The role of social aspects of teaching and learning in transforming mathematical activity: Tools, tasks, individuals and learning communities

Transformation - A Fundamental Idea of Mathematics Education

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 203-222

  Geiger, Vince ^a  

^a AUSTRALIAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84957098673     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-3489-4_11     Document Type: Chapter

References (37)

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(3), 245-274.
2. Borba, M. C., & Villarreal, M. E. (2006). Humans-with-media and the reorganization of mathematical thinking: information and communication technologies, modeling, visualization, and experimentation. New York: Springer.
3. Chevallard, Y. (1985/1991). La transposition didactique (2nd ed. 1991 incl. A “postface" and a reprint of the case study by Chevallard & Joshua on distance from Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques 1982). Grenoble: Pensées sauvages.
4. Cobb, P. (2007). Putting philosophy to work: Coping with multiple theoretical perspectives. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: a project of the national council of teachers of mathematics (pp. 3-38). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Pub.
5. Drijvers, P., & Gravemeijer, K. (2005). Computer algebra as an instrument: Examples of algebraic schemas. In D. Guin, K. Ruthven & L. Trouche (Eds.), The didactical challenge of symbolic calculators: turning a computational device into a mathematical instrument (pp. 163-196). New York: Springer.
6. Drijvers, P., & Weigand, H. (2010). The role of handheld technology in the mathematics classroom. Zentralblatt forDidaktik derMathematik, 42(7), 665-666.
7. Ferrara, F., Pratt, D., & Robutta, O. (2006). The role and uses of technologies for the teaching of algebra and calculus. In A. Gutiérrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education: past, present and future (pp. 237-273). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
8. Galbraith, P., Goos, M., Renshaw, P., & Geiger, V. (2001). Integrating technology in mathematics learning: what some students say. In J. Bobis, B. Perry & M. Mitchelmore (Eds.), Numeracy and beyond. Proceedings of the twenty-fourth annual conference of the mathematics education research group of Australasia (MERGA-24). Sydney: MERGA.
9. Galbraith, P., Renshaw, P., Goos, M., & Geiger, V. (1999). Technology, mathematics, and people: interactions in a community of practice. In J. Truran & K. Truran (Eds.), Making the difference. Proceedings of twenty-second annual conference of the mathematics education research group of Australasia (MERGA-22) (pp. 223-230). Sydney: MERGA.
10. Geiger, V (2005). Master, servant, partner and extension of self: a finer grained view of this taxonomy. In P. Clarkson, A. Downton, D. Gronn, M. Horne, A. Mcdonough, R. Pierce & A. Roche (Eds.), Building connections: Theory, research and practice. Proceedings of the twenty-eighth annual conference of the mathematics education research group of Australasia (MERGA-28). Melbourne: MERGA.
11. Geiger, V (2006). More than tools: Mathematically enabled technologies as partner and collaborator. In C. P. Hoyles, J. Lagrange, L. Son & N. Sinclair (Eds.), The seventeenth study conference of the international commission on mathematical instruction (pp. 182-189). Hanoi: International Commisson for Mathematics Instruction.
12. Geiger, V. (2009). Learning mathematics with technology from a social perspective: A study of secondary students’ individual and collaborative practices in a technologically rich mathematics classroom. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, the University of Queensland). Australasian Digital Theses Program UQ:178520: http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:178520.
13. Geiger, V, Faragher, R., & Goos, M. (2010). Cas-enabled technologies as ‘agents provocateurs’ in teaching and learning mathematical modelling in secondary school classrooms. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 22(2), 48-68.
14. Goos, M., Galbraith, P., Renshaw, P., & Geiger, V (2000). Reshaping teacher and student roles in technology-enriched classrooms. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 12(3), 303-320.
15. Goos, M., Galbraith, P., Renshaw, P., & Geiger, V. (2003). Perspectives on technology mediated learning in secondary school mathematics classrooms. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 22(1), 73-89.
16. Gueudet, G., & Trouche, L. (2009). Towards new documentation systems for mathematics teachers? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 71(3), 199-218.
17. Guin, D., Ruthven, K., & Trouche, L. (2005). The didactical challenge of symbolic calculators: Turning a computational device into a mathematical instrument. New York: Springer.
18. Hoyles, C., & Lagrange, J.-B. (2010). Introduction. In C. Hoyles & J.-B. Lagrange (Eds.), Mathematics education and technology-rethinking the Terrain (Vol. 13, pp. 1-11). New York: Springer.
19. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
20. Kieran, C., & Guzma’n, J. (2005). Five steps to zero: Students developing elementary number theory concepts when using calculators. In W. J. Masalski & P. C. Elliott (Eds.), Technology-supported mathematics learning environments (pp. 35-50). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
21. Laborde, C. (2002). Integration of technology in the design of geometry tasks with Cabri-geome-try. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6(3), 283-317.
22. Laborde, C., Kynigos, C., Hollebrands, K., & Straesser, R. (2006). Teaching and learning geometry with technology. In A. Gutiérrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education: past, present and future (pp. 275-304). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
23. Lesh, R., & English, L. (2005). Trends in the evolution of models & amp; modeling perspectives on mathematical learning and problem solving. Zentralblatt for Didaktik der Mathematik, 37(6), 487-489.
24. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
25. Manouchehri, A. (2004). Using interactive algebra software to support a discourse community. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 23(1), 37-62.
26. Pea, R. (1985). Beyond Amplification: Using the computer to reorganize mental functioning. Educational Psychologist, 20(4), 167-182.
27. Pea, R. (1987). Cognitive technologies for mathematics education. In A. H. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Cognitive science and mathematics education (pp. 89-122). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
28. Pea, R. (1993A). Learning scientific concepts through material and social activities: Conversational analysis meets conceptual change. Educational Psychologist, 28(3), 265-277.
29. Pea, R. (1993B). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: psychological and educational considerations (pp. 47-87). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30. Pierce, R., Ball, L., & Stacey, K. (2009). Is it worth using CAS for symbolic algebra manipulation in the middle secondary years? Some teacher’s views. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(6), 1149-1172.
31. Rezat, S. (2006). A model for textbook use. In J. Novotna, H. Moraova, M. Kratka & N. Stehlikova (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 4, pp. 409-416). Prague: PME.
32. Strasser, R. (2009). Instruments for learning and teaching mathematics an attempt to theorize about the role of textbooks, computers and other artefacts to teach and learn mathematics. In M. Tzekaki & H. Sakonidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 1, pp. 67-81). Thessaloniki: PME.
33. Trouche, L. (2003). From artifact to instrument: mathematics teaching mediated by symbolic calculators. Interacting with Computers, 15(6), 783-800.
34. Trouche, L. (2005). Instrumental genesis, individual and social aspects. In D. Guin, K. Ruthven, & L. Trouche (Eds.), The didactical challenge of symbolic calculators: Turning a computational device into a mathematical instrument (pp. 197-230). New York: Springer.
35. Verillon, P., & Rabardel, P. (1995). Cognition and artifacts:A contribution to the study of thought in relation to instrumental activity. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10, 77-103.
36. Wartofsky, M. W. (1979). Models. Representation and the scientific understanding (Vol. 129). Dordrecht: Reidel.
37. Wertsch, J. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.