Educ Stud Math (2013) 82:341–359

DOI 10.1007/s10649-012-9430-x

Using digital technologies in mathematics teaching:

developing an understanding of the landscape
using three “grand challenge” themes

Marie Joubert

Published online: 20 September 2012

# Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Abstract This paper develops an understanding of the issues, interests and concerns within
the mathematics education community related to the use of computers and other digital
technologies in the teaching and learning of mathematics. It begins by arguing for the
importance of understanding this landscape of interests and concerns, and then turns to the
theoretical and methodological choices made in this study, explaining how it has drawn on
the approach developed by the STELLAR European Network of Excellence. By analysing
the titles and abstracts of a conference chosen to represent the mathematics education
community, it maps out the landscape framed by three “Grand Challenges”, finding that
an understanding of orchestrating learning is at the heart of the interests of the community,
and that the community is interested in exploring new and different contexts for the teaching
and learning of mathematics. However, there is currently less interest in investigating and
exploiting the increasing connectedness of learners within this community. Further, while
the “Grand Challenges” framing is useful in mapping the landscape, it fails to take into
account both the personal concerns of teachers and students, such as attitude and confidence,
and issues related to doing research and understanding research concerns.

Keywords Research . Mathematics . Education . Digital technology . Computers . Landscape .

Grand challenge

1 Introduction

It is generally agreed that although digital technologies (which include computers or “ICT”)
have the potential to contribute in significant ways to the teaching and learning of mathe-
matics (e.g. see Condie & Munro, 2007; Sutherland, 2007), the uptake of these technologies
is disappointing and the grand visions of the 1980s are not being realised (Goos & Bennison,
2008; Hew & Brush, 2007; Clark-Wilson, Oldknow, & Sutherland, 2011; Weigand, 2010).
For example, a recent report, of the Joint Mathematics Council in the UK (Clark-Wilson et
al., 2011) stated that “technology within mathematics is underused and, where it is used, its

M. Joubert (*)
University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
e-mail: marievjoubert@googlemail.com
342 M. Joubert

potential is generally underexploited” (p. 6). There are many, however, who continue to
believe that using computers in mathematics classrooms could contribute in positive ways to
the teaching and learning of mathematics. For example, as Lynch reports, “[i]n mathematics
education, the policy message is that electronic technologies can and ought to be used to
enhance student mathematics learning” (Lynch, 2006 p. 31).
There is much research related to the use of digital technologies in the teaching and
learning of mathematics (e.g. see Laborde and Sträßer (2010), who provide an overview of
research in this area over the last 25 years). However, despite decades of research, the degree
to which research has changed teaching and learning in mathematics is questionable
(Bauersfeld, 1997; Drijvers, Doorman, Boon, Reed, & Gravemeijer, 2010; English, 2009;
Mariotti, 2002; Skovsmose, 2006; Wiliam & Lester, 2008). Further, it has been suggested
that research in the area is not fully addressing the challenges of integrating technologies into
teaching and learning mathematics. As Hoyles and Lagrange put it: “how far studies have
taken on board the challenges of the use of digital technologies and their potential for the
improvement of mathematics teaching, learning and the curriculum, remains a matter of
debate” (Hoyles & Lagrange, 2009, p. 2).
Research, therefore, is seen to have less impact than hoped for and Hoyles and Lagrange
imply that one reason for this is that it does not address the “challenges”. I suggest a related
reason may be that research agendas do not always fully take into account the “landscape” in
the research and practice; the interests, issues, concerns and developments of researchers and
stakeholders.1 In this paper, I present one perspective on the landscape in the use of
technology in mathematics education, aiming to contribute initially to the mathematics
education community’s understanding of the landscape, and ultimately to contribute towards
a research agenda which will address the concerns described above. I begin with an
overview of the current interests and concerns drawn from published research, and then
provide an analysis of the interests and concerns of the group at the centre of this study,
which I claim is representative of researchers and stakeholders in the area. The concluding
section of the paper draws these together.

2 Understanding the landscape: previous studies

Although it was suggested above that research does not always fully take into account the
landscape, a review of the literature does suggest that the mathematics education community
is developing coherent ideas about a) what the challenges are and b) the developing priorities
for research. For example the 17th International Commission on Mathematical Instruction
(ICMI) Study book, “Mathematics Education and Technology-Rethinking the Terrain”
(Hoyles & Lagrange, 2010) and the technology-related sections of the “Handbook of
International Research in Mathematics Education” (English, Bartolini Bussi, Jones, Lesh
& Sriranam, 2009) present a remarkably similar picture. This section briefly outlines the key
points that come from these studies, also referring to other published literature in the area. It
is not meant to be a comprehensive literature review of the landscape of published research
and literature in the area (although it may be a useful starting point), but rather its purpose is
to highlight challenges and research priorities.
In terms of challenges, there appears to be general agreement that both mathematics
curricula and how mathematics is taught need to be re-thought (for example, see Pierce and
Ball (2009)), and there is a recognition that the provision of hardware and software alone is

1
I use landscape in this paper as shorthand for interests, issues and concerns
Understanding the landscape: using digital technologies in mathematics teaching 343

not enough. For example, Bottino and Chiappini (2009) make the point that provision of
technology alone is not enough to bring about change; but that revision of teaching
approaches and mathematics curricula is needed as well. Related to curricular change,
current assessment regimes are identified as a challenge: the Joint Mathematics Council
report referred to above recommended that “high-stakes assessment needs to change in order
to encourage the creative use of digital technologies in mathematics classes in schools and
colleges” (Clark-Wilson et al., 2011, p. 6). Further, it is recognised that large scale integra-
tion of technology is complex and difficult and it requires commitment and leadership at
institutional and policy level (Artigue, 2010; Clark-Wilson et al., 2011).
In research there appears to be a shift towards developing theoretical understandings of
how and why teachers and students do, and do not, use digital technologies in mathematics,
with a particular emphasis on the role of the teacher (Laborde & Sträßer, 2010; Drijvers,
Kieran & Mariotti, 2010). As Laborde and Sträßer (2010) report, in the 2006 ICMI study
conference discussion document, “the ‘era of the learner’ was somehow less present” (p.
129) and “the ICMI community has fully embraced the teacher as the most important actor in
the introduction and use of technology, while the student learner has not been taken into
account in the same way as the teacher” (p. 130). Understanding and developing teacher
professional development is recognised as crucially important (e.g. English, 2009), and it is
increasingly recognised that developing theoretical notions related to this is equally impor-
tant (Artigue, 2010; Goos, 2009; Goos, Soury-Lavergne, Assude, Brown, Kong & Glover,
2010). As Goos (2009) explains: “Research that develops and validates a theory of math-
ematics teacher educator learning and development would lead to a better understanding of
how expertise is developed in carrying out this professional task” (p. 215).
The theoretical developments have seen a shift towards an analytical focus on “the
interaction of the artifact and the utilization schemes of its users (teachers and students),
the analysis of its ‘instrumental genesis’” (Laborde & Sträßer, 2010, p. 131). Further
theoretical developments focus on new ways of conceptualising mathematics, and the
teaching and learning of mathematics; and developing theoretical constructs such as “semi-
otic mediation” in the process (e.g. see Kaput, Noss & Hoyles, 2009). A key idea is that it is
important to take into account not only the way that mathematical activity is shaped by
technology, but also the ways that the activity shapes the technology (Jones, Mackrell, &
Stevenson, 2010). There are important design considerations that relate to this idea. (Hoyles
& Noss, 2009)
This summary can be seen as one perspective on the landscape. It describes the key
concerns of research at a top level, but lacks the detail related to what it is that interests and
concerns researchers and practitioners on the ground. This paper provides some of that
detail.

