See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226206778

Examining the didactic contract when

handheld technology is permitted in the
mathematics classroom. ZDM-International
Journal of Mathematics Education, 42, 683-695

Article in ZDM: the international journal on mathematics education November 2010

DOI: 10.1007/s11858-010-0271-8

CITATIONS READS

10 59

3 authors:

Robyn Pierce Kaye Stacey

University of Melbourne University of Melbourne
81 PUBLICATIONS 660 CITATIONS 178 PUBLICATIONS 1,783 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Roger Wander
University of Melbourne
5 PUBLICATIONS 28 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Roger Wander
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 02 August 2016
ZDM Mathematics Education (2010) 42:683695
DOI 10.1007/s11858-010-0271-8
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Examining the didactic contract when handheld technology
is permitted in the mathematics classroom
Robyn Pierce Kaye Stacey Roger Wander
Accepted: 19 June 2010 / Published online: 25 July 2010
 FIZ Karlsruhe 2010
Abstract The use of mathematics analysis software
(MAS) including handheld scientific and graphics calcu-
lators offers a range of pedagogical opportunities. Its use
can support change in the didactic contract. MAS may
become an alternative source of authority in the classroom
empowering students to explore variation and regularity,
manipulate simulations and link representations. Strategic
use may support students to direct their own learning and
explore mathematics, equipping them to share their find-
ings with the teacher and the class with more confidence.
This paper offers a framework for examining the impact of
the use of MAS on the didactic contract. Lessons were
observed in 12 grade 10 classes, with 12 different teachers
new to MAS. MAS technology was used with a variety of
didactic contracts, mostly traditional. The framework drew
attention to many ways in which the teaching differed.
Analysis of the didactic contract must consider both the
teaching of mathematics and of technology skills, because
these have different characteristics. In all classes, both
teachers and students saw the teacher as having a respon-
sibility to teach technology skills. Students saw technology
skills as the main point of the lesson, but the teachers saw
the lesson as primarily teaching mathematicsone of the
mismatches which may need negotiation to adapt didactic
contracts to teaching with MAS.
R. Pierce (&)
K. Stacey
R. Wander
University of Melbourne, Level 7 Doug McDonell Bldg,
Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia
e-mail: r.pierce@unimelb.edu.au
Keywords Mathematics education
Technology

