On the Integration of Digital Technologies into Mathematics Classrooms



International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning 9, 3, 309-326

The collective French research effort, exemplified by Trouche‘s paper, has provided a
theoretical way forward, and offers the notion of orchestration as central in the construction of
effective teaching and learning environments from the design point of view. As a next step, the
research community could usefully identify and present
scenarios in use (as mentioned by
Trouche) with the inclusion of analyses of the trajectories of students‘ evolving situated
abstractions and how they are shaped and become taken-as-shared as a result of didactical
strategies followed by the teacher (see Healy, 2002, on —filling out” and —filling in” as a
systematic example of this approach). This might be one way to understand better the
instrumentation-orchestration process and to tease out the implications for classroom activity.
Our intention in this paper has, therefore, been to expand the notion of orchestration to include
a cultural dimension, a recognition that it is not merely the direct teacher-student interaction
that needs to be engineered, but also the —medium” in which this interaction takes place, and
above all the artefacts and objects that are shared between the communities of teachers and
learners.

We conclude with two important caveats. First, we recognise that pedagogy is closely tied to
cultural contexts and that the French and Anglo-Saxon mathematical cultures are distinctly
different. Perhaps there is a case for collective investigation through design experiments or
didactical engineering projects in several countries, which take our combined theories as a
starting point. We certainly do not presume to imagine that the challenges that face UK
mathematics educators map precisely onto those faced by our French colleagues, even though
we
do believe that the four key problems outlined by Artigue at the outset of this paper are
indeed those that are generally faced by us all.

Second, we would like to caution against epistemological relativism, which our advocacy of
diversity may seem to suggest. Mathematical legitimacy is important to us. It is not denied by
recognising that there exists a diversity of knowledge webs in which people make connections
as a result of new computational tools: they see things they couldn‘t see; connect things that
couldn't be connected; represent things that were hitherto un-representable. Connection -
always a key mathematical objective - becomes a possibility. But connectivity is not a strict
sequence of steps that lead from disconnection to connection. Recognising the diversity of
webs, and their development over relatively long timescales, is key to bringing about

4        We borrow the French formulation here. Simply, didactic = pedagogy + knowledge. At a time when, in Anglo-

Saxon cultures at least, the epistemological dimension is so widely taken for granted, this formulation is helpful, even though
the connotations of the word “didactic” in English are potentially misleading.

14



More intriguing information

1. Critical Race Theory and Education: Racism and antiracism in educational theory and praxis David Gillborn*
2. Trade Openness and Volatility
3. The name is absent
4. What Lessons for Economic Development Can We Draw from the Champagne Fairs?
5. Private tutoring at transition points in the English education system: its nature, extent and purpose
6. Cultural Neuroeconomics of Intertemporal Choice
7. PROFITABILITY OF ALFALFA HAY STORAGE USING PROBABILITIES: AN EXTENSION APPROACH
8. Effort and Performance in Public-Policy Contests
9. The name is absent
10. The name is absent
11. The name is absent
12. Empirical Calibration of a Least-Cost Conservation Reserve Program
13. Foreign Direct Investment and the Single Market
14. The name is absent
15. Opciones de política económica en el Perú 2011-2015
16. Recognizability of Individual Creative Style Within and Across Domains: Preliminary Studies
17. The name is absent
18. The name is absent
19. Brauchen wir ein Konjunkturprogramm?: Kommentar
20. A Review of Kuhnian and Lakatosian “Explanations” in Economics