3 Theoretical and methodological background

In producing this paper, I drew on the expertise of the European Network of Excellence,
STELLAR, which produced a “state of the art” (landscape) analysis of research in Technol-
ogy Enhanced Learning (TEL) (Wild, Scott & Valentine, 2009). To begin, the authors chose
a large conference in TEL and argued that because this conference represented the research
community in TEL, an analysis of the titles of the papers would represent the state of the art
in TEL. Laborde and Sträßer (2010) adopt a similar approach to understanding the state of
the art (landscape) related to the use of technology in the teaching and learning of mathe-
matics (and the evolution of the landscape) by looking at the presentations at ICME
344 M. Joubert

conferences between 1996 and 2008 (four conferences) and chapters in the two technology-
focused ICMI study books in 1986 (Churchhouse, 1986) and 2010 (Hoyles & Lagrange,
2010).
Following these methods, this study first needed to select at lease one current conference
with a focus on the use of technology in teaching and learning mathematics, representative
of the stakeholder community. Second, it needed to choose a way to frame or map the
content of the conference.

3.1 Choice of conference

The candidate for the choice of conference(s) needed to a) have an emphasis on technology
in mathematics education, b) be international c) represent stakeholders within the mathe-
matics education community in terms of role (e.g. teacher, researcher) and context (e.g.
secondary schools, higher education). Every year a wide range of conferences in mathemat-
ics education are held. Many of them are international, and many of them have a number of
papers related to the use of technology in mathematics teaching and learning, sometimes
grouped within a technology strand. Some of them attract teachers and practitioners, others
attract researchers and a small number attract both. Many of them present research or
practice related to secondary school students, some present research or practice related to
primary school students, others focus more on research or practice related to students in
higher education and some present research or practice related to learning out of the
classroom. It appears however, that none meets the criteria listed above as well as the
biennial International Conference for Technology in Mathematics Teaching (ICTMT) which
brings together researchers, practitioners, developers and others with an interest in using
technology in teaching and learning mathematics working in all phases of education. It was
therefore decided to use this single conference for this study, whilst recognising that there
may be ways in which to extend the sample in a further study, for example by drawing on
strands within other more general research conferences or by picking out abstracts related to
the use of ICT in practitioner conferences.
An analysis of the abstracts accepted for the most recent of these conferences (July 2011),
and the background of their authors, provides evidence for this claim. First, the conference
accepts only abstracts which explicitly refer to technology and the teaching and learning of
mathematics (although in some cases either the technology or the mathematics are implicit,
such as in the case of an abstract that refers to teaching and learning cryptology). It can
therefore be argued that the conference meets criterion a) above. Second, an analysis of the
background of the first authors of abstracts accepted for the conference demonstrates that the
authors of the abstracts come from 33 countries all over the world, including the UK, central
and Eastern Europe, the middle and far East, Southern Africa, North and central America.
The conference can therefore be seen as international (criterion b). The call for contributions
for this conference states that the following are welcome: “research outcomes; research in
progress; current and innovative practice; theoretical; philosophical; special interests, shar-
ing of good practice by lecturers and teachers; introduction of new technologies; practical
delivery in different teaching environments” (see ictmt10.org.uk)). This suggests that the
intended audience would include both researchers and teachers. To confirm that this was the
case with the actual audience at the conference (as represented by the authors of the
abstracts), the backgrounds of the authors of the abstracts were also analysed in terms of
the primary role they take (in terms of the emphasis of their abstract): the majority work in
Higher Education, some as teachers (of mathematics), some as teacher educators and many
as researchers. Within this group, the focus of many of the abstracts was on the use of
Understanding the landscape: using digital technologies in mathematics teaching 345

technology in school settings, (63 secondary schools, 5 primary schools, 5 schools generally;
29 in HE with a further 4 in Further Education). There were also teachers in primary and
secondary schools, developers and some others (e.g. working in curriculum development or
for a local authority). While the representation in terms of roles is perhaps unbalanced, and
not all stakeholders are represented (e.g. students and children), I argue that, for the purposes
of developing an understanding of the interests and concerns of the stakeholders, this is
representative enough and fulfils criterion c above. The tenth ICTMT (July 2011) was
therefore chosen.

3.2 Choosing a framework

The second methodological choice related to the analytical framing. Research and practice
have framed their understanding of the use of technology in teaching and learning mathe-
matics in a variety of practical and theoretical ways. For example some use the software or
hardware used (e.g. dynamic geometry or handheld technologies) to organise their under-
standing (see, for example, Forgasz, 2002; Heid, 2005; Keong, Horani & Daniel, 2005),
usually acknowledging, however, that:
[o]ne needs to be careful not to give the impression that technology itself makes the
difference in teaching and learning. It is, of course, not the technology that makes the
difference but rather how it is used and by whom (Heid, 2005 p. 348).
Others take their framing from the mathematical area addressed, such as areas of algebra,
geometry or statistics (e.g. Thomas, 2006) or the “affordances”2 (Greeno, 1994; Mcgrenere,
2000) of the technology such as the ability to display multiple representations, or to perform
automatic calculations (e.g. Alagic & Palenz, 2006; Haapasalo, 2007). Other approaches
characterise the role of the computer in relationship to the learner; as early as 1980, Taylor
presented a model of the computer as “tutor, tool, tutee” (Taylor, 1980) and more recently,
Galbraith (2006) discussed a hierarchical taxonomy describing a developing relationship
with technologies in which the role of technology develops from master, to slave, to partner
to extension of self. Drijvers et al. (2010) provide a detailed discussion on different
theoretical framings in the ICMI Study 17 book, (Hoyles & Lagrange, 2010). Artigue,
(2010) in looking back at the study conference at which the same book was developed, and
looking forward to the future of research related to the future of teaching and learning
mathematics with digital technologies, proposes a number of “dimensions” that can, and
should, be considered in discussions about the landscape and can be seen as another framing:
the theoretical, teacher, curricular, design, equity and access dimensions.
The point is that there are many ways to frame understandings of a field and that, as Anfara
and Mertz (2006) point out, while each framework has the potential to reveal something new
and interesting, we should also be aware of what the approach may mask. The study
discussed in this paper took an approach rooted more within the broad area of “Technology
Enhanced Learning” (TEL) than in the mathematics education community (although clearly
there is some overlap), in borrowing three “Grand Challenge3” themes from STELLAR.
These Grand Challenge themes form the scientific backbone of the STELLAR network and

2
“Affordances” is used in this paper in the original sense that it encompasses both the potential and
constraints of the software as perceived by the user.
3
STELLAR uses the term Grand Challenges in a thematic way, rather than suggesting that their “Grand
Challenges” are challenges. Their Grand Challenge Problems could be described more as challenges which
are achievable and measureable.
346 M. Joubert

were put together by a team of experts from a range of disciplines including psychology,
computer science, education and philosophy. It can be argued, therefore, that they represent
the current interests and issues within TEL research generally. I argue that, whereas the
framings described above tend, mostly, to be embedded in the discourse of mathematics
education, the Grand Challenge framing draws on a more general discourse and provides a
different way to perceive and understand the landscape of TEL in mathematics.