Didactic contract
Computer algebra system

Dynamic geometry
1 Introduction
During the teaching careers of our more experienced
mathematics teachers, standard equipment for doing
mathematics has moved from books of tables (loga-
rithms, anti-logarithms, sines, cosines, etc.) through simple
calculators to mathematics analysis software (MAS).
Many studies have shown that having MAS holds promise
for enabling fundamental changes in classrooms. This
paper proposes a structured approach to examining such
changes.
MAS is software capable of performing the algorithmic
processes necessary to do routine mathematical procedures
from any branch of mathematics, including any or all of
arithmetic calculations, symbolic manipulations, statistics,
graph sketching and construction of geometric figures. In
secondary school classrooms, MAS may now be available
as computer software (e.g. spreadsheets, function graphers
and dynamic geometry packages) or handheld calculators
[e.g. four-function, scientific, graphic, computer algebra
systems (CASs), CAS plus geometry]. This software may
be used individually (usually as handheld calculators) or
with the whole class when projected to a large screen as an
integral shared part of the lesson. Already MAS is available
for ubiquitous handheld and mobile technologies including
mobile phones. Changes in the social dynamics in class-
rooms which use technology have been widely reported. In
this paper, we examine the cognitive side of the classroom.
Based on the literature, this paper puts forward a frame-
work of questions for examining the didactic contract in a
123
684
classroom where MAS is available. This framework is then
trialled as a lens for analysing classroom data.
2 The didactic contract and MAS
In this section, we review the use of the term didactic
contract in the literature then consider factors that may
impact on the didactic contract, noting the links with socio-
mathematical norms (Yackel and Cobb 1996) explained
below. This is followed by a summary of pedagogical
opportunities afforded by MAS, including potential to
support changes in the didactic contract if desired.
2.1 What is the didactic contract?
The didactic contract is a frame for analysing classroom
interactions. The term didactic contract was introduced to
mathematics education by Brousseau (1997) and is part of
his theory of didactical situations. In seeking to unpack
Brousseaus (1997) use of this term to an English speaking
audience, Warfield (2006) explains that in a classroom
there is
a complex set of relationships of obligations between
teacher and student. Sometimes explicitly, but more
often implicitly, a determination is reached about
what each has the responsibility for managing. The
resulting system of reciprocal obligations resembles a
contract. The part of that contract that is specific to
the target mathematical knowledge is called the
didactical contract. (p. 33)
The didactic contract then is about reciprocal responsi-
bilities and expectations of the teacher and students with
respect to mathematical knowledge. Trouche (2005) sug-
gests, e.g., that students expect the teacher to have taught
them what they need to know and may be indignant if they
come to a problem that they do not know how to tackle.
The reason that they become indignant is that, from the
students point of view, this teacher has not upheld his or
her part of the didactic contract. Teachers who want their
students to tackle non-routine problems or open investi-
gations must pay attention to constructing a non-traditional
contract with their students. Students also have responsi-
bilities under a didactic contract. Teachers expect their
students to take reasonable actions to learn from the les-
sons. They can be justifiably annoyed if students do not
carry out their part of this contract. Beyond such basic
aspects, there are many possible nuances to the didactic
contracts that are established between teachers and their
classes.
Hersant and Perrin-Glorian (2005) distinguish four
interdependent dimensions of a didactic contract. These are
123
R. Pierce et al.
(i) the domainknowledge to be taught and learned; (ii)
the didactic status of this knowledge; (iii) the nature and
characteristics of the ongoing didactic situation; (iv) the
distribution of responsibility with respect to the knowledge
at stake, between the teacher and the students (p. 118).
The didactic contract will have a different character as
these dimensions vary. For (iv) and (ii) above, e.g., at one
extreme, there are classrooms where students are expected
and expect to follow the teachers methods exactly whether
the knowledge is well-established or new, whilst in others
students are expected and expect to demonstrate initiative
with all their mathematical thinking.
The didactic contract between a teacher and class can be
studied at the macro, meso or micro time scale. The
dominant nature and characteristics of the didactic situation
and the distribution of responsibilities may vary across
these time scales. When examining the didactic contract at
the meso-level (e.g. a sequence of related lessons) or
micro-level (an episode within a lesson), different facets of
the didactic contract may be in operation. For example, the
balance of responsibilities between participants in the
classroom may change during the course of a lesson as
activities with different didactic aims are worked through
(Hersant and Perrin-Glorian 2005, p. 119). It is as if the
overall didactic contract, implicit as it is, has multiple
clauses which operate under different circumstances in the
classroom, just as a legal contract has separate clauses
which come into operation in different circumstances.
Students may understand, e.g., that the teacher expects
them to practise certain routines exactly as shown in one
instance, but to use initiative to invent their own solution
strategies later in the lesson.
2.2 MAS and the milieu
The didactic contract is between the teacher and the stu-
dents. In the theory of didactic situations, other things in
the classroom (concrete materials, texts, white board,
mathematical problems posed, etc.) are part of the milieu.
The didactic contract includes understandings between the
teacher and the students about how, when and why ele-
ments of the milieu will be used or not used in teaching and
learning activities. MAS is a part of the milieu, but as this
section notes, it can play a very distinctive role. Laborde
and Perrin-Glorian (2005) write that the material or
intellectual reality, on which the student acts and which
may impinge on his/her actions and thought operations
may be referred to as the milieu. The system of interac-
tions between the students and the milieu is both a con-
sequence of and a source of knowledge. (p. 5) Because of
its computational capability, interaction with MAS is most
definitely both a consequence of and a source of knowl-
edge. MAS can, e.g., partially fulfil some of the roles of the
Examining the didactic contract
teacher, such as checking answers and providing prompts.
For this reason, it has been suggested by many researchers
that MAS technology, such as CASs, may not just be part
of the milieu of the classroom but, in a sense, become
another player in the communication interactions and the
didactic contract of the class. For example, Hoyles, Noss
and Kent (2004) from their wide ranging experience of
studying technology in classrooms view MAS as much
more than a mathematical tool, being a genuine mediator of
social interaction that can shape the construction of the
didactic contract and socio-mathematical norms. Drouhard
(1997) summarised observations such as these when he
proposed that the rather than the traditional teacher
knowledgestudent triangle, with MAS, analysis of
classroom interactions should also include groups and the
MAS (in his case CAS). This paper explores these ideas.
2.3 Mathematics classroom norms
Readers of English language literature unfamiliar with the
notion of didactic contract will find it as resonance with the
construct of socio-mathematical norms (Yackel and Cobb
1996). Patterns of expected and acceptable behaviour in
classes are part of the established culture of schools (the
norms), perhaps modified by the special requirements of
particular subjects. For example, it may be that if students
wish to ask a question they should raise their hands. At the
same time, students expect that if they raise their hands,
then the teacher will give them clarification or assistance.
These behaviour patterns are part of what Yackel and Cobb
(1996) refer to as social norms. They label patterns of
expected behaviour that relate specifically to interaction
about mathematics in a classroom the socio-mathematical
norms. For example, a mathematics teacher may establish
the practice that when students answer a question they
should be prepared to justify their answer mathematically,
rather than simply giving an answer. This is a socio-
mathematical norm, and it can also be seen as part of the
didactic contract operating in that class: both the teacher
and students share responsibility for explaining mathe-
matical thinking. The teacher of a class where students do
justify their answers mathematically in a productive way
will likely have also established a range of associated
social and socio-mathematical norms. Some aspects of the
acceptable behaviour in this regard are principally social
(e.g. to show respect for the opinions of other students, and
patience when their ideas are difficult to understand),
whilst others are principally mathematical (e.g. a mathe-
matical justification will not simply be an example or as
assertion but will probe more deeply). Although the con-
structs of didactic contract and socio-mathematical and
685
mathematical norms do not coincide, much of this paper
could be cast in either framework.
An important difference between the didactic contract
and socio-mathematical norms is that the theory of didac-
tical situations predicts that any didactic contract will
necessarily and regularly break down because for learning
to occur the teacher cannot provide for the student all that
the student is to learn, but can only provide situations from
which it may be learned. These breakdowns are of great
interest in the theory of didactical situations. It is the more
permanent aspects of the didactic contract that are closer to
socio-mathematical norms.
2.4 Pedagogical opportunities
Since the first introduction of the four-function calculators
in schools, researchers have explored the new opportu-
nities MAS offers for teaching and learning (see, for
example (chronologically) Etlinger 1974; Stacey and
Stacey 1983; Heid 1988; Stacey 1997; Vincent 2003;
Drijvers 2005) There have been many strands to this
research, related to (a) changes in what mathematics is,
can be, or should be taught, (b) changes in assessment
and (c) opportunities to enrich and strengthen the teaching
of mathematics. Pierce and Stacey (2010) have summa-
rised this last strand, which they call the pedagogical
opportunities of MAS, in what they call a pedagogical
opportunities map (see Fig. 1). Functional opportunities
(i.e. MAS capabilities to execute algorithms quickly and
correctly) underpin the ten types of pedagogical oppor-
tunities. Boxes in the lowest row of Fig. 1 (labelled the
tasks level) identify opportunities that operate through the
mathematical tasks that students encounter. The three top
boxes note opportunities that relate to new views of the
subject mathematics that can be stimulated by MAS:
opportunities to reassess subject goals and teaching
methods. The middle row (the classroom level) relates
to two ways in which the interactions in the classroom
might change or be changed with MAS. The left-hand
box identifies that using MAS can alter social interactions
in the classroom. For example, it is often observed that
students are increasingly sharing mathematical ideas,
perhaps because they share screens or perhaps because
they have more confidence to contribute to class discus-
sions (Pierce and Stacey 2001a). The right-hand box
identifies changes that may occur in the didactic contract
in a classroom using MAS. Broadly, this right-hand box
references the cognitive rather than the affective side of
interaction. Many teachers are seeking a more construc-
tivist classroom with more active student learning, and
they see new technology as one way of fostering this, and
123
686 R. Pierce et al.

