CERME10 Proceedings-Recopilación

Thematic Working Group 04
Constructing draggable figures using GeoGebra: The contribution of

the DGE for geometric structuring
Lina Brunheira and João Pedro da Ponte
ESE - Escola Superior de Educação, Instituto Politécnico de Lisboa and UIDEF, Instituto de
Educação, Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal; lbrunheira@eselx.ipl.pt
Instituto de Educação, Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal; jpponte@ie.ulisboa.pt
This study is a research on teaching practice, developed in the context of an elective course on
Dynamic Geometry for prospective kindergarten and elementary school teachers taught by the first
author of this paper. We aim to analyse the role of GeoGeobra in the development of geometric
reasoning, particularly the way individuals geometrically structure figures. The participants are a
class of six future teachers. Data was gathered from the participants’ portfolios and classroom
observation while working on an exploratory task, which focuses on constructing draggable figures.
The results show that this type of activity promotes spatial and geometric structuring, beginning
with the perception of elements and relationships that enable the dynamic construction, and moving
on to the description of the construction using formal concepts associated to the tools of the DGE.
Keywords: GeoGeobra, geometry, structuring, visualization, teacher education.
Introduction
Research has shown the interest in engaging students of different ages in activities using dynamic
geometry environments (DGE), for the improvement of concept learning and the development of
reasoning (Sinclair & Yerushalmy, 2016). In particular, Hanna and Sidoli (2007) indicate that the
DGE are a promising way “in enhancing the students' ability to notice details, conjecture, reflect on
and interpret relationships and to offer tentative explanations and proofs” (p. 77). Also, in education
programs, relevant research confirms the effectiveness of the use of technological tools, including
DGE, to improve the knowledge of teachers and future teachers (Jones & Tzekaki, 2016). In this
study, we aim to analyse the role of GeoGeobra in the development of geometric reasoning, in a
context of a geometry course for future kindergarten and elementary school teachers, based on
exploratory tasks. In particular, we which to understand how the construction of draggable figures in
the DGE contributes to geometric structuring (Battista, 2008)?
Theoretical framework
Prospective elementary teacher education in geometry
The knowledge necessary for teaching includes mastery of mathematical reasoning, ways to solve
problems and communicate mathematics effectively, understanding of concepts, procedures and the
process of doing mathematics (Albuquerque et al., 2005; NCTM, 1991). Concerning geometry,
kindergarten and elementary school teachers should understand how it is used to describe the world;
analyse two and three dimensional figures; use synthetic geometry, coordinates and transformations;
improve skills in producing arguments, justifications and in visualization.
Some researchers have claimed that there are few studies about teachers and future teachers’
knowledge in geometry (Chapman, 2013; Clements & Sarama, 2011; Steele, 2013). However, the
Proceedings of CERME10 572

existing literature provides reasons to believe this is a problematic area. As Clements and Sarama
(2011) state, in many countries teachers from every level are not always provided with adequate
preparation in geometry and lack of knowledge and confidence in this area. Concerning
kindergarten and elementary prospective teachers, many only recognise and categorize shapes by
their overall similarity to prototypes, instead of charactering them by their properties (Clements &
Sarama, 2011; Fujita & Jones, 2006) a problem we also identify in Portugal (Menezes, Serrazina &
Fonseca, 2014). Overall, as Jones & Tzekaki (2016) recently stressed, studies on teachers’
geometric knowledge and teacher education programs indicate that we still need to give attention on
how prospective teachers build their understanding of geometrical objects. Also, we should take
into account the effectiveness of approaches such as the use DGE.
Developing geometric reasoning and the use of DGE
King e Shattschneider (2003) present eight reasons for a teacher to use a DGE: (i) to take advantage
of the accuracy of geometric constructions and measurements, leading to confident results; (ii) to
promote visualization; (iii) to encourage exploration, investigation and discovery leading to the
formulation of questions, conjectures, and their test; (iv) to encourage demonstration because the
experimental evidence offers the necessary conviction for such enterprise, and may provide clues;
(v) to support the understanding of geometric transformations; (vi) to support the understanding of
loci; (vii) to provide simulation opportunities for a wide variety of situations; and (viii) to allow the
creation of microworlds, using new tools and allowing exploitation of non-Euclidean geometry.
A major emphasis on using DGE concerns the constructing of figures. Laborde (2001) compares
this type of activity when performed using a DGE versus using paper and pencil. In her view, when
we draw a figure using paper and pencil, the activity is often controlled by perception rather than
being driven by the properties of the figure. Instead, in a DGE is not possible to construct a square
in a similar way (“led by eye”) and it requires more knowledge about the figure. But if the students
are able to apply the properties correctly, we can ask ourselves, as does Battista (2007), what have
they learned from the activity? For this researcher, “perhaps no new knowledge was acquired, but
instead, the students’ knowledge and reasoning were deepened and enriched . . . Or perhaps
connections between properties were newly constructed or extended” (p. 878).
In order to analyse this reasoning we draw on the framework developed by Battista (2008). This
researcher established a categorization of reasoning using three levels, corresponding to increasing
degrees of sophistication: spatial structuring, geometric structuring and logical/axiomatic
structuring. Spatial structuring is a special type of abstraction corresponding to the mental act of
constructing an organization or form for an object or set of objects by identifying its components,
combining them into spatial composites, and identifying the way they combine and relate. Spatial
structuring enables a person to imagine manipulating an object, reflect, analyse and understand it.
Geometric structuring describes spatial structuring using formal concepts such as congruence,
parallelism, angle, transformations or coordinate systems. Geometric structuring is based on spatial
structuring, that is, to be able to structure geometrically an object, it is necessary that one has
interiorized the corresponding spatial structure. Logical/axiomatic structuring formally organizes
geometric concepts in a system so that their relationship can be established through logical
deduction. To operate at this level, it is necessary that verbal or symbolic statements can replace
mental models. The research of Battista (2008) in a DGE (the Shape Makers microworld) with fifth

graders showed that the manipulation of shapes and the reflection on that manipulation may enable
the pupils to move from thinking holistically to thinking about the geometric properties of the
figure, that is, to progress from spatial structuring to geometric structuring. However, he also points
that there is a need for guidance, reflection and experimentation in order to construct formal
geometric conceptualizations of the DGE constraints.
Methodology
The first author of this paper designed and taught an elective course on Dynamic Geometry in
2015/26, as a new offer in the teacher education program for prospective elementary school teachers
in her institution, in Portugal. The course was divided into two phases: (i) 10 lessons dedicated to
solving geometry tasks organized into four topics – problem solving, constructing, investigating and
creating; and (ii) 5 lessons dedicated to didactics of geometry, projecting the work of the DGE with
children from kindergarten to 6th grade. In the classroom, there was one computer for each
participant, but they were encouraged to discuss with their colleagues. Regarding the assessment,
each participant built a portfolio containing a task from each topic, detailed solution and a reflection
on the activity, and also constructed a GeoGeobraBook with the files used to solve the tasks.
This study is a research on teaching practice based on the observation of the activity of the
participants and their solutions of a task and aims contributing to their professional and
organizational development, “as well as to generate important knowledge about educational
processes, useful for other teachers, for academic educators and the community in general” (Ponte,
2002, p. 13). Data was gathered mainly from the portfolios and GeoGeobraBooks of the
participants, complemented by the field notes taken by the first author, while observing the
participants and supporting their work. There were only six participants: five females who were in
the 2nd year of the program (also attending a compulsory course of Geometry) and a male in the 3rd
year, the only one who had some experience with DGE. Since the Dynamic Geometry course is
elective, the choice the participants may be considered an indicator that they like geometry and do
not feel strong difficulties in this area, which was confirmed in this group. The task (Figure 1) was
proposed in the 5th lesson, within the topic Constructing. It was intended that the participants would
reproduce draggable figures, or families of figures, in GeoGeobra from the properties visually
identified, thus corresponding to one of the major emphases reported by Battista (2007).
1. Construct both stars. Describe briefly the process.

2. For each of the stars, find another building process
and describe it.
3. Construct other stars of this family with a larger
number of points. Generalize one of the construction processes you used.
4. Establish relationship between the number of star points and other elements.
Figure 1 – Task Constructing stars (adapted from Johnston-Wilder and Mason, 2005)
The data was analysed using a framework (Table 1) built by the first author of the paper (Brunheira,
2016), based on the concepts of spatial and geometric structuring (Battista, 2008). The table does
not include the logical/axiomatic level, since it means that one operates at a symbolic level, which is
not the purpose in this task. We use the framework to analyse the solutions, looking for the evidence

of the descriptors in order to characterize the level of structuring of the participants. However, we
stress that despite the attribution of a level to a solution, this does not mean that we can characterize
the level of structuring for an individual solely based on a solution of a task, so this must be seen as
an indicator. Also, we cannot consider that solving a single task is enough to improve significantly,
but this analysis may enable us to recognise it’s potential.
Geometric structuring
Levels
Spatial structuring Knowledge of concepts
Does not establish geometrical relationships Does not know most of the basic
N0 between figures and their elements, or does concepts and the language is very limited
not provide most of the times. in terms of geometric vocabulary.
Perceives geometric relationships involving Knows the concepts of side and angle,
visible elements of figures, but it may congruence, perpendicularity and
N1
depend on the position of the figures, their parallelism in the plan; in space, knows
elements or the context. the concept vertex, edge, and face.
Perceives geometric relationships involving
visible elements of figures in any positions
or context.
N2 Perceives geometric relationships involving
invisible elements of figures, but it may Knows the concepts as axe of symmetry,
depend on the position of the figures, their diagonal, bisector, midpoint and the
elements or the context. geometric transformations in the plan; in
space, knows the concept of congruence,
Perceives geometric relationships involving parallelism and perpendicularity.
visible or invisible elements of figures in
N3 any positions or context.
Produces generalizations of geometric
relations for a family of figures.
Table 1 – Descriptors of the levels of spatial and geometric structuring
Results
Next we present an analysis of task solutions from prospective teachers Maria, Carla and Louise
taken from their portfolios, which we consider to be representative of all the solutions presented.
Maria’s solution of the task
In figure 2 we present an excerpt containing two processes presented by Maria. Process A was used
to build the two initial stars and process B was used for the same purpose, as well as to generalize.
Both constructions begin with the image of the star as a whole figure and a regular hexagon where
the star is inscribed in two different ways.

Process A Process B
Construct a polygon with a certain number of sides and then two polygons from the union of non-
consecutive vertices. The number of the star points corresponds to the number of the vertices of
the polygon used for its construction. It is not possible to do this based on regular polygons with
an odd number of sides, since there are not two sets of non-consecutive points to be connected.
Figure 2 – Excerpt of Maria’s solution of the task
Maria looks at the star as a whole figure inscribed in a regular hexagon in two different ways. She
draws on invisible elements that were created to assist the construction. Regarding the
generalization, Maria presents a process which can be applied to any star and establishes a
relationship between the initial polygon and the number of points of the star. Finally, she identifies
that this polygon cannot have an odd number of sides and justifies her finding. Thus, Maria’s
solution shows a very good geometric structuring for this family of figures, corresponding to Level
3 of the framework.
Carla’s solution of the task
Carla uses a procedure similar to Maria’ process B and another process, shown in Figure 3.
1. Construct an initial figure in accordance with the number of points of the star (this polygon
should be a regular polygon in which the number of vertices is half the number of points of the
star). 2. Trace the perpendicular bisectors for each side of the polygon to find its center. 3. Draw a
circle centered at the intersection point of the bisectors and a radius to reach a vertice of the figure.
4. The intersection points between the bisectors and the circumference will be the vertices of the
second figure that makes up the star.
The number of points of the star is twice the number of sides of the inicial figure.
Figure 3 – Excerpt of Carla’s solution of the task

She looks at the star decomposing it into two congruent regular polygons, one of which constitutes
the starting point for construction. The determination of the second polygon involves visualizing the
star inscribed in a circumference, and the vertices of the second polygon on the perpendicular
bisectors (a concept that she did not know). Thus, she identifies that the consecutive vertices of the

star are equidistant from each other and also equidistant from the centre of the star. Regarding the
relations established, Carla identifies that the number of vertices of the initial polygon is twice the
number of points of the star, but does not justify this. Therefore, Carla identifies various
relationships between their elements, using visible and invisible elements and adequate concepts,
such as the circle and the perpendicular bisector, thus showing a very good geometric structuring of
the family of figures, which also corresponds to level 3.
Louise’s solution of the task
Louise builds the stars initially as Carla (draws the first polygon, traces the bisectors and finds the
point of intersection). However, while Carla seems to look at the star in a static point of view,
Louise visualizes the “movement” of the first polygon to obtain the second. The participant had an
intuitive idea that rotating the initial triangle in a certain way, it would be possible to obtain the
second triangle and form the star, although she did not know the formal concept of rotation and that
we should define the rotation by a centre and an angle. She asked for help to find out if the
GeoGeobra could run this “movement” and the teacher explained how the “Rotation” tool worked.
Next, Louise presented the following relationships: “For regular polygons with even number of
sides, amplitude = 180°/(number of sides); For regular polygons with odd number of sides,
amplitude = 180º”. Thus, we consider that her solution also reflects level 3.
Discussion
All participants were successful in the task. They presented different and valid constructions
mobilizing a variety of elements of the figures (visible and non-visible), relations between them,
transformations and properties, some of them were unknown to them. So, the main conclusion we
want to emphasize is that the construction of figures using GeoGeobra significantly enhances the
geometric structuring by promoting the identification of properties and relations between elements,
as Battista (2008) reported in his study. This improvement stems from different features and
strengths that we recognize in the DGE, some of them indicated by King e Shattschneider (2003).
We start with two features – easiness of use and accuracy of the constructions – which we associate
the two strengths – promoting intuition and exploration. In fact, sometimes participants started the
construction from an insight of the properties and elements of the figure (or auxiliary figures) that
could be useful, but they were not sure. The possibility to easily test the conjectures through a quick
and accurate construction was a key aspect, as Maria explains:
With GeoGeobra it was possible to explore different forms of construction of the stars using
polygons, lines, midpoints, parallel lines, among others, easily, simply and accurately. If we
didn’t have this software this would be a long and relatively difficult process, especially the
construction of regular polygons used as a basis for the construction of stars. (Portfolio)
Another potential of GeoGeobra that emerged was the promotion of justification, which we did not
ask for in the task. In fact, the ability to test the construction validity, as in a trial and error process,
does not mean that participants do not reflect on their actions, as we note in Louise's comment:
I had to stop and think why the rotation angle depends on the number of sides, as well as to find a
mathematical answer to for the correct value. (Portfolio)

In this case, we see a need to reflect on the value of the angle, which led to the justification of the
chosen value and the understanding the generalization. So, although the DGE played an important
role in the user's belief that a relationship is valid, did not lead to underestimate justification, instead
promoted the search for it (Hanna & Sidoli, 2007).
Another feature of GeoGeobra is that it leads the user to work with the formal concepts associated
with its tools. In this way, we may think that we can only take advantage of the DGE when
operating at the level of geometric structuring. In fact, as Battista (2007) suggests, we cannot make
geometric constructions without reaching some level of “conceptual and representational
explicitness”. However, this investigation shows that GeoGeobra can facilitate the transition from
spatial to geometric structuring. An example that supports this conclusion is the use of new
concepts, like perpendicular bisector or rotation, that participants had just a vague memory from
middle and high school, but were correctly applied as the DGE promoted their appropriation.
Finally, in connection to the nature of the task which favours different solutions, GeoGeobra
supports this diversity through a set of tools available, which also stimulates creativity. As Peter
says:
The choice of this task reflects on the freedom it gives us to construct the figures using different
processes . . . [which] depend on our ability to imagine overlapping figures, guidelines for the
construction and other key points of the figure . . . improves the ability to find relationships
between figures and their elements and encourages creativity. (Portfolio)
Conclusion
This research was based on a construction task for which we recognize the potential mentioned by
Laborde (2001). Besides, we corroborate the claims of King and Shattschneider (2003) regarding
the reasons that support the use of the DGE, particularly the use of rigorous constructions and the
promotion of visualization, exploration, investigation, discovery and demonstration, to which we
would like to add creativity and intuition. However, the data also shows that constructing draggable
figures in GeoGeobra contributes to spatial and geometric structuring. The main contribution of this
study concerns the importance of this work in prospective teacher education. From a mathematical
point of view, the data shows the relevance of the exploratory work involving geometric
constructions using a DGE, promoting the evolution in the way they structure the geometrical
figures by identifying relationships and properties. Apart from this perspective, the comments of
participants also show the relevance of reflecting on mathematical activity itself. This reflection –
here enhanced by the portfolio – enables prospective teachers to become aware of their own learning
in relation to the task, which can be an important contribution to their didactical knowledge.
References
Albuquerque, C., Veloso, E., Rocha, I., Santos, L., Serrazina, L., & Nápoles, S. (2006). A
Matemática na formação inicial de professores. Lisboa: APM and SPCE.
Battista, M. T. (2007). The development of geometric and spatial thinking. In F. K. Lester (Ed.),
Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 843−908). Greenwich,
CT: Information Age.