3.3 Grand challenge themes

The first Grand Challenge theme is connecting learners. It is concerned with the issues and
questions that arise from the increased connectedness of learners through the use of, for
example, the Internet (e.g. Li, 2003; Lopez-Morteo & López, 2007). As STELLAR suggests,
digital technologies connect learners with peers, teachers and other more knowledgeable others
in a particular field, and in the context of this paper in the mathematical field. Being connected
may support different ways to collaborate and share knowledge and to participate in online
learning communities using, for example, web-based applications such as blogs, chat rooms,
instant messaging and video conferencing. Social media, such as “Linked-In” help learners and
teachers to find, contact and keep in touch with like-minded people. Within mathematics
education, there is clearly an interest in this theme. For example, Hoyles and Lagrange, in their
introduction to the 17th ICMI study book (2010), state that, in relation to connectivity, “rather
little research has been undertaken on this topic” (p. 4) and hence a plenary panel was organised
at the study conference. Two chapters in the study book discuss connectivity at length and in
detail, (see Beatty & Geiger, 2010; Hoyles, Kalas, Trouche, Hivon, Noss, & Wilensky, 2010).
Trouche & Drijvers, (2010) in a paper about the potential of handheld devices in mathematics
teaching and learning, discuss the importance of understanding the implications of increased
connectivity, and Kaput and Hegedus (2002) discussed the potential for increased connectivity
to support students in constructing and sharing mathematical objects and aggregating student
constructions. Hegedus and Penuel (2008) claim that classroom connectivity can be used to
“unleash the long-unrealized potential of computational media in education, because its impacts
are direct and at the communicative heart of everyday classroom instruction” (p. 172).
The second Grand Challenge theme is orchestrating learning, which is as relevant to
learning situations where technology is not used as it is to those where technology is used.
In terms of this study, however, orchestrating learning aims to understand and characterise
the opportunities and challenges for teachers when technology is introduced into their
classrooms, and to explore tools used to facilitate orchestration. (See Dillenbourg, 2011;
Fischer & Dillenbourg, 2006; Langford & Cleary, 1995). STELLAR suggests that under-
standing the orchestration of learning environments involves considering the following: the
role of the teacher and the learners; the affordances of the multiple tools and technologies
being used, including both digital (e.g. computer, calculator) and non-digital tools (e.g. pen
and paper); the planned assessment and so on. As the authors of the first STELLAR vision
and strategy statement explain:
TEL situations are frequently characterised by a multiplicity of resources, a multiplic-
ity of devices, a multiplicity of agents (co-learners, teachers or trainers, artificial or
human agents). TEL learning situations can be very complex and it is important to
understand how they are organised and how they work. (Sutherland & Joubert, 2009)
The importance of understanding the issues related to orchestration is well recognised
within the mathematics education community in relation to the use of digital technologies, as
discussed, for example, by Drijvers, Doorman, Boon, Reed, & Gravemeijer, (2010).
Understanding the landscape: using digital technologies in mathematics teaching 347

The third Grand Challenge theme is contextualizing learning, which focuses on how the
use of technology provides new and different learning contexts for teaching and learning.
STELLAR explains that all activity takes place within specific contexts, distinguishing
between seeing context as a “shell” surrounding the human user of technology and context
as arising out of the constructive interaction between people and technology. In terms of
teaching and learning mathematics, this Grand Challenge theme is again relevant to contexts
where digital technologies are not used but in the context of this paper it relates to the use of
digital technologies to provide novel learning experiences by using a wider range of contexts
than was previously possible. For the mathematics education community, exploring new and
novel contexts for learning mathematics is clearly crucially important, as can be seen by the
large number of studies in which novel contexts are introduced. One example is the use of
mobile and handheld devices in teaching and learning mathematics (e.g. Arnold, 2004;
Trouche & Drijvers, 2010). Others include the use of the Internet (Borba, 2009; Alagic,
2003). Multiple other novel contexts are represented in the mathematics education literature
and range from the use of new and developing software such as dynamic geometry (e.g.
Psycharis & Kynigos, 2009) or microworlds (Healy & Kynigos, 2010) to the use of
hardware such as sensors to measure distance (Bazzini, 2002; Paola, 2006). It could be
argued that none of these is “new” or “novel” but they are included in this theme when they
are new to the user, or used in new ways.
The Grand Challenge framework is not intended to provide an exhaustive set of categories
for research in technology enhanced learning, but as the STELLAR “Description of Work”
states, they are intended to”be a starting point for providing a framework to identify and
formalise the TEL Grand Challenge” (STELLAR Network, 2008, p. 17). However, the
suggestion is that the framework is able to provide structure to our understanding; using it may
help identify where research is needed and what else is important for mathematics education.

3.4 Methods (analysis)

The analysis has two parts. The first presents an overview of the whole conference and the
second uses the framework presented above for a more in-depth analysis. For the first part of
the analysis, and working on the assumption that the majority of titles of presentations
include the key ideas within the presentation, it seemed reasonable to use the titles to provide
this overview (see also van den Besselaar and Heimeriks, 2006). The titles were analysed in
terms of the words used, assuming that the more frequently a word was used, the more
highly related it is to the concerns and interests of the community. This is not intended to
provide a rigorous analysis; it aims instead to give the reader a “feel” for the areas of interest
for presenters at the conference.
All titles were collated into one text and the data was cleaned, so that, for example, all
instances of learner, learners, children, pupil, pupils, student and students were changed to
“student”. “Teach” was used for all of teaching, teach, taught etc. whereas “teacher” was
used for teacher, teachers, tutor and tutors. Professional development, initial teacher educa-
tion and similar terms were replaced by teacher-learning. Similarly all instances of computer,
computers, ICT etc. were changed to technology and those of Cabri, DGS, Geogebra etc.
were changed to DGS. To provide an overview a “Wordle” diagram was produced; the
Wordle software represents words in different sizes related to the number of times they
occur. The more frequently a word occurs, the bigger the size of this word in the diagram. As
a very large number of titles included the words mathematics, mathematical, maths or math
these were removed so as not to dwarf the rest of the words. Wordle was set up to ignore
small words such as “the” and “of”.
348 M. Joubert