Fig. 1 Pedagogical Pedagogic al map

opportunities afforded by
mathematical analysis software
for
(from Pierce and Stacey, 2010) mathematic s analys is s oftware

g oals & met hods)

(Re-as sessed
Subjec t
Exploit c ontr ast Re-balanc e Build
of ideal & emphasis on skills, metac ognition
mac hine c onc epts, and over view
mathematic s applic ations

per sonal aut hor it y)

(Impr ov ed d isp lay,
Classr oom
Change C hange
c lassr oom P E DA G O G IC A L c las s room
soc ial O P P O R T U NIT IE S
didac tic
dynamic s c ontrac t

ac c ess, ac c urac y )
(I mp r oved speed,
Sc affold
Use r eal Explor e Simulate Link
Task s

pen-and-
data r egular ity r eal r epr esentations
paper
and situations
skills
var iation

F U NC T IO NA L O P P O R T U NIT IE S
Pr imar y pur pose and str ength
Exec ute algor ithms quic kly
C U R R IC U L U M A S S E S S ME N T
C HA NG E
and ac c ur ately C HA NG E

are therefore seeking a different type of interaction about
mathematics. This paper is concerned with this right-hand
boxthe effects (potential and actual) of classroom use
of MAS on the didactic contract.
In the next section, we review research related to the
didactic contract and technology, in particular handheld
technology. In the light of the literature and our research
experience, in Fig. 2, we propose a framework of questions
for considering the clauses of a didactic contract which
may be specific to a MAS classroom.
3 Framework for studying the didactic contract
in MAS classrooms
We structure the investigation around the four dimensions
of Hersant and Perrin-Glorian (2005), described above.
Figure 2 shows a series of questions, organised around
these dimensions, which can be used to identify the char-
acteristics of the didactic contract in operation in class-
rooms where MAS is available for teaching, learning or
simply doing mathematics. These questions are derived
from the issues raised in the literature that relate to
teaching with MAS and their use will be illustrated in the
lesson reports below. Of special interest are the changes to
Domain
1. What domain is to be studied?
a. What is the mathematical focus?
b. What is the technical focus?
c. What is the balance of importance between the mathematical and
technical learning goals?
Didactic status of knowledge
2. What is the didactic status of the knowledge to be studied (in a given lesson)?
a. What is the didactic status of the mathematical knowledge?
b. What is the didactic status of the technical knowledge?
Distribution of responsibility
3. Whose responsibility is it for learning to use the MAS?
a. How do the teacher and student balance this responsibility?
b. Is the teacher expected to have all the answers about MAS features, or
is there an expectation that students and teacher can learn together?
4. Are a range of alternative MAS operating strategies permitted for students?
5. Are a range of alternative MAS mathematical strategies permitted for students?
6. Whose responsibility is it for deciding whether to use MAS?
Nature and characteristics of the ongoing didactic situation
7. Is MAS allowed, or encouraged, or tolerated or forbidden for simple functional
use?
8. Is MAS allowed, or encouraged, or tolerated or forbidden for complex functional
use?
9. Is MAS output allowed, or encouraged, or tolerated or forbidden for supporting
mathematical arguments?
10. For which of the following purposes is use of MAS output/displays expected:
a. Scaffolding pen-and-paper skills;
b. Using real data;
c. Exploring regularity and variation;
d. Simulating real situations;
e. Linking representations;
f. Other?
Fig. 2 Questions for considering the didactic contract in an MAS
classroom