Battista, M. T. (2008). Development of the shape makers geometry microworld. In G. W. Blume &
M. K. Heide (Eds.), Research on technology and the teaching and learning of mathematics, Vol.
2: Cases and Perspectives (pp. 131−156). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Brunheira, L. (2016). O raciocínio geométrico no processo de definir: Uma experiência de
formação com futuras professoras e educadoras. Unpublished manuscript.
Chapman, O. (2013). Investigating teachers’ knowledge for teaching mathematics. Journal of
Mathematics Teacher Education, 16(4), 237−243.
Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2011). Early childhood teacher education: The case of geometry.
Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14(2), 133−148.
Fujita, T. & Jones, K. (2006). Primary trainee teachers’ understanding of basic geometrical figures
in Scotland. In J. Novotná, H. Moraová, M. Krátká & N. Stehlíková (Eds.), Proceedings 30th
PME International Conference (Vol. 3, pp. 129–136). Prague, Czech Republic: PME.
Hanna, G., & Sidoli, N. (2007). Visualisation and proof: A brief survey of philosophical
perspectives. ZDM Mathematics Education, 39(1-2), 73−78.
Johnston-Wilder, S., & Mason, J. (Eds.). (2005). Developing thinking in geometry. London: Sage.
Jones, K., & Tzekaki, M. (2016). Research on the teaching and learning of geometry. In A.
Gutiérrez, G. C. Leder & P. Boero (Eds.), The second handbook of research on the psychology of
mathematics education (pp. 109−149). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
King, J. R., & Schattschneider, D. (2003). Tornar a geometria dinâmica. In E. Veloso & N.
Candeias (Eds.), Geometria dinâmica: Seleção de textos do livro Geometry Turned on! (pp. 7-
13). Lisboa: APM.
Laborde, C. (2001). Integration of technology in the design of geometry tasks with Cabri-
Geometry. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6(3), 283−317.
Menezes, L., Serrazina, L., Fonseca, L., Ribeiro, A., Rodrigues, M. Vale, I., … Tempera, T. (2014).
Conhecimento de geometria de alunos da LEB. Atas do XXV SIEM. Braga.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1991). Professional standards for teaching
mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
Ponte, J. P. (2002). Investigar a nossa própria prática. In Grupo de Trabalho de Investigação (Ed.),
Refletir e investigar sobre a prática profissional (pp. 5−28). Lisboa: APM.
Sinclair, N., & Yerushalmy, M. (2016). Digital technology in mathematics teaching and learning. In
A. Gutiérrez, G. C. Leder & P. Boero (Eds.), The second handbook of research on the
psychology of mathematics education (pp. 235−274). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
Steele, M. D. (2013). Exploring the mathematical knowledge for teaching geometry and
measurement through the design and use of rich assessment tasks. Journal of Mathematics
Teacher Education, 16(4), 245−268.

Real uses of ICT in classrooms: Tensions and disturbances in

mathematics teachers’ activity
Maha Abboud1 and Janine Rogalski2

1
LDAR, University of Cergy-Pontoise, France; maha.blanchard@u-cergy.fr
2
LDAR, University Paris Diderot; rogalski.muret@gmail.com
This paper presents an extension of approaches of the teacher technology-based activity, articulating
the Double Approach alongside with the Instrumental Approach within the overarching frame of
Activity Theory. Tensions and disturbances are defined for analysing the dynamics of the teacher's
activity when ICT tools are mediating both teacher's and students' activity. The approach is
illustrated throughout a comparative study of two "ordinary" teachers using dynamic geometry.
Various tensions related to the temporal, cognitive and pragmatic dimensions were observed,
differently managed depending on personal, material and social determinants. Tensions are inherent
to the dynamics of the situation. Together with disturbances, they are lenses contributing to a fine-
grained analysis of teachers' activity.
Keywords: Teachers, technology, activity, tensions, disturbances, dynamic environment
Introduction
The activity of "ordinary" teachers integrating technology into teaching is constrained and depends
on several determinants, namely personal, institutional and social. The work of researchers such as
Ruthven (2009), Drijvers et al. (2010) and Abboud-Blanchard (2014) emphasize the need to study
the practices of these teachers, often not technology experts and practicing in non-experimental
conditions(i.e. ordinary practices). One of the aims of such studies is to better understand what
happens in the classroom and thereby to address professional development issues (Clark-Wilson,
2014). The aim of the present paper is to contribute to this research line by introducing two new
theoretical concepts, tensions and disturbances. These concepts were developed within a model of
instrumented activities of teacher and students and were actually used as complementary resources
within ICT teacher education programs.
We consider the teacher as managing an “open dynamic environment” (Rogalski, 2003), and we focus
on both the relationship between the lesson preparation and its actual implementation (anticipation,
adaptation); and also on the management of the inherent uncertainty within such an environment.
Indeed, the use of technology adds a “pragmatic” dimension emphasizing the “open” character of the
environment that constitutes the classroom activity. Monaghan (2004), stresses that this use leads to
an increased complexity in teachers’ practices and also that the uncertainties related to students’
mathematical activities with technologies bring teachers to modify their objectives during the lesson
in progress, leading them to focus on new "emergent goals". The concepts we introduce enable an

analysis of the impact of the dynamics of students’ interactions with technology tools on the
management of the planned (by the teacher) cognitive route (Robert & Rogalski, 2005), and the
possible divergences from this during the lesson. In this paper, we provide an example of the
comparative analysis of the activity of two "ordinary" teachers’ uses of dynamic geometry with their
(6th grade) students to describe the methodology and associated analytical tools and to highlight their
usefulness. We selected this particular example from our research data as it is relatively easy to
present in a short paper.
Theoretical and methodological approaches

The ergonomics theoretical perspective considers teaching as a case of dynamic management of the
teaching environment (Rogalski, 2003). This environment is “open” as it contains many uncertainties
due to the fact that the students’ activity cannot be completely predicted and the teacher is often in an
improvisation mode. The teacher’s conceptions of the mathematical domain to be taught, and of the
relation students have to it, are subjective determinants of his professional activity. These conceptions
condition the “didactical process” he wants his students to follow i.e. the planned cognitive route,
alongside the management of the processes developed during the lesson (Robert & Rogalski, 2005).
Although the didactic scenario is familiar, the students’ diversity and the specific context of the class
introduce a factor of uncertainty. This uncertainty is exacerbated when students are working with a
technological tool as the teacher may encounter difficulties to control the tool’s feedback due to
students’ manipulations and to identify their emerging interpretations. Teachers often have to deal
with tensions due to the presence of the tool and its role in the student’s activity, and also its
interaction with the mathematical knowledge at stake.
Following Rabardel’s Instrumental Approach (2002), technological tools can be viewed from both
the teacher’s and the students’ perspectives. In both cases, the subject-object interactions are mediated
by the tool. As Rabardel states:
Beyond direct subject-object interactions (dS-O), many other interactions must be considered:
interactions between the subject and the instrument (S-I), interactions between the instrument and
the object on which it allows one to act (I-O), and finally subject-object interactions mediated by
an instrument (S-Om). Furthermore, this whole is thrown into an environment made up of all the
conditions the subject must take into consideration in his/her finalized activity (Rabardel, 2002,
p.42-43).
Nevertheless, the object of teacher’s activity is the students’ learning, whereas the object of the
students’ activity is the content of the task given by the teacher; their instruments based on the same
tool are thus different. Figure 1, presents how these two instrumented activities are articulated within
the dynamics of class preparation.

Figure 1. Teacher’s and students’ instrumented activities within the preparation phase
We now consider the classroom environment and present how the two instrumental situations are
articulated within the dynamics of class management, indicating possible tensions and disturbances.
Tensions and disturbances
In our approach, we depart from the way Kaptelin & Nardi (2012) introduced the terms "tension" and
"disturbance" when presenting the concept of contradiction central in Engeström's framework of
analysis for how activity systems develop (Engeström, 2008). These terms appear in their familiar
use; emphasis being put on the analysis of contradictions in activity systems as main learning sources.
We do not define tensions as conflicts or contradictions. In the teacher’s activity tensions are
manifestations of “struggles” between maintaining the intended cognitive route and adapting to
phenomena linked to the dynamics of the class situation. Some of these tensions might be predicted
by the teacher and so he/she plans how to manage them. Others are unexpected and constrain the
teacher to make decisions, in situ, that direct his/her actual activity.
Disturbances are consequences of non-managed or ill-managed tensions that lead to an exit out of
the intended cognitive route. Disturbances happen when a new issue emerges and is managed while
the current issue is not completely treated or when the statement of a new issue is not part of the initial
cognitive route.
We consider here only tensions and disturbances related to the local level of a class session; while
some tensions are or might be managed at a more global level (i.e. over several sessions). Figure 2
illustrates how tensions can be related to different poles of the system of teacher-and-student
activities; they can be shaped differently along three dimensions (previously introduced by Abboud-
Blanchard (2014)): temporal, cognitive, and pragmatic.
Tensions related to the cognitive dimension appear in the gap between the mathematical knowledge
the teacher anticipated would be used during task performance and the knowledge that is actually
involved when students identify and interpret feedback from the instrument. Tensions related to both
the pragmatic and cognitive dimensions are produced by the illusion that mathematical objects and
operations implemented in the software are sufficiently close to those in the paper-and-pencil context

(we refer to Balacheff (1994) analysis of the “transposition informatique”). Tensions related to a
temporal dimension are frequent in ICT environments and are linked to the discrepancy between the
predicted duration of students' activity and the actual time needed to perform the task. Teachers are
generally aware of such tensions; they often manage them by taking control of the situation, either by
directly giving the expected answer or by manipulating the software themselves. Finally, a tension
non-specific to ICT environment may concern the didactical contract: Students cannot identify the
type of answer the teacher is expecting. ICT environments may amplify this type of tensions when
students are uncertain of the goal of the activity i.e. is it about a mathematical object to manipulate
with the software or about the use of the software itself.
Figure 2. Tensions and disturbances within the dynamics of class management
Illustrating the theoretical approaches through a comparative case study

We present how tensions and possible disturbances appear in the case of two teachers, Alan and Colin,
using dynamic geometry software (Geoplan) with 6th grade students to introduce the notion of
perpendicular-bisector. They are both “ordinary” teachers who use technological tools occasionally,
and willingly, in ways that are in line with the institutional expectations, that is to introduce students
to an experimental approach. The two teachers designed the same cognitive route based on the
succession of two tasks: moving several points (eight) on Geoplan screen in order to place each of
them at the same distance from two fixed points, M &N, (ICT task) and then similarly drawing 8
points with the same condition in a paper-and-pencil context (p&p task). Each teacher’s final goal
was to: give the definition of the perpendicular-bisector as a set of points equidistant from two given
points; and establish an efficient associated construction method using compasses. Alan’s school is

in a low-income socio-economic zone, while Colin is in a middle-class zone. Their working

environments are different: Alan had access to a traditional classroom and a computer room that
lacked either a video projection device or a black board, while Colin worked in a classroom equipped
with laptops.
The sessions included in our analysis were video recorded by the teachers themselves. Our choice of
data collection approach is to reduce as far as possible the impact of researchers on the teacher’s and
students’ activity in the class. The analysis of the teachers’ preparation documents and deferred
interviews enable the identification of some personal and social determinants. We then compare the
observed succession of episodes in the video alongside the planned cognitive route, to enable us to
detect tensions and disturbances.
Results
A somewhat surprising result is that both Alan and Colin managed the session without temporal
tensions despite a number of “unfavourable” material and social determinants. In Alan’s case, these
could have resulted in strong tensions, e.g. the time needed to move from classroom to computer
room and students’ prior cognitive difficulties. In fact, Alan took into account the social determinants
of his class and the material constraints by anticipating and avoiding tensions that could have produce
disturbances through a threefold organisation: temporal, pragmatic and cognitive. Indeed, Alan
closely supervised his students and organised their activity by structuring the cognitive route as a
succession of well-defined sub-tasks. This mode of guidance has been identified previously as a
common approach that teachers use to manage such experimental approach in order to avoid students’
erratic behaviour (Abboud-Blanchard, 2014). The rhythm of sub-task completion is also strictly
planned and guided. This is probably linked to Alan’s personal determinants that led him to establish
strong routines to discipline students in all moments. Indeed, not all teachers with this type of students
are able to establish such routines and to be at ease when implementing them. Colin avoided temporal
tensions in quite different ways. He started by presenting the task both with ICT and p&p. During the
session, he used the IWB for sharing elements of the task outcomes with the whole class. He
particularly drew students’ attention to where they should look on the screen, and by doing so, avoided
some pragmatic and cognitive tensions. Colin’s open attitude may be related to a personal determinant
of “compliance” inherent in his relationship with his students.
Regarding tensions related to the cognitive dimension, an important result is the shared illusion of
transparency: Implicitly, Alan and Colin took for guaranteed that after completing the ICT task, all
students would have detected the existence of a straight line on which all equidistant points are
situated. This was clearly not the case. This tension was not managed as indicated by the absence of
any collective comment concerning the point of transition between the ICT task and the p&p one. For
some students, this fact led to a divergence from the intended cognitive route: a “local” disturbance.
These students persisted conscientiously throughout the whole session to draw equidistant points
without appreciating the notion of a straight line as the set of such points. A tension related to the

didactical contract was also observed in both classrooms when, during the p&p task, some students
tried to place the 8 points at the same positions they occupied on the screen. What may have triggered
this students’ interpretation of the task differs for the two teachers. Alan had introduced the p&p task,
by saying “now we will do the same task but without the computer”. However, for Colin, the
computers were not shut down and thus students may have continued to refer to what they saw on the
screen. During the session, both teachers succeeded in managing this tension by explaining the
differences of the two situations.
Finally, a pragmatic tension that was not managed was an implementation issue that could be related
to a shared belief among teachers that students are skilled with technology using a trial and
improvement approach. At the beginning of the ICT task, for any given point (P) on the screen, the
students could read the relative distances to the point M and N and, when moving this variable point,
they could observe the numerical changes. However, dragging the point P to maintain the equality
involved two degrees of freedom on the plane. Therefore, an efficient approach relied on both
students’ awareness of this constraint and their development of an adequate concept-based strategy
to “maintain a constant dimension when moving along the other” or “anticipate the curve on which
the point is moving” (as shown in Abboud-Blanchard, 2015). In Colin’s class, some students
continued to drag points without any strategy even when the teacher asked them to engage in the p&p
task. As a consequence, they could not easily be aware of the efficiency of using compasses instead
of rulers when switching to the p&p context. For Alan’s students, we can infer that some of them
succeeded to place only few points with limited opportunities to notice their alignment.
Overall, we have identified a set of tensions in the activity of two ordinary teachers use of dynamic
geometry and have illustrated the dimensions they may affect. By predicting many tensions, these
teachers avoided some of these tensions by anticipating and organising the students’ activity relative
to the temporal, cognitive and pragmatic dimensions. The teachers managed others in situ mainly via
individual interactions with, and support for the students. Their approach to classroom management
depends on personal, material and social determinants. Nevertheless, the analysis also shows that
even though they succeeded to maintain the essence of their intended cognitive goal, some
unrecognised or ill-managed tensions led some students to diverge from the planned cognitive route.
Discussion and conclusion

In this paper, we have presented how and why we developed the notions of tensions and disturbances
to analyse the dynamics of teachers' activity in ordinary contexts when they are using ICT in line with
the institutional demands. We first schematised how ICT occupies two different positions as an
instrumental tool for the teacher and for the students. The first schema is based on the postulate that
there exists a crucial difference in the object of activity of the teacher (e.g. students'
understanding/learning of the mathematical content involved in the task), and of the students, which
is essentially to complete the task. Within the second schema, we added and defined several types of

tensions that may appear within the teacher's activity along three dimensions: temporal, cognitive,
and pragmatic, and at the level of the didactical contract. The cases of Alan and Colin are examples
of ordinary, experienced teachers investigated within a larger study, who use technology regularly.
In addition, they are convinced that dynamic geometry enables students to make pertinent
observations through the immediate feedback (this belief is widely shared by teachers). We identified
a set of tensions: some of which were managed through anticipation; others in real-time (depending
on different personal and social determinants); some were not detected or detected and not managed
by the teachers. If teachers are able to identify and manage tensions, they can maintain the intended
cognitive route for students or, when disturbances occur, modify this route to different effect. Several
issues remain open for further research. First, the present study focused on the “local level” - an
analysis of a specific classroom session. It will be necessary to extend our concepts and
methodological tools to analyse tensions and disturbances at the more global level of a sequences of
tasks on particular mathematical topics. Secondly, we analysed cases with “simple” ICT-based
students’ tasks; other cognitive and pragmatic tensions could appear when the tasks involve objects
and operations that are more deeply modified by the “transposition informatique”. Finally, at the
deeper level considered in Artigue (2007), what different kinds of tensions would teachers encounter
when students are engaged in mathematical activity involving mathematical objects (an epistemic
orientation) compared with more specific computer-based tasks (a pragmatic orientation). Finally, we
consider that the concepts of tensions and disturbances have enriched the range of theoretical tools to
study teachers' instrumental activity, in particular for the identification and analysis of critical aspects
of the dynamics of this activity. We conjecture that this could also inform approaches to teacher
education.
References
Abboud-Blanchard, M. (2014). Teachers and technologies: shared constraints, common responses. In
A. Clark-Wilson, O. Robutti & N. Sinclair (Eds.), The Mathematics Teacher in the Digital Era:
An International Perspective on Technology Focused Professional Development (pp. 297-318).
London: Springer.
Abboud-Blanchard, M. (2015). A lens to investigate teachers’ uses of technology in secondary
mathematics classes. In N. Amado & S. Carreira (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th International
Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching (pp 249-259). Portugal: University of
Algarve.
Artigue, M. (2007) Digital technologies: a window on theoretical issues in mathematics education.
In, D. Pitta-Oantazi & G. Philippou (eds), Proceedings of the Fifth Congress of the European
Society for Research in Mathematics Education CERME5 (pp. 68-82). Larnaca, Cyprus:
University of Cyprus and ERME.
Balacheff, N. (1994) Didactique et intelligence artificielle. Recherches en didactique des
mathématiques, 14(1), 9-42.
Clark-Wilson, A. (2014). A methodological approach to researching the development of teachers’
knowledge in a multi-representational technological setting. In A. Clark-Wilson, O. Robutti & N.