It was further expected that the words “technology” (used for ICT, computers etc.)
student, teacher, learn and teach would dominate this diagram, given the fact that the
overarching conference theme was the use of computers in mathematics teaching and a
second Wordle was created leaving out these words as well. This allowed a focus on what
else was present in the diagram.
For the second part of the analysis, abstracts were analysed in terms of the three Grand
Challenges; each abstract was categorised within one or more of the Grand Challenges. As
there is some overlap in the Grand Challenges (e.g. introducing a new context for learning
mathematics which takes advantage of the connectedness of learners), it was likely that
many of the abstracts would be categorised within more than one Grand Challenge.
Abstracts that referred to opportunities offered by the use of the Internet or handheld
technologies to communicate (e.g. online courses) or the use of online tools such as wikis
were seen as connecting learners because they discussed situations that rely on, or take
advantage of, the fact that users are connected, often via the Internet.
Where abstracts related to the organisation of teaching and learning, both inside and
outside the classroom, they were seen as orchestrating learning. Those that discussed, for
example, automatic assessment tools, the redesign of classrooms, or ways to incorporate new
technologies into the classroom were included in this Grand Challenge theme. Many of the
abstracts relating to teacher learning (initial teacher education or professional development
for in-service teachers) were classified in this theme as they were seen as addressing issues
surrounding the ways in which classroom organisation or orchestration may need to be re-
thought when new technologies are introduced.
The theme contextualising learning included abstracts that referred to the introduction of
novel hardware or software which provide new contexts in which students engage in
mathematical learning. (Bearing in mind that what is novel in one context may not be in
another; for example, the use of calculators may be seen by a British secondary school as
embedded—and hence perhaps not novel—whereas it is possible that in a primary school in
another country it would be novel. Whether or not it should be considered as novel was
determined from the way it was presented in the abstract.) These included, for example: the
use of handheld technologies which mean that students can engage with mathematical
content outside the classroom; or the use of new software such as Google Sketchup for
exploring three dimensional geometrical shapes. They also included those that took practical
situations (e.g. sport) as the context for mathematical learning as these aim to expand the range
of contexts in which students engage with mathematics. Situations in which technologies were
used in new ways, but not for the teaching and learning of mathematics, were not included (e.g.
the use of the Internet to share resources, which was classified as connecting learners).
The section below (The landscape: overview and themes) provides an analysis of the
abstracts submitted for the ICTMT10 conference. In the following section, the analyses are
discussed and a final section concludes the paper.

4 The landscape: overview and themes

A total of 124 abstracts were accepted. Not all were presented at the conference as there were
some late withdrawals (owing to ill-health, financial constraints and other practical reasons)
but they have been included in the analysis as they are still seen to contribute to an
understanding of the landscape. The first section below analyses the titles to provide an
overview of the areas of interest and then the second section analyses the abstracts in terms
of the Grand Challenges.
Understanding the landscape: using digital technologies in mathematics teaching 349

4.1 Overview in terms of the titles

As discussed above, a diagram was created from the titles of the conference abstracts (see
Fig. 1 below). The diagram here should be read bearing in mind the fact that the words
mathematics, mathematical, maths and math were removed (as explained above). In this
diagram, as predicted, a number of words dominate (technology, student, teacher, learn and
teach). Other relatively well represented words include environment, support, problem,
school, teacher-learning, online. Some examples of the number of times the words occur
are given below to provide an indication of what the relative sizes of the words mean:
“technology” occurs 32 times, “student” 16 times, “handheld” [top left] 6 times and
“enhance” [bottom right] four times.
Figure 2, below, shows the revised Wordle with the biggest words removed, as discussed.
The software was set to include only the 50 most popular words, and the smallest words in
the diagram occur twice overall (e.g. “role” and “construct”) whereas the biggest (online)
occurs 13 times.
This diagram highlights the main types of software mentioned in the titles plus “online”
which, in the context here, refers both to communication technologies such as discussion
forums (e.g. in the context of an online course) and to the use of online mathematics
software, such as the use of a web-based system designed to support students in constructing
flow-chart proofs in geometry. The three main categories of software include CAS (com-
puter algebra systems), DGS (dynamic geometry software) and CAA (computer-assisted
assessment). Although “environment” also appears as relatively important, an examination
of how it is used suggests that, for the purposes of this paper, its use is redundant because it
is always used together with specific software (e.g. “a spreadsheet environment”). The
names of devices mentioned relatively frequently are “calculator”, “video” and “handheld”.
Geometry is the biggest of the mathematical topics represented, followed by statistics and
algebra (interestingly, although DGS and geometry are about the same size, algebra is much
smaller than CAS). Curriculum, design and assess are all relatively well represented.
The diagram also includes a number of verbs: “enhance”, “improve”, “engage”, “in-
spire”, “support”, “understand” and “develop”. A number of titles used these verbs both to
suggest that the use of technology enhances or improves the teaching and/or learning of
mathematics by supporting the teacher or student, by engaging students more, by providing
opportunities to develop understanding (perhaps through interactivity; note that “interactive”
is also relatively big.) (e.g. “Improving understanding in ordinary differential equations

Fig. 1 Diagram representing frequency of words in title

350 M. Joubert

Fig. 2 Revised Wordle with the most popular words removed

through writing in a dynamic environment”). Related to teacher support, and sometimes

used in this context, is teacher-learning.

4.2 Abstracts in terms of the three grand challenges

Eleven of the 124 abstracts were not classified within any of the three Grand Challenge
themes. These included four which were concerned with the processes of research; three
about understanding the current concerns and trends within mathematics education (two of
these were presented by the author of this paper) and one about new methodologies for
tracing student activity. Five were concerned with teacher practice; either what they do in
their practice or what they could do. For example one study investigated the current levels of
usage of digital technologies in Zululand, South Africa, and in another the author proposed
that participants in his session would consider a mathematical activity in which technology
is used, and frame it within Bloom’s taxonomy, and finally consider how they could shift the
focus or emphasis of the activity to make it more engaging. The final three abstracts outside
the three Grand Challenge themes were concerned with the beliefs and attitudes of teachers.
The remaining 113 abstracts were classified as shown in Fig. 3 below. In this diagram, the
three Grand Challenges are represented as overlapping sets (circles) in a Venn diagram.
Abstracts classified within two or three Grand Challenges were placed in the intersections
between the circles.
Overall: 25 abstracts, approximately 22 % of the 113, were classified as connecting
learners; 84 (about 74 %) as orchestrating learning; and 65 (about 57 %) as contextualising
learning. The totals add up to more than 113 (100 %) because those in the intersections are
counted more than once. This suggests that in general the greatest concern of the community
is with orchestrating learning, with almost three-quarters of the abstracts addressing this
theme. The numbers for contextualising learning drop to about two-thirds and for connecting
learners it drops to under a quarter. In total 53 (out of 113, approximately 47 %) fell into
more than one theme, which includes 8 (about 7 %) in all three themes.
The discussion now provides more detail about these results, beginning with the inter-
section of all three themes, then discussing the intersections of two themes and finishing
with those abstracts that were classified within only one theme.
Eight abstracts were seen as falling within all three themes. They tended to introduce
novel contexts for learning, usually using online or networked resources which connected
the learners, and addressed organisational aspects of their use, discussing how learning
situations might be orchestrated when innovations are introduced. In one example, in which
Understanding the landscape: using digital technologies in mathematics teaching 351