123
Examining the didactic contract
the didactic contract as technology is newly introduced and
establishing its place.
3.1 Domain and didactic status of knowledge
Working with MAS requires consideration of an extended
domain of knowledge, going beyond mathematics to
include technical knowledge and skills (Pierce and Stacey
2004). At one extreme of a continuum (shown in Fig. 3 and
indicated by the lower dashed arrow) is the knowledge and
skills to operate the technology without any regard to
mathematics (e.g. to adjust screen contrast). At the other
extreme, working with MAS requires mathematical
knowledge that is unchanged whether one works with MAS
or not (e.g. understanding key mathematical concepts). In
the middle, still spreading along a continuum (indicated by
the upper dashed arrow) is what we call technical knowl-
edge and skills, which mix machine and mathematical
knowledge, e.g. to use appropriate menus and syntax to
operate the software mathematically. This additional
knowledge domain needs to be taken into account when
considering teachers and students responsibilities that
form part of the didactic contract.
Given that there are two (related) domains of knowledge
in mathematics lessons involving MAS, they need to be
considered separately and then together when examining
the dimensions of the didactic contract related to the
domain to be studied and to the didactic status of knowl-
edge during a particular teaching episode. When consid-
ering the domain of knowledge to be studied, part of the
didactic contract is constituted by whether each of the
parties (teacher and students) sees that mathematics goals
alone are important, or whether technology goals alone are
Fig. 3 The continuum of
knowledge and skills required
for using MAS (adapted from CONTINUUM OF KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS REQUIRED FOR USING
Pierce & Stacey, 2004)
Machine
only
HARDWARE
Location
of keys
& menus
Adjust
screen
Change
batteries
687
important (especially during a particular teaching episode)
or more generally where the balance lies. As well as
varying during lessons and between teaching assignments,
it is well documented that this balance has changed over
time and has had different balance points for different
levels of education (Pierce and Stacey, 2001b). Similarly,
the didactic status of knowledge is likely to be different for
the two aspects. Indeed, manipulating this (so that, e.g.,
new technical knowledge may be taught in the context of
well-known mathematical knowledge) is a common strat-
egy considered by teachers (see Berry, 1999).
3.2 Distribution of responsibility
There have been many discussions in the research literature
about the role of the teacher in the process of learning to
use technology and the process of learning mathematics
using technology. The distribution of responsibility for this
learning is at the heart of the didactic contract.
Whilst the teacher may take the responsibility for stu-
dents learning to use the hardware and appropriate tech-
nical skills, the process may be shared with students. Some
teachers expect that if their students are indeed digital
natives (Prenksy 2001; Bennett, Maton and Kervin 2008),
then they will have little or no difficulty working out how
to use a new technology. They may pay little attention in
class to learning to use technology. In contrast, in a study
of UK students working with CAS, Monaghan (2004)
observed teachers moving quickly around the class
attending to technical and hardware problems. He inter-
preted this as teachers concern to ensure that technical
difficulties did not prevent students attending to the
mathematical task at hand. Monaghans teachers took
Mathematics
Technical aspects only
SOFTWARE
Select
exact
Use Derivative is
or
parenthese rate of
approx change
Permissible
variable Command
names Select syntax
Number of
graph factors of
window polynomial
Interpret
output
123
688
responsibility for seeing that students acquired the new
skills.
Trouche (2004) draws attention to the complexity of
both learning to operate the technology and learning to use
technology for doing and learning mathematics. Implicitly,
he is calling for greater attention by teachers in his setting
to teaching students to use technology. He introduced the
term instrumental orchestration to point out what he sees
as the necessity of external steering [by the teacher] of
students instrumental genesis. Guin and Trouche (2002)
had raised the issue of maintaining classroom social norms,
such as class discussion of results, when students are
working with advanced calculators. They introduced the
strategy of devolving responsibility to one student (the
sherpa student) to pilot the overhead-projected calculator.
This student will sometimes be free to take initiative and at
other times be expected to merely follow the mathematics
described by the teacher but in each instance the sherpa
student effectively becomes the technology demonstrator
for the class. In this way, the teacher guides the calculator
work of the whole class by monitoring the work of the
sherpa student. The sherpa student occupies a special role
in the didactic contract operating in the classroom: this
student takes on a special responsibility and both teacher
and students have expectations regarding the sherpa stu-
dents contribution to the development of knowledge in the
class.
It is interesting to consider whether responsibility for
new technical knowledge is treated in the same way as new
mathematical knowledge. Hersant and Perrin-Glorian
suggest that the teacher can delegate responsibility to
students with respect to new knowledge only in a didactic
situation whose milieu is endowed with a feedback
potential (p. 119). A major challenge for lesson design in
recent decades has been creating a milieu with feedback
potential, so that classrooms can move away from tradi-
tional exposition-example-exercises teaching and students
can build their own knowledge in a more active way. A
milieu including MAS has very high feedback potential,
and so it should be possible for didactic contracts to be
operating where students take a higher level of responsi-
bility for new knowledge when MAS is present. This could
occur for both mathematical and technical knowledge. In
some situations, it will be obvious to the user, teacher or
student that the result of a certain action made on the MAS
is correct or incorrect, e.g. a new page does or does not
appear or the slider does or does not move by the desired
amount. On occasion, MAS also provides information on
how to correct errors. This is the feedback being provided
by the MAS, which can help students take responsibility
for learning technical skills. MAS can also provide feed-
back on mathematical correctness and errors to assist stu-
dents to take more responsibility for their learning.
123
R. Pierce et al.
However, mathematical correctness or errors may not be
obvious to the student if the mathematical knowledge
involved is new. Evidence of this is given in reports of the
use of MAS to support the learning of by-hand skills (see,
e.g., Kieran and Damboise 2007). All of these factors need
to be considered by the teacher when they decide to
devolve responsibilities to students.
Another aspect of the distribution of responsibility in the
didactic contract with respect to MAS lies in whether
students are free to choose amongst mathematical methods
for problem solving, including to decide whether or not to
use MAS to solve a problem. Literature on this is discussed
in Sect. 3.4.
3.3 The didactic contract can be changed
by the presence of MAS
Across the literature, it is clear that teachers reactions to the
possibility of having MAS in their classrooms vary greatly.
Several analyses explain this by whether teachers welcome
changes in the didactic contract or not. Some mathematics
teachers are concerned that use of MAS in the classroom will
disturb a well-established didactic contract whilst other
mathematics teachers are pleased that this may open up new
possibilities for the distribution of responsibility for knowl-
edge. Norton, McRobbie and Cooper (2000) discuss sec-
ondary teachers reasons for not wanting or wanting to use
computers in mathematics classes, and provide examples of
differences between teachers. From their case studies, we
can read the negative example of Peter who makes it clear
that he does not want his students to use computers. Peter
expects (and wants) to be the source of knowledge for his
students and he expects these students to spend most time on
drill and practice. Mary in contrast is positive about the use
of technology. She does not expect her students to spend
