See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226043412

Online Resources in
Mathematics, Teachers
Geneses and Didactical
Techniques

Article in International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning

April 2009
DOI: 10.1007/s10758-009-9143-0

CITATIONS READS

13 22

2 authors, including:

Ghislaine Gueudet
Universit de Bretagne Occi
101 PUBLICATIONS 482
CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Ghislaine Gueudet

Retrieved on: 02 August 2016
Int J Comput Math Learning (2009) 14:120
DOI 10.1007/s10758-009-9143-0

Online Resources in Mathematics, Teachers Geneses

and Didactical Techniques

Laetitia Bueno-Ravel Ghislaine Gueudet

Published online: 24 February 2009

Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Abstract The study we present here concerns the consequences of integrating online
resources into the teaching of mathematics. We focus on the interaction between teachers
and specific online resources they draw on: e-exercise bases. We propose a theoretical
approach to study the associated phenomena, combining instrumental and anthropological
perspectives. For given didactical tasks, we observe teachers instrumental geneses, and the
didactical techniques they develop. We exemplify our approach with the analysis of a case
study of trigonometry in grade 9.

Keywords Didactical techniques
E-exercise basis
Instrumental genesis

Instrumented technique
Teaching resources

Abbreviations
EEB E-exercise basis
GUPTEn Genesis of Professional Use of Technologies by teachers
MO Mathematical organization
MEP Mathenpoche
DO Didactical organization

1 Introduction

Teachers increasingly draw on online resources for their courses. Lessons plans, exercises,
assessment textscan be found on web sites all over the world. These digital resources
offer specific possibilities: digital textbooks integrate web links; the texts are not limited by

L. Bueno-Ravel (&)
G. Gueudet

CREAD, IUFM de Bretagne UBO, Site de Rennes. 153 Rue Saint Malo. CS 54-310,
35043 Rennes Cedex, France
e-mail: laetitia.bueno-ravel@bretagne.iufm.fr
URL: http://cread.bretagne.iufm.fr/
G. Gueudet
e-mail: ghislaine.gueudet@bretagne.iufm.fr

123
2 L. Bueno-Ravel, G. Gueudet

size constraints; online exercises have specific interactive features etc. We consider that the
widespread use of online resources and the specificity of some of these resources must be a
focus of attention for mathematics education research, and that it requires theoretical
developments permitting us to capture the associated teaching phenomena.
The theoretical elements we propose, and the case study we use to exemplify our
approach, were developed within a French national research project called GUPTEn. It
stands for, in French: Genesis of Professional Uses of Technology by Teachers. Several
research teams and teacher training institutes were involved (Lagrange et al. 2007). The
central aim of the study was the way teachers evolve towards stabilized uses of techno-
logical tools.
We focus here on particular technological tools, and even on specific online resources:
e-exercise bases (shortened EEB in what follows). These resources consist of exercises
classified according to their mathematical content, to their difficulty, and/or to the math-
ematical tools they require. These exercises are associated with environments which
consist of suggestions, correction, explanations, tools for the resolution of the exercises,
score etc. (for more details about the possible features of an e-exercise basis, see Cazes
et al. (2007)). EEB can be used by students on their own, but they are also potential
resources for the teacher, as is the textbook for example. Similarities and differences
between EEB and textbooks are an interesting topicwe will mention some of these, but
this point is not central here.
The examples developed in this paper involve a specific EEB, called Mathenpoche1
(Maths in the pocket, shortened as MEP in what follows; Figs. 3 and 4 display examples
of MEP screens). A teacher registered as an MEP user can constitute groups of students,
and choose different contents for these groups amongst MEP exercises. After a task in
MEP, the marks of all students are saved in two MEP files, one for the student and the other
for the teacher. We call this last one the session sheet; it provides the teacher with all the
results of the session, and more precisely the indication of success or failure for each
question encountered (a MEP exercise comprises 5 or 10 questions, the mark is the number
of right answers to these questions).
In France, MEP is a very popular part of the available curriculum material (Remillard
2005). In 2008, the average number of daily visitors on the MEP website is around 20,000,
and more than 450,000 students are registered by their teachers. In his study of ICT
integration issues, Ruthven (2007) introduces the structuring context of the classroom
practice, which comprises five key structuring features of the classroom practice with
ICT: Working environment, Resource system, Activity format, Curriculum script (a
loosely ordered model of relevant goals and actions which serves to guide the teaching of
a topic), and Time economy. The massive adoption of MEP is probably linked with the
fact that, on the opposite of what happens with ICT tools like spreadsheet, CAS etc.
integrating MEP does not require a tremendous change in the usual activity format of the
teachers. It influences nevertheless the teachers practices, as any other kind of curriculum
material, in particular because it entails a specific presentation of the mathematical content.
Thus the questions we study here can be formulated as follows:
a. For a given teaching objective, how does the teacher use MEP?
b. Which kinds of appropriation processes are associated with the integration of MEP by
a teacher?
c. How does MEP influence the teachers practice?