Sinclair (Eds.), The Mathematics Teacher in the Digital Era: An International Perspective on
Technology Focused Professional Development (pp. 277-295). London: Springer.
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, 75, 213-234.
Engeström Y. (2008) Quand le centre se dérobe : la notion de knotworking et ses promesses. (When
the center does not hold: The concept and prospects of knotworking). Sociologie du travail, 50,
303–330.
Kaptelin, V., Nardi, B. (2012) Activity Theory in HCI: Fundamentals and Reflections. Morgan and
Claypool.
Leontiev, A. (1978). Activity, consciousness and personality. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Monaghan, J. (2004). Teachers’ Activities in Technology-based Mathematics Lessons. International
Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning 9(3), 327-357.
Rabardel, P. (2002). People and technology. A cognitive approach to contemporary instruments.
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01020705. Accessed: 10 February2015.
Robert, A. & Rogalski, J. (2005). A cross-analysis of the mathematics teacher’s activity. An example
in a French 10th grade class. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 59, 269-298.
Rogalski, J. (2003). Y a-t-il un pilote dans l'avion? Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques,
23(3), 343-388.
Ruthven K. (2009). Towards a naturalistic conceptualisation of technology integration in classroom
practice: The example of school mathematics. Education et Didactique, 3(1), 131-149.

The development of pre-service

teachers’ TPACK for the use of digital tools
Nimer Baya’a1, Wajeeh Daher1,2, Rawan Anabousy1 and Ahlam Anabousy1
1
Al-Qasemi Academic College of Education, Baqa-El-Gharbia, Israel; bayaan@qsm.ac.il
2
An-Najah National University, Nablus, Palestine
The ministry of education is launching a national project to implement the use of ICT in the Israeli
education system. To prepare pre-service teachers with whom we work for this kind of
implementation, we designed a model, which supports them to learn to use digital tools effectively
while integrating a particular pedagogy for teaching a specific mathematics or science content. The
goal of the present research is to study the development of these pre-service teachers’
Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK), attitudes toward computers and
their ICT proficiency. For this purpose, we used and adapted questionnaires from different sources.
The research results show significant improvement in the TPACK level and ICT proficiency, but no
significant effect of the preparation on most of the components of the teachers’ attitudes toward
computers, being positively high before and after the preparation.
Keywords: Pre-service teachers, TPACK, digital tools, professional development.
Introduction
Shulman (1986) suggested the PCK (pedagogical content knowledge) model to represent the
interaction of two types of teachers’ knowledge: content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge. He
proposed that this interaction be considered in order to understand teachers’ expertise in teaching a
particular subject matter. Various researchers (for example Koehler and Mishra, 2009; Niess et al.,
2009), built on Shulman’s PCK to describe the interaction of teachers’ understanding of educational
technologies with their PCK that results in effective teaching with technology. Specifically, they
talked about the technological pedagogical and content knowledge of teachers (TPACK), where this
model describes the interactions between and among the three main components of teachers’
knowledge: content, pedagogy, and technology. These interactions result in new types of teachers’
knowledge, namely PCK, TCK (technological content knowledge), TPK (technological pedagogical
knowledge), and TPACK. In this paper, we describe the development of pre-service teachers’
TPACK as a result of preparing them in the use of digital tools over one academic year.
Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge

Though some researchers consider TPACK too blunt an instrument (e.g., Clark-Wilson & Hoyles,
2016; Thomas & Palmer, 2014), other researchers refer to it when studying mathematics teacher’s
professional development (e.g., Balgalmis, Shafer, & Cakiroglu, 2013; Bowers & Stephens, 2011).
Generally speaking, TPACK is the knowledge of how to integrate technology in teaching the subject
matter. This knowledge also includes the appropriation between a specific technological tool, the
teaching of a specific topic and being aware of the difference between various technological tools in
teaching a specific topic. Further, this knowledge means being aware of students’ problems of the
subject matter that could be overcome by using specific technological tools. It also includes the

awareness of students’ difficulties of the subject matter that result from using specific technological
tools and how to overcome these problems (Koehler & Mishra, 2009).
Robova, and Vondrova (2015) studied mathematics teachers’ awareness of the specific
technological skills needed for their teaching (making functions visible on the screen, changing
visual appearance of graphs, interpreting numerical results, using dynamic features of a tool) and
their ability to design teaching which takes the specific skills into account. Furthermore, Koh and
Divaharan (2011) described an instructional model for developing pre-service teachers’ TPACK.
We follow the previous attempts to suggest a preparation model for developing pre-service teachers’
TPACK in utilizing digital tools in their teaching.
Pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward computers
Fishbein (1967) defined attitude as a learned tendency to respond to an object in a consistently
favorable or unfavorable way. Other researchers (Zan & Di Martino, 2007) defined attitude in terms
of emotions: a positive or negative emotional reaction toward a specific situation. These definitions
show the possible influence of attitudes on behavior in general and on pre-service teachers’
behavior in particular. Attention to attitudes has risen when ICT started to emerge as a possible tool
for the improvement of teaching and learning. In this context, researchers found that these attitudes
have major influence on the success and meaningful use of the ICT in their teaching (Albirini,
2006).
In our research, attention was given to pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward computers, together
with the development of their TPACK and ICT proficiency, as a consequence of their preparation in
the use of digital tools. We used the ‘teacher’s attitudes toward computers’ questionnaire (TAC) as
it probes teachers’ attitudes toward ICT use in teaching and their intention to do so (Baya’a &
Daher, 2013). We were also interested in the pre-service teachers’ proficiency level in ICT as an
indicator of their intention to use ICT in their teaching as the proficiency variable is reported to
affect teachers’ readiness to use ICT in their teaching (Granger, Morbey, Owston & Wideman,
2002).
The research questions

The main research question is: How will the preparation of pre-service teachers in the use of digital
tools, according to the model that we designed, affect their TPACK level, ICT proficiency and their
attitudes toward computers?
Research context, participants and the preparation model

This current research accompanies the preparation of pre-service teachers to study how to use
effectively digital tools in the mathematics or science classroom. This knowledge is the core of the
TPACK model. We administered questionnaires to measure the advancement of the TPACK levels
and attitudes toward computers of the pre-service teachers who implemented the model, as well as
their ICT proficiency. Approximately 55 students majoring in mathematics and science teaching in
intermediate schools completed the questionnaires at the beginning and end of the preparation.
These students were in their third year of training alongside two courses that provided a background
in the use of ICT for teaching mathematics and science.

The preparation model aimed to improve the pre-service teachers’ selection of a suitable digital tool
for a specific pedagogy and subject. It also tried to improve the integration of digital tools to teach
some specific content. This preparation model concentrated on two aspects. First, knowing the tool
technically and being able to adapt it to teach some specific content. Second, developing the ability
to select and integrate suitable digital tools for some specific content and pedagogical method. In
more detail, each pre-service teacher worked independently to learn to use at least two digital tools
and to prepare user guides (as PDF file or digital book) that included descriptions of the most
significant functions of these digital tools. Furthermore, the pre-service teachers were required to
record video clips of screen shots while performing operations in these digital tools as explanations
for another user. The pre-service teachers were asked to select the digital tools from a catalog of
general digital tools prepared by the ministry of education in Israel. This catalog includes various
digital tools that could be adapted for use in various subjects and levels, such as: Flipsnack for
creating online digital books, Linoit for creating collaborative bulletin board, Socrative for personal
and class assessment and Mindomo for creating mind maps.
Moreover, each pre-service teacher was required to prepare pedagogical materials on how to use the
digital tools that she was engaged with in teaching mathematics or science, and then present the
materials in the training workshop to receive comments from her peers and the pedagogical
supervisor. Following that, the pre-service teacher reflected on her developed materials, adjusted it
and uploaded all the materials to an internet site that was constructed by the pre-service teachers and
the pedagogical supervisors. This internet site constituted a data bank for digital tools. In addition,
each pre-service teacher was requested to prepare at least two lessons for teaching mathematics or
science and pick three digital tools from the catalog (including one that she was engaged with) to
use them in her teaching. These lessons had to involve also collaborative investigations that
encourage the use of higher order thinking skills. Finally, each pre-service teacher picked a subject
from within a digital textbook for teaching mathematics or science, and added connections to
pedagogical activities based on using digital tools from the data bank site.
During the first semester, the pre-service teachers had two options: to start from the digital tool and
integrate it for teaching some specific content, or starting from the content and selecting a suitable
digital tool to teach that content. In the second semester, each pre-service teacher was asked to
experiment with the prepared materials and lessons in her training school with at least one of the
chosen tools, and reflect on the experience. This reflection was on the actual implementation of the
digital tool in the classroom environment, and it was posted in the data bank for digital tools for
other pre-service teachers to consider as they selected digital tools for their own use.
Research instruments
The research instruments included three questionnaires as follows: Questionnaire 1: Technological,
Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge (TPACK) (revised) questionnaire, constructed on the basis of
the TPACK instrument for pre-service teachers developed by Schmidt et al. (2009).
Questionnaire 2: Teachers’ Attitudes toward Computers (TAC, v. 6.1) questionnaire: This
questionnaire was tested by Christensen and Knezek (2009) who concluded that it is a well-
validated and reliable instrument for teachers’ self-appraisal of their attitudes toward computers.

Questionnaire 3: The Use of ICT in Colleges of Education (UICT): This questionnaire was
developed by The MOFET Institute (A Center for the Research, Curriculum and Program
Development in Teacher Education in Israel) to track the professional development of pre-service
teachers’ use of ICT. We used the ICT proficiency part of the questionnaire.
The validity of the questionnaires was considered by giving the Arabic translations to a group of
pre-service teachers who were requested to examine if the questionnaires’ statements were clear to
the reader. As a result, some items of the questionnaires were rephrased to clarify their meaning.
The pre-service teachers’ scores in the overall constructs and their categories, before the preparation
and after it, were examined for internal reliability using Cronbach alpha. The results showed high
Cronbach alpha (above 0.85 for all the categories and for the overall construct) indicating adequate
internal reliability for the questionnaires and their categories. These results were expected due to the
extensive use of these questionnaires in the literature.
Data processing
Data was analysed using paired-samples t-test to determine if there were significant differences
between scores of pre-service teachers in the various questionnaires before and after the preparation.
Cohen’s d (the ratio between the difference of the means and the average of the standard deviations)
(Cohen, 1969) was used to compute effect sizes to assess the practical significance of results.
Results
Pre-service teachers’ ICT proficiency
Table 1 shows the proficiency level of the pre-service teachers before and after the preparation
(values between 1 to 5), as well as paired sample t-test between the two observations.
Before Preparation After Preparation

Outcome M SD M SD t d
Score of ICT
proficiency in UICT 3.80 0.56 4.20 0.59 4.17*** 0.70
*** p < 0.001
Table 1: Means, standard deviations and t-test for pre-service teachers’ ICT proficiency level (n=54)
As displayed in Table 1, the results show that the pre-service teachers’ ICT proficiency level differs
significantly before and after the preparation. Large positive effect size of 0.70 was derived for the
preparation on the pre-service teachers’ ICT proficiency level. This advancement was mainly the
result of the major improvement in their ‘multimedia tools proficiency’.
Pre-service teachers’ TPACK level

The TPACK level comprised the total score of the TPACK questionnaire and six other scores for
each partial type of knowledge for technology, pedagogy, content and intersections between them.
Table 2 shows the TPACK components’ scores of the pre-service teachers before and after the
preparation (values between 1 to 5), as well as paired sample t-test between the two observations.


TPACK 3.93 0.53 4.50 0.46 8.19*** 1.15
TK 3.90 0.63 4.44 0.59 6.31*** 0.89
PK 4.04 0.52 4.57 0.46 6.35*** 1.08
PCK 3.81 0.57 4.57 0.49 8.49*** 1.43
TCK 3.78 0.76 4.45 0.52 7.02*** 1.05
TPK 4.02 0.67 4.50 0.63 4.85*** 0.74
TPCK 3.88 0.78 4.51 0.68 5.19*** 0.86
*** p < 0.001
Table 2: Means, standard deviations and t-test for pre-service teachers’ TPACK level (n=54)
As displayed in Table 2, the pre-service teachers’ scores in the components of TPACK differ
significantly before the preparation and after it. Large positive effect sizes of 0.74 and more were
derived for the preparation on the pre-service teachers’ TPACK and its components.
Attitudes toward computers were assessed using 9 categories. Table 3 shows components’ scores of
the pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward computers before and after the preparation (values
between 1 to 5, except perception 1 to 7), as well as paired sample t-test between the two
observations.

TAC General 3.86 0.47 3.99 0.53 2.09* 0.26
Interest 4.37 0.64 4.32 0.74 -0.42 -0.07
Comfort 4.11 0.99 4.17 1.11 0.38 0.05
Accommodation 4.65 0.59 4.38 1.04 -1.86 -0.33
Interaction 3.82 0.90 4.19 0.87 2.53* 0.41
Concern 2.54 0.69 2.82 0.85 2.55* 0.36
Utility 4.29 0.51 4.39 0.74 1.01 0.16
Absorption 3.45 0.91 3.82 1.07 2.28* 0.37
Significance 4.18 0.67 4.27 0.78 0.88 0.12
Perception 5.60 1.06 5.79 1.19 1.25 0.16
* p < 0 .05
Table 3: Means, standard deviations and t-test for pre-service teachers’ TAC level (n=54)
As displayed in Table 3, the pre-service teachers’ scores in the categories of attitudes toward
computers differed significantly before the preparation and after it in the categories: interaction,
concern, absorption and TAC general. In these constructs, a small effect size of 0.26 was derived for
the preparation on the pre-service teachers’ general TAC score, and moderate effect sizes of 0.41,

0.36 and 0.37 were derived for the preparation on the interaction, concern and absorption
respectively.
Discussion and conclusions

The research aimed to examine how the preparation course affected the pre-service teachers’ ICT
proficiency, TPACK level and their attitudes toward computers. The research results indicated
several significant positive effects of the preparation model used in that preparation that related to
the pre-service teachers’ abilities and knowledge regarding the integration of digital tools in
teaching.
Pre-service teachers’ ICT proficiency
The research results indicated significant improvement in the pre-service teachers’ ICT proficiency
as a consequence of the preparation, especially in multimedia tools proficiency. The mathematics
and science pre-service teachers usually have high ICT proficiency, but the requirements in the
preparation model led to significant improvement particularly in their multimedia proficiency.
These results are due to a consideration of the technology knowledge related to the digital tools in
the preparation process. This resulted in the pre-service teachers increased competence in their use
of digital tools for personal and professional purposes, which caused them to feel confident to
utilize new digital tools independently and individually (Prestridge, 2012), and thus improved
significantly their ICT proficiency. This suggests that pre-service teachers need to be given the
opportunities to work with technological tools in order to improve their ICT proficiency and their
readiness to integrate ICT in their teaching (Muir-Herzig, 2004).
Pre-service teachers’ TPACK level
As a result of the preparation, the general TPACK level of the pre-service teachers, as well as its six
partial types, were significantly improved. These results could be due to the attention of the pre-
preparation model to the ability of the pre-service teachers to appropriate the digital tools
pedagogically to teaching a specific content, and vice versa. It could be said that the pre-service
teachers’ diverse experiences in the workshop improved their knowledge in different types of
knowledge related to their teaching mathematics or science. Thus, the preparation model provided
the pre-service teachers with opportunities to maintain and shift their instructional approaches
enriched with innovative educational technologies (Martin, 2015). This preparation model could be
implemented worldwide when taking into consideration the particular background and conditions of
the pre-service teachers involved.
The results of this research show that following the preparation process, no significant improvement
was detected in the pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward computers for most of the TAC
components, with exception of TAC general, interaction, concern and absorption. We should note
that in both cases, before and after the preparation, the attitudes were very favorable toward
computers.
As for the positive change in some attitudinal categories, such as absorption, the pre-service
teachers had, during the workshop, the chance to be actually involved and improve their knowledge
in computers and ICT. This might have improved their ability to solve problems related to the

computer use in the classroom; which encouraged them to insist to solve these problems, even the
hard ones. This influence of teachers’ experience in technology on their ability to solve
technological problems is supported by DeLuca (1991) who claims that technological knowledge
overcomes technological problems in the classroom. This could improve pre-service teachers’
attitudes toward computers.
References
Albirini, A. A. (2006). Teacher’s attitudes toward information and communication technologies: the
case of Syrian EFL teachers. Journal of Computers and Education, 47, 373-398.
Balgalmis, E., Shafer, K. G. & Cakiroglu, E. (2013). Reactions of pre-service elementary teachers’
to implementing technology based mathematics lessons. In B. Ubuz (Eds.), Proceedings of the
eighth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education CERME8 (pp.
2534–2634). Antalya: ERME.
Baya’a, N. & Daher, W. (2013). Mathematics Teachers’ Readiness to Integrate ICT in the
Classroom: The Case of Elementary and Middle School Arab Teachers in Israel. International
Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 8(1), 46-52.
Bowers, J. S. & Stephens, B. (2011). Using technology to explore mathematical relationships: A
framework for orienting mathematics courses for prospective teachers. Journal of Mathematics
Teacher Education, 14(4), 285–304.
Christensen, R. & Knezek, G. (2009). Construct validity for the teachers attitudes toward computers
questionnaire. Journal of Computing in Education, 25(4), 143-155.
Clark-Wilson, A. & Hoyles, C. (2016). Designing a web-based professional development toolkit for
supporting the use of dynamic technology in lower secondary mathematics. Paper presented at
the Mathematics Teaching, Resources and Teacher Professional Development conference.
Berlin, Germany: ERME.
Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
DeLuca, V. W. (1991). Implementing technology education problem-solving activities. Journal of
Technology Education, 2(2), 5-15.
Fishbein, M. (1967). Readings in Attitude Theory and Measurement. New York: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc..
Granger, C., Morbey, H., Owston, R. & Wideman, H. (2002). Factors contributing to teachers’
successful implementation of IT. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 18, 480-488.
Koehler, M. J. & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge?
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1).
http://www.citejournal.org/vol9/iss1/general/article1.cfm
Koh, J. H. L. & Divaharan, S. (2011). Developing pre-service teachers’ technology integration
expertise through the TPACK-Developing Instructional Model. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 44(1), 35-58.

