Connecting and Integrating Theoretical F

Int J Comput Math Learning (2009) 14:217–240
DOI 10.1007/s10758-009-9157-7
Connecting and Integrating Theoretical Frames:

The TELMA Contribution
Michèle Artigue • Michele Cerulli •

Mariam Haspekian • Mirko Maracci
Published online: 23 December 2009

Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009
Abstract This paper presents the methodology developed within TELMA for connecting
and integrating the theoretical frames used by the different teams for studying the design
and use of interactive learning environments in mathematics education. Two case studies
are then analysed and compared in order to illustrate the methodology and the results it can
lead to. The papers ends by a more general discussion about the outcomes of the exper-
imental work developed within TELMA and the perspectives it offers for approaching
theoretical fragmentation.
Keywords Mathematics education Technology enhanced learning in mathematics

Technology enhanced learning Theoretical frameworks Integration of research teams
Integration of theoretical frameworks Connection of theoretical frameworks
Methodology TELMA ReMath
1 Introduction
The first article of this special issue (Bottino and Kinigos 2009) puts into evidence the
existence in research in mathematics education of a multiplicity of different theoretical
frames, poorly connected with one another, that develop more or less independently, and
are inextricably bound to the different contexts from which they emerged.
Research concerning ICT technologies does not escape this rule as evidenced for
instance by the meta-study (Lagrange et al. 2003) but researchers in this area are perhaps
more sensitive to the problems raised by the current fragmentation of the field. One reason
M. Artigue M. Haspekian
University Paris 7, Paris, France
M. Cerulli (&)
Institute of Educational Technology, C.N.R. of Genoa, Genoa, Italy
e-mail: cerulli@itd.cnr.it
M. Maracci
University of Siena, Siena, Italy
123
218 M. Artigue et al.
might be that this is because designers of educational artefacts try to develop tools that can
migrate from one educational context to another one.
Overcoming that fragmentation is an enterprise far from being easy. As evidenced for
instance by the meta-study mentioned above, theoretical frames are not necessarily made
explicit in the literature about technology, and even when they are, the way they are dealt
with does not necessarily provide the reader with sufficient information about the way they
have influenced the research or development work. Moreover, many theoretical constructs
in the mathematics educational field are not still stabilized. Their meaning depends on who
uses them, and in what particular context they are used. Behind superficial communication
misunderstandings are thus quite frequent.
From the beginning within TELMA, when exploring possibilities for collaboration and
prerequisites for making it productive, we were aware of the existence of such difficulties
but we underestimated them. As is usual, we decided to develop a shared culture through
mutual description, explanation and reading, selecting of course our respective publica-
tions in order to make the task as easy as possible. It was only when we experienced the
limitations of such a strategy that we decided to develop specific methodological tools. We
thus developed a specific collaborative practice—the cross-experimentation project—that,
taken as an object of study, would help us in clarifying what was needed in terms of
theoretical integration for mutual understanding and productive collaboration, and how this
goal could be reasonably achieved. In this article we describe and reflect on the trajectory
that developed from that moment and present the main results it led to in terms of theo-
retical integration, using for that purpose two case studies taken from this cross-experi-
mentation project.
2 The TELMA Approach to Theoretical Fragmentation
In this section, after making explicit the main principles underlying the TELMA approach
to theoretical fragmentation, we introduce the notion of Didactical Functionality (Cerulli
et al. 2007a) and the Concern Methodological Tool (Artigue 2005, 2007) which helped us
to address this issue.
As pointed out above, different terms can be used to label attempts made at overcoming
theoretical fragmentation. In TELMA, from the beginning we used the term ‘‘integration’’,
but this term can be misleading and we will first clarify the meaning we gave to it. In fact,
this meaning evolved along our research work and is the result of a progressive and
collaborative construction. Very soon, we became convinced that integration could not
mean for us the building of a unified theory that would encompass the main theories we
were relying on. The number and diversity of theories at stake made such an effort totally
unrealistic. But discarding this ambition did not make clear what else useful could be
achieved.
The research team of the Institute of Educational Technology of Genoa (ITD), was in
charge of producing a first integrative description of the research activity of the different
teams involved in the project. For this task ITD looked for a reading key, general enough
and based on elements relevant for all the teams, to be used to describe and compare
researches and theoretical frameworks. This was the origin of the notion of Didactical
Functionality which served as a good means for performing a first analysis and comparison
between the research perspectives characterising the teams involved in the TELMA
project. However, we realized that in order to develop an integrated approach to
research we also needed a shared research practice. For this reason we developed a
123
The TELMA Contribution 219
cross-experimentation [presented in Bottino and Kynigos (2009) involving all the

teams]. The key idea was that each team would set up an experiment employing a
technological tool developed by another TELMA team. The experiments would be run
by each team in parallel, addressing similar educational objectives with pupils of a
fixed age range (13–14 years old). These experiments would then be compared and
analysed jointly by all the teams. To do that we realized that it was not enough to
focusing on the reading keys indicated by the notion of Didactical Funcitonalities: thus
we developed the notion of Key Concern as a tool for analysing and comparing more
in details the experiments conducted by each team. Some principles piloted the
dynamics that led us to define the notion of Key Concern and we think it useful to
explicitly discuss them.
2.1 Recognizing the Existence of Common Sensitivities
The first phase of the TELMA work had showed that, in spite of their diversity, the
different TELMA teams shared common sensitivities.
1. For instance they were all sensitive to the social and cultural dimensions of learning
processes, but according to their theoretical choices this sensitivity was supported by
different constructs, from constructs elaborated inside the field of mathematics
education itself such as those related to the theory of didactical situations (Brousseau
1997) and the anthropological theory of didactics (Chevallard 1992, 2002) to more
general constructs coming from activity theory (Engestrom 1991) or social semiotics
(Halliday 1978).
2. They were also all sensitive to the way mathematical objects are implemented into
Interactive Learning Environments (ILEs), such as ICT tools, and to the important
cognitive and didactical consequences of this implementation, rejecting the common
vision of technology as a simple pedagogical adjunct. But once more different
approaches were used to express this sensitivity referring to the idea of semiotic
mediation (Bartolini Bussi and Mariotti 2008), of computer transposition of knowledge
(Balacheff 1994) or of instrumental genesis (Rabardel 1995; Vérillon and Rabardel
1995; Guin et al. 2004).
Moreover, according to the theoretical perspectives chosen, these common sensitivities
were given more or less priority. Each team looked thus at the reality through different
theoretical lenses leading to a coherent but partial view. Our first analysis had convinced
ourselves that the strength of each approach depended upon this particular coherence and
would disappear if this coherence was diluted into a more global perspective. We thus
considered important to develop a methodology allowing us to capture and preserve this
coherence.
2.2 Looking at Theories in Operational Terms
Another important point for us was to strengthen the connections between theory and
practice. We shared the conviction that theories are tools for thinking and acting, that they
are developed for fulfilling specific needs. We thus hypothesized that an adequate strategy
for building connections between theories and constructs would be to approach them in
operational terms, looking at the needs they try to respond to. Behind that hypothesis there
was also the idea that, even if we live in different educational contexts, we are facing partly
similar challenges and issues, and that trying to compare and connect the theoretical tools
123
we develop for tackling similar or close needs, could be a productive way for initiating an
integration process.
2.3 Relying on a Specific and Sharable Language
The third principle was that communication and collaborative work between us had to be
supported by an adequate language not dependent on a particular theoretical frame,
allowing us to communicate in a way coherent with the two previous principles. The notion
of Didactical Functionality and the Concern Methodological Tool described below helped
us operationalize these principles.
3 Didactical Functionality and Concerns Methodological Tool
The construct of Didactical Functionality (Cerulli et al. 2007a) was built with the aim of
providing a common perspective, independent from specific theoretical frameworks, to
address the variety of approaches (possibly depending on theoretical references) to the use
of ILEs in mathematics education, and to link theoretical reflections and actual uses of
ILEs in given contexts. It is defined in the following way:
With didactical functionalities we mean those properties (or characteristics) of a
given ICT, and/or its (or their) modalities of employment, which may favor or
enhance teaching/learning processes according to a specific educational goal.
The three key elements of the definition of the didactical functionalities of an ICT
tool are: (1) a set of features/characteristics of the tool; (2) a specific educational
goal; and (3) a set of modalities of employing the tool in a teaching/learning process
with respect to the chosen educational goal (op. cit., p. 2).
To each component of the notion of Didactical Functionality (tool characteristics,
educational goals, modalities of use), the Concern Methodological Tool associates a set of
key concerns, expressed in the most neutral way. These concerns have been selected on the
basis of the analysis carried out in the first phase of the TELMA work. They express the
main sensitivities evidenced by this analysis.
The Concern Methodological Tool, structured around the three dimensions of the notion
of didactical functionality, is the following (Artigue 2005):
3.1 Tool Analysis and Identification of Specific Tool Characteristics
The analysis of a tool associated to the definition of Didactical Functionality generally