Fig. 3 Numbers of abstracts Connecting

within the Grand Challenge learners Orchestrating
framework (25, 22%) learning
(84, 74%)

8
6 34

3 34

20

Contextualising
learning
(65, 57%)

two teachers shared their own experiences and ideas, iPod Touches were introduced into
teaching and learning mathematics and iPod Touch screens were shared using the school
network. The discussion addressed the ways in which teachers might orchestrate a lesson in
which this new technology is used. A second example, taken from a research context,
reported on a professional development initiative for teachers of mathematics. Teachers
used video clips focusing on their questioning practices and created an e-portfolio to share
both the clips and their own written commentary on the clips.
Eight abstracts were classified as both connecting learners and orchestrating learning.
As an example, one study investigated how students performed mathematically in situations
which were orchestrated to include the use of online homework exercises. In a second
example, a mathematics lecturer in Higher Education discussed issues of course design and
management, and assessment, in the context of her experiences of introducing an online
first-year Calculus course.
Three abstracts were placed within the intersection of connecting learners and contextualis-
ing learning. In one, a practising teacher described a research study she had conducted related to
the use of dynamic representations shared on an e-learning platform. In a second, a teacher
discussed new learning contexts made available by the connectivity of graphical calculators.
The orchestrating learning and contextualising learning intersection has 34 abstracts.
Many discussed both an innovation such as the use of new software, and how the classroom
might be orchestrated to take advantage of this innovation. For example, in one experimental
study students used dynamic geometry software to explore the properties of triangles and
quadrilaterals. The need to attend to the design of tasks for the classroom and the role of the
teacher is highlighted. In many of the workshops an innovation was introduced, such as the
use of cars, sailing or bicycles as the context for mathematical learning. These tended to use
modelling software and/or hardware such as sensors. Discussion led to the sorts of classroom
activity that could be designed to draw out mathematical learning. Others focused on a
particular aspect of classroom orchestration, such as assessment, and introduced novel
352 M. Joubert

approaches within this context, such as computer aided assessment. Where abstracts dis-
cussed the use of a different or new context and related this to student learning, frequently
claiming improved student learning, they were also placed in this intersection. For example,
in one action research study, students were given calculators with computer algebra systems
and the abstract suggests that the students had benefitted from this.
The discussion now turns to abstracts which were not placed in the intersections of the
Grand Challenges. Six abstracts were seen as connecting learners. In four, the opportunities
and set-up of online learning were discussed. For example, one described the use of online
live tutoring in mathematics for pre-university students. In the fifth initiative pre-service
teachers shared their work via a screencast and the sixth discussed the use of a web-based
problem solving competition.
Thirty-four abstracts were seen as orchestrating learning. These included those that
described using digital technologies, frequently referring to a) teacher practice, beliefs or
learning and b) student attitudes or learning. For example, about a quarter of all the abstracts
in this category discussed how ICT is used in the national or local context of the authors; in
some cases investigating how widespread or embedded the use of ICT is and how teachers
view the use of ICT, and in other initiatives the professional learning of teachers, related to
the use of ICT, was addressed. Further abstracts discussed pedagogical approaches to the use
of general or specific technologies. For example, one abstract described a study of new
teaching approaches related to the use of handheld technologies, which a) emphasised
connections between different representations and connections between different areas of
mathematics and b) used more investigative approaches. Others focused on the affordances
of certain technologies and discussed issues related to taking advantage of these within
classroom learning. For example, one focused on multiple external representations (e.g.
graphs, ordered pairs and tables of values related to functions) and described an initiative in
which teachers were introduced to theoretical ideas related to multiple representations, they
reflected on how to make thoughtful use of the technology and discussed and developed
ready-to-use classroom activities. Six abstracts concerned the use of computerised assess-
ment, ranging in their focus from teacher and student attitudes towards these methods of
assessment to ways in which to produce banks of questions.
Finally, 20 abstracts were placed in the third Grand Challenge area of contextualising
learning. Seven of these were planned as workshops, in which the presenters tend to
introduce new ideas, and ten were about practitioners sharing experiences and ideas. The
remaining three were research studies. The majority (15) introduced ideas related to digital
resources that could be used to provide new or stronger contexts for mathematics education;
either because the resources are new or because they are used in new ways. For example, one
presented a number of iPad “apps” that could be used within the contexts of mathematics
teaching and learning such as free calculators and graphing programs. Two explained how
Google Earth could be used to provide a context for learning mathematics and a third
discussed a bank of video clips that could be used in teacher education. The remaining five
abstracts presented different physical contexts for mathematical learning; bicycles, sailing
boats, sport and the “Bloodhound” (the prototype car aiming to break the world land-speed
record). In these, software tended to be used for modelling, recording and/or measuring.

5 Discussion

The first Wordle diagram above presented no real surprises, remembering that the words
mathematics, mathematical, math and maths were removed before it was constructed. In this
Understanding the landscape: using digital technologies in mathematics teaching 353

diagram the words technology, learn, teach, student and teacher all dominate. As suggested
in the methods section, this was expected, but it does confirm that the titles of the abstracts
reflect the substance of what the conference is about.
The second diagram, with these expected words removed, perhaps reveals more. In a
sense, the verbs used can be seen to lie at the heart of the concerns and interests of the
conference because these reflect the perceptions of the authors related both to how technol-
ogy supports improved teaching and learning in mathematics and what improved teaching
and learning in mathematics might look like.
For example, one title suggests that interactive assistance can help students learn geo-
metrical theorems implying that the interactivity of the technology supports learning. Other
ways in which technology can support improved or enhanced teaching and learning sug-
gested by the titles include: making resources or expertise more accessible (e.g. providing
online courses and resources); automatic marking of student work; providing multiple
representations (usually in the context of functions); providing dynamic representations
(e.g. geometric figures/diagrams); providing teachers with information about student activity
(e.g. by analysing log-files); making it possible to engage with mathematics in different and
new contexts available (e.g. using mobile devices).
Another title “Introducing basic mathematical modelling concepts using sporting appli-
cations in MatLab” could be seen to suggest that sport provides a suitable or appealing
context for learning about modelling, which implies that practical contexts that students are
easily able to relate to (sport) are of value in attracting students to modelling activities. Other
words used in the titles in a similar way include: students being more engaged (e.g. by
providing active learning tasks); students adopting more positive attitudes to mathematics
(e.g. by using contexts that are more appealing to students, such as Google earth); students
learning with understanding (e.g. through the use of multiple representations).
Turning now to the Grand Challenges, the first result was that 11 of 124 abstracts could
not be classified within the Grand Challenge framework. Of these, both the abstracts
concerned with current concerns and trends, and those concerned with teacher practices
and attitudes can be seen as developing an understanding of the status quo more generally
than within a particular area of technology-enhanced learning. This sort of focus can be seen
to reflect the wider community’s concern with how and why technology is, and is not, used
in the teaching and learning of mathematics as is seen, for example, in the Joint Mathematics
Council report (Clark-Wilson et al., 2011) referred to in the introduction to this paper.
Whereas the abstracts classified within the Grand Challenge framework relate to ways of
thinking about how technologies are (or could be) used and how classrooms might change to
take the new technologies into account, there does not seem to be a place within the
framework for taking into account the attitudes and practices of teachers and students.
As pointed out above, the teacher and students, and their attitudes, beliefs and practices,
are of crucial importance in the successful adoption of technologies in mathematics teaching
and learning so the data were further explored to investigate how widely these concerns were
represented in the whole set of abstracts, including those that were classified within the
Grand Challenge framework. Ten abstracts were found to relate to exploring the attitudes,
beliefs and practices of students and teachers in relation to the status quo (not innovation).
For example, one discussed Estonian teachers’ attitudes towards the use of technologies in
teaching mathematics and another explored the views of university lecturers related to
automatic assessment. A further eight related to researching approaches to, and impact of
teacher learning initiatives (professional development or initial teacher education), which, it
could be argued, reflects a similar concern. In total, these 18 abstracts represent over 15 % of
all the abstracts and the concerns and interests they represent are important, as argued above.
354 M. Joubert

