Finding space for student innovative practices with technology in the classroom

Learning, Media and Technology

Volumn 39, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 169-183

  Hillman, Thomas ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

Author keywords

educational technology; graphing calculator; interactive whiteboard; material semiotics; user development

Indexed keywords

EID: 84898548388     PISSN: 17439884     EISSN: 17439892     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17439884.2013.803256     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Akrich, M. 1992. "The De-scription of Technical Objects." In Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, edited by W. E. Bijker, and J. Law, 205-224. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2. Akrich, M. 1995. "User Representations: Practices, Methods and Sociology." In Managing Technology: The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment, edited by A. Rip, and T. Misa, 167-184. New York: St. Martin's Press.
3. Bijker, W. E. 1997. Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4. Boaler, J., and Humphreys, C. 2005. Connecting Mathematical Ideas, Portsmouth, NH: Heineman.
5. Drijvers, P., Doorman, M., Boon, P., Reed, H., and Gravemeijer, K. 2010. "The Teacher and the Tool: Instrumental Orchestrations in the Technology-rich Mathematics Classroom." Educational Studies in Mathematics 75 (2): 213-234. doi: 10.1007/s10649-010-9254-5
6. Etlinger, L. 1974. "The Electronic Calculator: A New Trend in School Mathematics." Educational Technology 14 (12): 43-45.
7. Fairhurst, G. T. 2004. "Textuality and Agency in Interaction Analysis." Organization 11 (3): 335-353. doi: 10.1177/1350508404041996
8. Garfinkel, H., Lynch, M., and Livingstone, E. 1981. "The Work of a Discovering Science Construed with Materials from the Optically Discovered Pulsar." Philosophy of the Social Sciences 11 (2), 131-158.
9. Glover, D., Miller, D., Averis, D., and Door, V. 2007. "The Evolution of an Effective Pedagogy for Teachers using the Interactive Whiteboard in Mathematics and Modern Languages: An Empirical Analysis from the Secondary Sector." Learning, Media and Technology 32 (1): 5-20. doi: 10.1080/17439880601141146
10. Goffman, E. 1981. Forms of Talk, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
11. Goodwin, C. 2000. "Action and Embodiment within Situated Human Interaction." Journal of Pragmatics 32 (10), 1489-1522. doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00096-X
12. Greiffenhagen, C. 2008. "Video Analysis of Mathematical Practice? Different Attempts to 'Open Up' Mathematics for Sociological Investigation." Forum: Qualitative Social Research 9 (3). http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1172/2585
13. Gresalfi, M., Martin, T., Hand, V., and Greeno, J. 2009. "Constructing Competence: An Analysis of Student Participation in the Activity Systems of Mathematics Classrooms." Educational Studies in Mathematics 70 (1): 49-70. doi: 10.1007/s10649-008-9141-5
14. Heritage, J., and Raymond, G. 2005. "The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and Subordination in Talk-in-interaction." Social Psychology Quarterly 68 (1): 15-38. doi: 10.1177/019027250506800103
15. Hillman, T. 2011. "The Inscription, Translation and Re-Inscription of Technology for Mathematical Learning." Technology, Knowledge and Learning 16 (2): 103-124. doi:10.1007/s10758-011-9182-1
16. Kaput, J. 1998. "Representations, Inscriptions, Descriptions and Learning: A Kaleidoscope of Windows." Journal of Mathematical Behavior 17 (2): 265-281. doi: 10.1016/S0364-0213(99)80062-7
17. Kaput, J., and Schorr, R. 2008. "Changing Representational Infrastructures Changes Most Everything." In Research on Technology and the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics: Vol. 2. Cases and Perspectives, edited by G. Blume, and K. Heid, 211-253. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