significant amounts of time on drill and practice but wants
them to use software to explore mathematics phenomena.
Mary wants her students to take more responsibility for their
own learning and does not expect to be the sole source of
mathematical authority for her class.
Monaghan (2004), who for many years, conducted
research on the use of CAS in secondary mathematics
classes, commented that there is no standard form of tea-
cherstudent interactions in technology-based lessons. This
suggests that there was no common didactic contract for
classes using this form of MAS and that the socio-mathe-
matical norms may be different in different teachers
classrooms. Some teachers studied by Monaghan con-
sciously saw using technology as a means of changing their
practice so that they spent less time on exposition. This
would indicate a change in the didactic contract, as well as
exploitation of the feedback potential of the MAS-enriched
milieu.
Examining the didactic contract
3.4 Characteristics of the didactic situation
The way in which MAS is allowed, permitted, encouraged
or forbidden to enter into the expectations of how mathe-
matics is done is a part of the didactic contract. For
example, having MAS may lead to changes in the accepted
ways of presenting and communicating mathematical
meaning. Monaghan (2004) observed that technology is
often not just a tool for doing the mathematics but a
medium for expressing the mathematics. The record of
interactions with the technology together with each out-
come may be used as a basis for student reflection. Such a
strategy involves a change in the socio-mathematical
norms for the accepted basis for mathematical discussion.
Ruthven and Hennesey (2002) noted that many students
responded positively to simple changes like not having to
write everything down whilst they were working because
the MAS provides a record (this change was also noted by
Pierce and Stacey, 2001b). When students need to con-
struct a record for communicating their mathematical
working once a problem has been solved, the authority of
the MAS in the classroom is also involved. Ball and Stacey
(2003) promoted a rubric that teachers might use as a basis
for negotiating with their students new socio-mathematical
norms for written mathematical solutions. This rubric
assumes that outsourcing calculations to MAS, even
extensive sequences of calculations, is permissible and that
not all intermediate steps and results need to be recorded.
Instead, they suggest it is sufficient for students to record
an overall path of the solution with reasons (e.g. I will
differentiate the function, find where the derivatives are
equal to zero, and test these points to see if they are
maxima.), the inputs that they key into the MAS (e.g.
the function entered) and selected answers (e.g. the values
of the function at points where the derivative is zero).
There are various other reports of changes to the
didactic contract as a result of the introduction of MAS to
the classroom. A key issue is how teachers deal with the
explosion of methods (Artigue, 2001) that occurs when
new mathematical power is added to the classroom. Ball
and Stacey (2006), e.g., report the case of Neil who was
surprised, but pleased, to find that, when given choice,
many of his students did not reproduce the solution strat-
egies he had demonstrated but chose other approaches
facilitated by their work with CAS. This represented a
change in the didactic contract. Previously, Neil expected
students to use the mathematical methods he had demon-
strated, with a preference for pen-and-paper symbolic
work, rather than use of MAS. However, over a year, the
notion of what constituted an approved solution had
broadened. With the help of CAS, students took on
responsibility for finding effective solution strategies,
689
which formerly rested entirely with the teacher. Their
teacher was also pleased to see this developing
independence.
3.5 MAS as a player in the didactic contract
There are some reports in the literature which describe or
analyse the role that MAS takes in particular classrooms,
which often identify a unique place in the classroom
interactions. For example, in an intensive study of a class
of undergraduate students, Pierce and Stacey (2001a)
reported that the students included MAS in their discus-
sions as an available authority. Students were overheard
to say things such as: What does yours think? (p. 38).
Geiger (2009), who has closely observed secondary stu-
dents working with CAS over the past decade, notes that
MAS has a role in mediating both individual and collab-
orative learning. He elaborates a framework employing
broad categories of student behaviour when using MAS
and the anthropomorphic roles which they give it: For
example, some students feel in control of their technology
(Technology as Servant), whilst others feel that they are its
victims (Technology as Master). Some students eventually
adopt technology as a Partner or even an integral Extension
of themselves.
4 Using the framework to analyse lessons
In this section, we use the framework in Fig. 2 to analyse
aspects of the didactic contracts operating in lessons using
MAS. Meso and micro characteristics of the didactic
contract are inferred from the experimental data. Often
these appear to be evidence of macro, long standing,
characteristics.
The analysis of the various classroom studies noted
above suggests that the role assigned to the MAS will vary
from teacher to teacher, and that the relationship students
develop with their handheld tool will reflect this, even as it
varies from student to student. Because of shortage of
space, the lessons are not reported individually, but we
draw on them all to give good illustrations of the overall
findings.
4.1 Methodology and data collection
For this paper, we draw data from the 12 occasions on
which a grade 10 quadratics lesson was taught. The MAS
was TI-Nspire(CAS): handheld for the students and with
the teachers computer or handheld projected either using a
view screen, interactive whiteboard or data projector. All
12 teachers were new to using TI-Nspire beyond its
123
690
graphics calculator capabilities. They represent a middle
group of adopters (neither early nor late) and not all were
enthusiastic about the use of MAS for teaching mathe-
matics. The schools goals for the research were to produce
quality lesson plans that became part of their lesson bank
and to gain a better understanding of how to teach with
technology. The lesson was designed, taught, analysed and
refined through a modified form of lesson study. Lesson
study has a long history in Japan (see, e.g., Isoda, Stephens,
Ohara and Miyakawa, 2007) and in recent years has been
used to support professional development in many coun-
tries. In our study, the authors (as researchers) planned a
lesson with input and advice from teachers at the schools.
They identified the need for a lesson at the culmination of a
unit of work on quadratic functions to consolidate concepts
through application and linking representations (Fig. 1,
Task level).
For studying the pedagogical opportunity of linking
representations, the lesson, Marinas Fish Shop investi-
gates the relationship between an area and a variable length,
in a simple real world context (Fig. 4). The relationship is
quadratic and it is explored using geometric, graphic,
numeric and symbolic representations. This Australian
lesson (described in detail by Wander and Pierce, 2009)
was inspired by La fonction de lenseigne - Lenseigne
lumineuse developed collaboratively by French teachers
and researchers (Aldon, 2009), although it is considerably
modified. The lesson plan in its final version is available
from http://extranet.edfac.unimelb.edu.au/DSME/RITE
MATHS/.
Teachers taught the lesson, observed by the researchers
and by those of their fellow teachers who were available at
the time. After the lessons, teachers and researchers met for
retrospective analysis of the lessons which fed into a cycle
of refining the lesson plan and further trials. Researchers
made observation notes and all lessons were digitally
recorded. A brief survey was administered after each lesson
to all participants, i.e. students, teachers and researchers. In
addition to the focus group, brief interviews were con-
ducted with teachers. Analysis of the data from observation
notes, lesson transcripts and video recordings was based
around the framework questions in Fig. 2. Responses to the
first three, open survey questions were read several times
then classified according to the emerging themes. The
results are discussed below.
Fig. 4 Problem context for
quadratics lesson: the fish shop
and various possible signs
123