involves two different dimensions: questioning on the one hand how the mathematical
knowledge of the domain is implemented in the tool, and on the other hand the forms
of didactic interaction provided by the tool. Both the implementation of the knowledge
of the domain and the didactic interaction can be approached through different per-
spectives, which are not independent, neither mutually exclusive. The analysis and
decisions resulting from the choice of specific perspectives are, among other factors,
dependent on the theoretical frames referred to and on the ways these are used. These
links are explored in the Concern Methodological Tool through the eight following key
concerns:
123
• Concerns regarding the ergonomics of the tool (TE),

• Concerns regarding the characteristics of the implementation of mathematical objects
and of the relationships between these objects (IMO),
• Concerns regarding the possible actions on these objects (AMO),
• Concerns regarding semiotic representations (SR),
• Concerns regarding the characteristics of the possible interaction between student and
mathematical knowledge (ISK),
• Concerns regarding the characteristics of the possible interaction with other agents1 (IA),
• Concerns regarding the support provided to the professional work of the teacher (TS),
• Concerns regarding institutional and/or cultural distances (ICD).
3.2 Educational Goals and Associated Potential of the Tool
With this respect the TELMA teams considered that the relationship between potentialities
and goals can contribute to illuminate the role played by theoretical frames, comple-
menting what is offered by the information provided by the analysis of the tool. It was thus
decided to investigate the relative importance given in the definition of educational goals to
considerations of an epistemological nature referring to mathematics as a domain of
knowledge or as a field of practice, considerations of a cognitive nature focusing on the
student in her relationship with mathematical knowledge, considerations focusing on the
social dimension of learning processes, and finally institutional considerations. This led to
the introduction of four key concerns:
• Epistemological concerns focusing on specific mathematical contents or specific
mathematical practices (E),
• Cognitive concerns focusing on specific cognitive processes, or specific cognitive
difficulties (C),
• Social concerns focusing on the social construction of knowledge, on collaborative
work (S),
• Institutional concerns focusing on institutional expectations, or on the compatibility
with forms and contents valued by the educational institution (I).
3.3 Modalities of Employing a Tool
The design of the modalities of employing a tool for achieving an educational goal, and the
a priori analysis of their implementation, suppose a multiplicity of choices of diverse
nature. We hypothesized that only a small part of these were under the control of theo-
retical frames, explicitly or even implicitly, many others being dictated consciously or
unconsciously by the educational culture and the particular context within which the
realization takes place. Seven key concerns were thus selected for this third dimension:
• Concerns regarding contextual characteristics (CO),
• Concerns regarding the tasks proposed to the students including their temporal
organization and progression (TA),
• Concerns regarding the functions given to the tool including the possible evolution of
these (TF),
1
Other agents can be the other students, the teacher, tutors as well as virtual agents such as the companions
implemented in some ICT tools.
123
• Concerns regarding instrumental issues and instrumental genesis (IG),

• Concerns regarding the social organization, and especially the interactions between the
different actors, their respective roles and responsibilities (SO),
• Concerns regarding the interaction with paper and pencil work or other media (PP),
• Concerns regarding institutional issues and especially the relationships with curricular
expectations, values and norms, the distance with usual environments (ID).
4 Analysis of the Cross-Experimentation
An explicit reflective analysis accompanied the whole cross-experimentation process: from

design and implementation (through the building of the guidelines) to a posteriori analysis
(which led to the refinement of guidelines).
Comparisons between the different experiments were performed both in itinere during
the whole duration of the cross-experimentation and a posteriori: teams were constantly
required to produce specific documentation concerning the ongoing experiments, which
was shared and discussed with the other teams. In addition, the a posteriori analysis
entailed final reflective interviews, in which researchers directly involved in the design and
implementation of an experiment were interviewed by researchers of the same team who
were not directly involved in the experiments.
Furthermore, each experimenting team performed a retrospective analysis of its own
experiment, framed by the Concerns Methodological Tool. These analyses regarded the
whole life-cycle of each experiment: design, implementation, data collection and analysis
and a posteriori reflection.
More in details teams were asked to specify, for each concern, (1) whether it was
addressed or not, (2) the importance given to it if addressed, (3) the associated proble-
matization, (4) the language used and concepts mobilized, (5) the theoretical frames these
expressions could be more or less directly related to, and of course, (6) the effect of these
on the practical decisions taken in terms of design or analysis of the educational use of
ICT.2
In the next section, we illustrate the results coming from the retrospective analyses of
two experiments from the cross-experimentation project. These two case studies will help
us to show how the notion of Didactical Functionality and the Concerns Methodological
Tool can be practically used for analysing and comparing the role played by theoretical
frames in experiments.
5 Two Case Studies
The two case studies selected for this article are those involving teams of co-authors of this
article. In their presentation, as announced, we use the notions of Didactical Functionality
and Concerns Methodological Tool for understanding the exact role played by theoretical
frames in the experimentations at stake. We distinguish the phases of design, implemen-
tation and a posteriori analysis, as the role played by theoretical frames differ between
these.
2
The detailed analysis of the whole cross-experimentation process is accessible on the TELMA website and
specific results on the role played by theoretical frameworks can be found in Artigue et al. (2007) and
Cerulli et al. (2008).
123
6 The DIDIREM Case
6.1 Description of the Design
The DIDIREM researchers3 used for their experimentation the ILE Ari-Lab developed by
the ITD team. They carried out their experimentation with grade 2 pupils, working with
two microworlds of Ari-Lab: the Money and the Abacus microworlds.
ARI-LAB is a multi-environment tools system oriented towards the development of
arithmetic problem solving abilities by researchers relying on activity theory (ARI-LAB2
2005; Bottino and Chiappini 2008). It provides support not only for individual problem
solving but also for related social interactions between students and between teacher and
students. A suite of eight microworlds supports the students’ problem solving by providing
representations of concrete contexts and objects that can be manipulated in order to model
a problem situation and to develop a solution strategy. In the experiment, two of these
microworlds were used: Euro and Abacus.
In the Euro microworld, the objects available are representations of notes and coins of
various denominations of the Euro currency system (Figs. 1, 2).
The user can generate and move coins and notes and can exchange them for others of
equivalent value. When pupils change money, a feedback validates or invalidates the
change as: a message specifies whether more money is needed, or whether too much has
been taken. If ones want to rectify her answer, she has to put the corresponding banknotes
in the trash and these simply disappear.
In the Abacus microworld, an abacus is represented on the screen (Fig. 3). The user can
insert, remove balls, and exchange selected balls for others of equivalent value.
The educational goal of the Didirem experiment was the development of subtraction
techniques for solving arithmetic problems involving bigger numbers than those these
pupils were used to. Three sessions were designed. The first session was centred around
the use of the Money microworld, the second one around the Abacus microworld. In the
last session, the competition between the two microworlds was open. The two-first
sessions obeyed a similar global scenario. They began by a collective introduction to the
microworld using a video-projector, and the collective solution of a particular task, for
instance finding various ways for exchanging a 100 euro banknote for the first session.
This phase was part of the devolution process. Then pupils were asked to work in pairs to
solve tasks of increasing complexity. For instance, in the first session, two tasks were
planned: ‘‘Find different strategies for completing an exchange of 125 euros starting
with a banknote of 50 euros’’ (task T1); ‘‘You have the following banknotes: 50, 50, 20,
5 euros and you want to spend 90 euros. How do you do it?’’ (task T2). A collective
comparison of strategies and proposed solutions orchestrated by the teacher ended the
sessions leading to some local institutionalization regarding both mathematical and
instrumental issues. For the last session, a more complex problem, the traveller problem,
was designed. Pupils could solve it using one or the other microworld. A collective
discussion was designed to compare the potential of the two microworlds and of the
associated numerical exchanges, with the intention of leading to a more global
institutionalization.
The use of terms such as devolution and institutionalization reveals the important role
which the Theory of Didactical Situation played in the design of the experiment.
3
Claire Cazes, Jean-Philippe Georget, Mariam Haspekian, Fabrice Vandebrouck.
123
Area
displaying
the text of
the problem
Space for the money