Martin, B. (2015). Successful implementation of TPACK in teacher preparation programs.

International Journal on Integrating Technology in Education (IJITE), 4 (1), 17-26.
Muir-Herzig, R. G. (2004). Technology and its impact in the classroom. Computers & Education,
42(2), 111–131.
Niess, M. L., Ronau, R. N., Shafer, K. G., Driskell, S. O., Harper S. R., Johnston, C., Browning, C.,
Özgün-Koca, S. A. & Kersaint, G. (2009). Mathematics teacher TPACK standards and
development model. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 4-24.
Prestridge, S. (2012). The beliefs behind the teacher that influences their ICT practices. Computers
and Education, 58(1), 449–458.
Robova, J. & Vondrova, N. (2015). Developing future mathematics teachers’ ability to identify
specific skills needed for work in GeoGebra. In Krainer, K. & Vondrova, N. (eds.), Proceedings
of the Ninth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education
(CERME9) (pp. 2396-2402). Prague, Czech Republic: ERME.
Schmidt, D. A., Baran, A., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler M. J. & Shin, T. S. (2009).
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): The Development and Validation of
an Assessment Instrument for Preservice Teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education (JRTE), 42(2), 123–149.
Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15, 4-14.
Thomas, M. O. J. & Palmer, J. (2014). Teaching with digital technology: Obstacles and
opportunities. In A. Clark-Wilson, O. Robutti & N. Sinclair (Eds.), The Mathematics Teacher in
the Digital Era: An International Perspective on Technology Focused Professional Development
(pp. 71-89). Dordrecht: Springer.
Zan, R. & Di Martino, P. (2007). Attitude toward mathematics: overcoming the positive/negative
dichotomy. The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, Monograph 3, 157-168.

Beyond a positive stance: Integrating technology is demanding on

teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching
Nicola Bretscher
UCL Institute of Education, London, UK; n.bretscher@ucl.ac.uk
Research on technology in mathematics education highlights the importance of teachers having a
positive stance towards technology for successful integration into classroom practice. However,
such research has paid relatively little attention to teachers’ knowledge of specific mathematical
concepts in relation to technology. This paper examines the innovative use of technology by a
teacher, Robert, as a critical case study, to argue that the significance of mathematical knowledge
for teaching using technology should not be overlooked nor underestimated.
Keywords: Computer uses in (secondary mathematics) education, knowledge base in teaching,
TPACK, situated abstraction.
Introduction
Seeking to understand teachers’ integration of technology, research on technology in mathematics
education (e.g. Zbiek et al., 2007) has documented the important role teachers’ beliefs and
conceptions play in their integration of technology into classroom practice. For example, Zbiek et al
(2007) identify the constructs of pedagogical fidelity and privileging as useful in understanding the
extent and nature of technology integration in a teacher’s classroom practice. Pedagogical fidelity is
described as the degree to which teachers’ beliefs about the way a digital technology allows students
to act mathematically coincides with their beliefs about the nature of mathematical learning (Zbiek
et al., 2007). Privileging is a notion developed by Kendal and Stacey (2001) to describe how
teachers, consciously or unconsciously, frequently use or place a priority on certain things in their
practice, for example, types of representation, skills or concepts and by-hand or by-technology
methods (Zbiek et al., 2007). Both these constructs relate to teachers’ conceptions of mathematics as
a discipline (Thompson, 1992), their beliefs about the nature of teaching and learning mathematics
and how these interact with their beliefs about technology.
Such studies have in common a focus on teachers’ global conceptions of mathematics as a
discipline and on teachers’ beliefs about the nature of teaching and learning mathematics with
technology. They do not tend to focus on teachers’ knowledge of specific mathematical concepts in
relation to technology. This is an important omission since the documented shifts in teachers’ views
suggest a move towards models of teaching aimed at developing conceptual understanding. Such
models may require a great deal of knowledge for successful implementation and inconsistencies
between teachers’ professed beliefs and practices may be the result of lacking sufficient knowledge
and skills necessary to implement them (Thompson, 1992).
Whilst highlighting the role of teachers’ conceptions in technology integration is important, this
paper argues that the significance of mathematical knowledge for teaching using technology should
not be overlooked nor underestimated. For example, Bowers and Stephens (2011, p. 290) assert that
the set of (teachable) knowledge and skills for teaching mathematics using technology may be
empty, emphasising instead that teacher educators should seek to nurture a favourable conception of

“technology as a critical tool for identifying mathematical relationships”. Whilst it may be that
teacher educators should seek to nurture favourable conceptions towards using ICT in their trainees,
this paper argues the knowledge required to put such conceptions into practice should not be
neglected.
Theoretical framework
The central Technology, Pedagogy and Content Knowledge (TPACK) construct of Mishra and
Koehler’s (2006) framework is useful in highlighting mathematical knowledge for teaching using
technology, by emphasising technology as a knowledge domain alongside pedagogy and content
knowledge (Bretscher, 2015). Whilst space does not allow for a full description of the framework,
the central TPACK construct serves to highlight the situated nature of such knowledge. In
particular, in this paper, mathematical knowledge for teaching using technology is viewed as a
situated abstraction (Noss & Hoyles, 1996), that is, ‘abstract’ mathematical knowledge
simultaneously situated in the context of teaching with technology.
Borrowing from Shulman (1986), mathematical knowledge for teaching using technology is
assumed not only to be a matter of knowing how – being competent in teaching mathematics using
technology - but also of knowing what and why. That is, although much of teachers’ knowledge
may be tacit, craft knowledge (Ruthven, 2007), at least some of their know-how is underpinned by
articulated knowledge that provides for “a rational, reasoned approach to decision-making”
(Rowland et al., 2005, p.260) in relation to teaching mathematics using technology. In other words,
mathematical knowledge for teaching using technology, as defined in this study, is when know-how
or knowledge-in-action is underpinned by and coincides with the teacher’s articulated knowledge.
This intersection between articulated knowledge and knowledge-in-action is important because it is
this type of knowledge that initial or in-service teacher education programmes focus on developing.
Method: Robert as a critical case

Four teachers were selected from a group of English mathematics teachers who took part in a survey
of secondary school mathematics teachers’ use of ICT (n=183) and who further agreed to be
contacted as case study teachers (Bretscher, 2011; 2014). The four case study teachers were chosen
along two dimensions of variation likely to be associated with mathematical knowledge for teaching
using technology, based on their responses to survey items. Firstly, the case study teachers were
chosen to be two of the most student-centred and two of the most teacher-centred in their approach
to mathematics teaching in general (not limited to ICT use) of those who volunteered. Secondly,
two teachers were chosen to be from schools with a high level of support for ICT and two with a
low level of ICT support. In addition, the four case study teachers had described themselves as
being confident with ICT. As technology enthusiasts, the case study teachers were likely to display
mathematical knowledge for teaching using technology; the variation in case selection aimed to
highlight such knowledge – making it more ‘visible’.
Each case study teacher was observed teaching one lesson in a computer suite where pupils were
given direct access to ICT. These observations provided opportunities to infer the case study
teachers’ knowledge-in-action in a situation involving the work of teaching mathematics with
technology. Post-observation interviews then provided an opportunity to infer the case study

teachers’ articulated knowledge and hence, triangulated against their knowledge-in-action observed
in the lesson, provide evidence indicating mathematical knowledge for teaching using technology.
Robert was selected as a case study teacher because he was one of the most student-centred teachers
in the survey sample. In addition, his school appeared to be generally supportive of ICT use
compared to the other schools surveyed. He stood out, even amongst the case study teachers, as
being a critical case of a teacher likely to display mathematical knowledge for teaching using
technology for two main reasons. Firstly, Robert showed a favourable conception of technology, as
described in the following section, in relation to mathematics teaching and in line with Bowers and
Stephen’s (2011) description of viewing “technology as a critical tool for identifying mathematical
relationships”. Secondly, Robert’s lesson appeared to be exceptional: he used GeoGebra software to
affect his pupils’ learning in an innovative way that would not be easy to achieve without digital
technology, in comparison to the other lessons observed where software was used to replicate and
enhance paper-and-pencil activities. He had 4-6 years of teaching experience, held a management
position within the mathematics department and had completed a Masters in Education degree.
Robert was also the most technologically proficient of the four case study teachers: his
undergraduate degree was a Bachelor of Engineering in Computing.
Analysis and discussion

Robert’s favourable conception of technology use in mathematics teaching
For the first part of his lesson, Robert had created a series of maze activities, embedded in
GeoGebra files, designed to take advantage of his 12-13 year old pupils’ tacit understandings of
reflection as a means of making them explicit and thus leading towards a more formal
understanding of reflection. Using the mouse to direct the movement of a point, coloured in blue,
the pupils had to guide the blue point’s reflection, shown in red, successfully through a maze (see
Figure 1).
Reflection line
Red point
and trace Blue point
Figure 1: One of Robert's GeoGebra maze activities - by dragging the blue point, guide the reflected
red point through the maze
The reflection line was super-imposed on the maze diagram and the path of the red point was traced.
Robert hoped that the activity would encourage pupils to predict how the reflected red point would
move in relation to movement of the blue point as a means of increasing their chances of

completing the maze successfully. By predicting the movement of the red and blue points, he hoped
his pupils intuitive understandings of reflection would be made more explicit.
In the post observation interview, Robert explained what inspired him to create the maze activities.
He provided a critique of similar GeoGebra activities as lacking an impetus to focus attention on
and articulate tacit understandings:
Robert: I had a look on the GeoGebra wiki and most things tended to be ‘Here’s a mirror
line, here’s a shape, if you drag this, what’s happening?’ just kind of ... and say
what you see. And I could imagine them sitting there with that and basically just
dragging the mouse a bit and seeing it happen and ... and then where does it go
from there?
He also described a pedagogic strategy of predict-then-test that he aimed to use in the lesson to
make pupils’ understandings of mathematical relationships explicit:
Robert: just you know introduce that ‘pause’ of what do we think is going to happen and
then let’s test that it’s going to happen
and how he intended to formalise these understandings during the lesson by introducing
mathematical vocabulary:
Robert: So one of the things I wanted to talk about was that if you’re moving that point
parallel to the mirror line, the point moves in the same direction, whereas as soon
as you’re moving it in a direction that’s not parallel, the point doesn’t move in the
same way.
Summarising at the end of the lesson, he did introduce mathematical vocabulary during class
discussion, in a similar way to the intention described above, describing the movement of the red
and blue points. Thus Robert’s design of the maze activities, his use of them in the lesson and his
comments about the lesson in the post-observation interview demonstrate the strong emphasis he
placed on the use of technology to explore the mathematical relations behind the mathematical
phenomenon of reflection, consistent with Bowers and Stephens’ (2011) description of a favourable
conception of technology.
Robert’s mathematical knowledge for teaching using technology
Using the series of maze activities successfully to meet the aims of the lesson depended on
transforming students’ strategies for completing the mazes into more formal understandings of
reflection that could be used as strategies for constructing the image given an object and line of
reflection. As indicated above in excerpts from the post-observation interview, Robert recognised
his interventions with individual pupils and directing whole class discussion as being critical to
effecting this transformation.
The maze activities potentially addressed two complementary strategies for using geometric
properties to construct the image given the object and line of reflection: 1) using the local geometry
of the object together with the properties of reflection, namely, preservation of length and of
direction parallel to the line of reflection and reversal of direction in the axis perpendicular to the
line of reflection, to construct the image; and 2) using the geometric property that the line of

reflection is the perpendicular bisector of line segments connecting corresponding points on the
object and image.
The first strategy was addressed through the maze activities by the necessity of considering how to
drag the blue point, i.e. in what direction and how far, to guide the reflected red point through the
maze. In particular, the main challenge in completing the maze is derived from the reversal of
direction caused by the reflection. Less obvious perhaps is that length is preserved: dragging the
blue point causes the red point to move the same distance. The second strategy was addressed in
later maze activities by the addition of the line segment connecting the blue and red points as a
possible aid to maze completion.
Robert was not satisfied with his interventions during the lesson. In the post-observation interview,
he pointed to technical difficulties, his desire to let the students enjoy the maze activities and his
rush to move onto the second activity as contributing to the result that he did not spend as much
time as intended on discussing the geometric implications of the pupils’ maze-solving strategies.
Timing was certainly a factor and technical difficulties meant that he was unable to direct a whole
class discussion juxtaposing the identical mazes with and without the line segment joining the red
and blue points. As a result, Robert was unable to address the second strategy outlined above
involving recognition of the line of reflection as the perpendicular bisector of the line segment
joining the red and blue points. However, he did have two opportunities during the lesson to elicit
the geometric properties of reflection that underpin the first strategy through whole class discussion.
The first opportunity came when Robert brought the class back together after some time engaging
with the maze activities. He displayed one of the early maze activities with a vertical line of
reflection and asked pupils to give instructions to a pupil-volunteer to direct their movement of the
blue point. Robert summarised their responses, drawing attention to the relative direction of
movement of the red and blue points i.e. that when the blue point was dragged up or down the red
point moved in the same way but that dragging the blue point left or right caused the red point to
move in the opposite direction. Whilst drawing their attention to the direction of movement, Robert
did not mention that dragging the blue point causes the red point to move the same distance, thus he
did not draw his pupils’ attention to the geometric property that length is preserved under reflection.
Robert then displayed a maze with a horizontal line of reflection and, employing his predict-then-
test strategy, asked the pupils to predict whether the relative direction of movement would be the
same or different. The pupils correctly predicted it would change: now, dragging the blue point left
or right would result in the red point moving in the same way but dragging the blue point up or
down would cause the red point to move in the opposite direction. Contrasting these diagrams made
the point that the relative direction of movement of the red and blue points was connected to the
orientation of the line of reflection. At this juncture, Robert could have introduced the mathematical
terms parallel and perpendicular to specify the nature of the connection between the relative
direction of movement and the orientation of the line of reflection, thus generalising to state the
effect of reflection on direction. He could also have noted that in both maze diagrams, independent
of the orientation of the line of reflection, dragging the blue point causes the red point to move the
same distance, hence length is preserved under reflection.

Robert did not introduce the mathematical terms parallel and perpendicular at this point nor did he
note the geometric property that length is preserved under reflection. Instead, apparently on impulse,
he offered his pupils a new challenge: to find out whether turning the mouse back to front would
help them to complete the mazes, presumably by double-reversing the direction of movement. This
challenge risked distracting from the aims of the lesson, since turning the mouse back to front
involves a rotation of 180 degrees and not a reflection. Later in the post-observation interview,
Robert dismissed it as “just a silly question to get a few of them thinking”. However, in asking this
question, he missed an opportunity to capitalise on his pupils’ correct predictions to generalise their
maze-solving strategies towards a shared, formal understanding of the geometric properties of
reflection. In particular, Robert’s challenge highlights the situated nature of mathematical
knowledge for teaching using technology in terms of weighing up the pedagogical value of
interpreting how the mouse movement relates (or not) to the geometric properties of reflection.
The second opportunity occurred at the end of the lesson. Due to the shutdown of the computer
system, the students were unable to begin the second GeoGebra activity Robert had prepared. After
spending some time wrestling with the technology, Robert gave up and gathered the pupils to
summarise the lesson. In this moment of contingency, Robert was inspired to ask his pupils to
imagine the join between two rectangular tables, where they met along their longest edge, was a
mirror. One of the pupils sitting at the table was holding a ball: this became the de facto ‘blue
point’. Robert discussed moving the ‘blue point’ close to the mirror, through the mirror (which he
noted you can’t do in reality), and finally parallel to the mirror. He did not have another chance to
discuss what happens when the ‘blue point’ moves perpendicular to the mirror nor to discuss the
preservation of length under reflection because, at that point, the bell rang for the next lesson.
Although his second opportunity to elicit the geometric properties of reflection was cut short, in the
post-observation interview, when asked what he wished to do had there been more time, Robert did
not articulate that he meant to discuss what happened when the blue point moved perpendicular to
the line of reflection and to note that distances remained the same under reflection. These missed
opportunities, together with the post-observation interview, suggest that Robert had not planned
precisely what and how he would use mathematical terminology in his interventions to support his
pupils’ interpretation of controlling the red and blue points via the mouse, thereby transforming his
pupils’ maze-solving strategies into more formal understandings of reflection to connect with the
aims of the lesson. In addition, when asked what he would have done differently in preparing the
lesson, he focused solely on planning to prevent the technical difficulties arising rather than
suggesting he could have been more precise in his use of mathematical terminology. Although
Robert did not have much time to deliberate over the lesson (as the author has) and it is
understandable that the technical difficulties that were so disruptive were uppermost in his mind,
this suggests his experience during the lesson did not prompt Robert to recognise the need to plan
his interventions more precisely to connect his series of maze activities with the mathematical aims
of the lesson. In particular, Robert appeared to lack a frame of reference to help him identify what
his mathematical difficulties were in using technology to make his pupils’ tacit understandings
explicit and, as a result, why his interventions appeared unsatisfactory. However, such a frame of
reference can be seen as part of mathematical knowledge for teaching using technology, since in this
study such knowledge is assumed not only to be a matter of knowing how – being competent in
teaching mathematics using technology - but also of knowing what and why (Shulman, 1986, p.13).

