS;

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY; SOCIAL SCIENCES COMPUTING;

TEACHING;

EID: 84883462824     PISSN: 22111662     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10758-011-9182-1     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Akrich, M. (1992). The description of technical objects. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 205-224). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2. Akrich, M. (1995). User representations: Practices, methods and sociology. In A. Rip & T. Misa (Eds.), Managing technology: The approach of constructive technology assessment (pp. 167-184). New York: St. Martin's Press.
3. Akrich, M., & Latour, B. (1992). A summary of a convenient vocabulary for the semiotics of human and nonhuman assemblies. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/Building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 259-264). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4. 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 Mathematics Learning, 7, 245-274.
5. Baulac, Bellermain, & Laborde, J.-M. (1988). Cabri-Ge'omètre [Computer software]. Grenoble: Cabrilog.
6. Bijker, W. E. (1997). Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7. Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieuc bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge? (pp. 196-223). London: Routledge.
8. Clements, D., Battista, M., & Sarama, J. (2001). Logo and geometry: JRME monograph number 10. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
9. Cohen, M. (2004). User stories applied: For agile software development. Boston: Addison-Wesley.
10. Confrey, J., Hoyles, C., Jones, D., Kahn, K., and Maloney., A. P., Nguyen, K. H., et al. (2010). Designing software for mathematical engagement through modeling. In C. Hoyles & J.-B. Lagrange (Eds.), Mathematics education and technology: Rethinking the terrain (pp. 19-45). Boston, MA: Springer.
11. Cross, N. (2007). Designerly ways of knowing. Basel: Birkhaüser.
12. di Sessa, A. (2001). Changing minds: Computers, learning, and literacy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
13. Dorst, K., & Dijkhuis, J. (1995). Comparing paradigms for describing design activity. Design Studies, 16, 261-274.
14. Drijvers, P. (2000). Students encountering obstacles using CAS. International Journal of Computers for Mathematics Learning, 5(3), 189-209.
15. Ernest, P. (1999). Forms of knowledge in mathematics and mathematics education: Philosophical and rhetorical perspectives. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 38, 67-83.
16. Fenwick, T., & Edwards, R. (2010). Actor-network theory in education. London: Routledge.
17. Ferrio, T., Phipps, A., & Schaar, R. (1997). Building a breakthrough business concept. TI Technical Journal 26-32.
18. Goldenberg, E., Scher, D., & Feurzeig, N. (2008). What lies behind dynamic interactive geometry software? In K. Heid & G. Blume (Eds.), Research on technology and the teaching and learning of mathematics: Vol. 2. Cases and perspectives (pp. 53-87). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
19. Häkkinen, P. (2002). Challenges for design of computer-based learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(4), 461-469.
20. Hamrick, K. (1996). The history of the hand-held electronic calculator. The American Mathematical Monthly, 103(8), 633-639.
21. Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (2001). Software tools for geometrical problem solving: Potentials and pitfalls. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6, 235-256. (Pubitemid 34105021)
22. Hegedus, S., & Moreno-Armella, L. (2010). Accomodating the instrumental genesis framework within dynamic technological environments. For the Learning of Mathematics, 30(1), 26-31.
23. Heid, M., & Edwards, M. (2001). Computer algebra systems: Revolution or retrofit for today's mathematics classrooms? Theory Into Practice, 40(2), 128-136.
24. Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (2003). What can digital technologies take from and bring research in mathematics education? In A. Bishop, M. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & F. Leung (Eds.), Second international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 323-349). Dordrecht: Kulwer.
25. Jackiw, N. (1988). The geometer's sketchpad [Computer software]. Emoryville, CA: Key Curriculum Press.
26. Johnson, J. (1998). Mixing humans and nonhumans together: The sociology of a door-closer. Social Problems, 35(3), 298-310.
27. Jonassen, D. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5-14.
28. Kidwell, P., Ackerberg-Hastings, A., & Roberts, D. (2008). Tools of American mathematics teaching, 1800-2000. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