to be changed
Workspace for manipulating coins Button to erase the Button to check

and notes picked from the area above money on the table and the exchange
try again the exchange
Fig. 1 The Money microworld in Ari-Lab
6.2 Concerns and Theoretical Frames in the Design Phase
The distribution of sensitivities between the different key concerns was not uniform in the
DIDIREM design. For instance, in the tool analysis three concerns among the eight pro-
posed were given the highest priority: the ergonomy of the tool (TE), interaction between
students and mathematics knowledge (ISK), institutional and cultural distance (ICD). In
the definition of the educational goals, the highest priority was given to epistemological (E)
and institutional (I) concerns. For researchers reasonably familiar with the theoretical
frames used by the DIDIREM researchers (the Instrumental Approach, the Theory of
Didactical Situations and the Anthropological Theory of Didactics),4 this hierarchy is not
surprising. The Instrumental Approach is based on constructs developed in cognitive
ergonomy; the epistemological analysis of mathematical knowledge is essential in the
Theory of Didactical Situations, and the notion of institution is a primary object in the
Anthropological Theory of Didactics.
6.2.1 The Influence of the Instrumental Approach and the Anthropological

Theory of Didactics on Design
We analyze the influence of these two frames jointly as they strongly intertwine in the
DIDIREM work, particularly in the design and the implementation phases. Once more, this
4
The reader not familiar with these theories will find good introductions accessible on line in (Warfield
2006) for the theory of didactical situations, and (Bosch and Gascón 2006) for the anthropological theory of
didactics. For the instrumental approach see for example (Artigue 2002).
123
The
Not enough microworld
money on the provides a
table for this feedback
exchange about the
exchange
Fig. 2 Exchanging money in the Money microworld
Different roads for Button to exchange

representing 1 ball of the
numbers in the selected road into
positional decimal 10 balls of the
Buttons to add system neighbour road on
or subtract a the right.
ball on a road.
Fig. 3 The Abacus microworld in Ari-Lab
is not surprising, as the Instrumental Approach results from a partial integration of ideas of
cognitive ergonomy and Anthropological Theory of Didactics. These theoretical frames
played a role in the choices made by the team during the design process in two different
ways: the first linked to cultural and institutional concerns, the second to the tool ergonomy
concern and the sensitivity to instrumental needs. In both cases, one can observe choices
piloted by the will of exploiting the learning potential of Ari-Lab while maintaining an
acceptable distance with the usual environment and taking into account the limitations
introduced by the limited number of sessions available for this experimentation.
For example, the team discarded a first possibility chosen by other teams experimenting
with Ari-Lab: using the Fraction microworld based on the representation of rational
numbers on the real line with grade 8 students. The rationale underlying this choice can be
summarized as follows: Thales theorem is necessary for understanding the way fractions
are represented in this microworld. In France, this theorem is usually introduced in the
curriculum later than fractions, and experimenting on fractions at the time of the year
123
planned for the experimentation would have asked the teachers to change the mathematics
organisation of the academic year, or to consider the representation as a black box. Because
of the characteristics of the French institutional context and of the short time available for
the experimentation, these two options were considered equally not feasible. The group
thus gave up its initial plan, and considering the other microworlds offered by Ari-Lab
moved to the idea of experimenting at elementary level.
The anthropological approach also influenced the choice of the didactic goal, making
the group especially sensitive to the necessary compatibility of this choice with the didactic
goals of the teacher at that time of the academic year (Institutional Concern). The group
was also sensitive to the professional overload that could result for the elementary teacher
involved from an experimental design too distant from her usual practices. She had vol-
unteered but had little experience of working with researchers. As mentioned above,
Instrumental Approach made also the DIDIREM researchers especially sensitive to the
ergonomy of the tool. The inspection they made of Ari-Lab for identifying its didactical
functionalities, explicitly relied on criteria used in ergonomics for analysing educational
multimedia tools,5 adapting these to the specific context at stake. Ergonomic analysis thus
contributed to the selection of the two microworlds and to the identification of the
respective components which would have been officially introduced.
This selection being made, the fundamental concepts of the Instrumental Approach:
instrumentalization, instrumentation and instrumental genesis supported the design itself:
the organization of the first encounter with the two microworlds, the definition of the tasks
proposed to the pupils and the planning their management, keeping in mind that the
instrumentalization needs had to be limited in such a short experiment (IG Concern). The
Instrumental Approach was also engaged in anticipating the knowledge to be institution-
alized, especially knowledge related to the tool itself and the instrumented strategies and
techniques.
6.2.2 The Influence of the Theory of Didactical Situations on Design
The tools of Instrumental Approach and above all, those of the ergonomic analysis, were
rather new didactic tools for the group of young researchers, and this characteristic made
their use frequently a conscious decision. This was not the case for the Theory of
Didactical Situations which was quite familiar to them. Identifying up to what point this
theory was engaged in the reflection they developed and in the decisions they took, was
thus more difficult. The retrospective analysis carried out shows that this theory has also
played an important role in the analysis of Ari-Lab and in the selection of the two
microworlds. It supported for instance the particular attention paid by the group to the
available actions offered to the pupils, to the nature of the feedback possibly received.
These characteristics were interpreted using the notion of milieu, which is central in the
theory (ISK concern) and the notions of feedback provided by the milieu and of validation
which are also theorised in this frame. The Theory of Didactical Situations led the
researchers to distinguish between, on the one hand, feedback consisting in a validation of
the pupils’ answers and, on the other hand, feedback more elaborated and more likely to
support the evolution of pupils’ strategies and mathematics knowledge. Some microworlds
were thus eliminated because the system of feedback they proposed was much too limited
as compared with what is generally expected from a learning milieu in the Theory of
Didactical Situations.
5
Especially, criteria such as utilisability, utility and acceptability (Tricot et al. 2003).
123
The Theory of Didactical Situations did not directly influence the definition of the
educational goals of the experiment. These emerged from discussions between the
researchers and the teacher, considering the mathematical progression of the class. At that
time of the year, these pupils had developed some understanding of the principles
underlying numeration in base 10 and had used these for counting and adding, but they
were not very familiar with three digit numbers and had no knowledge of the standard
algorithm for subtraction. It was hypothesized that experiencing the exchange procedures
reified in the two microworlds, pupils would increase their mathematical power and
develop strategies for solving rather complex subtraction problems. It was also expected
that the comparison of the respective efficiency of the strategies supported by the two
microworlds would make them aware of the interest of decompositions tightly connected
to the numeration principles, preparing thus a collective move orchestrated by the teacher
from craft strategies to the standard algorithm to be taught. This educational choice and
strategy clearly relied on the researchers’ and teacher’s didactical knowledge regarding the
conceptual field of numbers. One can nevertheless see the indirect influence of the Theory
of Didactic Situations in the accent put on the comparison between different strategies, and
in the fact that decompositions in base 10 were expected to impose as optimal strategies for
solving a class of mathematical tasks.
The influence of the Theory of Didactical Situations is more evident in the precise
design of the modalities of use, both in the global organization of the didactic scenario, and
in the detailed elaboration of each session. As already pointed out in the description of the
design, specific attention was paid to several elements which are precisely constitutive of
the Theory of Didactical Situations as the devolution and institutionalization processes, the
definition of particular tasks within a given type of tasks by fixing values for didactic
variables, and the organization of the mathematical progression through the evolution of
these didactic variables (TA concern). In addition, it was expected that working in pairs in
the microworld environment, pupils would be able to assume the mathematical responsi-
bility of solving these tasks, that is to say to solve these in a-didactic interaction with the
milieu, without substantial help from the teacher.
In the data collected, the influence of the Theory of Didactical Situations is also visible
in the a priori analysis made by the DIDIREM researchers. In this analysis, they discuss the
choice of didactic variables, evaluate the a-didactic potential of the scenario, and infer
from this evaluation the possible sharing of mathematical responsibilities between the
pupils and the teacher in the different phases of the work, and what the teacher could do to
enrich the a-didactic milieu, if necessary (SO concern).
6.3 The Implementation of the Design
Some changes to the initial design were introduced in its implementation. The difficulties
met during the second session obliged the group to adapt the design of the third session.
The third session thus began by a collective solution of the most complex subtraction
problem proposed in the second session with the Abacus microworld, the teacher helping
the pupils to keep in mind the successive phases of the strategy. The session went on then
as initially planned by posing a new problem introducing a new context (train travellers)
for which the pupils were free to choose the microworld they wanted to use: ‘‘A train from
Paris to Tours leaves Paris with 545 persons on board. It has one stop at Orléans, where
590 travellers get on the train and 237 get off. How many people are in the train when it
arrives at Tours?’’. But there was no enough time for carrying out the collective associated
phase as initially planned.
123
6.4 Theoretical Frames and Concerns in the a Posteriori Analysis
The a posteriori analysis of the design implementation shows a new distribution of