Conclusion
Despite his favourable conception of technology, using the maze activities in practice was not trivial
and Robert did not entirely succeed in making explicit the mathematical relationships the pupils
were exploring using the GeoGebra software. His difficulties, in supporting his pupils’
mathematical interpretation of controlling the red and blue points via the mouse to elicit the
properties of reflection, appear at once mathematical and yet simultaneously situated in the context
of teaching using technology. In particular, the strength of Robert’s maze activities lay in the real
difficulty of controlling the direction of movement of the reflected red point via the mouse. This
difficulty focused attention on how the direction of movement changes under reflection, which
Robert drew to his pupils’ attention through his interventions, albeit without making use of precise
mathematical terminology. However, dragging the blue point using the mouse results in the red
point moving the same distance unproblematically. Thus the maze activities did not draw attention
to preservation of length in the same way, underlining the need for teacher intervention to highlight
this property of reflection. The strain placed on his mathematical knowledge for teaching using
technology was most evident perhaps when Robert included a challenge relating to rotation, finding
out what happens when the mouse is turned back to front, which distracted from his stated lesson
aims regarding reflection. This challenge again highlights the situated nature of mathematical
knowledge for teaching using technology in terms of weighing up the pedagogical value of
interpreting how the mouse movement relates to the geometric properties of reflection.
This suggests that a positive stance towards technology, in terms of global aspects of teacher
knowledge (e.g. Bowers & Stephens, 2011; Zbiek et al., 2007), may not be sufficient to ensure a
teacher’s use of technology enhances mathematical instruction. The missed opportunities to
transform pupils’ maze-solving strategies into more formal statements of the geometric properties of
reflection, using precise mathematical terminology to make connections between the maze activities
and the aims of the lesson, suggest that mathematical knowledge for teaching using technology has
a significant role to play in successful technology integration. Thus, whilst highlighting the role of
teachers’ conceptions in technology integration is important, this paper has argued that the
significance of mathematical knowledge for teaching using technology should not be overlooked
nor underestimated.
References
Bowers, J., & Stephens, B. (2011). Using technology to explore mathematical relationships: a
framework for orienting mathematics courses for prospective teachers. Journal of Mathematics
Teacher Education, 14(4), 285–304.
Bretscher, N. (2011). A survey of technology use: the rise of interactive whiteboards and the
MyMaths website. In M. Pytlak, T. Rowland & E. Swoboda (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh
Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education CERME7 (pp. 2228–
2237). Poland: Rzeszow.
Bretscher, N. (2014). Exploring the quantitative and qualitative gap between expectation and
implementation - a survey of English mathematics teachers’ use of ICT. In A. Clark-Wilson, O.
Robutti & N. Sinclair (Eds.), The Mathematics Teacher in the Digital Era (pp. 43–70).
Dordrecht: Springer.

Bretscher, N. (2015). Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching using Technology. Unpublished PhD
thesis, King’s College London.
Kendal, M., & Stacey, K. (2001). The impact of teacher privileging on learning differentiation with
technology. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6(2), 143–165.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework
for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (1996). Windows on Mathematical Meanings: Learning Cultures and
Computers. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Rowland, T., Huckstep, P., & Thwaites, A. (2005). Elementary Teachers' Mathematics Subject
Knowledge: the Knowledge Quartet and the case of Naomi. Journal of Mathematics Teacher
Education, 8, 255–281.
Ruthven, K. (2007). Teachers, technologies and the structures of schooling. In D. Pitta-Pantazi & G.
Philipou (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Congress of the European Society for Research in
Mathematics Education CERME5 (pp. 52–67). Cyprus: Larnaca.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Thompson, A. G. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and conceptions: a synthesis of research. In D. A.
Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning pp. 127–146).
Oxford: Macmillan.
Zbiek, R. M., Heid, M. K., & Dick, T. P. (2007). Research on Technology in Mathematics
Education: a perspective of constructs. In F. K. Lester Jr (Ed.), Second handbook of research on
mathematics teaching and learning. Charlotte NC: Information Age Publishers.

Exploring a framework for technology integration in the mathematics

classroom
Patrik Gustafsson
Mälardalen University, Sweden; patrik.o.gustafsson@mdh.se
The aim of this paper is to investigate the potential of Ruthven’s (2009) framework the Structuring
Features of Classroom Practice (SFCP) as a tool to analyze empirical data to conceptualize and
analyze teachers’ reasoning about technology integration in the mathematics classroom. The
framework is tested on interview data from a Swedish design research project seeking to develop
design principles for Classroom Response System (CRS) tasks. The results show that the framework
captures a large part of teachers’ ways of reasoning, while the parts it does not capture are related
to students’ attitudes and behaviors. If the SFCP framework aims at capturing key features of
classroom practice, and is to be built on a system of constructs closer to the ‘lived world’ of teacher
experience and classroom practice, it would benefit from an extension.
Keywords: Technology integration, framework, classroom response system.
Introduction
Recent years have seen a remarkable increase in technology investments in education, and
nowadays many teachers and students have constant access to computers or tablets in the classroom
(OECD, 2015). The reasons for these investments are likely related to expectations that digital
technology can enhance students’ learning, and there are several studies that suggest this (e.g.,
Cheung & Slavin, 2013; Li & Ma, 2010; Lynch, 2006). However, the mere presence of digital
technology in the mathematics classroom does not guarantee improved student learning. For
instance, a report on PISA 2012 (OECD, 2015) showed that increased time spent with the computer
at school can decrease students’ learning in mathematics. It may be possible to explain these
ambiguous findings by studying how the technology was used in the classroom (Drijvers, 2013;
Hattie & Yates, 2014). Nevertheless, integrating technology in the classroom seems to present a
challenge, and one of the most important factors influencing successful integration is the teacher’s
expertise (e.g., Drijvers, 2013; Ruthven, 2013). Hence it is important to learn more about how to
successfully integrate the technology within mathematics education. There is a need for practical
analytical research tools and frameworks that offer the potential to analyze teachers’ technology
integration in mathematics. A commonly used framework, derived from Shulman’s (1987)
pedagogical content knowledge, is Koehler and Mishra’s (2009) Technology Pedagogical and
Content Knowledge (TPACK), which focuses on the aspects of teacher knowledge that are needed
for the effective use of technology in the classroom. Other researchers have used the theory of
“instrumental orchestration” as an interpretive framework for analyzing technology-mediated
teaching and learning (cf. Drijvers, Doorman, Boon, Reed, & Gravemeijer, 2010; Trouche, 2005).
This theory focuses on a process of “instrumental genesis” whereby a tool evolves into a functional
tool and, simultaneously the teacher evolves into a proficient user. Another recently developed
framework for analyzing and identifying critical aspects of technology integration in the
mathematics classroom is Ruthven’s (2009) Structuring Features of Classroom Practice (SFCP).
TPACK and “instrumental orchestration” are commonly used frameworks for analyzing technology

integration in the classroom, but as Ruthven (2009, 2013) stresses, the SFCP framework includes
aspects such as the complexity and importance of a teacher’s “craft knowledge”, which other
frameworks largely overlook. This is the main reason I have chosen to explore the SFCP
framework. A second reason is that the SFCP framework is relatively new and needs to be tested
using empirical data from other contexts (Ruthven, 2009). Thus, my contribution to research is that
I have investigated the potential of this framework using interview data from a Swedish design
research project seeking to develop design principles for classroom response system1 (CRS) tasks in
a multiple-choice format. Hence, the aim of this paper is to investigate the potential of the SFCP
framework as a tool to analyze empirical data to conceptualize and understand teachers’ reasoning
about technology integration in the mathematics classroom.
Participants, context and data

The framework was tested on interview data from two cases of CRS integration in mathematics
classrooms within grades 6-9 in lower secondary school in one of Sweden’s largest municipalities.
One teacher participated in Case 1, and six teachers in Case 2. The reason for working with only one
teacher in Case 1 was that this case was a pilot study, which prioritized the depth of the intervention
and analysis in the beginning of this design research project. Further, the choice of teachers at these
particular schools was partly due to the fact that during these academic years, I was a mentor to
mathematics teachers at these schools. In addition, the schools were one-to-one schools, where all
students had access to their own computer. These teachers were not explicitly chosen for the
research project, they just represent ordinary Swedish teachers in ordinary schools. The reason for
working with six teachers in Case 2 was that all of the mathematics teachers at that particular school
wanted to improve their teaching and asked me to guide them. Further, the teachers had no (or little)
experience in utilizing a CRS, and had received training in how to use the digital resource in
practice. In both cases, CRS supported with specific tasks was used to engineer mathematics
classroom discussions that could both elicit evidence of learning and also give the teacher an
opportunity to advance the students’ mathematical thinking. These tasks were often used in the
beginning of the lessons or after a short lecture on the topic. Additionally, in Case 1, tasks were also
used to evaluate the lessons and obtain information about the students’ knowledge at the end of
lessons. Based on the teachers’ own wishes in Case 2, the teachers also used flipped classroom
method to gain more time for classroom discussions, and Peer Instruction method as support for
orchestrating the discussions. Based on the teachers’ lesson goals and a pilot of the design
principles, the researcher constructed and supplied suggestions for tasks to be used with the CRS. In
both cases the topic of fractions was chosen, determined by the timing of the study along with the
teachers’ wishes. The teachers used and evaluated a total of 31 tasks. Figure 1, which follows,
shows an example of one evaluated task type with different multiple defendable answers (Beatty,
Gerace, Leonard, & Dufresne, 2006).
1
Using a computer or smartphone, students can answer their teacher’s question and the teacher can instantly see the
results compiled in a chart in the software program and display this for all the students on a shared screen.

Figure 1: A constructed CRS task with multiple defendable answers
All CRS tasks were built on the idea that tasks that produce a spread in students’ answers, are more
likely to prompt a mathematical classroom discussion (e.g., Crouch, & Mazur, 2001). This
particular task was developed to be used as a repetition of some important properties of fractions
that students had already encountered. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to support one
phase of the evaluation of the intervention. In order to explore the SFCP framework, I chose to test
the framework using the data from one interview with the teacher in Case 1 and one group interview
from Case 2. The interviews were audio-recorded and then transcribed and analyzed in NVivo 10.
The SFCP framework

The idea of the SFCP framework is to support the identification and analysis of certain crucial
features of technology integration (Ruthven, 2009). The framework was developed by synthesizing
and extending concepts and constructs from earlier research on classroom organization, interaction
and teacher craft knowledge, which resulted in five crucial features (Ruthven, 2009). These features
of classroom practice shape the ways in which teachers integrate new technologies (Ruthven, 2013).
Ruthven’s own summary of the framework is presented in Table 1 (Ruthven, 2013, p. 12).
Structuring Defining characterization Examples of associated craft knowledge related
feature to incorporation of digital technologies
Working Physical surroundings where Organising, displaying and annotating materials
environment lessons take place, general Capturing or converting student productions into
technical infrastructure suitable digital form
available, layout of facilities, Organising and managing student access to, and use
and associated organization of, equipment and other tools and materials
of people, tools and materials Managing new types of transition between lesson
stages (including movement of students)
Resource Collection of didactical tools Establishing appropriate techniques and norms for
system and materials in use, and use of new tools to support subject activity
coordination of use towards Managing the double instrumentation in which old
subject activity and curricular technologies remain in use alongside new
goals Coordinating the use and interpretation of tools
Activity Templates for classroom Employing activity templates organised around
structure action and interaction which predict-test-explain sequences to capitalise on the
frame the contributions of availability of rapid feedback
teacher and students to Establishing new structures of interaction involving
particular types of lesson students, teacher and machine, and the appropriate
segment (re)specifications of role
Curriculum Loosely ordered model of Choosing or devising curricular tasks that exploit
script goals, resources, actions and new tools, and developing ways of staging such

expectancies for teaching a tasks and managing patterns of student response

curricular topic, including Recognising and responding to ways in which
likely difficulties and technologies may help/hinder specific processes and
alternative paths objectives involved in learning a topic
Time Frame within which the time Managing modes of use of tools so as to reduce the
economy available for class activity is “time cost” of investment in students’ learning to
managed so as to convert it use them or to increase the “rate of return”
into “didactic time” Fine-tuning working environment, resource system,
measured in terms of the activity structure and curriculum script to optimise
advance of knowledge the didactic return on time investment
Table 1: The SFCP framework components
Method of analysis
The interview data was used as a means to explore the potential of the SFCP framework. In this
exploration, the framework was used as an analytical tool to capture teachers’ reasoning about
utilizing a CRS. To support the exploration of the framework’s potential, I used two analytical
questions: 1) How much of teachers’ reasoning ends up in the various categories in the SFCP
framework? and 2) Are there parts of teachers’ reasoning that do not fit the categories of the SFCP
framework? If so, does a new theme emerge? To answer these questions, I conducted a content
analysis with systematic quantification (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009), with text segments in the
transcriptions of the interviews coded in NVivo 10 based on the categories in the SFCP framework.
I then compiled the text segments from every category and wrote an accompanying narrative.
Summary of the content analysis

Due to space limitations, the outcome of this content analysis is not presented in detail here; instead,
some of its main findings are discussed.
Working environment
The teacher in Case 1 pointed out that when the projector screen is pulled down it blocks a large
part of the whiteboard surface. This can constrain the usage of the CRS. When the teacher wants to
write students’ solutions to or explanations of CRS tasks on the whiteboard she has to pull up the
projector screen and blacken the computer projection, and then pull the screen down again to
continue the CRS tasks. This may constrain the possibility to conduct a classroom discussion.
Further, in both cases the teachers declared that students sometimes do not bring their computer,
and sometimes do not have access to the internet. Students without a functional computer or internet
access constrain the work in the classroom. The teachers solved this by letting students work with a
peer who had a computer.
Resource system
The teacher in Case 1 emphasized the importance of combining CRS tasks aiming at engineering a
discussion with a demonstration of methods. This suggests that the teacher needed to coordinate
these two curricular elements to achieve the lesson’s goal. The teacher also mentioned that students
seemed to be reluctant to work out solutions to the CRS tasks on paper before submitting an answer
in the software program. According to the teacher, this constrained her opportunity to identify and
see students’ reasoning behind their answers before the discussion. A teacher in Case 2 did not

believe students needed access to paper and pencil before responding to a task, but thought this
could be useful afterwards if they were to proof their own or others’ answers. Further, teachers in
Case 2 told of struggling with the software and launching tasks in the wrong mode. This gave all the
students access to all the tasks at once, which resulted in the teachers decision to shut down the CRS
work for that particular lesson. They then discussed the possibility of trying out the different modes
before the lesson.
Activity format
The teacher in Case 1 said that the CRS tasks were a great way to get all of the students focused.
The students interacted with their computer, and were forced to contribute with an answer to the
tasks. They then interacted with their peers through peer and whole-class discussions. The activity
formats used in both cases were: first alone, then peer discussion, and finally a whole-class
discussion; and also first alone and then a whole-class discussion. One teacher mentioned that it was
hard to decide whether to orchestrate a whole-class discussion or a group discussion in tasks with
multiple correct answers when applying peer instruction, which holds that students benefit from a
group discussion if 30-70% of the students responding correctly. Further, the teachers also discussed
the importance of allowing time before the students are to respond to the CRS task. Several of the
teachers let the students take as much time as they needed, which led to some students having to
wait a couple of minutes.
Curriculum script
Teachers mentioned that the CRS tasks made them aware of some student misconceptions, and gave
them an opportunity to deal with them. Further, the teacher in Case 1 pointed out the improvement
of feedback, both the possibility to use instant feedback through the computer in CRS tasks and the
feedback in the peer and whole-class discussions related to the discussion tasks. The technology and
tasks 1) gave the teacher information about students’ knowledge, and 2) added a new form of
feedback resource which, together, developed the teacher’s curricular script. Moreover, in Case 2,
several teachers identified and talked about different types of CRS tasks and their characteristics,
and how they had succeeded in engineering a discussion. One teacher realized that you could not
always have tasks with several correct answers, because the students quickly realize this. The
teachers also stressed that it is hard to conduct whole-class discussions on CRS tasks, and one
teacher mentioned the importance of having a clear teaching strategy for every CRS task to improve
the whole-class discussion.
Time economy
The teacher in Case 1 believed that having CRS tasks at the end of the lesson makes students more
focused on mathematics for a greater part of the lesson. These tasks improved the “rate of return” in
two ways: firstly, students worked with mathematics for a larger part of the lesson; secondly, the
software program automatically gave students instant feedback on their answers. One teacher said
she would continue using CRS, although it takes time to prepare. Thereafter, she mentioned that
“it’s worth the time because it activates every student…when I activated one student who usually
doesn’t participate she said ‘ahaaa’ in front of the whole class. It was amazing”. Several teachers
pointed out that the discussions take time, and that it is a challenge to decide how long to work on
each task and how many tasks to use in one lesson.