However, there is no obvious place for this in the Grand Challenge framework, and although
some of these abstracts were classified within the framework, the suggestion is that the
framework does not sufficiently take these concerns into account. Further the use of the
framework may mask the importance of this concern.
The other four abstracts that were placed outside the Grand Challenge framework relate
to meta-level concerns about research. Whereas the Grand Challenge framework provides a
lens for looking at the focus or topic of research studies, it does not take into account the
need to research about research.
Turning to the abstracts placed within the framework, as discussed above, eight lie at the
intersection of all three themes. There are relatively small numbers of abstracts placed in the
intersections between connecting learners and the other two themes, and also to the numbers
within connecting learners generally. This is perhaps surprisingly low, given the assumption
by the STELLAR network that connecting learners is a “hot topic” (and confirmed, for
example, by Weigand who emphasises the importance of connectivity as an important
research topic (Weigand, 2010)).
It may be that, whereas much of the research of the STELLAR partners tends to focus on
learning in the workplace and in Higher Education where the learners are likely to possess
smart phones and are allowed to use them, much of the research represented at the ICTMT10
conference related to school students who are less likely to be connected using their own
devices. As the smart phone market extends further into the younger niche (see for example,
Bonsignore, 2011), and more learners are connected in this way, things may change.
Orchestrating learning, however, is very well represented within ICTMT10. This is
perhaps to be expected, as orchestration could be seen as relevant to, and of concern to,
all sectors within education. Orchestrating learning is not a new interest, and it is equally
relevant, for example, to research concerned with interventions as it is to investigating the
ways in which technologies are currently used in classrooms. Further it is likely that
orchestration is of interest to practitioners within the mathematics education community
because this theme reflects the day to day concerns of this group. Finally, where technolo-
gies are used to provide innovative contexts for learning mathematics, the ways in which
these might be organised in teaching and learning situations are likely to be of interest and this
accounts for the relatively high number of abstracts placed in the intersection between
orchestrating and contextualising learning.
The third Grand Challenge area is also well represented, with over half the abstracts
addressing contextualising learning. Again this is perhaps not surprising as this conference
provides a forum in which practitioners and developers are able to share their ideas and
experiences and these frequently report on providing new and different contexts for learning
mathematics. Similarly, for researchers there is an interest in not only the effects of using
new contexts, but also making, developing or designing new contexts. However, although this
area was well represented, just under half the abstracts (48, 42 %) did not fall into the theme,
emphasising that the concerns of the community are not only related to innovations and exciting
new contexts, but they are also strongly related to understanding current practice. Taken
together with the abstracts that fell outside of the Grand Challenge framework (11), this makes
a total of 59 (48 % of the total 124) not particularly concerned with innovation.
In conclusion, it seems that research about the increased and increasing connectivity of
learners may be at an early stage. Research and sharing experiences related to orchestrating
learning, both within the context of innovative practice using new contexts and outside of
this context, is of much interest and concern to the community. The community appears to be
interested in exploring new ideas, sometimes unrelated to the ways in which they could be,
or are, used in the classroom.
Understanding the landscape: using digital technologies in mathematics teaching 355

6 Conclusions

This paper presented one view of the landscape related to the use of technology in teaching
and learning mathematics. It described the landscape within the context of one
(representative) conference and with reference to the literature, providing both an overview
and a more detailed analysis in terms of three Grand Challenge.
The paper began, however, by suggesting that despite much research related to the use of
technology in teaching and learning mathematics, there is a concern that the research has not
had a significant influence on practice. It was suggested that this could be because the
research does not sufficiently address the challenges of using technology in these contexts
and does not sufficiently take into account the interests, issues and concerns (landscape) of
researchers and stakeholders in mathematics education.
This concluding section returns to these suggestions, and draws on the landscape view
presented in the paper to address them. The first relates to the challenges of using technology
in mathematics education. It seems from the literature that one of the key challenges is the
need to re-think our notion of what mathematics is, and what and how school and university
mathematics should be taught and learned, and how it should be assessed; as pointed out in
the brief literature review at the beginning of this paper, there appears to be general
agreement that both mathematics curricula and how mathematics is taught need to be re-
thought. Although this idea did not emerge strongly from the analysis of the conference
content, I suggest that it is present in the overview analysis represented by the words
“curriculum, assess and design”. It is more difficult to find a place for it in the Grand
Challenge framework, however, and it may be that the use of the framework masks this
important idea.
The overview analysis also provided further suggestions about the challenges; I suggest
that the set of words related to perceptions of what improved student learning might look
like (e.g. more engaged, learning with understanding) implies that a challenge for teachers is
to achieve improved learning (e.g. it is challenging to engage students). Related to this, an
interest in the beliefs and attitudes of teachers and students possibly indicates a challenge to
the integrating technology in mathematics education. Further implicit challenges revealed by
the analysis lie in supporting teachers and students, particularly teachers, in practical ways,
such as in the use of assessment software, which is seen to lighten the burden on teachers, or
in the use of “self-teaching” resources such as video.
A further challenge suggested by the literature is gaining commitment, from leadership and
policy, to the enterprise of integrating technology at a large scale in mathematics education. This
challenge did not emerge from the analysis of the landscape and on revisiting the data, I can be
confident in stating that it was not represented in the data. This is perhaps not surprising in the
light of the reputation and framing of the conference but nevertheless I suggest that it remains a
key challenge for the mathematics education community.
The second suggestion above was that the research does not sufficiently take into account
the interests, issues and concerns of researchers and stakeholders in mathematics education.
The literature review suggested that one of the key concerns of research is to develop
theoretical understandings of how and why teachers and students do, and do not, use
technology in mathematics, further suggesting that there was now a clear emphasis on the
teacher (rather than the student). The theoretical interest is not apparent in the analysis of
conference abstracts or titles (only one of the titles explicitly mentioned theory) as discussed
above, although of course it may have been present in the full papers and presentations. The
analysis also does not reflect the suggestion in the literature that the focus of interest has
shifted towards the teacher, instead suggesting more equally shared focus between teacher
356 M. Joubert