priorities among concerns. A great importance is still given to interaction between pupils
and mathematical knowledge (ISK concern), to the organization and progression of tasks
(TA concern), to instrumental issues (TE and IG concerns), but on the one hand, the
level of priority given to institutional issues strongly decreases (ICD, I and ID concerns),
and on the other hand, two new concerns are given a high priority: the cognitive and the
semiotic concerns (C and SR concerns). New theoretical frames also enter the scene such
as the semiotic approach developed by Duval (1995). How to explain such differences?
In coherence with the Theory of Didactical Situations, in the a posteriori analysis
emphasis is put on the comparison with the a priori analysis, and through this com-
parison, on the understanding of discrepancies and unexpected events. This leads to
more attention being paid to cognitive issues, the pupils being seen as individuals, each
of them with her cognitive specificity, and not just as the generic pupil of the a priori
analysis. This increases also, as will be shown below, the sensitivity to semiotic issues,
and the need for complementary theoretical frames able to support this sensitivity.
Institutional concerns, which had played a major role in design, become less apparent,
and the pupils’ behaviours are not interpreted as the reflection of institutional norms and
practices. In this particular context, the conceptual tools provided by the Theory of
Didactical Situations, for instance the notion of didactic contract, seem more useful to
the researchers. As pointed out above, the experimental scenario had been designed to
allow the pupils to a-didactically meet the necessity of exchanges in solving subtraction
problems, to experience different exchange strategies and compare their respective
performance. A collective introduction to each microworld had been organized in order
to take into account the instrumental needs, and efforts had been made in order to limit
these needs. Attention had also been paid to offering the pupils the possibility to keep
trace of their manipulations by giving them screen copies they could fill on separate
sheets of paper. The possible sharing of mathematical responsibilities between the pupils
and the teacher had been discussed, and also in addition to the progression of the tasks,
the succession of collective and individual phases. All these choices were made for
optimizing the pupils’ mathematical responsibility.
Thus the group was surprised with the reactions of the pupils when they were proposed
with task T2, and later with their difficulties with the Abacus microworld that they found to
be very congruent with the numerical school culture. In the following, we show the role
played by the different theoretical frames in the analysis of these episodes.
6.4.1 Difficulties with Task T2 in the Money Microworld
In the two-first sessions, the collective phases globally worked as planned and let the group
think that the instrumentalization process had been adequately engaged. For task T2, it was
thus expected that the pupils would try to exchange some of the banknotes in order to get
90 euros, implementing the exchange procedure they had just learnt and successfully used
in T1. Task T2 was thus seen in continuity with the previous tasks, which was not the case,
for the following reasons at least:
• In the previous tasks, exchange was the explicit goal of the task, this was no longer the
case in T2. Pupils were asked to find by themselves that exchanging was a good
strategy, and they had to decide what to exchange.
123
• There was also a change in the nature of the task. Pupils were not asked to pay 90 euros
finding a way for giving the exact amount of money, they were asked ‘‘How do you do
it?’’, a strategic and thus meta-question. For these young pupils, this was not a minor
change.
The group had tried to organize a progression in the complexity of the tasks, and
thought that the milieu provided by the previous tasks was sufficient for allowing an
a-didactic functioning. Instead of it, they had created what the Theory of Didactical
Situations calls an informational gap generating a real discontinuity. This episode attested
for them the difficulty they had as researchers not specialized except for one of them in
elementary school mathematics to adequately anticipate the possible effects of the didactic
variables at stake.
One of the possible reasons of the pupils’ difficulties with the task T2 is that they tried to
pay 90 euros, adapting to the microworld the kind of gesture they would make in the outside
world. In the outside world for instance they would give two 50 euros banknotes and would
be given back 10 euros. But these gestures were not easily transposed in the Money
microworld, a microworld not designed in order to be congruent with the outside reality, but
to exploit objects, operations and relations, linked to money for the learning of arithmetic.
Moreover, when banknotes are put in the trash, they disappear and the problem becomes
cognitively more complex to solve. The user has then to find mentally, or by using paper
and pencil means, what remains to be paid, or, alternatively, to keep in mind what she has
already paid while trying to complement to 90 euros. Added to the instrumentalization of a
new artefact, this created cognitive overload for these young pupils. Thus, what they did,
can easily be interpreted in terms of the Theory of Didactical Situations. In order to cope
with the didactic contract and play their student role, they transformed the task, using Ari-
Lab for decomposing 90 euros, and restoring in some sense the lost continuity. When task
T2 was rephrased by the teacher into ‘‘What remains to you when you have spent 90
euros?’’, it became a more ordinary subtraction task, and this opened the way to another
use of the Money microworld, liberated from the real world pressure.
6.4.2 Difficulties with the Abacus Microworld
Due to the reference to Instrumental Approach, the group was sensitive to instrumental
issues, but a posteriori had the feeling that this sensitiveness was not enough for antic-
ipating all the instrumental needs and how these could be efficiently taken in charge within
the strong constraints of this short experiment. For instance, they had strongly underesti-
mated the complexity of the development of a subtracting scheme involving exchanges in
the Abacus microworld. They were trapped by the congruence between this system of
representation and the decimal system (Duval 1995) and by the fact that, thanks to the
possibility of having more than ten balls on a stick, this virtual abacus was less requiring in
terms of mental calculations than an ordinary abacus. Pupils were in fact tempted to start
by subtracting what they could subtract without performing exchanges but then had to
remember what had been subtracted and determine what remained to be subtracted. As
they did not take notes, they quickly became lost in a mixture of exchanges and sub-
tractions. Analyzing these difficulties, the researchers understood up to what point they had
underestimated the instrumental needs of this specific microworld.6
6
Note that the Abacus microworld offers the possibility to mark the balls to be subtracted with a sign, but
DIDIREM researchers were not familiar enough with Ari-Lab and did not know this possibility.
123
6.5 Conclusion
The above synthesis shows the dialectic links existing between theoretical frames and
concerns while designing and analysing this experimentation. The respective priority given
to the different concerns by the DIDIREM researchers becomes understandable when we
take into consideration the main theoretical frames supporting their work. Key concerns
drove the design process. They drove it in a way which is dependent on the methodological
and conceptual tools provided by the theoretical frames used, but also on the systems of
values these theoretical frames convey about mathematics education. Moreover this
influence was more or less conscious for the researchers. Familiar constructs were often
used in a naturalized way and this is also the case when values are considered. For that
reason, the reflective interviews introduced in the cross-experimentation methodology and
mentioned above were especially productive. It is also worth noticing that even if
important, the role of theoretical frames and concerns in shaping the design was limited.
The DIDIREM interviews evidenced that there was a gap between what the theories
offered and the decisions to be taken in the design. The researchers’ knowledge about the
conceptual numeric field contributed to fill the gap but a lot of design decisions were also
determined by usual habits and experience and not under the control of theory. The same
occurred in the implementation.
This is only one case study and does not authorize generalization. It is thus interesting to
compare with the second case study presented in the following part.
7 The ITD Case
7.1 Design of the Experiment
The ITD researchers7 centred their experiment around the use of Aplusix, a computer
algebra system, developed by the MeTah team, that allows students to manipulate alge-
braic expressions, equalities and inequalities providing a real-time feedback on the cor-
rectness of these calculations (Nicaud et al. 2004). In particular, the mainly exploited
feature was Aplusix feedback on the equivalence between expressions. The software
provides a three values feedback: black lines connecting expressions (or relations), if they
are equivalent; red crossed lines connecting expressions (or relations), if they are not
equivalent; blue crossed lines connecting the expressions (or relations) if one of them is not
well-formed.
ITD used Aplusix for a remedial intervention concerning fractions for grade 7 students,
as described in Cerulli et al. (2007b, pp. 7–23).
The experimentation consisted of 5 weekly sections of 2 h; it was conducted during the
regular school hours and took place in computer laboratories where groups of two or three
pupils worked together with a computer. All the sessions had basically the same structure:
pupils were given a worksheet written on a sheet of paper; and were asked to work at the
tasks; teacher and researchers walked around the lab checking what pupils did, helped them
when needed, encouraged them to verbalise what they were doing both in oral and written
form; in specific moments classroom discussions were organised and orchestrated to
institutionalise pupils’ findings.
7
Michele Cerulli, Bettina Pedemonte and Elisabetta Robotti conducted the experiment, while Rosa Maria
Bottino conducted the final interview.
123
The tasks involved the equivalence of fractions, and the properties of fractions and of
the operations with fractions, whereas operational competencies were not in focus. In
general, students were required to reproduce a specific ‘‘Aplusix expression tree’’ (pro-
vided on a paper work-sheet) and to substitute the question marks with proper numerical
values. The chosen tasks could be accomplished in many different ways: as a matter of fact
researchers meant to foster the generation of pupils’ spontaneous strategies as starting
points for the teaching sessions.
7.1.1 Example
Students were asked to ‘‘reproduce’’ within Aplusix the following tree and to substitute the
question marks with proper fractions in order to obtain inequalities; analogous tasks were
given with expressions or equalities instead of inequalities (Fig. 4).
The intention was to orient pupils’ attention towards the comparison between statements
(or expressions) instead of towards the computation of expressions. Moreover pupils were
requested to describe in a written form the procedures followed to accomplish the task so
as to promote the process of verbalisation.
In the next sections we make explicit the main concerns which affected the design of
ITD experiment, and discuss the link between theoretical frameworks and these concerns,
and the way they oriented the design of the experiment. This discussion results from an
a posteriori reflection on the ITD experimentation.
7.2 Concerns and Theoretical Frames in the Design Phase
Different concerns appear to have affected the design of the experiment to different
extents. As for the tool analysis the highest priority was given to AMO, IMO and ISK
concerns. In the definition of the educational goals ITD was mainly sensitive to cognitive
concerns (C) as well as epistemological one (E). While TA, TF, SO and ID concerns led
the design of the modalities of use.
The theoretical frameworks used, more or less consciously, by the group were the
Activity Theory, the Theory of Microworld and Situated Abstraction (Noss and Hoyles
1996), and the Theory of Semiotic Mediation (Bartolini, Bussi and Mariotti 2008).
In particular, in the design of the experiment, the ITD team seemed mainly concerned
with three aspects which are crucial in the mentioned theoretical frameworks, even if with
some differences: the ‘‘learning environment’’, the ‘‘social interaction among the different
actors’’, and the ‘‘mediating role assigned to the tools’’. The focus on those aspects both
reveals and consistently reflects upon the different sensitivities with respect to the different
concerns mentioned.
Fig. 4 Students are requested to fill-in the tree
123
7.2.1 The Notion of Learning Environment
Consistently with the Activity Theory, the ITD team perceived a learning environment as a
whole: it attributed importance not only to the technological tool used but also to the
pedagogical activities in which the use of the tool was integrated, to the way in which these
activities evolved, to the social interactions that took place during the activities, and to the
roles assumed by the different actors. The learning environment was conceived as the
enactment of the teaching/learning activity oriented towards an object (the learning of
properties of fractions) involving the students, the researchers, the teacher, and the tools
used (not only Aplusix but also, for example, the worksheets).
As a consequence, the learning environment evolved step by step as the experiment
progressed and could not be planned in details in advance. On the one hand a general
plan of the sessions was prepared, on the other hand ITD researchers planned to attend
the teaching sessions and to meet teachers after each one. During such meetings, the
development of the session would have been discussed (on the basis of field observa-
tions), and then the organisation of the following sessions would have been questioned,
possibly refined or even radically changed. The decision of continuously discussing and
refining the experiment in itinere in straight co-operation with the teachers, reveals ITD
high sensitivity towards concerns regarding the tasks proposed to the students, including
their temporal organisation and progression (TA concern) and regarding the social
organisation between the different actors, their respective roles and responsibilities (SO
concern).
7.2.2 The Social Interaction Among Actors
Though the learning environment was refined as the experiment progressed, ITD team
intended to define a priori the social organisation between the different actors of the
teaching sessions as much precisely as possible—still revealing ITD sensitivity to SO
concern already highlighted.
Pupils were asked to work in pairs (or small groups) with Aplusix and to fill in
worksheets together: that is they were asked to produce a common solution to the proposed
tasks. The requirement of producing a common solution was meant to foster a process of
negotiation and evolution between pupils of the strategies and meanings emerging through
the activity with Aplusix.
Teaching sessions were devoted to classroom discussions. Such discussions were
orchestrated by teachers and researchers and aimed at making pupils’ personal strategies
and meanings emerge during the previous activities evolving towards shared mathematical
meanings. The planning of this kind of activity relied explicitly on the Theory of Semiotic
Mediation and shows a particular attention to the social construction of knowledge (con-
cern S), and to the relation between the personal meanings emerging from the use of the
tool and the mathematical meanings (revealing the team concerns about IMO and ISK).
Clearly, the definition of the social interaction regards also the interactions between
teachers and researchers. Hence, it includes the decision of conducting regular meetings to
discuss the progression of the experiment. But it also includes the specification of the
respective roles of teachers and researchers during the teaching sessions. In that respect,
teachers and researchers agreed that they would have played as much as possible the same
role throughout all the teaching sequence: both during pupils’ work with Aplusix and
during the collective discussions.
123
7.2.3 The Mediating Role of the Tools
The reference to the Activity Theory and the Theory of Semiotic Mediation oriented the
researchers to focus on the mediating role that different tools would be able to play. The
analysis of Aplusix, and in particular of the functioning the different visual feedback it
provides (e.g. red or blue crossed lines), led ITD team to hypothesise that Aplusix could be
used to mediate mathematical meanings related to the notion of equivalence of fractions
and to the operations with fractions. The analysis carried out makes clear ITD sensitivity to
concerns regarding the functions given to the tool (TF concern), the characteristics of the
implementation of mathematical objects (IMO concern), the possible actions on these
objects (AMO concern), and the characteristics of the possible interaction between student
and mathematical knowledge (ISK concern).
Coherently with the theory of Situated Abstraction, the sessions designed by ITD were
supposed to let pupils explore as much freely as possible the Aplusix environment: the
proposed tasks were ‘‘open’’; the activities were oriented towards the building of proce-
dures; finally Aplusix was integrated with other tools (such as paper-based work sheets) in
a network of relationships including students, researchers and the teacher (concerns TA,
PP, SO and IA). This was considered by ITD as an effective means to exploit Aplusix
potentialities.
On the other hand, as the Theory of Semiotic Mediation points out, the ‘‘simple’’
accomplishment of tasks by means of a tool cannot ensure the evolution of personal
meanings emerging through the activity with the tool towards mathematical meanings.
According to this theory, the evolution can be fostered through collective discussions
orchestrated by the teachers who assume this evolution as a specific educational goal. In
particular ITD was especially sensitive to the processes of verbalisation, which was
assumed to support students in the process of building new strategies and validating their
work, and to make students gain awareness of the processes enacted (concern C). Con-
sistently, verbalisation was fostered throughout the whole experiment at different stages
fostering the process of building new strategies and validating the work done.
7.3 A Bit More on the Design Phase
So far we described how different theoretical frameworks inspired the design of the
experiment and how they are related to different concerns. But in the design, ITD was also
sensitive to concerns which were not rationalised or operationalized through the reference
to specific theoretical frame.8
For instance, important decisions concerning the design were shared between the ITD
researcher and the experimenting teachers. In particular the teachers asked to use Aplusix
for remedial activities rather than for introducing new mathematical notions. This request
was motivated with different but complementary considerations: the shortness of the
experiments; the fact that the experiments took place at the beginning of the school year in
two 7 grade classes (the second year of Italian lower secondary school); the fact that
students were not, in general, very proficient in mathematics. Then it was agreed to focus
on fractions.
In addition, being conscious of the need for pupils and teachers to have time enough for
appropriating the proposed approach and making it effective (concern ID), ITD designed in
8
We are not claiming that such concerns cannot be related to or operationalized in any theoretical
frameworks. We simply stress that this was not the case for ITD experiment.
123
agreement with the teachers an experiment as long as possible within the constraints of the
TELMA cross-experimentation.
Sensitivity towards concerns I, ID and CO is thus apparent.
7.4 The Implementation of the Design
During the implementation of the experiment the researchers posed their attention also to
specific concerns such as TE, IA and CO, as illustrated below.
7.4.1 Concerning the Tool Ergonomy (TE)
In Aplusix, when introducing a new expression or relation between expressions one has to
select the kind of task (s)he is going to accomplish; only four kinds of task are possible:
‘‘Calculate’’, ‘‘Develop’’, ‘‘Factorise’’, and ‘‘Solve’’. The label associated with the selected
kind of task appears, and one can introduce the desired expression. The kind of task
designed by ITD (based on comparing and completing expressions rather than modifying
them with standardised procedures) escaped this categorization. In order to be able to use
Aplusix for approaching them, one had to ask pupils to formally select one of the four
available kinds of task, at one time ignoring their selection. Hence this initial required
selection was used as a ‘‘black box’’ command for inserting new expressions or relations.
In synthesis ITD ‘‘forced’’ Aplusix constraints so as to use the tool for the different type of
problems. According to the experimenting team this black box use of the activity selection
command did not cause any difficulty to the pupils.
The introduction of Aplusix to the pupils was performed step by step by the researchers
interacting with the students in pairs (or small groups) seated at the computer. No diffi-
culties concerning the interface commands were reported, instead some difficulties arose
linked with the mathematical knowledge at stake (e.g. difficulties in writing an expression
correctly).
The main features of Aplusix exploited during the experiments were the feedback
provided by the system and the possibility to build undetermined expressions (with
question marks).
7.4.2 Concerning the Interaction with Other Agents (IA Concern)
According to the original design of the experiment pupils were not allowed to use cal-
culators to execute numerical computations. This decision was taken because recovering or
reinforcing computation skills were among the educational goals of the experiment.
Afterwards it was realised that the skills in focus did not really concern the actual exe-
cution of numerical computations. The main focus was, instead, on the abilities concerning
the evaluation of which kind of calculations should be performed, and when and why they
should. Consequently, pupils were allowed to use calculators to execute computations
during the implementation of the experiment. Nevertheless most of the pupils performed
calculations with paper and pencil using standard algorithms.
7.4.3 Concerning Contextual Characteristics (CO Concern)
As for the actors’ role, at the beginning it was planned that the teacher and the
researchers would have played the same role, consisting basically in the orchestration of
123
the classroom discussions and in the institutionalisation of the meanings emerged.