Results
In this section I present the results of the analysis of the framework’s potential according to the
analytical questions.
How much of teachers’ reasoning can be categorized within the SFCP framework?
Table 2 shows the coverage of the different categories in the transcription of the interviews
regarding teachers’ reasoning in Cases 1 and 2. Some text fragments were coded in several
categories. I have also rounded the figures. All features captured some parts of the teachers’
reasoning, and a total of 90% of the interview in Case 1 and 65% of the group interview in Case 2
were captured by the framework.
Working Resource Activity Curriculum Time economy

environment system format script
Case 1 5% 20% 25% 20% 20%
Case 2 5% 15% 15% 25% 5%
Table 2: The SFCP frameworks coverage of teachers’ reasoning in the interviews
Are there parts of teachers’ reasoning that do not fit the categories of the SFCP framework?
If so, does a new theme emerge?
Approximately 10% of teachers’ reasoning in Case 1 and 35% in Case 2 did not fit the SFCP
framework categories, and when the parts the framework did not capture were analyzed a clear
theme emerged. Almost all reasoning that the framework did not capture was related to students’
attitudes and behaviors. I will continue with a summary on this theme.
All teachers reasoned about their students’ attitudes and behaviors concerning the lessons. Some
classes and students greatly enjoyed working with CRS tasks in mathematics. As one teacher said,
“they think it’s fun to discuss things”. Another teacher reported that “the students were crazy about
the CRS tasks”, and another talked about how the students want very much to respond correctly to
the tasks and demanded to do it again in the next lesson if they failed the first time. In some classes
the students were eager to discuss the CRS tasks; the teacher commented that “the students want to
hear their peers’ opinion and they want to tell the class about their own perception”. Further,
teachers also mentioned that some students did not want to participate, especially in the discussions,
during which they simply sat quietly. Some teachers had difficulty in handling students who wanted
to respond quickly and could not wait for others to think and respond to the tasks. All the teachers in
Case 2 talked about the difficulty of getting students to do the homework and to be prepared for the
work with the CRS tasks in the classroom. One teacher mentioned: “In one of my classes, only one
student had done the homework and watched the flipped movie at home.”
Conclusions and discussion

The exploration of the SFCP framework showed that it captured a large part of teachers’ reasoning
about technology integration in the mathematics classroom. Most of the teachers’ reasoning was
related to features of activity format, curriculum script and resource system. My conclusion is that
the SFCP framework could be useful as an analytical tool for conceptualizing and analyzing

teachers’ reasoning about technology integration in the mathematics classroom in the context of
Sweden and CRS technology. However, the framework did not capture all the teachers’ reasoning
about important aspects of technology integration. Almost all of the reasoning that did not fit any
category was related to students’ attitudes, and students’ behavior. According to Ruthven (2009),
the SFCP framework aims at identifying and making key structuring features of classroom practice
analyzable for the integration of technology into a classroom. Further, Ruthven (2009) states that the
benefit of the SFCP “is in providing a system of constructs closer to the ‘lived world’ of teacher
experience and classroom practice” (p. 145). This study’s results indicate that students’ attitudes and
behaviors are an important factor that teachers reason about when discussing the implementation of
technology in the mathematics classroom in Sweden. Like all five features of the SFCP, I suggest
that students’ attitudes and behavior are also important factors for successful technology integration
in classroom practice. Research on CRS points out that students’ attitudes and behaviors are a
challenge that teachers face (e.g., Kay & LeSage, 2009; King & Robinson, 2009; Lee, Feldman, &
Beatty, 2012). If the SFCP framework aims at capturing key features of classroom practice and is to
be built on a system of constructs closer to the ‘lived world’ of teacher experience and classroom
practice, it would also benefit from taking into consideration students’ attitudes and behaviors. This
could be done by adding a new, sixth construct to the framework relating to teacher craft knowledge
for managing different types of student behaviors or attitudes.
The main contribution of this paper is that it investigates the potential of the SFCP framework with
empirical data from a new context and new types of data. It was partially tested on data from group
interviews in the context of CRS integration in mathematics at Swedish lower secondary schools.
Further, this study and the conceptualization of teachers’ reasoning about CRS integration can
contribute to the knowledge regarding challenges involved with utilizing a CRS in the mathematics
classroom. This conceptualization may also be useful for teachers intending to integrate CRS into
their practice. For instance, they could gain knowledge about different activity formats and common
challenges, as well as how to deal with these challenges. Finally, the results from this study need to
be further investigated with empirical data from similar or other contexts.
References
Beatty, I. D., Gerace, W. J., Leonard, W. J., & Dufresne, R. J. (2006). Designing effective questions
for classroom response system teaching. American Journal of Physics, 74(1), 31-39.
Cheung, A. C. K., & Slavin, R. E. (2013). The effectiveness of educational technology applications
for enhancing mathematics achievement in K-12 classrooms: A meta-analysis. Educational
Research Review, 9, 88–113.
Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American
Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970-977.
Drijvers, P. (2013). Digital technology in mathematics education: why it works (or doesn't). PNA,
8(1), 1-20.
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, 75(2), 213-234.

Hattie, J., & Yates, G. (2014). Hur vi lär: synligt lärande och vetenskapen om våra lärprocesser
[Visible learning and the science of how we learn; in Swedish]. Stockholm: Natur & Kultur.
Kay, R. H., & LeSage, A. (2009). Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response
systems: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 53(3), 819-827.
King, S. O., & Robinson, C. L. (2009). Staff perspectives on the use of technology for enabling
formative assessment and automated feedback. Innovation in Teaching and Learning in
Information and Computer Sciences, 8(2), 24-35.
Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)?
Contemporary issues in technology and teacher education, 9(1), 60-70.
Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Den kvalitativa forskningsintervjun [The qualitative research
interview; in Swedish]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Lee, H., Feldman, A., & Beatty, I. D. (2012). Factors that affect science and mathematics teachers’
initial implementation of technology-enhanced formative assessment using a classroom response
system. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(5), 523-539.
Li, Q., & Ma, X. (2010). A meta-analysis of the effects of computer technology on school students’
mathematics learning. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 215-243.
Lynch, J. (2006). Assessing effects of technology usage on mathematics learning. Mathematics
Education Research Journal, 18(3), 29-43.
OECD (2015). Students, Computers and Learning: OECD Publishing.
Ruthven, K. (2009). Towards a Naturalistic Conceptualisation of Technology Integration in
Classroom Practice: the example of school mathematics. Éducation et didactique, 3(1), 131.
Ruthven, K. (2013). Frameworks for analysing the expertise that underpins successful integration
of digital technologies into everyday teaching practice. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the American Educational Research Association., San Francisco, 27 April-1 May 2013.
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard educational
review, 57(1), 1-23.
Trouche, L. (2005). Instrumental genesis, individual and social aspects. In The didactical challenge
of symbolic calculators (pp. 197-230). Springer US.

The effect of GeoGebra collaborative and iterative professional

development on in-service secondary mathematics teachers’ practices
Houssam Kasti1 and Murad Jurdak2
1
Lebanese University, Lebanon; houssamkasti@gmail.com
2
American University of Beirut, Lebanon; jurdak@aub.edu.lb
Integrating technology in education is still not an easy task, teachers’ adoption of technology in their
teaching is even more problematic and the wide availability of technology made things more
challenging. This research is a multiple case study that aims to study in depth the effect of a GeoGebra
(a free mathematics software) intervention on the teaching of in-service mathematics teachers in
secondary schools who follow the Lebanese curriculum. The type of the study is Design-Based
Research that focuses on working closely with practitioners in collaborative and iterative manner in
the real context to add principles to theory and practice. Results showed an increase in the extent
teachers use GeoGebra in their student-centered teaching approach.
Keywords: Technology integration, professional development, in-service secondary teachers,
GeoGebra, design based research.
Introduction
When new technologies appear in medical or industrial fields, there is often a rush to replace
obsolete tools with new ones, the staff get immediate training on their use and the adoption level is
high and quick. Why does this not happen in the education field? Answering this question is not an
easy task due to the multiple factors are involved in adopting technology and the rate of change in the
education field, which is known to be slow.
Literature review
Research has extensively focused on the problem of technology integration in general and in
mathematics in particular. First, research in many countries has shown that technology still plays a
marginal role in mathematics classrooms and that access to technology resources, educational
policies, and institutional support are insufficient conditions for ensuring an effective integration of
technology into teachers’ everyday practices (e.g., Cox, Abbott, Webb, Blakely, Beauchamp, &
Rhodes, 2004; Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck, 2001; Goos & Bennison, 2008). Second, research studies
in general focused on some aspects of the integration problem such as lack of teachers training (e.g.,
Law, 2008; Tondeur et al., 2008) or lack of theory (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Others suggested
certain solution(s) such as conducting professional development of specific characteristics, working
with mentors (Kratcoski, Swan, Mazzer, 2007), working in a community-based inquiry environment
(Lavicza, Hohenwarter, Jones, Lu, & Dawes, 2010), or working based on a theoretical framework
such as TPACK, but most of these suggestions “have crashed on the hard rocks of the classroom”
(Herrington, McKenney, Reeves, & Oliver, 2007, p. 9). Third, in most studies the methodology used
is not sufficient for such a complicated multi-faceted problem, and this partially explains why
research has had limited impact on practices (Herrington, McKenney, Reeves, & Oliver, 2007). A
key factor is that teachers should be able to actively participate in the process of technology
integration (Voogt et al., 2011). To summarise, this research aims to study how a collaborative and

iterative work with in-service mathematics teachers affects their level of GeoGebra integration in
their teaching to answer the following research questions:
1. How does a cooperative and iterative intervention affect in-service secondary mathematics
teachers' practices regarding the integration of GeoGebra in their teaching?
2. How do participants’ Valsiner’s three zones mediate the impact of the intervention on
teachers’ practices regarding the integration of GeoGebra in their teaching?
In this study we have used the Valsiner’s zone theory, which states that the factors that affect teachers’
use of technology can be categorized into three zones: (1) Zone of proximal development (ZPD)
which includes skill, experience, and general pedagogical beliefs; (2) Zone of free movement (ZFM)
which includes access to hardware support, curriculum and assessment requirements, students (3)
Zone of promoted action (ZPA) which includes pre-service education, practicum courses and
professional development (Goos et al., 2010).
Methodology
Three iterations of a design based research (DBR) methodology were used in this study across two
stages (Figure 1).
Figure 1. The stages of the study
The first pre-intervention stage was dedicated to understanding the situation of integrating GeoGebra
in the Lebanese curriculum, piloting the GeoGebra activities and testing the instruments. Six
workshops were conducted over two years and a pilot study with two teachers. At the end of this
stage four teachers (other than the ones in the pilot study) were selected as cases for the study. After
selecting the participants, a 3 hour-workshop was conducted by the researcher with the four
participants to ensure that all participants had acquired the basic features of the software (GeoGebra).
In addition, we discussed as a group the topics in the secondary mathematics Lebanese curriculum
that could be better taught with the use of GeoGebra. The second stage was the intervention stage,
which comprised two iterations. In this stage collaboration was one-to-one between the researcher
and each of the participants. In the first iteration, the participating teachers decided which lesson they
wanted to teach with GeoGebra in accordance with their school mathematics scope and sequence.
They were provided with a ready-made GeoGebra activities (made by the researcher) to
be implemented in their classes. In the second iteration, teachers adapted already made GeoGebra
activities and/or made their own GeoGebra activities. Three visits were conducted with each
participant at his/her own school and according to his/her available time. The first visit was to prepare
for the first lesson. The second visit was to evaluate the first lesson and prepare for the second lesson.

Analysis of data collected from the instruments was done before starting the second iteration as
required by a design based research methodology. The last visit was to evaluate the second lesson
and give a general overview of the whole experience.
Instruments
For the pre-intervention phase, three questionnaires were administered by the participating teachers:
(1) Demographics questionnaire, (2) Instructional Practices in GeoGebra Questionnaire IPGQ (Form
1), (3) Barriers (grouped in zones) in Using Technology Questionnaire BUTQ (Form 1). The purpose
of these questionnaires was to measure teachers’ current (before the intervention)
integration practices of the GeoGebra software in their teaching and the barriers (grouped in three
zones) that affect their technology integration. After conducting the first lesson, a semi-structured
interview parallel form was used (IPGSI (Form 2) and BUTSI (Form 2) to measure the impact of the
intervention on teachers’ practices and to find out to what extent the zones could mediate that effect.
In addition, another instrument was used to assess the GeoGebra activity itself, the Lesson
Assessment Criteria semi-structured Interview (LACI), which is based on instrument by Harris,
Grandgenett & Hofer (2010).
The analysis was done in general for the four participants and later individually. The general analysis
looked for the general impact of the intervention and for the dynamicity of change in the extent of
use in each category of the practices and its subcategories. For the impact of the intervention we were
interested in the change in the extent of use of GeoGebra at the end of implementation, whereas for
the dynamicity we were interested in the pattern in the extent of use of GeoGebra of change happened
in between the implementation stages. The dynamicity could be: (1) static: there was no change in
extent of use in between the implementation stages or (2) dynamic: there was a change in extent of
use in between the implementation stages.
Participants
In the sixth (last) workshop conducted by the researcher attendees were given the pre-intervention
questionnaires mentioned above. Based on the answers, for the practice instrument, the values were
0 (never use GeoGebra), 1(sometimes use GeoGebra), and 2(most of the time use GeoGebra). The
average of all the questions was calculated. Similarly the average for each zone was calculated in the
zone questionnaire that consists of 27 questions. Based on these results, four cases were selected
(Pseudonyms: Tima, Sara, Amani, and Hazem) in a way that they differ among themselves in practice
level and/ or in at least one barrier level. Table 1 represents the characteristics of each participant.
Highest Teaching Practice level ZFM ZPA ZPD

Name Age
degree experience
Amani 50-55 BS 25 years Low Moderate Moderate Low
Tima 23-26 Masters +TD 2 years Moderate Low Moderate Not*
Sara 33-40 BS 7 years Moderate Moderate Low Not
Hazem 41-50 Masters 31 years High Moderate Not Not
Table 1. Participants domographics, practice and zones level
*Not: the zone is not considered as a barrier to GeoGebra integration

GeoGebra modules
The criteria used for lesson selection are based on those identified by Angeli & Valanides (2009)
called ICT-TPCK. The GeoGebra activities were prepared by the researcher and tested on both
students and teachers. The activities were designed based on the following criteria: Each activity: 1)
should be student centered, 2) can be conducted by students in a computer lab or elsewhere (classroom
or at home), 3) allows student to discover the concept or theorem under study, 4) includes immediate
application of the concept under study, 5) does not require prior knowledge of the software.
Each teacher selected an activity according to his/her scope and sequence, so each teacher applied a
different GeoGebra activity. Table 2 shows type and place of activities applied by each teacher.
Activity 1 Place Activity 2 Place
Amani Sign of quadratic polynomials In class Derivative In lab
Tima Vectors In lab 3D In class
Hazem Equation of a straight line In class Thales Theorem In class
Sara Translation of functions In lab Vectors In lab
Table 2. The intervention activities conducted by participating teachers
1
Before implementation
After implementation 1
After implemenation 2
0
A T S H A T S H A T S H A T S H
I use GeoGebra fo r I use GeoGebra fo r I use GeoGebra fo r I use GeoGebra fo r
lesson preparation Lesson implementation Lesson reinforcement Assessment
Figure 2. The extent of using GeoGebra by the participating teachers over the three stages:
Before the intervention, after implementing the first lesson , after implementing the second lesson.
0: Never; 1: sometimes; 2: Most of the time
A: Amani; T: Tima; S: Sara; H: Hazem
Results
Stage of Use of GeoGebra
Figure 2 shows that the pattern of impact was the same for using GeoGebra in lesson presentation,
lesson implementation, and lesson enhancement but different for assessment. For lesson presentation,
implementation, and enhancement, in general, participants started with ‘sometimes use GeoGebra’
and ended with ‘most of the time’ after the second lesson. For assessment, there was a slight
breakthrough from ‘never use of Geogebra in assessment’ to ‘sometimes use’ for each of the four

participants. For all the stages of using GeoGebra, in general, the change was static then dynamic.
Probably more time was needed for the change to happen prior to the second implementation, which
was due to teachers’ need to: become more confident in using the software; be more knowledgeable;
and have more free movement.
Concerning the stage of teachers’ use of GeoGebra the intervention resulted in: (a) an increase in
using GeoGebra in most stages mediated positively by teachers’ ZPD, and (b) an increase in teachers’
appreciation of GeoGebra as a teaching tool due to the characteristics of the activities. There was
interdependence between confidence and the extent of using GeoGebra in each stage. When teachers
applied the activities, this led in an increase in teachers’ confidence which in turn led to an increase
in the extent of GeoGebra use in each of their teaching stages. There was a low impact on using
GeoGebra in assessment mediated by teachers’ ZFM. Three particular ZFM factors mediated
negatively the impact of the intervention on assessment, these factors were: (a) Lebanese national
curriculum which is so demanding with little time left for discovery, (b) Lebanese national
assessment policies which assess mostly procedural knowledge, and (c) school assessment policies
which are mainly set by the school administration and teachers have little impact on changing them.
The characteristics of the GeoGebra activities that made impact of the intervention more effective
were: (a) the effectiveness of the GeoGebra activity, (b) the ease of operating the software by students,
(c) the strong alignment between the activity and the curriculum, and (d) lastly the strong fit of the
activity with the instructional strategies each teacher uses.
Method of use
It is important to use GeoGebra, but what is more important is how to use it. In this category of
practices the intervention had, in general, no to a slight increase in the extent of use in most
subcategories and the general pattern of change was static with minimum dynamicity. For example
the intervention did not affect Amani’s use of GeoGebra for ‘presenting a lesson’ or for ‘conducting
an activity with the help of students’. Amani used for the first time GeoGebra for ‘discovery activity
done by students’ or for ‘students to present their work’ but that change was static (never use) then
dynamic. The impact of the intervention on Amani’s method of use was a change in her teaching
method to become more student-centered (activity done with the help of students) mediated positively
by her ZFM and her ZPD. A second example is Tima, despite her ZFM factors that mediated Tima’s
extent of use of GeoGebra in her methods of teaching she applied for the first, time discovery
activities done by students in the computer lab and/or in class. The collaboration between Tima and
the researcher increased her self-confidence, skills and knowledge and that mediated positively her
GeoGebra application. A third example is Sara. Before the intervention Sara was a moderate user of
technology in general, and GeoGebra specifically, but the lack of a computer lab in her school and
the lack of hardware in her class were the main barriers to increase technology integration. Sara used
to show her students some applets using her class LCD connected to her own laptop but for the first
activity she made a huge effort to take her students to the computer lab to apply discovery activities
and she said:
After this experience (applying GeoGebra activity) for the first time and in a lab I will change a
lot of things (in my teaching) now I have a lab for secondary. Frankly I will not use that with an
LCD in the class to show students such things, there is nothing called to show (not effective)