1
http://mathenpoche.sesamath.net.

123
Online Resources in Mathematics 3

In order to study these questions, we use the theoretical framework provided within
mathematics didactics by the instrumental approach (Guin et al. 2005). This approach
combines cognitive ergonomics (Rabardel 1995) and the anthropological approach to
didactics (Chevallard 1992), which focuses on institutions. Here we propose a specific
development of the anthropological aspect, because we consider that institutional con-
straints strongly frame teachers choices. It leads us to analyze teachers activity in terms
of didactical tasks and techniques. These theoretical elements are exposed in Sect. 2. In the
subgroup we constituted within the GUPTEn project, we worked with teachers who used
MEP in their classes and described these uses. We also observed class sessions. We present
these methodological aspects in Sect. 3. In Sect. 4, we focus on a particular case study,
about the teaching of trigonometry in grade 9. The data gathered during the GUPTEn
project, about this trigonometry teaching in particular, played a central part in the devel-
opment of the theoretical frame presented in Sect. 2. However, we only present here the
case study as an illustrative example.
We discuss the results obtained and conclude in Sect. 5.

2 Instrumental and Anthropological Approach of Teachers Activity

2.1 Instrumental Genesis for Teachers

The instrumental approach has been developed and used in mathematics didactics by many
authors (Guin et al. 2005). We briefly recall its main principles. The instrumental approach
is grounded in cognitive ergonomy. Rabardel (1995) stresses the difference between an
artifact, which is a given object, and an instrument. The instrument is a psychological
construct, constituted of an artifact and of a psychological component defined through the
notion of scheme. A scheme is considered here as an invariant organization of behavior for
a given class of situations (Vergnaud 1998). The instrument built by the subject comprises
the artifact, and a scheme organizing the activity of the subject. The instruments devel-
opment process is called the instrumental genesis. This genesis is a dual process. On one
hand, for a given class of situations, the subject builds a scheme of use of the artifact; the
subjects knowledge guides the way the artifact is used, which sometimes differs from the
artifacts designer expectations. This is called the instrumentalisation process. On the other
hand, the artifact features constrain the subjects activity: this is the instrumentation
process.
In the instrumental approach, a wide range of material and also socio-cultural artifacts
are considered, and there is naturally no restriction about who may be a subject. An EEB is
an artifact for many teachers. Within a given class of situations, the teacher, in a genesis
process, elaborates an instrument from the EEB and associated resources. This genesis
encompasses an instrumentation process (the features of the EEB shape the teachers
action), and an instrumentalisation process (the appropriation by the teacher shapes the
EEB usages).
We give here first examples of such processes with MEP; others will be developed in
our case study (Sect. 4). MEP offers the possibility to program different sessions for
different students or groups of students. Drawing on this feature can lead teachers to
organize individualized sessions on MEP; the teachers we observed extensively exploited
this possibility. It can further induce a change in the teachers pedagogical practice,
towards more individualized teaching sessions. We interpret such a phenomenon as an
instrumentation process.

123
4 L. Bueno-Ravel, G. Gueudet

Instrumentalisation processes are readily noticeable when they correspond to uses of the
artifact not expected by their designers. Such a phenomenon occurred with MEP helps.
MEP proposes help after a first wrong answer for each exercise. The help comprises
presentations of methods, considered as very interesting by many teachers. Some teachers
developed an unexpected use of the help, with projection devices for the whole class:
starting an exercise and making a deliberate mistake, to display the help. We interpret this
as an instrumentalisation process: the teachers use MEP differently from the designers
intentions. Online resources can be easily modified, and MEP users can address their
demands to the designers via a mailing list. Several remarks on the list about the need for a
direct access to the MEP help eventually led to the design of a special page gathering all
the helps on the general website hosting MEP.2
The theoretical choice we have just exposed frames the answers we propose to the
questions (b) and (c) presented above (Sect. 1). We interpret the influences, and appro-
priation processes, as aspects of instrumentalisation and instrumentation phenomena, part
of a genesis process.
We intend moreover to analyze the way a teacher uses MEP, and to understand the
reasons for the teachers choices, without focusing on developmental issues. Therefore we
articulate these cognitive elements of the instrumental approach with concepts coming
from the anthropological approach (Chevallard 1992).