Nevertheless, in one of the classrooms, the teachers assumed a very passive attitude
during the sessions and all the activity was run and managed by the researchers.
Classroom discussions were rarely accomplished. Instead, discussions among groups of
students took place. In the other classroom, the discussions were often carried out and
orchestrated by the teacher and the comparison of strategies enacted by the different
groups of students assumed an important role in the activity. Because of the different
teachers’ behaviours, the modalities of employment of the tool had to be consequently
adapted on the spot.
7.5 Some Indications from the a Posteriori Analysis
In the a posteriori analysis conducted by the team the focus was put mainly on the
definition of the didactical functionalities of Aplusix enacted in the experiment. In par-
ticular, the team tried to identify the characteristics of the experiment which, according to
the theoretical hypothesis and on the basis of the observations, could be considered as
necessary conditions for the effectiveness of the proposed approach. In other words, ITD
attempted to identify those characteristic of the experiment that they would leave
unchanged in a hypothetical new experiment.
As will be apparent from the following paragraphs, concerns TA and TF mainly drove
the process of analysis of the experimentation.
As already stressed, the mainly exploited feature was Aplusix feedback on the equiv-
alence between expressions. This kind of feedback helped students to accomplish the
proposed tasks and to validate the solutions developed in paper and pencil, without the
intervention of the teacher. The team observed that such feedback supported effectively
pupils in testing, trying out or exploring solutions for the proposed problems. The request
for pupils to verbalise their strategies in written forms turned out to be an important step
toward the explicit and de-contextualised formulation of a strategy, needed to share the
strategies within the class. Nevertheless, once a strategy was made explicit, there was still
the need to validate and institutionalised it, and this could not be done by Aplusix: the
intervention of the teacher was needed.
1. The teacher proposed pupils to apply the developed strategies for solving new
problems, purposefully designed by the teacher depending on the specific strategies
considered.
2. The teacher orchestrated a classroom discussion on the different strategies which were
collectively compared and possibly validated.
The teachers’ interactions with the students, while they were involved in the activities,
were crucial for stimulating the discussions among members of pairs, for stimulating
verbalisation of strategies, and for discussing the validation of the developed strategies. As
much crucial was the teachers’ role in orchestrating the classroom discussions (which we
could instantiate only in class B) which led to an explicit, shared and de-contextualised
formulation of strategies and to their validation.
As highlighted by this discussion, a lot of attention was put on mathematical practices
such as that of formalising and validating solution strategies for given problems (concern
E), but also on how to foster such practices (concern C) and on how the computer could
support the teacher in fostering such practices (concern TS). Finally also at this stage the
experimenting team shows particular attention to concerns related to social construction of
knowledge (S).
123
7.6 Conclusion
The above synthesis highlights a number of concerns which drove the design and the
analysis of the experimentation, as they were made explicit through the reflective inter-
view. As well as for the DIDIREM case, many of these concerns can be put clearly in
relationships with the theoretical frames inspiring the design of the experiment and framing
its analysis. But, it has also been stressed that some concerns were not rationalised or
operationalized through the reference to specific theoretical frameworks. With this respect,
the researcher’ personal (implicit) knowledge, values, usual habits and experience played a
crucial role.
In addition, a posteriori one can observe that the priority given to the different
concerns changed according to the different phases of the process of design-imple-
mentation-analysis of the experimentation. For instance, concern TS remained peripheral
during the design phase and during the experiment. On the contrary, when the team
attempted to formalise the adopted didactical functionality of Aplusix in order to make it
somehow re-usable, the TS concern became central in terms of investigating how the
tool could support the teacher in fostering the practice of formalising and validating
strategies of problem solving.
8 Synthesis
So far we discussed the two TELMA experiments in ‘‘isolation’’, focusing on the func-
tioning and potentialities of Didactical Functionality and Concerns Methodological Tool as
means for understanding in each particular case the links between the theoretical frames
used, the design of the experiment, its implementation and a posteriori analysis. In this
synthesis we consider these experiments in the frame of the cross-experimentation, and
outline the most significant elements emerging from their compared analysis, regarding the
Concerns Methodological Tool, the role of theories and the relationships between theories
and concerns.
The second case study confirms the evidence provided by the first one that key concerns
drive the whole experimentation process; and also that they drive it in a way whose
coherence becomes understandable when one takes into consideration the main theoretical
frames supporting the work, the methodological and conceptual tools these theoretical
frames provide, and also the system of values they more or less explicitly convey.
The second case study also confirms that the distribution of priority in concerns vary
from the design of the experiment to its implementation and then to its a posteriori
analysis, and it allows us to understand the reasons for such variation.
Finally the second case study confirms that, while playing an important role, theoretical
frames and concerns only shape the design to a limited extent. Many design decisions
taken a priori or refining the design in itinere are not under theoretical control.
The two case studies, thus, in spite of the evident differences, give us a coherent view of
the way theoretical frames and concerns can interact for influencing the educational use of
ILEs, and it is worth noticing that the same regularities have been observed in the other
experiments carried out by the TELMA teams.
But these two case studies also make us aware of the existing differences between the
respective coherence of the DIDIREM and ITD experimentations. In particular the analysis
of the reflective interviews revealed that each group was more sensitive to some concerns
rather then others, as illustrated by the table below.
123
Tool analysis Educational goals Modalities of use
DIDIREM TE, ISK, ICD E, I CO, TA, IG, ID, SO