showing them is like treating them as babies not capable of applying and concluding results, when
they do it, it is different even for me I felt different. (Interview 2, November 7, 2015).
The intervention had an important effect on increasing the use of conducting discovery activities done
by students in the computer lab and that change was not the same dynamicity for all teachers. The
barriers teachers faced in this part of the practices were the accessibility to the computer lab and
curriculum requirements (ZFM) but these barriers minimally mediated the impact of the intervention.
Place of use
Similar to method of use category there was no to slight effect of the intervention on the extent of use
of GeoGebra in their classroom or at home. There was a noticeable impact on the use of GeoGebra
in the computer lab since three out of the four teachers tried one or both of the GeoGebra intervention
lessons for the first time in the computer lab. This was not a surprise because to use GeoGebra in
class or in the computer lab is related to availability of equipment and the way of using GeoGebra.
This change was not the same dynamicity for all of the teachers. Amani’s change was static then
dynamic, Tima’s change was dynamic then static, Sara’s change was dynamic, and Hazem’s change
was static then dynamic.
An example is the case of Sara, her first student-centered discovery activity was the activity she
applied in her first lesson of the intervention. In this lesson she sensed the importance of discovery
activities and how this students motivated the students and she said:
I gave them four cases with aim of acquaint to GeoGebra trace, animation, and sliders. They liked
a lot so and got their attention and interest. Gave them the function act printed and they started
working, one student volunteered to help me… Students enjoyed a lot the activity and attained all
the required objectives. They could see things (Interview 2, November 7, 2015).
A second example is Hazem’ case, the intervention did not affect the place where Hazem uses
GeoGebra. He mentioned availability of a computer lab and/or the accessibility to the laptops (ZFM)
to be the only barriers to more extent of using GeoGebra in his teaching. He did overcome that barrier
by asking every student to bring his own device mainly tablets. Since his first interview Hazem
affirmed his continuous use:
I am willing to use GeoGebra if it is related to my lesson, I consider working with GeoGebra as
‘clean work’ contrary to board drawing (draw, redraw…). I encourage my students to use it; I
already introduced them on its features and how to use. (Interview 1, November 7, 2015)
In his second interview he said: “all students contributed [in the activity discussion], to a certain
extent, according to their motivation. If they bring their own device things would be more beneficial.”
(Interview 2, February 11, 2016)
Summing up, due to the intervention the extent of using GeoGebra for discovery by students in the
computer lab increased. For all categories of the practices the accessibility and availability of
hardware were the main negatively mediating factors to higher levels of practices for all participants.
The general pattern of change in the practices was more from static to dynamic in the stages of use,
static in the method of use and in the place of use.

Discussion
It seems that unlike the medical or the industrial fields, the educational field is more complex in
integrating technology in terms of social and psychological factors of all the stakeholders.
In the medical field for example the instrument for measuring blood pressure is one tool that is used
for all people, young or old, under-weigh or over-weight… To use this instrument or an updated
version of it does not require social acceptance or/and making the medical staff believes of its
importance. On the other hand, in the educational field there is no technology that fit all ages, abilities,
and intelligence levels… Deciding to use any instrument in a certain class needs to pass many filters
in order to be an integral part of the teaching-leaning process.
Recommendations
To see change in mathematics teachers’ extent of using GeoGebra in particular and technology in
general it seems one day workshop is not the perfect choice according to this study. Maybe with such
professional development teachers’ knowledge might change quickly but more has to be done in order
to change their practices. How should universities prepare their pre-service teachers to be ready to
use technology most of the time in their teaching? How should professional development be designed
to make sure teachers’ practices are changed regarding integrating technology in teaching? Maybe
this study answers some of these questions but more work still needs to be done to solidify them.
References
Angeli, C. & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the
conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT–TPCK: Advances in technological
pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education 52, 154−168. Retrieved from
http://teaching.cycu.edu.tw/pdf/2009_TPCK.pdf
Cox, M., Abbott, C., Webb, M., Blakely, B., Beauchamp, T. & Rhodes, V. (2004). ICT and pedagogy
– A review of the literature. ICT in Schools Research and Evaluation Series, 18. London:
DfES/BECTA
Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school
classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4),
813−834. doi: 10.3102/00028312038004813.
Goos, M., & Bennison, A. (2008). Surveying the Technology Landscape: Teachers’ Use of
Technology in Secondary Mathematics Classrooms. Mathematics Education Research Journal,
20(3), 102−130.
Goos, M., Soury-Lavergne, S., Assude, T., Brown, J., Ming Kong, C., Glover, D., … Sinclair, M.
(2010). Teachers and Teaching: Theoretical perspectives and issues concerning classroom
implementation. In C., Hoyles, & J. -b. Lagrange (Eds.), Mathematics education and technology-
rethinking the terrain (pp. 311−328). New York: Springer.
Harris, J., Grandgenett, N., & Hofer, M. (2010). Testing a TPACK-based technology integration
assessment rubric. In C. D. Maddux, D. Gibson, & B. Dodge (Eds.), Research highlights in
technology and teacher education (pp. 323−331). Chesapeake, VA: Society for Information
Technology & Teacher Education (SITE).

Herrington, J., McKenney, S., Reeves, T., & Oliver, R. (2007). Design-based research and doctoral
students: Guidelines for preparing a dissertation proposal. Retrieved from
http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/6762/1/design_based_doctoral.pdf
Kratcoski, A., Swan, K., Mazzer, P. (2007). Teacher Technology Mentors. Journal of the Research
Center for Educational Technology, 3 (2), 26−32.
Lavicza, Z., Hohenwarter, M., Jones, K., Lu, A. and Dawes, M. (2010) Establishing a professional
development network around dynamic mathematics software in England. International Journal
for Technology in Mathematics Education, 17, (4), 177−182. Retrieved from
http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/173035/1/Lavicza_etc_GeoGebra_IJTME_2010.pdf
Law, N. (2008). Teacher learning beyond knowledge for pedagogical innovations with ICT.
International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp.
425−434). US: Springer.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for
teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
Rösken-Winter, B., Schüler, S., Stahnke, R., Blömeke, S. (2015). Effective CPD on a large scale:
examining the development of multipliers. ZDM Mathematics Education 47(1), 13–25.
Voogt, J., Knezek, G., Cox, M., Knezek, D., & ten Brummelhuis, A. (2011). Under which conditions
does ICT have a positive effect on teaching and learning? A Call to Action. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00453.x

“One of the beauties of Autograph is … that you don’t really have to

think”: Integration of resources in mathematics teaching
Lina Kayali and Irene Biza
School of Education and Lifelong Learning, University of East Anglia, UK; l.kayali@uea.ac.uk
This paper introduces part of a larger study on the use of technology, specifically mathematics-
education software, by secondary mathematics teachers. It presents some of the data collected with
the aim to investigate teachers’ use of mathematics-education software: why are certain settings
used, or underused, how are they used, and what are the reasons behind such use? The findings will
be discussed by drawing on the documentational approach (Gueudet & Trouche, 2009) and
teaching triad (Jaworski, 1994). The data comprised one interview and one lesson observation with
a secondary mathematics teacher. While the documentational approach provides an overview of the
set of resources being integrated to achieve a specific goal, the teaching triad offers a lens to
observe teachers’ considerations when implementing a task in a mathematics lesson.
Keywords: Tasks, documentational genesis, teaching triad, mathematics education software.
Introduction
The complexity of the teaching profession imposes several factors that impact upon teachers’
classroom actions, that include not only their beliefs and knowledge but also their experiences and
the educational context in which they act (Biza, Nardi, & Joel, 2015; Speer, 2005). Teachers, while
planning and teaching, consider the contexts they work within: their students, school environment,
curriculum, etc. In other words, any study of teachers’ practices should take into account the
different contextual conditions in which these practices develop to include personalities,
institutions, circumstances, epistemology, time issues and materials (Herbst & Chazan, 2003). The
study presented in this paper forms part of the PhD research of the first author and it investigates
mathematics teachers’ ways of balancing the different elements in their working environment,
especially when using technology (in this study mathematics education software, i.e. software
designed for mathematics teaching and learning purposes), by looking at their practices or intended
practices within specific contexts. Furthermore, our work examines any gaps between intended
technology use in mathematics classrooms and actual teachers’ practices. To this aim we invite
teachers’ views on hypothetical classroom situations that involve teaching with technology in
written responses and follow-up interviews. Then, we observe teachers’ use of technology in their
classroom. In this paper we present preliminary analysis from one participant, Adam, by drawing on
two theoretical perspectives: the documentational approach (Gueudet, Buteau, Mesa, & Misfeldt,
2014; Gueudet & Trouche, 2009) and teaching triad (Jaworski, 1994).
The documentational approach

The documentational approach looks at teachers’ interactions with resources where a resource is
defined as “anything that can possibly intervene in [a teacher’s] activity”, it can be an artefact (e.g. a
pen or a mathematical technique), a teaching material, or even a social interaction (Gueudet et al.,
2014, p. 142). Adler (2000, p. 207) adds that “resource” can be also “the verb re-source, to source
again or differently”. During their interaction with resources, teachers develop schemes. A scheme

is a set of organised procedures carried out on an artefact (Gueudet & Trouche, 2009). It consists of
“the goal of the activity; rules of action; operational invariants; and inferences” (Gueudet et al.,
2014, p. 140, italics in original). Here, operational invariants are cognitive concepts established
throughout the activity to be used in comparable situations (Gueudet et al., 2014). For teachers,
these constitute “professional knowledge” (Gueudet et al., 2014, p. 142). The documentational
approach describes a two-way influence between a resource and a teacher: a resource affects the
teacher’s actions and knowledge; and the teacher’s perceptions and experiences impact on the way
the resource is used (Gueudet et al., 2014, p.140). A management process, which Gueudet &
Trouche (2009) call instrumental orchestration, is required in order to organise the learning
environment (e.g., space, time, dialogue) by the teacher, whose responsibility is to manage the
process according to the requisites of the task (Gueudet et al., 2014). When a teacher uses a set of
resources according to a specific scheme for a specific goal, s/he creates a document. Such a
development of a document is called documentational genesis. Thus, the documentational genesis is
the process of a teacher developing schemes for adapting different sets of resources to achieve a
specific target (Gueudet et al., 2014). The documentational approach studies the development of
“structured documentation system[s]” that represent teachers’ work and progress as a result of
influencing and being influenced by different resources (Gueudet et al., 2014). In this study we have
conjectured that teacher’s schemes are dynamic and are being re-adapted from one situation to
another and that the teaching triad (Jaworski, 1994) can help the exploration of those schemes.
The teaching triad

Jaworski’s (1994) teaching triad (TT) addresses classroom management as an act of harmony
between three domains of activity: sensitivity to student (SS), mathematical challenge (MC) and
management of learning (ML). These domains are evident when a teacher plans a lesson and starts
to think of how to consider teaching a specific mathematical idea (MC), particular students’ needs
(SS), the best way to work on the task with the students (ML) (group work, individual work or
classroom discussion). The same domains will be in play during lessons, but within a different
context as this time the interactions with the students are happening and the teacher should respond
on demand, in many cases by diverting from what was planned.
As Jaworski (1994) and Potari and Jaworski (2002) suggest from the “macro analysis” of classroom
interactions, alongside the TT domains, teachers’ plans and practices are also influenced by social
factors, such as: time pressure; having to complete a set syllabus; the requirement that students
know specific things for exam purposes; expectations from the teacher; school ethos; and the
training provided for teachers. Such factors seem to be at the centre of teachers’ considerations and
they include students’ social culture, teaching resources and materials, syllabus, assessment
schemes, time restrictions, room constraints, and cultural considerations of what constitutes good
teaching practices (Goos, 2013, p.523). Hence, the TT domains, along with these factors, reflect the
range of considerations mathematics teachers have to balance. The TT can be “used as an analytical
device (by researchers) and as a reflective agent for teaching development (by teachers)” (Potari &
Jaworski, 2002, p. 351). We are conjecturing that the teaching triad domains are related to schemes’
development regarding the use of resources. Sustaining the goals of the resource use, depends on
how teaching is balanced by the teacher. Operational invariants can be derived from artefacts,
mathematical concepts or social environments. All the above can be used to satisfy a specific goal

Learning mathematics with technology. A review of recent CERME

research
Ana Donevska-Todorova1 and Jana Trgalová2
1
Humboldt-University of Berlin, Germany; ana.todorova@hu-berlin.de
2
University of Lyon, Claude Bernard University Lyon 1, S2HEP (EA4148), France;
jana.trgalova@univ-lyon1.fr
This theoretical paper reports about our perception of the contributions that the working group TWG
16 about the learning of mathematics with digital media have made during the last CERME 9, taking
into consideration the previous and the upcoming ERME conferences. Our analysis highlights the
evolution of research questions, methodologies and theories through the lenses of the “didactical
tetrahedron” metaphor and the networking strategies and methods. Finally, we point out themes that
are, to our opinion, insufficiently addressed and need further discussions within the technology
group.
Keywords: Mathematics, learning, technology, didactic tetrahedron, networking strategies.
Introduction and rationale
‘State of the art’ is a common expression used in surveys, review papers and up to date books
reporting on the newest achievements in the research. This is also the ambition of the tenth Congress
of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CERME 10) TWG 16 leaders as
they have announced:
We want to establish an overview of the current state of the art in technology use in mathematics
education, including both practice-oriented experiences and research-based evidence, as seen from
an international perspective and with a focus on student learning [...] (Call for papers, CERME 10
TWG 16).
There are studies trying to establish such overviews (e.g., Drijvers et al., 2016), but also some
claiming to report on the ‘state of the art’ research without sufficient argumentation and full
justification of their statements throughout the text. The phrasal adjective ‘state of the art’ fits to
advertise a ‘product’ but has our community become mature enough to respond to a challenge of
offering ‘state of the art’ descriptions of complex phenomena like the use of technology in
mathematics education which has a characteristic of enormous dynamism?
In this article, we do not claim that we have undertaken a meta-research beyond the scope of the
CERME although we are aware of the variety of working groups on similar themes at other
conferences as ICME, ICTMT, CADGME or ATCM and special issues of journals. Aiming to
investigate how the CERME TWG 16 could capitalize knowledge of discussions regarding the
learning with technologies, we have rather devoted ourselves to focus on two main issues: 1) how
have the research questions and methodologies about the learning of mathematics with technologies
evolved and 2) is there a substantial progress regarding the use of the theories. We begin discussing
these two issues through the relations in a “didactic tetrahedron”.

The “didactic tetrahedron” metaphor

The “didactic tetrahedron” metaphor (Fig. 1 right) was introduced by Tall (1986, p. 6) as an
enlargement or adaptation of the “didactic triangle” (Fig. 1 left) commonly used before the advent of
technology to analyze the teaching and learning of mathematical knowledge.
Figure 1: From a “didactic triangle” (left) to a “didactic tetrahedron” (right)

The integration of an artefact, e.g. an ICT tool, introduces a new component into the teaching/ learning
system and creates new relationships between the components of the didactic triangle. Thus, for
example the face ALK (A for Artefact or ICT, L for learner and K for Knowledge) represents
phenomena related to learning mathematics with technology, such as students’ conceptualizations of
given mathematical concepts mediated by technology, or the edge AK highlights phenomena related
to new approaches to given mathematical concepts offered by the affordances of a given digital
artefact. The didactic tetrahedron has by now been used for analyzing mutual participation of artifacts
and their users in a socio-cultural context (e.g. Rezat & Sträßer, 2012) or as a heuristic for studying
the implementation of digital media in the teaching and learning praxis (Ruthven, 2012). In this paper,
we use it to position the scopes of technology groups at the ERME conferences.
Until CERME 8, issues related to any vertex, edge or face fell within the range of a unique technology
group, initially called “Tools and Technologies”. The subsequent changes of the name into “Tools
and technologies in mathematical didactics” from CERME 2 to 5 and “Technologies and resources
in mathematics education” from CERME 6 to 8 indicate the appearance of enhanced specifications.
The growing interest in the theme and the amount of research have led to splitting the technology
group into two groups at CERME 9 which have progressed discussing topics focusing on edges and
faces having “teacher” and “learner(s)” as a vertex, respectively.
Research method
In this paper we propose an analysis of the two issues 1) and 2) stated above based on the “didactic
tetrahedron” through the: a) Calls for papers of the CERME 8-TWG 15, CERME 9-TWG 16 and
CERME 10-TWG 16, b) Introductions to papers and posters of the groups published in the
proceedings of the CERME 8 and 9, and c) Papers of these groups published in the proceedings of
the CERME8 and 9. In this analysis we also refer to “networking strategies and methods” (Prediger
et al., 2008, p. 170).