2.2 Didactical Tasks and Techniques

We draw on the anthropological approach firstly by taking into account the system of
institutional conditions and constraints teachers are subject to. These conditions can be
generic, or more specific to a given mathematical content area. For example, at a general
scale, teachers choices are made within a system of conditions and constraints they cannot
modify such as the imposed length of a session. This concept of a system of conditions and
constraints classified from a generic level to a specific level has been introduced as an
interpretative framework of the various subjections to institutions (Wozniak 2007). We
hypothesize that this system plays a crucial role in the teachers choices.
Another central theoretical tool in our work is the notion of didactical technique. In the
anthropological approach to didactics, Chevallard (2002) considers that any human activity
consists in carrying through a given task t, belonging to a given type of task T, with a given
technique s; the discourse used to explain and justify this technique is a technology h,
grounded in a theory H. The whole set of four elements [T,s,h,H] is called a praxeology.
The anthropological approach has been mostly used up to now, and especially within the
instrumental approach, to study mathematical tasks, and thus mathematical praxeologies,
often called mathematical organizations. But Chevallards approach ranges over more
general human activities, and teachers activity in particular. He conceptualizes the tea-
chers activity by considering that it consists of didactical organizations. Determining
what a didactical theory can be is a delicate issue and we do not tackle it here. In our study,
we mostly focus indeed on didactical tasks, and on didactical techniques developed to
accomplish these tasks; we consider that understanding the role of MEP in such techniques
is a necessary step before attempting to link this with a possible theory (Sensevy et al.
2005, use the expression teaching techniques as equivalent to didactical techniques;
we consider both as synonymous). Mathematical organizations, describe how the

2
Sesamath: http://www.sesamath.net/.

123
Online Resources in Mathematics 5

mathematical content is shaped within the institution. Didactical organizations, describe

how the teaching of mathematics is shaped within the same institution.
For example, introducing the sine in a right-angled triangle in a grade 9 class is a
didactical task. It entails sub-tasks like choosing the succession of mathematical orga-
nizations to be presented. If the cosine is already known, the teacher can choose to start
by recalling it, and to use the common elements (hypotenuse for example) and possible
analogies (side lengths ratios). This depends strongly on the official curriculum. In such a
case, the didactical technique entails use cosine and analogies, but certainly also other
aspects which can only be determined through a thorough observation. The technology
comprises use analogies with old knowledge to introduce new notions, link the dif-
ferent trigonometric ratios. Another sub-task of a different nature is: choosing a
didactical organization for the introduction of the sine. This means deciding: how much
time will be devoted to this introduction, will it be a course by the teacher, or exercises
followed by a course, will the student receive a prepared sheet etc.
The anthropological approach conceptualizes the general aim of the mathematics tea-
chers activity as the task setting up a mathematical organization in class. Refinements
of this general task are proposed, according to several levels of mathematical organiza-
tions, ranging from general: setting up the mathematical organization for geometry in
grade 9 to narrow tasks: setting up the mathematical organization for computing the
sine of a given angle in a right-angled triangle whose sides length are known. Another
important refinement is the consideration of the didactical organization associated with
each mathematical organization. Chevallard (2002) speaks of the mathematics and
didactics co-determination, and considers that the whole teachers activity can be described
in terms of the two tasks, strongly interwoven setting up a didactical organization and
setting up a mathematical organization. We retain in our work this conceptualization,
and the resulting structure (Fig. 1) of the teachers activity. About trigonometry for
example, a teacher can start her preparation work by reading the official curriculum for
grade 9, which describes the official mathematical organization. She can choose to start
tackling this mathematical content by considering the cosine and its properties. All these
choices and activities are related to the setting up of the mathematical organization. But

Setting up the MO for Setting up the DO for

geometry in grade 9 geometry in grade 9

Setting up the MO Setting up the DO

for angles for angles

Setting up the MO Setting up the DO

for trigonometry for trigonometry

Setting up the MO Setting up the DO

for space geometry for space geometry

Fig. 1 Co-determination of mathematical organizations (MO) and didactical organizations (DO), and
didactical tasks for the teaching of geometry in grade 9 (in a given institution)