ITD IMO, AMO, ISK C TA, TF, SO, ID
Only 4 of the 14 identified key concerns are shared: one (interaction between students
and mathematics knowledge) for tool analysis, and three (tasks proposed, social organi-
zation and interaction between actors, institutional distance) for modalities of use. These
differences impact the design in a non trivial way. For instance, ICD concern (institutional
and cultural distance) plays an important role in DIDIREM design. For addressing this
concern, the DIDIREM researchers rely on theoretical constructs provided by the
Anthropological Theory of Didactics for which institutions are primary objects. They also
rely on the notion of instrumental distance introduced by Haspekian (2005) within the
frame of instrumental approach, and developed further in this special issue by Mariotti and
Morgan. The accessibility of such conceptual tools contributes to make this concern
influence the design. The situation is not the same for ITD researchers. As explained above,
their sensitivity to institutional constraints is not under the control of theoretical tools. For
that reason, it cannot impact the design in the same way and does not. Moreover, it is worth
noticing that contextual characteristics play here an important role. Globally the cross-
experimentation shows that institutional constraints are much stronger in France than in
Italy or Greece, thus what we observe in fact is a ternary interaction between key concerns,
theoretical frames and contexts. This aspect is further developed in the article by Kynigos
in this special issue.
The sensitivity that ITD researchers have developed for semiotic mediation functions in
the converse way. The conceptual tools provided by Activity Theory and the Theory of
Semiotic Mediation strongly influence their concern priority and the way their key con-
cerns are addressed. The importance given in the analysis of Aplusix to its semiotic
characteristics, and in the design to the organization of collective discussions orchestrated
by the teacher is directly fed by these conceptual tools, much more elaborated than those at
the disposal of the DIDIREM group.
Moreover, even for the concerns which are shared, the analysis developed shows that
they are not necessarily addressed in the same way. Regarding the ISK concern for
instance, DIDIREM researchers seem to be especially sensitive to the analysis of the
potential offered by Ari-Lab for allowing students to progressively develop solving
strategies through autonomous interaction with the microworlds selected (a-didactic
potential), while ITD refers also to ISK when evoking the important role given to
classroom discussions orchestrated by the teachers and researchers, and aimed at making
pupils’ personal strategies and meanings evolve towards shared mathematical meanings.
Thus, even if the two groups pay specific attention for instance to the feedback provided
by the ILEs they consider, they do not draw the same consequences of their analysis of
these feedback in terms of design. Similar comments could be made about the way the
task and social organizations (TA and SO shared concerns) are managed. Looking back
at the analysis provided in the two case studies, it is easy once more to relate these
differences to the respective theoretical backgrounds of the DIDIREM and ITD groups
of researchers.
How to approach theoretical fragmentation in the light of these results, and what
advances have been reached? These are the issues we discuss in the last section of this
article.
123
9 Discussion and Perspectives
TELMA teams have tried to address the issue of theoretical fragmentation from an
operational perspective through the design and development of cross-experiments, through
the elaboration and use of constructs such as the notion of didactical functionality and of
key concern. What advances result from this enterprise? In our opinion, these advances are
of different nature, both methodological and conceptual.
Regarding the methodological dimension, there is no doubt that the methodology of
cross-experimentation which has been developed has proved to be effective. The reflection
carried out in TELMA shows that different factors contributed to its effectiveness: the
perturbation created by the requirement of experimenting an ILE developed in another
educational culture of course, the precise guidelines established for this experimentation,
the questionnaires obliging the participants to articulate their choices, the systematic
exchanges and discussions, and the reflective interviews. Thanks to these methodological
choices, what remains often implicit in the literature and in research practices has been
made explicit. We agree that the effort of making explicit the implicit factors when
designing teaching experiments is not original per se. However, when a researcher
autonomously faces this task, s/he generally deals with her/his own concerns, addresses
self-posed questions. On the contrary, the reflection brought forward during the TELMA
cross-experimentation required researchers to address also questions/issues raised and
formulated by other researchers. As a consequence, each researcher was asked to cope with
theoretical frameworks and with approaches to research that were not familiar to him(her)
and could even be not compatible with her/his own. TELMA researchers share the com-
mon feeling that, though highly demanding, these methodological requests resulted in a
very useful effort both in terms of refining each team’s reflection concerning ILEs and
mathematics education, and in terms of making a productive comparison possible.
From both a methodological and conceptual points of view, another advance results
from the notions of didactical functionality and key concern introduced for sharing a
common language. As we have tried to show, these notions have allowed us to better
understand and express the role that the theoretical frames on which we, respectively rely
play in the design and use of ILEs by coming back to the needs they try to respond to. They
have efficiently supported the comparison of our respective positions, the identification of
differences and complementarities between these.
These methodological and conceptual tools have been used in TELMA in a specific
area, that of mathematical learning with digital media, but they are certainly of more
general value. In our opinion, there is no by chance that we observe that close strategies
begin to develop in other instances as attested for instance by the last European Confer-
ences for Research in Mathematics Education or special issues of journals such as the
volume 40.2 of the Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik published in 2008.
Beyond this methodological and conceptual dimension, the cross-experimentation has
produced significant insights on how theoretical frameworks influence the way researchers
think the educational use of technology, by influencing the tool analysis, the identification
of educational goals and the elaboration of modalities of use. These insights help us to
understand better what is needed, what can be aimed at in terms of theoretical integration,
and how it could be achieved (see Artigue (2007) and Cerulli et al. (2008) for further
details on such results). The results obtained reinforce our conviction that integration
cannot mean the building of a unified theory encompassing the main theories used in
different cultures. This is especially evident if one adopts a design perspective as was
the case in the cross-experimentation. Cross-experimentation analyses make clear that,
123
according to the theoretical frames involved, designs obey different logics which are partly
incommensurable. They also show that the economical and coherence needs of design are
different from those of a posteriori analysis. Incorporating too many different theoretical
frames can make coherent design quite impossible, but in a posteriori analysis introducing
new theoretical frames or constructs for instance for explaining unexpected events, for
producing alternative explanations, is easier and can be an effective support towards
theoretical connection. For instance, it looks clear that what the Theory of Didactic Sit-
uation and the Theory of Semiotic Mediation try to control and anticipate in the design of a
situation is quite different and that each vision leads the design in a different direction. But
discussions and exchanges in the a posteriori analysis phase of the cross-experimentation
have evidenced that the tools of one approach could enrich the a posteriori analysis of the
other one, and that the systematic search for such enrichment could be a good strategy for
establishing productive connections and complementarities between these theoretical
frames.
In the last years, TELMA teams have engaged in another European project in continuity
with TELMA work: the ReMath project (Representing Mathematics with Digital Media).9
In this project, the collaborative work has included new dimensions: the development of
ILEs, of a common language for scenarios, and of an integrative platform MathDils.
Moreover each team has experimented both its own ILE and an alien ILE in more realistic
contexts, and over longer periods of time than in the TELMA cross-experiments. In Re-
Math, the methodological and conceptual tools presented in this article have been sys-
tematically used and further developed, not only to foster communication per se but to
achieve specific common research goals. As had been the case in TELMA, the results
obtained have been interesting and substantial. What remains nevertheless an open prob-
lem is the way we can make the knowledge we have built and the mutual understanding we
have achieved easily accessible to researchers who do not share a similar experience.
References
ARI-LAB2. (2005). Copyright CNR-ITD, Commercial distribution: Dida*EL Srl: www.didael.it.