29. Kieran, C., & Yerushalmy, M. (2006). Research on the role of technological environments in algebra learning and teaching. In K. Stacey, H. Chick, & M. Kendal (Eds.), The future of the teaching and learning of algebra: The 12th ICMI study (pp. 97-152). London: Kluwer.
30. Laborde, C., & Laborde, J.-M. (2008). The development of a dynamical geometry environment: Cabrige'omètre. In G. Blume & M. K. Heid (Eds.), Research on Technology in the Learning and Teaching of Mathematic, Vol. 2. Cases and Perspectives (pp. 31-52). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
31. Lagrange, J.-B. (1999). Complex calculators in the classroom: Theoretical and practical reflections on teaching precalculus. International Journal of Computers for Mathematics Learning, 4(1), 51-81.
32. Latour, B. (1996). Aramis or the love of technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
33. Latour, B. (2007). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
34. Law, J. (1992). Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity. Systems Practice, 5(4), 379-393.
35. Law, J., & Mol, A. (2001). Situating technoscience: An inquiry into spatialities. Society and Space, 19, 609-621. (Pubitemid 33607440)
36. Lindsay, C. (2005). From the shadows: Users as designers, producers, marketers, distributors, and technical support. In N. Oudshoorn & T. Pinch (Eds.), How users matter: The co-construction of users and technology (pp. 29-50). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
37. Mavrou, K., Douglas, G., & Lewis, A. (2007). The use of Transana as a video analysis tool in researching computer-based collaborative learning in inclusive classrooms in Cyprus. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 30(2), 163-178.
38. Meira, L. (1998). Making sense of instructional devices: The emergence of transparency in mathematical activity. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(2), 121-142.
39. Monochristou, V., & Vlachpoulou, M. (2007). Requirements specification using user stories. In I. Stamelos & P. Sfetsos (Eds.), Agile software development quality assurance. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
40. Noss, R., Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (1997). The construction of mathematical meanings: Connecting the visual with the symbolic. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 33, 203-233. (Pubitemid 127095610)
41. Oudshoorn, N., & Pinch, T. (2005). How users matter: The co-construction of users and technology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
42. Roschelle, J. (1990). Designing for conversations. In: Proceedings from the AAAI symposium on Computer Based Environments for Learning and Teaching, Stanford, CA.
43. Roschelle, J., & Jackiw, N. (1999). Technology design as educational research: Interweaving imagination, inquiry, and impact. In A. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 777-798). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
44. Roschelle, J., Kaput, J., Stroup, W., & Kahn, T. M. (1998). Scalable integration of educational software: exploring the promise of component architectures. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 98(6), 1-31.
45. Shaffer, D., & Clinton, K. (2006). Toolforthoughts: Reexamining thinking in the digital age. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 13(4), 283-300.
46. Simon, H. (1992). Sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
47. Sørensen, E. (2007). STS goes to school: Spatial imaginaries of technology, knowledge and presence. Critical Social Studies, 2, 15-27.
48. SRI International. (2006). TI-Nspire math and science learning handhelds: What research says and what educators can do. Retrived from http://www.education.ti.com/sites/US/downloads/pdf/research-nspire-handhelds. pdf.
49. Suchman, L. (2007). Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
50. Tatar, D., Lin, S., & Dickey, M. (2005). Visualizing handheld-based classroom activity. In Proceedings of the 2005 International Symposium on Collaborative Technologies and Systems (pp. 313-320). St. Louis: IEEE. (Pubitemid 44910596)
51. Trouche, L., & Drijvers, P. (2010). Handheld technology for mathematics education: Flashback into the future. ZDM, doi:10.1007/s11858-010- 0269-2.
52. Verillon, P., & Rabardel, P. (1995). Cognition and artifacts: a contribution to the study of though in relation to instrumented activity. European journal of psychology of education, 10(1), 77-101.
53. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
54. Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language (revised ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
55. Woods, D., & Fassnacht, C. (2009). Transana v2.41. Madison, WI: The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System.
56. Yaneva, A. (2009). Making the social hold: Towards an actor-network theory of design. Design and Culture, 1(3), 273-288.