R. Pierce et al.
5 Results and discussion
Much of the didactic contract is implicit and so we are
making inferences about apparent components of the
didactic contract from the observations. It was apparent in
all classes that there was a shared understanding between
the teachers and the students that their task for the lesson
was to follow the lesson documents closely in order to
help the researchers from the university. Given this
intention, the variations in the lesson delivery and in the
revealed aspects of the didactic contracts in the 12 classes
were especially interesting.
5.1 Domain and didactic status of knowledge
Hersant and Perrin-Glorian (2005) identify the importance
of the domain and the didactical status of the knowledge as
a context that influences the didactic contract in operation
on any one occasion. In Marinas Fish Shop, the math-
ematical focus was the knowledge of quadratic functions
encountered during the preceding unit of work. The aim
was to consolidate and apply this knowledge, using geo-
metric, graphic, numeric and symbolic representations,
supported by TI-Nspire(CAS). Thus, the key part of the
knowledge domain for this lesson consisted of knowledge
and skills from the middle section of the continuum shown
in Fig. 3, where knowledge of the software interacts with
knowledge of mathematics. Mathematical knowledge from
most areas of the Grade 10 work on quadratic functions
would be called upon in solving the problem.
The didactic status of the mathematical knowledge was
mixed; some was old knowledge that might be seen as the
responsibility of the student (e.g. the use of Cartesian axes),
whilst other parts (especially related to quadratic functions)
were recently introduced or recently institutionalised, but
not fully consolidated. Similarly, the didactic status of the
required technology knowledge varied. Students had basic
knowledge of the hardware. In general, the dynamic geo-
metric and symbolic use of their handheld device was new
to them as was creating a scatter-plot using data capture.
However, their knowledge of the required function graph-
ing and numeric modes was reasonably established.
Operational knowledge, such as finding a document or
changing pages, was familiar but not yet automated for
all students.
Examining the didactic contract
With respect to the didactic contract and the domain of
knowledge, we found that the perceptions of the teachers
and the students as to the underlying purpose of the lesson
differed. This was shown most explicitly by analysis of the
surveys given after each lesson. Data are reported from the
six classes where a majority of students returned permis-
sion forms required by our ethics committee.
The results are summarised in Table 1. The first item
asked what the respondent thought was the key point of the
lesson. Variation is to be expected to an open question,
after a complex lesson with many components. However,
the students generally saw that the main purpose was to
learn new TI-Nspire(CAS) skills (71%), whilst five of the
six teachers viewed the main purpose to be linked to
mathematics (83%). This major difference in perceptions
can be expected to impact on both teachers and students
expectations during this class. Question 2 shows a similar
pattern. Many of the students (46%) but none of the
teachers gave an answer related to technology when asked
to identify new mathematical ideas.
The responses to Question 3 show that both students and
teachers recognised that there were new technology
(hardware and technical) skills to learn during the lesson.
The teachers emphasis on mathematics in Question 1 is
not because they thought that the students had mastered the
technology skills, but it reveals how they see their role in
the didactic contract. From the teachers perspective, as
they observed or taught the lesson, the primary knowledge
domain was the mathematics: an exploration of a problem
using quadratic functions. For the second knowledge
domain, learning to use TI-Nspire(CAS) for mathematics,
teachers recognised that many of the technology skills were
Table 1 Grouped responses to open survey questions after Marinas Fish Shop lesson
Learn to use
TI-Nspire (%)
Question 1: What did you think was the key point of the lesson?
Students (n = 84) 71
Teachers (n = 6) 17
Linking
representations
Question 2: What new mathematical ideas do you think students learnt during the lesson?
Students (n = 83) 8 46
Teachers (n = 6) 33
Data capture
or regression
Question 3: What new use of TI-Nspire do you think students learnt during this lesson?
Students (n = 77) 25
Teachers (n = 6) 33
691
new for these students. From the students perspective this
second domain was of prime importance. This difference in
participants understanding of what the lesson is mostly
about underlines the reason for the questions in the
Domain section of Fig. 2.
We saw examples where mismatch of student and tea-
cher expectations appeared to result in breaks in didactic
contracts, with likely consequences for learning. In several
of the classes observed, students frequently diverted the
teachers attention away from the mathematical discussion
to attend to technical and hardware aspects of their hand-
held calculators. In these cases, it was hard for the teacher
to give the mathematics adequate attention, since every
student was keen that the display on their handheld exactly
matched the teachers. This was often not necessary for the
mathematical discussion.
The mismatch of student and teacher expectations may
have itself arisen from a break that students themselves
perceived in the normal didactic contract. In the students
prior experience, handheld calculators had normally been
used to check answers, to draw a graph and perhaps find a
point of intersection or to carry out harder/longer calcula-
tions (all functional purposes). The intention to use the
handheld device as a pedagogical tool appears not to be
fully realised by students.
5.2 Distribution of responsibility
Next, we consider the distribution of responsibilities in the
classroom. Based on Hersant and Perrin-Glorian (2005),
we were not surprised to observe that the sections of the
lesson requiring new technology skills would be carefully
Use TI-Nspire Mathematical Other (%)
for mathematics (%) concepts (%)
19 5 5
0 83 0
Using technology Nothing new Other
for mathematics
20 25
0 50 17
Movable Quadratics; Combination
diagram graph techniques or other
8 29 39
0 0 67
123
692
directed by the teacher in most classes. Even though the
necessary steps were included in the student worksheet,
each teacher clearly expected to take some responsibility
for showing students how to use these facilities on their TI-
Nspire(CAS) and many students reciprocally expected the
teacher to do this, often directly asking the teacher to show
them.
Across the 12 classes, there was considerable variety in
degree of responsibility taken by and given to students for
learning to use technology. In some classes, we saw evi-
dence of previously established didactic contracts when
most students waited for their teacher to remind them or
show them which button to push and which menus to use,
so that these actions were nearly done in unison. At the
other extreme, in some classes, we observed students going
ahead with the worksheet, and working ahead with TI-
Nspire(CAS) with the teachers unspoken approval. In
these classes, it was common to see students show inde-
pendence in operating TI-Nspire(CAS) and checking with a
friend instead of the teacher. Different divisions of
responsibility for learning to use technology already
seemed established in many classes.
We looked for a correlation between the learning of
mathematics and the learning of technology skills in the
degree of responsibility for independent learning given to
students and also in the teachers openness to individual
students ideas. It appeared across the sample that they are
often related. Some teachers lead their students step by step
through both the mathematics and technology use, showing
students what to do and expecting them to copy the button
pressing. It was common to see these same teachers lead
very carefully guided mathematical exposition that dem-
onstrated approved methods.
Several other teachers gave moderate guidance for the
mathematics and expected students to be able to operate
their TI-Nspire(CAS) handheld with little teacher inter-
vention. These teachers were not surprised when students
suggested alternative MAS actions and were happy to
demonstrate the actions suggested to the whole class. There
is perhaps an expectation here that students will make
alternative suggestions about technology methods, but not