Artigue, M. (2002). Learning mathematics in a CAS environment: The genesis of a reflection about
instrumentation and the dialectics between technical and conceptual work. International Journal of
Computers for Mathematics Learning, 7, 245–274.
Artigue, M. (coord.) (2005). Towards a methodological tool for comparing the use of learning theories in
technology enhanced learning in mathematics. TELMA Deliverable 20-4-1. Kaleidoscope Network of
Excellence. Retrieved March 21, 2009, from http://telma.noe-kaleidoscope.org.
Artigue, M. (coord.) (2007). Comparison of theories in technology enhanced learning in mathematics.
TELMA Deliverable 20-4-2. Kaleidoscope Network of Excellence. Retrieved March 21, 2009, from
http://telma.noe-kaleidoscope.org.
Balacheff, N. (1994). Didactique et intelligence artificielle. In N. Balacheff & M. Vivet (Eds.), Recherches
en didactique des mathe´matiques (pp. 9–42). Grenoble: La Pensée Sauvage éditions.
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 interna-
tional research in mathematics education, second revised edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bosch, M. & Gascón J. (2006). Twenty-five years of the didactic transposition. ICMI Bulletin 58, 51–65.
From http://www.mathunion.org/fileadmin/ICMI/files/Publications/ICMI_bulletin/58.pdf.
Bottino, R. M., & Chiappini, G. (2008). Using activity theory to study the relationship between technology
and the learning environment in the arithmetic domain. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of inter-
national research in mathematics education (pp. 838–861). New York: Routledge.
9
Information regarding this project and associated publications are accessible at the following url:
http://remath.cti.gr.
123
Bottino, R. M., & Kynigos, C. (2009). Mathematics education and digital technologies: Facing the chal-
lenge of networking European research teams. (in press In this special issue).
Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Cerulli, M., Pedemonte, B., & Robotti, E. (2007a). An integrated perspective to approach technology in
mathematics education. In Bosch, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of CERME 4. Spain: IQS Fundemi Business
Institute, Sant Feliu de Guixols, ISBN: 84-611-3282-3.
Cerulli, M., Pedemonte, B., & Robotti, E. (Eds.). (2007b). TELMA cross experiment guidelines. Genoa:
Internal Report, ITD. Retrieved November 23, 2009, from http://telearn.noe-kaleidoscope.org/
warehouse/TELMA_Cross_Experiment_Guidelines.pdf.
Cerulli, M., Trgalova, J., Maracci, M., Psycharis, G., & Georget, J. P. (2008). Comparing theoretical
frameworks enacted in experimental research: TELMA experience. ZDM—The International Journal
on Mathematics Education, 40(2), 201–214.
Chevallard, Y. (1992). Concepts fondamentaux de la didactique : Perspectives apportées par une approche
anthropologique. Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques, 12/1, 77–111.
Chevallard, Y. (2002). Organiser l’étude. In J. L. Dorier y al (Ed.), Actes de la Xe`me Ecole d’e´te´ de
didactique des mathe´matiques (pp. 3–22). Grenoble: La Pensée Sauvage. pp. 41–56.
Duval, R. (1995). Semiosis et Noesis. Paris: Peter Lang.
Engestrom, Y. (1991). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. Activity Theory, 7/8, 6–17.
Guin, D., Ruthven, K., & Trouche, L. (Eds.). (2004). The didactical challenge of symbolic calculators:
Turnign an computational device into a mathematical instrument. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning.
London: Edward Arnold.
Haspekian, M. (2005). An ‘‘instrumental approach’’ to study the integration of a computer tool into
mathematics teaching: The case of spreadsheets. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical
Learning, 10(2), 109–141.
Lagrange, J. B., Artigue, M., Laborde, C., & Trouche, T. (2003). Technology and mathematics education: A
multidimensional study of the evolution of research and innovation. In A. J. Bishop, M. A. Clements,
C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & F. K. S. Leung (Eds.), Second international handbook of mathematics
education (pp. 239–271). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Nicaud, J.-F., Bouhineau, D., & Chaachoua, H. (2004). Mixing microworld and CAS features in building
computer systems that help students learn algebra. International Journal of Computers for Mathe-
matical Learning, 9(2), 169–211. (Kluwer Ed).
Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (1996). Windows on mathematical meanings. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Rabardel, P. (1995). L’homme et les outils contemporains. Paris: A. Colin.
Tricot, A., Plégat-Soutjis, F., Camps, J.-F., Amiel, A., Lutz, G., & Morcillo, A. (2003). Utilité, utilisabilité,
acceptabilité : Interpréter les relations entre trois dimensions de l’évaluation des EIAH. In C. Des-
moulins, P. Marquet, & D. Bouhineau (Eds.), Environnements informatiques pour l’apprentissage
humain (pp. 391–402). Paris: ATIEF/INRP.
Vérillon, P., & Rabardel, P. (1995). Cognition and artifacts: A contribution to the study of thought in
relation to instrumented activity. European Journal of Psychology of Education, X(1), 77–101.
Warfield, V. M. (2006). Invitation to didactique. Retrieved November 23, 2009, from http://www.math.
washington.edu/*warfield/Inv to Did66 7-22-06.pdf.
123