18. Lagrange, J.-B., and Ozdemir Erdogan, E. 2009. "Teachers' Emergent Goals in Spreadsheet-based Lessons: Analyzing the Complexity of Technology Integration." Educational Studies in Mathematics 71 (1): 65-84. doi: 10.1007/s10649-008-9160-2
19. Lantz-Andersson, A., and Linderoth, J. 2011. "The 'voice' of Absent Designers: Students' Strategies when Solving Mathematical Problems using Educational Software." Nordic Journal of Digital Literacies 6 (1-2): 52-74.
20. Latour, B. 1986. "Visualization and Cognition: Thinking with Eyes and Hands." Knowledge and Society 6 (1), 1-40.
21. Latour, B. 1996. Aramis or the Love of Technology, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
22. Laurier, E. 2001. "The Region as a Socio-technical Accomplishment of Mobile Workers." In Wireless World: Social and Interactional Aspects of the Mobile Age, edited by B. Brown, and N. Green, 46-61. New York: Springer-Verlag.
23. Law, J. 2002. "Objects and Spaces." Theory, Culture & Society 19 (5-6): 91-105. doi: 10.1177/026327602761899165
24. Law, J., and Mol, A. 2001. "Situating Technoscience: An Inquiry into Spatialities." Society and Space 19 (5), 609-621.
25. Maher, D. 2011. "Using the Multimodal Affordances of the Interactive Whiteboard to Support Students' Understanding of Texts." Learning, Media and Technology 36 (3): 235-250. doi: 10.1080/17439884.2010.536553
26. 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. doi: 10.2307/749895
27. Mercer, N., Hennessy, S., and Warwick, P. 2010. "Using IWBs to Orchestrate Classroom Dialogue." Technology, Pedagogy and Education 19 (2): 195-209. doi: 10.1080/1475939X.2010.491230
28. Oliver, M. 2011. "Technological Determinism in Educational Technology Research: Some Alternative ways of Thinking about the Relationship between Learning and Technology." Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 27 (5): 373-384. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00406.x
29. Ontario Ministry of Education 2005. The Ontario Curriculum Grades 9 and 10: Mathematics Revised, Toronto: Queen's Printer for Ontario.
30. Pierce, R., and Stacey, K. 2010. "Mapping Pedagogical Opportunities Provided by Mathematics Analysis Software." International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning 15 (1): 1-20. doi: 10.1007/s10758-010-9158-6
31. Pierce, R., Stacey, K., Wander, R., and Ball, L. 2011. "The Design of Lessons using Mathematics Analysis Software to Support Multiple Representations in Secondary School Mathematics." Technology, Pedagogy and Education 20 (1): 95-112. doi: 10.1080/1475939X.2010.534869
32. Radford, L. 2012. "On the Cognitive, Epistemic, and Ontological Roles of Artifacts." In From Text to 'Lived' Resources, edited by G. Gueudet, B. Pepin, and L. Trouche, 238-288. New York: Springer.
33. Roschelle, J. M. 1990. "Designing for Conversations." Proceedings from the AAAI symposium on Computer based environments for learning and teaching, Stanford, CA
34. Säljö, R. 2010. "Digital Tools and Challenges to Institutional Traditions of Learning: Technologies, Social Memory and the Performative Nature of Learning." Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 26 (1): 53-64. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00341.x
35. Säljö, R. 2012. "Literacy, Digital Literacy and Epistemic Practices: The Co-evolution of Hybrid Minds and External Memory Systems." Nordic Journal of Digital Literacies 7 (1): 5-19.
36. Shaffer, D. W., and Clinton, K. A. 2006. "Tool for thoughts: Reexamining Thinking in the Digital Age." Mind, Culture, and Activity 13 (4): 283-300. doi: 10.1207/s15327884mca1304_2
37. Sørensen, E. 2009. The Materiality of Learning: Technology and Knowledge in Educational Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38. Suchman, L. 2007. Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
39. Suchman, L., Blomberg, J., Orr, J. E., and Trigg, R. 1999. "Reconstructing Technologies as Social Practice." American Behavioral Scientist 43 (3): 392-408. doi: 10.1177/00027649921955335