about mathematical methods.
One teacher especially positively encouraged alternative
student initiated technology strategies with remarks such as
I dont do it that way but well try it and then going technology was not needed in that section of the lesson,
ahead to display the steps for the whole class. This teacher
also had the most open approach to students mathematics.
For example, when the teacher overheard one student
telling another the half base by height formula for the Nspire(CAS) to help with their area calculations.
area of a triangle, he commented that using that formula
was just one way to find the area. During the lesson, he support their thinking. One teacher used the dynamic dia-
often acknowledged and encouraged alternative mathe-
matical strategies by saying things such as yes thats one dents thinking about the problem. He insisted that they
123
R. Pierce et al.
way to do it or Ive seen several methods around the
class lets look at the most common.
In summary, it appears that the distribution of respon-
sibility for learning to use technology is likely to follow the
already established didactic contract with respect to the
teachers willingness to engage with student suggestions
and permit independent methods.
5.3 Nature and characteristics of the ongoing didactic
situation
Even though the teachers were all working from the same
lesson documents, we observed considerable variety in the
clauses of the didactic contract pertaining to the role of
MAS for doing and exploring the mathematics. In nearly
all classes, students were allowed or encouraged to use
their TI-Nspire(CAS) for checking or for exploring and for
drawing graphs, although use of symbolic algebra (a major
focus for these students) was more restricted.
All but one of the teachers used MAS to start the lesson,
as written in the lesson plan. The prepared TI-Nspire(CAS)
files began with a carefully constructed dynamic diagram
of the shops fish-sign, where the area of the fish-sign could
be seen to vary as students used a slider to vary the
dimensions of the fish. This diagram was given in two
versions; first without measurements to draw students
attention to the general behaviour of the area as the length
changed, and then with measurements of length and area to
check their conjectures. However, when students were
asked to calculate the area of the fish-sign first for
numerical cases and then for the general case using alge-
bra, approval to use technology varied: you may use TI-
Nspire(CAS) if you wish, you may use TI-Nspire(CAS)
if you NEED to, you shouldnt need to use TI-Nspir-
e(CAS) for this but. Technology use for arithmetic was
approved but not encouraged for the required expansion of
binomial expressions and collection of terms. However, all
teachers approved of using MAS for plotting many points,
and all teachers accepted a curve fitted to the data as a
source of information showing that the function had a
minimum point.
One teacher did not use the dynamic diagram, but only
drew students attention to the static images of the fish-sign
on paper as in Fig. 4. He commented after the lesson that
believing that students should be able to visualise the
changes. Perhaps not surprisingly this teacher told his
students quite firmly that they should not need to use TI-
Other teachers encouraged students to use MAS to
gram at the beginning of the lesson to stimulate the stu-
Examining the didactic contract
make and write down conjectures regarding the problem
and at that time he did not suggest a correct view, instead
leaving their conjectures open to motivate the subsequent
investigations. This teacher expected students to take
responsibility for the mathematics needed for the problem
(possible because it was the end of the unit of work) and
encouraged them to use the TI-Nspire(CAS) to support and
check their work rather than asking him. He provided
guidance but did not institutionalise solutions for every
problem. In the didactic contract in this class, students were
given and accepted responsibility for mathematical think-
ing and for checking their work with the help of MAS.
6 Implications and conclusion
This paper began by discussing the notion of a didactic
contract with a focus on the elements of the didactic con-
tract relevant to teaching with MAS. Many pedagogical
opportunities are offered by the introduction of MAS to
classrooms, including at the classroom level of Fig. 1.
Just as MAS offers an opportunity to make positive
changes to the patterns of social interaction in classrooms,
so too MAS may offer teachers the possibility of making
positive changes in the didactic contract operating in a
classroom. In concert with the pedagogical opportunities
offered at the task level (see Fig. 1), which can assist
students with exploration and looking at mathematical
ideas in different ways through multiple representations,
teachers see opportunities for having students (1) work
more independently, (2) take more responsibility for their
learning and for exploring mathematical ideas, and (3) for
them to devise, within limits, solution methods of their own
creation. In our study, most teachers expected to use MAS
to support (1) but few were confident that students, even
with MAS, would achieve (2) and (3).
The paper presented a framework of questions for
studying the didactic contract in relation to MAS. This
structure framed our snapshot in time of the didactic
contracts operating in 12 classrooms with mid-adopters
early in their experience of teaching with handheld MAS.
The lesson was, for many, an early experience of teaching
with MAS other than to find answers quickly or to draw
graphs. Several general points emerged from this exami-
nation, in addition to the details presented in the paper.
Certainly, we saw a variety of didactic contracts in oper-
ation, a few of which had many of the features advocated
as desirable in the literature. Other teachers may develop
an interest to change in this way later as they have more
experience with MAS, as happened with the teacher Neil,
reported by Ball and Stacey (2006). Instead, for the
moment, most teachers appeared interested in using MAS
because they saw it as a newly approved way of doing
693
mathematics. Teaching students to use MAS became an
additional, although subsidiary, goal of the lesson. Both
teachers and students accepted that the domain of knowl-
edge in the classroom should now include teaching stu-
dents how to use technology. Whereas the students saw this
as the key point of the lesson, for the teachers, the main
point remained to teach mathematics, although now assis-
ted by technology. There is a break in the contract here
between the expectations of teachers and students. As
handheld technology becomes even more ubiquitous and
migrates to devices (such as phones, or internet access
devices) more intimately connected to the student, it will
be interesting to see where responsibility for teaching
students the technical skills needed to use MAS settles. It
may be interesting for future studies to track this evolution.
Distinguishing the clauses of the didactic contract rela-
ted to teaching mathematics from those related to teaching
technology seems important and is a feature of the
framework in Fig. 2. In general, there seemed to be a
relationship between aspects of the didactic contract such
as expectation of independence or alternatively working
lock-step as a class across both the teaching of technology
skills and of mathematical skills. Although there was
considerable variation shown, teachers generally expected
and accepted alternative strategies for using MAS but did
not expect alternative mathematics strategies. Although
they offered approved MAS strategies, most were willing
to allow alternative methods. On the other hand, most
teachers clearly institutionalised mathematical strategies,
and did not expect students to make their own contribu-
tions. This may be one aspect of the didactic contract
where MAS may encourage an opening up of mathematical
thinking.
At this early stage of learning to use the TI-Nspire
(CAS), both teachers and students seemed to regard it
principally for doing rather than exploring mathematics.
This may change as they build confidence and skills and
develop strategies for using simulations and symbolic
algebra. In our schools, the specialised handheld technol-
ogy for doing mathematics is currently purchased by all
students or in class sets with everyone having the same
brand, model and operating system. The teacher strongly
feels the responsibility to teach students to use it. The
analysis of the didactic contract above is firmly grounded
in this current experience of handhelds. We foresee several