and student (of the 124 abstracts, 24 had a clear focus on the teacher and 29 on the students).
A further major concern reflected in the literature was teacher education (e.g. Artigue, 2010;
English, 2009). This was also clearly an interest at the conference as discussed above, and,
as also discussed, so were the beliefs and attitudes of teachers.
Whereas whether the theoretical interest was present at the conference is questionable, the
interest in how and why teachers and students do, and do not, use technology in relation to
teaching and learning situations was clearly indicated by the high numbers of abstracts
within orchestrating learning. Further, the large representation within contextualising learn-
ing suggests that how technology is used, and could be used, is of interest. However,
whereas the review of the literature suggested that the research community was becoming
more interested in theoretical understandings of the uptake and use of technologies (e.g.
instrumental genesis), this was less evident in the analysis of the conference abstracts. There
was also little evidence of an interest in new ways of conceptualising mathematics and
developing and using theoretical constructs such as semiotic mediation. This difference
between the research literature and the content of the abstracts within this conference is
perhaps unsurprising; the work of the two different (albeit overlapping) groups represented
by the research literature and the ICTMT audience is perhaps most sharply differentiated in
this respect. I suggest that, whereas it is part of the work of researchers to create theoretical
constructs, for the ICTMT conference audience the key concern is more practical.
The purpose of mapping out the landscape was to contribute to the understanding of the
landscape in order to address the claim that research agendas do not fully take into account,
or understand, the interests, issues and concerns of researchers and stakeholders in mathe-
matics education. The question for me now is how, and how much, the way I have chosen to
frame the landscape has helped to develop the understanding of the landscape. I suggest that
to some extent it was useful, particularly highlighting the need for more research in
connecting learners but also emphasising the continued high levels of interest in orchestrat-
ing learning. It also indicated that whereas there is interest in trying out new things, there is
an almost equal interest in understanding the status quo. However, while these findings may
be interesting, they do not perhaps address the “grand challenges” within mathematics
education sufficiently well because they do not pay sufficient attention to themes about a)
teachers (learning, attitudes etc.), b) doing and improving research (developing theories and
methods, understanding the landscape) and c) changes in mathematics and mathematics
education in the light of new technologies.
The paper ends with two questions. The first is what a Grand Challenge framework might
look like for mathematics education, and related to this, how it may or may not help to delineate
the landscape in order to be useful in the development of research agendas. The second is
whether and how STELLAR might consider expanding or developing its framework in the light
of these findings, particularly taking into account the fact that whereas mathematics is a specific
knowledge domain with unique characteristics, TEL in general is much wider.

References

Alagic, M. (2003). Technology in the mathematics classroom: Conceptual orientation. Journal of Computers
in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 22(4), 381–400. AACE Association for the Advancement of
Computing in Education.
Alagic, M., & Palenz, D. (2006). Teachers explore linear and exponential growth: Spreadsheets As cognitive
tools. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 633–649.
Understanding the landscape: using digital technologies in mathematics teaching 357

Anfara, V. A., & Mertz, N. T. (2006). Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research. Sage Publications.
Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip062/2005030919.html
Arnold, S. (2004). Mathematics education for the third millennium: Visions of a future for handheld classroom
technology. In I. Putt, R. Faragher, & M. McLean (Eds.), Mathematics education for the third millennium:
Towards 2010 (Proceedings of the 27th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group
of Australasia) (pp. 16–28). Sydney: MERGA.
Artigue, M. (2010). The future of teaching and learning mathematics with digital technologies. In C. Hoyles &
J. B. Lagrange (Eds.), Mathematics Education and Technology-Rethinking the Terrain (pp. 463–475).
New York: Springer.
Bauersfeld, H. (1997). Review: Research in mathematics education: A well-documented field? Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 28(5), 612–625.
Bazzini, L. (2002). From grounding metaphors to technological devices: A call for legitimacy in school
mathematics 1. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 259–271.
Beatty, R., & Geiger, V. (2010). Technology, communication, and collaboration: Re-thinking communities of
inquiry, learning and practice. In C. Hoyles & J. B. Lagrange (Eds.), Mathematics Education and
Technology-Rethinking the Terrain (pp. 251–284). New York: Springer.
Bonsignore, E. (2011). Sharing stories “in the wild”: A mobile storytelling case study. Proceedings of the 2011
annual conference extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 917–922). Vancouver:
ACM.
Borba, M. (2009). Potential scenarios for Internet use in the mathematics classroom. ZDM, 41(4),
453–465.
Bottino, R. M., & Chiappini, G. (2009). Using Activity Theory to study the relationship between technology
and the learning environment in the arithmetic domain. In L. English, M. Bussi, G. Jones, R. Lesh, & B.
Sriraman (Eds.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (2nd ed., pp. 838–861).
New York: Routledge.
Churchhouse, R. F. (Ed.). (1986). The influence of computers and informatics on mathematics and its
teaching. Cambridge: CUP Archive.
Clark-Wilson, A., Oldknow, A., & Sutherland, R. (2011). Digital technologies and mathematics education: A
report from a working group of the Joint Mathematical Council of the United Kingdom. London.
Condie, R., & Munro, B. (2007). The impact of ICT in schools - a landscape review. Report: Becta.
Dillenbourg, P. (2011). Trends in classroom orchestration: Second Research & Technology Scouting report
(pp. 1–61). Milton Keynes.
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 Math-
ematics, 75(2), 213–234.
Drijvers, P., Kieran, C., Mariotti, M. A., Ainley, J., Andresen, M., Chan, Y. C., et al. (2010). Integrating
technology into mathematics education: Theoretical perspectives. In C. Hoyles & J. B. Lagrange
(Eds.), Mathematics Education and Technology-Rethinking the Terrain (pp. 89–132). New York:
Springer.
English, L. (2009). Setting an agenda for international research in mathematics education. In L. English, M.
Bartolini Bussi, G. Jones, R. Lesh, & B. Sriranam (Eds.), Handbook of international research in
mathematics education (2nd ed., pp. 3–19). New York: Routledge.
Fischer, F., & Dillenbourg, P. (2006). Challenges of orchestrating computer-supported collaborative learning.
87th annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA).
Forgasz, H. J. (2002). Teachers and computers for secondary mathematics. Education and Information
Technologies, 7(2), 111–125.
Galbraith, P. (2006). Students, mathematics, and technology: Assessing the present – challenging the future.
International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 37(3), 277–290. Taylor &
Francis.
Goos, M. (2009). Investigating the professional learning and development of mathematics teacher educators:
A theoretical discussion and research agenda. In R. Hunter, B. Bicknell, & T. Burgess (Eds.), Crossing
divides: Proceedings of the 32nd annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of
Australasia (Vol. 1). Palmerston North: MERGA.
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., Kong, C. M., Glover, D., et al. (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 (Vol. 13, pp. 311–328).
New York: Springer.
Greeno, J. G. (1994). Gibson’s affordances. Psychological Review, 101(2), 336–342.
358 M. Joubert