Findings and discussion

a) Evolutions tracked through the Calls for papers since the CERME8
The Call of the CERME 8-TWG 15 guided the discussions by posing three themes referring to design
and uses of technologies, students’ learning, and teacher professional development in presence of
technologies. These three themes clearly refer to the three vertices of the triangular face “ALT (T for
Teacher)” in the didactic tetrahedron (Figure 1). Although such structured shape for questioning the
themes of interest may not appear straightforward by reading the text in the CERME 9 and 10 Calls,
they are indeed meant to contribute to research related to the face “AKT” (TWG 15) and to the face
“AKL” (TWG 16). Besides the split of the technology group in two groups, the relation between
learning, teaching and digital tools is still present in the issues of the CERME 9-TWG 16 Call, as
stated for example in the items “designs of teaching experiments with software and technologies
concerning student learning” or “results of empirical studies and investigations especially concerning
long-term learning with ICT, massive courses, national programmes of teachers’ professional
development”. Thus, the face “ATL” remains relevant to both groups.
b) Evolutions tracked through the Introductions to the papers and posters of the CERME 8-
TWG 15 and CERME 9-TWG 16
The Introduction of the CERME 8-TWG 15 corresponds to the Call and is structured according to the
three themes (stated in a), i.e. the face “ATL”. Moreover, it goes beyond the affirmed issues by raising
a general one for “capitalization of research results” (Trgalová et al., 2013, p. 2500). This general
issue has been addressed in an overview for mathematics, technology interventions and pedagogy
based on systematic literature review by Bray (CERME 8, 2013) and in a survey reporting about
undergraduate, master and doctoral studies for promoting the use of technologies in mathematics
education by Scheffer (CERME 8, 2013). Further on, in this Introduction, it is claimed that a
development of “specific methodologies enabling to assess the effectiveness of ICT in learning
processes” (Trgalová et al., 2013, p. 2501) is required. The call for a “proper usage of research
methods, which are informed by contemporary theories” (Lokar et al., 2015, p. 2438) is present in
the Introduction of the CERME 9-TWG 16.
This paper builds on this claim and attempts to further investigate the usage of theories referring to
the learning of mathematics in technology-rich environments in the next subsection.
c) Evolutions tracked through the Papers published in the proceedings for CERME 8-TWG 15
and CERME 9-TWG 16
Evolution of research questions (RQs) and methodologies
Unlike the frequent use of several methodologies and theories for exploring teaching (e.g. TPACK
or instrumental approach), a large assortment of RQs and methodologies comes out from the papers
regarding learning phenomena with technologies. We organize them in the following two categories:
 Category 1: RQs referring to at least two of the edges of the face “ALK”
While the most of the papers from this category discussed at CERME 8 focus on the impact of using
technology on students’ behavior, learning or performance, there is a greater variety of research issues
addressed in papers at CERME 9. For example, the qualitative-empirical study by Kaya, Akçakın, &
Bulut (CERME 8, 2013) related to the RQ: “does the use of Geogebra via interactive whiteboards as

an instructional tool affect students’ academic achievement on transformational geometry?” (p. 2596)
seems to meet all edges in this triangle. Likewise, a quasi-experimental study by Kilic (CERME 8,
2013) considers concepts in geometry (K), a development of geometric thinking and ability of proving
in geometry (L) by using a Dynamic Geometry Software (A). Based on teaching experiments with
high school students and prospective teachers, Bairral and Arzarello (CERME 9, 2015) have raised
the RQ: “which domain (constructive or rational) of manipulation touch screen could be fruitful to
improve student’s strategies for justifying and proving?” (p. 2460). In this contribution, there is
evidence not only of the three edges of the face “ALK” but also of the teaching component of the
“didactic tetrahedron” by pointing out a lack of research about the teaching of mathematics with the
use of touch screen devices besides task design concerns and cognitive implications (p. 2464-2465).
 Category 2: RQs referring to one of the edges of the face “ALK”
Exemplary studies addressing the edge “AL” are: a design based study by Misfeldt (CERME 8, 2013)
about the students’ instrumental genesis with GeoGebra board game, a study by Persson (CERME 8,
2013) grounded on students’ interviews and teachers’ questionnaires about instrumental and
documentation genesis, or empirically based case study by Storfossen (CERME 8, 2013) about
instrumented action of primary school students. It seems that the emphasis on RQs and methodologies
studying instrumental genesis regarding the relation “AL” has slightly decreased from CERME 8 to
CERME 9.
A paradigm which is noticeable in the CERME 9-TWG 16 papers and was not present before, except
for one paper, is the online learning. Although the significant amount of RQs referring to learning
through the Web (e.g., peer learning, collaborative learning, networking, flipped classroom) is visible
(e.g., Biton et al., CERME 9, 2015; Triantafyllou & Timcenko, CERME 9, 2015), many specific
questions related to the face “ALK” remain unanswered. For instance, what is the most relevant
mathematical content available on the internet and how to locate it or what is a good quality of online
teaching/ learning materials for mathematics and how to measure it. Another such question referring
to the edge “AL”, is about “students’ perceptions if and how online resources contribute to
mathematics learning and motivation” (Triantafyllou & Timcenko, ibid., p. 1573). The diverse nature
and the complexity of these questions about online learning, in addition to the methodological
approaches applied, mainly small scale studies or online surveys, do not allow generalizing
conclusions about its truthful effects for the mathematics education.
Looking at the face “ALK” of the “didactic tetrahedron”, an interesting question that could be worth
exploring is whether a possession of a “(piece of) mathematical knowledge” leads to gaining an “other
(piece of) knowledge” embedded in an ICT tool, e.g., knowledge in computer engineering. Except
for one contribution by Misfeldt & Ejsing-Duun (CERME 9, 2015) about learning mathematics
through programming and algorithms, we have not found others which would report on any kind of
connections between learning mathematics and computer science or informatics. Neither have RQs
about the learning of mathematics in relation to robotics, augmented reality and artificial intelligence
been proposed in any of the calls, the introductions to papers or the papers in the technology group
for the learning of mathematics at the CERME 8 and 9. This issue is neither mentioned in the
CERME10-TWG16 Call, although we could expect that it may become an emerging one due to
curricular changes in some European countries (e.g., France) highlighting algorithms in mathematics
education.

Evolution of theoretical frameworks

Several observations can be drawn about theories and their networking in the papers.
First, the instrumental approach (Rabardel, 1995) appears as a widespread theoretical framework at
CERME 8, while it is seldom mobilized at CERME 9. The hypothesis that may explain this fact is
related to the shift in research questions reported above. However, in the terminology of “landscape
of networking strategies and methods” (Prediger et al., 2008), it appears that the instrumental
approach has been used for local organization and coordination, rarely combined with other theories.
The heterogeneity of research questions at CEMRE 9 may be related to a greater diversity of ICT
tools usage. Besides the commonly used technologies as dynamic geometry systems (DGS), computer
algebra systems (CAS) or spreadsheets, innovative artefacts, such as multi-touch screen, Arbol
software for developing combinatorics thinking or non-digital Fraction board, raise elderly and new
concerns akin to those of tool affordances and multiple representations (“AK” edge of the didactic
tetrahedron). Two main frameworks are called for exploring such questions: the theory of semiotic
mediation (Bartolini-Bussi & Mariotti, 2008) and the approach of registers of semiotic representation
(Duval, 1993). These two theories seem to go along one with another and have a relatively high
degree of integration founded on the strategies for understanding and making understandable,
comparing and synthesizing (Prediger et al., 2008). Original digital devices, and possible novel
teaching methods enabled by them (e.g., flipped classroom, learning on the Web) may lead to
modifications of learners’ perceptions of their efficiency or performance. These are explored through
the Vygotskian perspective of object/meaning ratio.
Further observation leads to an assumption that there is a greater variety of theoretical frameworks
used in CERME 9 compared to CERME 8 papers (Fig. 2). This seems to correspond to the previous
argumentation. Besides the recognizable continuity of the usage of three theoretical frameworks,
instrumental approach, constructionism and learning by scientific abstraction, there is a vivid
occurrence of numerous others. Yet, “the multiplicity and isolated character of most theoretical
frames used in technology enhanced learning in mathematics”, brought to the fore by Artigue (2007)
and considered by the author as “an obstacle to the exchange and mutualisation of knowledge” (p.
75), is still not overcome. The heterogeneity of the networking space may further be analyzed by
using the flexible triple of principles, methodologies and paradigmatic questions (Radford, 2008).
Figure 2: Theories used in paper at the CERME8-TWG15 (left) and CERME9-TWG16 (right)

It is worth noticing that most of the theoretical frameworks considered in the papers are not
technology specific. In fact, the instrumental approach, human-with-media concept (Borba and
Villareal, 2005) and the theory of semiotic mediation are rare frameworks addressing the interactions
between learners and artifact(s), digital or not, besides those between learners and teachers. A widely
used technology non-specific theoretical framework is the theory of didactical situations (Brousseau,
1997), which is occasionally combined or integrated locally with other theories.
Finally, we wish to draw attention to theoretical concepts that are not mentioned in the papers,
although they are particularly relevant for addressing the relation “AK”. Some of them, such as
computational transposition (Balacheff, 1993) and epistemological domain of validity (Balacheff &
Sutherland, 1994) are powerful means for ICT tool analysis in reference to a given field of knowledge
and in terms of their possible contribution to the teaching and learning.
Conclusion
Looking through the lenses of the “didactic tetrahedron”, the split of the CERME 8 technology group
in two groups since the CERME 9 is not only a practical, organizational necessity due to the rapid
growth of the number of scholars interested in the theme. It rather seems as a temporary solution to
tackle and deeply investigate challenging questions about each of the faces of the tetrahedron before
fabricating ‘state of the art’ reports.
Thinking about the capitalization of knowledge disseminated by the CERME 8-TWG 15 and the
CERME 9-TWG 16 relating each of the two main issues in this survey paper, we may conclude the
following.
1) Evolution of RQs and methodologies. Miscellaneous RQs are emerging rapidly, before the previous
are being sufficiently explored. On the one hand, it seems that the trend of publishing findings about
the influence of the World Wide Web including social networks and online educational platforms
will continue in a relatively large amount despite an apparent lack of specific methodological and
theoretical frameworks that could be commonly used to approach topical issues in the field of
technology in mathematics education. Applied methodologies for approaching these questions belong
within the frame of small scale qualitative empirical studies. On the other hand, research questions,
appropriate methodologies and theories about attitudes, accomplishments and inclusion of specific
groups of learners as low achieving, gifted and/or disabled students in technology supported learning
environments remain urgent in the research agenda.
2) Evolution of theories. Is the use of current general theories like those referring to the “didactic
triangle” sufficient or is there a need for a development of new ones, which would allow addressing
issues specific to technology enhanced teaching and learning of mathematics? The latter seems to be
more likely, as shown by a new item in the call for papers in the theory working group welcoming
contributions on “theories for research in technology use in mathematics education” (CERME 10-
TWG 17 Call for papers), which has not been part of the previous call of the group. Our analysis also
shows that exploitation of the networking strategies and methods for understanding, comparing,
contrasting, coordinating, combining, synthesizing and integrating theoretical frameworks (Prediger
et al., 2008) may be beneficial for further truthful studies of the learning mathematics with
technologies.

References
Artigue, M. (2007), Digital technologies: a window on theoretical issues in mathematics education.
In M. Pytlak, T. Rowland, & E. Swoboda (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Congress of the European
Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 68-82), University of Rzeszów, Poland.
Balacheff, N. (1993). La transposition informatique, un nouveau problème pour la didactique. In M.
Artigue et al. (Eds.), Vingt ans de didactique des mathématiques en France (pp. 364-370).
Grenoble, France : La Pensée Sauvage éditions.
Balacheff N., & Sutherland R. (1994). Epistemological domain of validity of microworlds, the case
of Logo and Cabri-géomètre. In R. Lewis, & P. Mendelshon (Eds), Proceedings of the IFIP
TC3/WG3.3: Lessons from learning (pp.137-150). North-Holland.
Bartolini Bussi, M. G., & Mariotti, M. A. (2008), Semiotic mediation in the mathematics classroom:
artifacts and signs after a Vygotskian perspective. In L. English et al. (Eds.), Handbook of
International Research in Mathematics Education (second revised edition, pp. 746-805),
Lawrence Erlbaum, NJ.
Borba, M. C. &Villarreal, M. (2005). Humans-with-media and reorganization of mathematical
thinking: ICT, modeling, experimentation and visualization. New York, NY: Springer.
Brousseau, G. (1997). The theory of didactical situations, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Duval, R. (1993). Registres de représentation sémiotique et fonctionnement cognitif de la pensée.
Annales de didactique et de sciences cognitives, 5, 37-65.
Drijvers, P., Ball, L., Barzel, B., Kathleen Heid, M., Cao, Y., & Maschietto, M. (2016). Uses of
Technology in Lower Secondary Mathematics Education. ICME-13 Topical Survey, 1-34.
Haase, F. A. (2010). ‘The state of the art’ as an example for a textual linguistic ‘globalization effect’.
Code Switching, Borrowing, and Change of Meaning as Conditions of Cross-cultural
Communication. Revista de Divulgação Científica em Língua Portuguesa, 6(13). Accessed March
30, 2017 at http://www.letramagna.com/Artigo6_13.pdf
Krainer, K., & Vondrová, N. (2015, Eds.). Proceedings of the 9th Congress of the European Society
for Research in Mathematics Education. Prague, Czech Republic: Charles University in Prague,
Faculty of Education and ERME.
Lokar, M., Robutti, O., Sinclair, N., & Weigand, H. G. (2015). Introduction to the papers of TWG16:
Students learning mathematics with resources and technology. In K. Krainer, & N. Vondrová
(Eds). Proceedings of the Ninth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics
Education (pp. 2435-2438). Prague, Czech Republic: Charles University in Prague, Faculty of
Education and ERME.
Prediger, S., Bikner-Ahsbahs, A., & Arzarello, F. (2008). Networking strategies and methods for
connecting theoretical approaches: First steps towards a conceptual framework. ZDM –
Mathematics Education, 40(2), 165-178.
Rabardel, P. (1995), Les hommes et les technologies. Une approche cognitive des instruments
contemporains. Paris: Armand Colin.

Rezat, S., & Sträßer, R. (2012). From the didactical triangle to the socio-didactical tetrahedron:
artifacts as fundamental constituents of the didactical situation. ZDM – Mathematics Education,
44(5), 641-651.
Ruthven, K. (2012). The didactical tetrahedron as a heuristic for analysing the incorporation of digital
technologies into classroom practice in support of investigative approaches to teaching
mathematics. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 44(5), 627-640.
Tall, D. (1986). Using the computer as an environment for building and testing mathematical
concepts: A tribute to Richard Skemp, in Papers in Honour of Richard Skemp (pp. 21-36),
Warwick. Accessed September 15, 2016 at http://homepages.warwick.ac.uk/staff/David.Tall/
pdfs/dot1986h-computer-skemp.pdf
Trgalová, J., Maracci, M., Psycharis, G., & Weigand, H. G. (2013). Introduction to the papers and
posters of WG15. In B. Ubuz, C. Haser, M.A. Mariotti, Proceedings of the Eigth Congress of the
European Mathematical Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 2498-2503). Ankara,
Turkey: Middle East Technical University and ERME.

CERME10 Proceedings-Recopilación

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

CERME10 Proceedings-Recopilación

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CERME10 Proceedings-Recopilación

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thematic Working Group 04

Constructing draggable figures using GeoGebra: The contribution of

Proceedings of CERME10 572

Proceedings of CERME10 573

1. Construct both stars. Describe briefly the process.

Proceedings of CERME10 574

Table 1 – Descriptors of the levels of spatial and geometric structuring

Proceedings of CERME10 575

Figure 3 – Excerpt of Carla’s solution of the task

Proceedings of CERME10 576

Proceedings of CERME10 577

Proceedings of CERME10 578

Proceedings of CERME10 579

Real uses of ICT in classrooms: Tensions and disturbances in

Maha Abboud1 and Janine Rogalski2

Keywords: Teachers, technology, activity, tensions, disturbances, dynamic environment

Proceedings of CERME10 2334

Theoretical and methodological approaches

Proceedings of CERME10 2335

Tensions and disturbances

Proceedings of CERME10 2336

Figure 2. Tensions and disturbances within the dynamics of class management

Illustrating the theoretical approaches through a comparative case study

Proceedings of CERME10 2337

in a low-income socio-economic zone, while Colin is in a middle-class zone. Their working

Proceedings of CERME10 2338

Discussion and conclusion

Proceedings of CERME10 2339

Proceedings of CERME10 2340

Proceedings of CERME10 2341

The development of pre-service

Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge

Proceedings of CERME10 2350

The research questions

Research context, participants and the preparation model

Proceedings of CERME10 2351

Proceedings of CERME10 2352

Before Preparation After Preparation

Pre-service teachers’ TPACK level

Proceedings of CERME10 2353

Before Preparation After Preparation

Before Preparation After Preparation

Proceedings of CERME10 2354

Discussion and conclusions

Proceedings of CERME10 2355

Proceedings of CERME10 2356

Martin, B. (2015). Successful implementation of TPACK in teacher preparation programs.

Proceedings of CERME10 2357

Beyond a positive stance: Integrating technology is demanding on

Proceedings of CERME10 2358

Method: Robert as a critical case

Proceedings of CERME10 2359

Analysis and discussion

Proceedings of CERME10 2360

Proceedings of CERME10 2361

Proceedings of CERME10 2362

Proceedings of CERME10 2363