developments in handheld technology that may impact on
the didactic contracts in future classrooms. There has been
some convergence of syntax and menu structures and
facilities such as dragging, so that the current assumption
by teachers that these are specific skills that need to be
taught may soon not match reality. Indeed, if MAS is
installed on a device such as a smart phone, students will
already know how to zoom to resize, move between pages,
123
694
and use a soft keyboard and a palette for symbol entry.
Maybe the student with the handheld of the future will find
the formula for the area of a triangle from the internet on
his handheld device instead of asking his friend. We pre-
dict that these developments will offer the potential to
modify the didactic contract in ways that some teachers
want, but they will also be able to exist in classrooms
without challenging existing practices. The framework
developed for this paper may assist in tracking some of
these changes.
Acknowledgments We wish to thank the project teachers and their
students for their participation and feedback. We also thank Lynda
Ball and to other visiting researchers who have joined in on classroom
observation. We acknowledge the financial support of Texas Instru-
ments and helpful comments from the anonymous reviewers.
References
Aldon, G. (Ed.). (2009). La fonction de lenseigne. Mathematiques
dynamiques (pp. 4668). Paris, France: Hachette Livre.
Artigue, M. (2001). Learning mathematics in a CAS environment:
The genesis of a reflection about instrumentation and the
dialectics between technical and conceptual work. Paper
presented at CAME 2001 symposium on communicating math-
ematics through computer algebra systems. Utrecht, The
Netherlands. http://Itsn.mathstore.ac.uk/came/events/freudenthal
, Accessed 13 March 2008.
Ball, L., & Stacey, K. (2003). What should students record when
solving problems with CAS? Reasons, information, the plan and
some answers. In J. T. Fey, A. Cuoco, C. Kieran, L. Mullin, &
R. M. Zbiek (Eds.), Computer algebra systems in secondary
school mathematics education (pp. 289303). Reston, VA: The
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Ball, L., & Stacey, K. (2006). Coming to appreciate the pedagogical
uses of CAS. In Proceedings of the 30th conference of the
international group for psychology in mathematics education
(Vol. 2, pp. 105112). Prague: PME.
Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The digital natives
debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 39(5), 775786.
Berry, J. (1999). CAS as a mentor for the apprentice mathematician.
Computer Algebra in Mathematics Education. Weizmann Instit-
iute Israel. http://www.lkl.ac.uk/research/came/events/weiz
mann/CAME-Keynotes.pdf.
Brousseau, G. (1997). In N. Balacheff, M. Cooper, R. Sutherland, &
V. Warfield (Eds. & Trans.), Theory of didactical situations in
mathematics : didactique des mathematiques (pp. 19701990).
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Drijvers, P. (2005). Learning algebra in a computer algebra environ-
ment. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics
Education, 11(3), 7789.
Drouhard, J.-P. (1997). Communication in the classroom with a CAS:
The double didactic pyramid. In J. Berry, J. Monaghan, M.
Kronfeller, & B. Kutzler (Eds.), The state of computer algebra in
mathematics education (pp. 165170). Lund, Sweden: Chart-
well-Bratt.
Etlinger, L. (1974). The electronic calculator: A new trend in school
mathematics. Educational Technology, XIV(12), 4345.
Geiger, V. (2009). The master, servant, partner, extension-of-self
framework in individual, small group and whole class contexts.
123
R. Pierce et al.
In R. Hunter, B. Bicknell, & T. Burgess (Eds.), Crossing divides.
Proceedings of the 32nd conference of the mathematics educa-
tion research group of australasia (pp. 201208). Palmerston
North, NZ: MERGA.
Guin, D & Trouche, L. (2002). Mastery by the teacher of the
instrumental genesis in CAS environments: Necessity of instru-
mental orchestrations. In E. Schneider (Ed.), Zentralblatt fur
Didaktik der Mathematic, 34(5), 204-211.
Heid, M. K. (1988). Resequencing skills and concepts in applied
calculus using the computer as a tool. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 19(1), 325.
Hersant, M., & Perrin-Glorian, M.-J. (2005). Characterization of an
ordinary teaching practice with the help of the theory of
didactic situations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 59,
113151.
Hoyles, C., Noss, R., & Kent, P. (2004). On the integration of digital
technologies into mathematical classrooms. International Jour-
nal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9, 309326.
Isoda, M., Stephens, M., Ohara, Y., & Miyakawa, T. (Eds.). (2007).
Japanese lesson study in mathematics. Its impact, diversity and
potential for educational improvements. Hackensack, NJ: World
Scientific.
Kieran, C., & Damboise, C. (2007). How can we describe the
relation between the factored form and the expanded form of
these trinomials? We dont even know if our paper and pencil
factorizations are right: The case for computer algebra systems
(CAS) with weaker algebra students. In J. H. Woo, H. C. Lew, K.
S. Park, & D. Y. Seo (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st conference
of the international group for the psychology of mathematics
education (Vol. 3, pp. 105112). Seoul: PME.
Laborde, C., & Perrin-Glorian, M.-J. (2005). Teaching situations as
object of research: Empirical studies within theoretical perspec-
tives. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 59, 112.
Monaghan, J. (2004). Teachers activities in technology-based
mathematics lessons. International Journal of Computers for
Mathematical Learning, 9, 327357.
Norton, S., McRobbie, C., & Cooper, T. (2000). Exploring secondary
mathematics teachers reasons for not using computers in their
teaching: Five case studies. Journal of Research on Computing
in Education, 33(1), 87109.
Pierce, R., & Stacey, K. (2001a). Observations on students responses
to learning in a CAS environment. Mathematical Education
Research Journal, 3(1), 2846.
Pierce, R., & Stacey, K. (2001b). Reflections on the changing
pedagogical use of computer algebra systems: Assistance for
doing or learning mathematics. Journal of Computers in
Mathematics and Science Teaching, 20(1), 141163.
Pierce, R., & Stacey, K. (2004). A framework for monitoring progress
and planning teaching towards effective use of computer algebra
systems. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical
Learning, 9(1), 5993.
Pierce, R., & Stacey, K. (2010). Mapping pedagogical opportunities
provided by mathematics analysis software. International
Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning. doi:10.1007/
s10758-010-9158-6.
Prenksy, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the
Horizon, 9(5), 16.
Ruthven, K., & Hennesey, S. (2002). A practitioner model of the use
of computer based tools and resources to support mathematics
teaching and learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
49(1), 4788.
Stacey, K. (1997). MathematicsWhat should we tell the children?
The International Journal of Computer Algebra in Mathematics
Education, 4(4), 387390.
Stacey, P., & Stacey, K. (1983). Upper school mathematics in the 21st
century. In D. Blane (Ed.), The essentials of mathematics
Examining the didactic contract
education (pp. 384388). Melbourne, Australia: Mathematical
Association of Victoria.
Trouche, L. (2004). Managing the complexity of human/machine
interactions in computerized learning environments: Guiding
students command process through instrumental orchestrations.
International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning,
9, 281307.
Trouche, L. (2005). Instrumental genesis, individual and social
aspects. In D. Guin, K. Ruthven, & L. Trouche (Eds.), The
didactical challenge of symbolic calculators (pp. 197230). New
York: Springer.
Vincent, J. (2003). Year 8 students reasoning in a Cabri environment.
In L. Bragg, C. Campbell, G. Herbert, & J. Mousley (Eds.),
695
Mathematics education researching: Innovation, networking,
opportunity. Proceedings of the 26th annual conference of
the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia
(pp. 696703). Sydney: MERGA.
Wander, R., & Pierce, R. (2009). Marinas fish shop: A mathemat-
ically- and technologically-rich lesson. Australian Mathematics
Teacher, 65(2), 612.
Warfield, V. (2006). Invitation to didactique. http://www.math.was
hington.edu/*warfield/Didactique.html, Accessed 15 September
2009.
Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumen-
tation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 22, 390408.
123