Connecting and Integrating Theoretical F

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Connecting and Integrating Theoretical F

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Int J Comput Math Learning (2009) 14:217–240

Connecting and Integrating Theoretical Frames:

Michèle Artigue • Michele Cerulli •

Published online: 23 December 2009

Keywords Mathematics education Technology enhanced learning in mathematics

2 The TELMA Approach to Theoretical Fragmentation

cross-experimentation [presented in Bottino and Kynigos (2009) involving all the

2.1 Recognizing the Existence of Common Sensitivities

2.2 Looking at Theories in Operational Terms

2.3 Relying on a Specific and Sharable Language

3 Didactical Functionality and Concerns Methodological Tool

3.1 Tool Analysis and Identification of Specific Tool Characteristics

The analysis of a tool associated to the definition of Didactical Functionality generally

• Concerns regarding the ergonomics of the tool (TE),

3.2 Educational Goals and Associated Potential of the Tool

3.3 Modalities of Employing a Tool

• Concerns regarding instrumental issues and instrumental genesis (IG),

4 Analysis of the Cross-Experimentation

An explicit reflective analysis accompanied the whole cross-experimentation process: from

5 Two Case Studies

6 The DIDIREM Case

6.1 Description of the Design

Space for the money

Workspace for manipulating coins Button to erase the Button to check

Fig. 1 The Money microworld in Ari-Lab

6.2 Concerns and Theoretical Frames in the Design Phase

6.2.1 The Influence of the Instrumental Approach and the Anthropological

Fig. 2 Exchanging money in the Money microworld

Different roads for Button to exchange

Fig. 3 The Abacus microworld in Ari-Lab

6.2.2 The Influence of the Theory of Didactical Situations on Design

6.3 The Implementation of the Design

6.4 Theoretical Frames and Concerns in the a Posteriori Analysis

The a posteriori analysis of the design implementation shows a new distribution of

6.4.1 Difficulties with Task T2 in the Money Microworld

6.4.2 Difficulties with the Abacus Microworld

7 The ITD Case

7.1 Design of the Experiment

7.2 Concerns and Theoretical Frames in the Design Phase

Fig. 4 Students are requested to fill-in the tree

7.2.1 The Notion of Learning Environment

7.2.2 The Social Interaction Among Actors

7.2.3 The Mediating Role of the Tools

7.3 A Bit More on the Design Phase

7.4 The Implementation of the Design

7.4.1 Concerning the Tool Ergonomy (TE)

7.4.2 Concerning the Interaction with Other Agents (IA Concern)

7.4.3 Concerning Contextual Characteristics (CO Concern)

the classroom discussions and in the institutionalisation of the meanings emerged.

7.5 Some Indications from the a Posteriori Analysis

Tool analysis Educational goals Modalities of use

DIDIREM TE, ISK, ICD E, I CO, TA, IG, ID, SO

9 Discussion and Perspectives

ARI-LAB2. (2005). Copyright CNR-ITD, Commercial distribution: Dida*EL Srl: www.didael.it.

You might also like