Haapasalo, L. (2007). Adapting mathematics education to the needs of ICT. Electronic Journal of Mathe-
matics and Technology, 1(1), 1–10.
Healy, L., & Kynigos, C. (2010). Charting the microworld territory over time: design and construction in
mathematics education. ZDM, 42(1), 63–76.
Hegedus, S. J., & Penuel, W. R. (2008). Studying new forms of participation and identity in mathematics
classrooms with integrated communication and representational infrastructures. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 68(2), 171–183.
Heid, M. K. (2005). Technology in mathematics education: Tapping into visions of the future. In W.
J. Masalski (Ed.), Technology-supported mathematics learning environments (67th yearbook) (Vol.
67, p. 347). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Retrieved from http://my.nctm.org/
ebusiness/ProductCatalog/product.aspx?ID012850
Hew, K., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: current knowledge gaps
and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3),
223–252. Springer Boston.
Hoyles, C., Kalas, I., Trouche, L., Hivon, L., Noss, R., & Wilensky, U. (2010). Connectivity and virtual
networks for learning. In C. Hoyles & J. B. Lagrange (Eds.), Mathematics education and technology-
Rethinking the terrain (pp. 439–462). New York: Springer.
Hoyles, C., & Lagrange, J. B. (2009). Introduction to mathematics education and technology-rethinking
the terrain: The 17th ICMI Study. In C. Hoyles & J. B. Lagrange (Eds.), Mathematics education
and technology-Rethinking the terrain: The 17th ICMI Study (Vol. 13, pp. 1–15). New York:
Springer.
Hoyles, C., & Lagrange, J. B. (2010). Mathematics education and technology-Rethinking the terrain: The
17th ICMI Study. New York: Springer.
Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (2009). The technological mediation of mathematics and its learning. Human
Development, 52(2), 129–147.
Jones, K., Mackrell, K., & Stevenson, I. (2010). Designing digital technologies and learning activities for
different geometries. In C. Hoyles & J. B. Lagrange (Eds.), Mathematics education and technology-
Rethinking the terrain (pp. 47–60). New York: Springer.
Kaput, J., & Hegedus, S. J. (2002). Exploiting classroom connectivity by aggregating student constructions to
create new learning opportunities. In A. Cockburn & E. Nardi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual
Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 177–
185). Norwich: University of East Anglia.
Kaput, J., Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (2009). Developing new notations for a learnable mathematics in the
computational era. In L. English, M. Bartolini Bussi, G. Jones, R. Lesh, & B. Sriranam (Eds.),
Handbook of international research in mathematics education (2nd ed., pp. 693–715). New York:
Routledge.
Keong, C. C., Horani, S., & Daniel, J. (2005). A study on the use of ICT in mathematics teaching. Malaysian
Online Journal of Instructional Technology (MOJIT), 2(3), 43–51.
Laborde, C., & Sträßer, R. (2010). Place and use of new technology in the teaching of mathematics: ICMI
activities in the past 25 years. ZDM, 42(1), 121–133.
Langford, D. P., & Cleary, B. A. (1995). Orchestrating learning with quality. Milwaukee: American Society
for Quality.
Li, Q. (2003). Would we teach without technology? A professor’s experience of teaching mathematics
education incorporating the Internet. Educational Research, 45(1), 61–77.
Lopez-Morteo, G., & López, G. (2007). Computer support for learning mathematics: A learning environment
based on recreational learning objects. Computers in Education, 48(4), 618–641.
Lynch, J. (2006). Assessing effects of technology usage on mathematics learning. Mathematics Education
Research Journal, 18(3), 29–43.
Mariotti, M. A. (2002). The influence of technological advances on students’ mathematics learning. In L.
English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 695–723). Mahwah:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
McGrenere, J. (2000). Affordances: Clarifying and evolving a concept. Interface, (May), 1–8.
Paola, D. (2006). Sensing mathematics in the classroom through the use of new technologies. Proceedings
CIEAEM 58 –SRNI (pp. 15–22). Czech Republic.
Pierce, R., & Ball, L. (2009). Perceptions that may affect teachers’ intention to use technology in secondary
mathematics classes. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 71(3), 299–317.
Psycharis, G., & Kynigos, C. (2009). Normalising geometrical figures: Dynamic manipulation and construc-
tion of meanings for ratio and proportion. Research in Mathematics Education, 11(2), 149–166.
Skovsmose, O. (2006). Research, practice, uncertainty and responsibility. The Journal of Mathematical
Behavior, 25(4), 267–284.
Understanding the landscape: using digital technologies in mathematics teaching 359

STELLAR. (2008). STELLAR Description of Work. Milton Keynes.

Sutherland, R. (2007). Teaching for learning mathematics. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Sutherland, R., & Joubert, M. (2009). The STELLAR Vision and Strategy Statement. Retrieved from http://
dspace.ou.nl/bitstream/1820/2823/1/20090929_d1-1___vision-and-strategy.pdf.
Taylor, R. (1980). In R. Taylor (Ed.), The Computer in the school: Tutor, tool, tutee. Totowa: Teachers College
Press.
Thomas, M. O. J. (2006). Teachers using computers in mathematics: A longitudinal study. In J. Novotna, H.
Moraováa, M. Krátkáa, & N. Steklikováa (Eds.), Proceedings 30th Conference of the International Group
for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 265–272). Prague: PME.
Trouche, L., & Drijvers, P. (2010). Handheld technology for mathematics education: Flashback into the future.
ZDM, 42(7), 667–681.
van den Besselaar, P., & Heimeriks, G. (2006). Mapping research topics using word-reference co-occurrences:
A method and an exploratory case study. Scientometrics, 68(3), 377–393.
Weigand, H. G. (2010). Hoyles, C. and Lagrange, J. B. (eds.) (2010): Mathematics education and technology:
Rethinking the terrain. The 17th ICMI Study. ZDM, 42(7), 801–808.
Wild, F., Scott, P., Valentine, C., Gillet, D., Sutherland, R., Herder, E., et al. (2009). Report on the state of the
art in TEL. Milton Keynes. Retrieved from http://www.telearn.org/warehouse/Stellar_del7-1_
(002688v1).pdf
Wiliam, D., & Lester, F. K. (2008). On the purpose of mathematics education research. In L. English (Ed.),
Handbook of international research in mathematics education (2nd ed., p. 32). Abdingdon: Taylor &
Francis.