This article discusses methodological issues of mathematical microworld development integrated with generating innovation in the school setting. This is done by means of vignettes of key episodes in our eight-year-long experience of developing a component architecture for educational software based on Logo as a scripting language. The vignettes touch on the problems of collaboration between organizations and people of different expertise. They also address issues to do with the school and the classroom as social systems, with the method for implementing innovation and with curriculum design, teaching, and learning. A set of issues that emerged as problematic are outlined and discussed; the different priority systems involved, the amount of investment in collaboration, the differing discourses and epistemologies, the notion of a product, the interdependencies, and the contrast between reform and innovation versus instant fit. It is suggested that awareness needs to be raised as well as methods for dealing with these factors in order to generate cultures developing and using exploratory software.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AinleyJ.NardiE., & PrattD. (2000). The construction of meaning for trend in active graphing. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 5, 85–114.
2.
diSessaA. (1995). Epistemology and systems design. In diSessaA.HoylesC., & NossR. (Eds.), Computers and exploratory learning (pp. 16–29). New York: Springer Verlag NATO ASI Series.
3.
diSessaA. (1997). Open toolsets: New ends and new means in learning mathematics and science with computers. In LahtiP. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 21st Psychology of Mathematics Education Conference, Finland.
4.
diSessaA. (2000). Changing minds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5.
EdwardsL. (1998). Embodying mathematics and science: Microworlds as representations. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17(1), 53–78.
6.
EisenbergM. (1995). Creating software applications for children: Some thoughts about design. In diSessaA.HoylesC., & NossR. (Eds.), Computers and exploratory learning (pp. 175–196). New York: Springer Verlag NATO ASI Series.
7.
GoetzJ., & LecompteM. D. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. London: Academic Press.
HoylesC. (1992). Illuminations and reflections—Teachers, methodologies and mathematics. Proceedings of the 16th Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 263–283). New Hampshire.
10.
HoylesC. (1993). Microworlds/schoolworlds: The transformation of an innovation. In DorflerW.KeitelC., & RuthvenK. (Eds), Learning from computers: Mathematics education and technology (pp. 1–17). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
11.
HoylesC., & SutherlandR. (1989) Logo mathematics in the classroom. New York: Routledge.
12.
KafaiY., & ResnickM., (Eds.) (1996). Constructionism in practice. Designing, thinking and learning in a digital world. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
13.
KynigosC. (1997). Dynamic representations of angle with a Logo-based variation tool: A case study. In Turcsanyi-SzaboM. (Ed), Proceedings of the Sixth European Logo Conference (pp. 104–112). Budapest, Hungary.
14.
KynigosC. (2001). E-Slate Logo as a basis for constructing microworlds with mathematics teachers. In FutschekG. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Ninth Eurologo Conference (pp. 65–74). Lintz, Austria.
15.
KynigosC., & ArgirisM. (1999). Two teacher's beliefs and practices with computer based exploratory mathematics in the classroom. In Proceedings of the 23rd Psychology of Mathematics Education Conference (Vol. 3, pp. 177–185). Israel, Haifa.
16.
KynigosC., & GiannoutsouN. (2001). Seven year olds collaborating to construct a map using G.P.S. and space representation software. In DillenbourgP.EurelingsA., & HakkarainenK.K., (Eds), Proceedings of the First European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning(pp. 364–371). Maastricht, The Netherlands.
17.
KynigosC.KoutlisM., & HadzilakosTh. (1997). Mathematics with component-oriented exploratory software. Journal for Computers and Mathematical Learning, 2, 229–250.
18.
KynigosC., & PsicharisG. (2001). Meanings on the notion of curvature generated with a medium for dynamic manipulation and symbolic expression. In FutschekG. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Ninth Eurologo Conference (pp. 155–163). Lintz, Austria.
19.
KynigosC., & TheodosopoulouV. (2001). Synthesizing personal, interactionist and social norms perspectives to analyze collaborative learning in the classroom in the context of a computer based innovation program. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 36(2), 63–73.
20.
LagrangeJ-P.ArtigueM.LabordeC., & TroucheL. (2001). A meta study on IC technologies in education. Towards a multidimensional framework to tackle their integration. Proceedings of the 25th conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 111–123). van den Heuvel—PanhuizenM.
21.
NossR. (1985). Creating a mathematical environment through programming: A study of young children learning Logo. PhD. Thesis, published by University of London Institute of Education.
22.
NossR. (1992). The social shaping of computing in mathematics education. In PimmD. & LoveE. (Eds.), The teaching and learning of school mathematics. London, UK: Hodder & Stoughton.
23.
NossR. (1995). Computers as commodities. In diSessaA.HoylesC., & NossR. (Eds.), Computers and exploratory learning (pp. 363–381). New York: Springer Verlag NATO ASI Series.
24.
NossR., & HoylesC. (1996). Windows on mathematical meanings. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
25.
PapertS. (1993). The children's machine, rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York: Basic Books.
26.
PrawatR. S. (1996). Learning community, commitment and school reform. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28(1), 91–110.
27.
RoschelleJ.KoutlisM.ReppeningA. (1999). Developing educational software components, IEEE Computer, Special Issue on Web based learning and collaboration, pp. 2–10.
28.
SollowayE. (1998). No one is making money in educational software. Communications of the ACM, 41(2), 11–15.