123
6 L. Bueno-Ravel, G. Gueudet

different didactical organizations are possible to recall cosine (here we consider cosine as
already known, according to the French official curriculum, see Sect. 4 below): exercises,
proposed in class or as homework, or a short course by the teacher etc. The associated
choices belong to the setting up of the didactical organization. Naturally, the didactical
organization retained to introduce a new notion will probably differ from the one retained
to recall old knowledge: the mathematical organizations influence the didactical organi-
zations. Conversely, the choice, for example, of a specific device designed to help students
encountering difficulties can modify the mathematical content that will be tackled in class,
at least by these students. The arrows in Fig. 1 illustrate this dialectical relationship.
Analyzing the way students learn mathematics with technology, some authors introduce
within the instrumental approach the notion of instrumented technique (Lagrange 2000),
for a mathematical technique instrumented by an artifact. Similarly, we will describe here
instrumented didactical techniques. Constituting, a priori, an inventory of all the potential
didactical techniques is impossible. We identify didactical techniques through the obser-
vation of regularities in ways of accomplishing the same didactical task in several contexts.
If MEP is involved in it, we consider that the technique is instrumented by MEP (Sects.
4.2, 4.3).
The didactical tasks can be considered at different time scales, from the whole school
year to a short class episode. We focus on two time scales: the scale of the sequence and
the scale of the session. For both scales, the didactical tasks provide us with a structure of
the teachers activity. This is a first articulation between cognitive and anthropological
perspectives in our work. In the frame of cognitive ergonomics, the subjects activity is
structured in classes of situations. How can these classes be described, in the case of a
teacher? We propose here an answer in terms of didactical tasks.
For a given task, we attempt to observe on one hand evolutions in teacher practice,
which can be interpreted as geneses; and on the other hand stable choices, that can be
considered as didactical techniques. In both cases, we are interested in long-term phe-
nomena: a technique entails stable choices, a genesis leads to an invariant organization of
activity. One central difference is that a genesis is a process, while a technique is the
outcome of a previous evolution. This distinction also exists within the instrumental
approach, between a genesis and an invariant organization of activity. However, we retain
here a description of the teachers choices identified as stable in terms of techniques,
because our focus is not on cognitive structures, but on the consequences of conditions and
constraints systems on the teachers choices.

3 Methodology

In the subgroup we constituted within the GUPTEn project, we worked with five teachers
who used MEP in their classes: three primary school teachers, and two secondary school
teachers. All of them are experienced teachers, aged between 45 and 55. We consider that
specific phenomena might occur with novice teachers: we retained for this reason expe-
rienced teachers, with already established didactical techniques, allowing us a better focus
on evolutions brought by MEP.
The first methodological device we use with these teachers is a grid they filled each time
they used MEP in class (Appendix 1). This grid is used to present the scenario (Gueudet
2006; Trouche and Guin 2006) retained for a single session, or for a whole sequence on a
given topic. For our analyses, we observe the features of these scenarios, and also

123
Online Resources in Mathematics 7

reconstruct from the grids a presentation of the teachers work over the whole year. This
reconstruction evidences in particular some evolutions in the teachers choices. The group
worked from September 2005 to June 2008, which allowed for a long-term observation of
the teachers practices. The evolutions and stabilizations of their practices observed during
the first year of work within the group played a central role in our choice to retain an
instrumental approach to study the teachers activity with MEP (Bueno-Ravel and Gueudet
2007).
However, the grids only provided us with descriptions elaborated by the teachers
themselves; they are likely to differ from what really happens in class. We complemented
thus these grids with classrooms observations. For these observations, we first selected a
given mathematical topic. We attempted to gather all possible information related with the
setting up and running of the teaching sequence about this topic. We observed and vid-
eotaped the sessions. We also interviewed the teacher before and after each EEB session.
Before the session, we asked her about what she plans for it: material, schedule, mathe-
matical content; after it, we asked her about her feelings about the enacted session, what
was different from her plans, would she do the same the following year and why. All the
teacher and students materials used along the teaching sequence were collected.
In the case of the trigonometry sequence studied in Sect. 4, we used two other sources of
data. Firstly, the teacher observed, Carmen, was involved with us in a previous research
group. This group followed different aims, focused on students learning (Gueudet 2008);
but it led us to observe Carmen working with MEP in her class. The trigonometry sequence
took place during our fourth year with regular visits in Carmens classes; we use these
previous experiences in our analysis of regularities in Carmens practice. A second specific
device is an e-mail interview we organized with the designer of the MEP exercises used
during the session. We asked him about his mathematical choices, and about his intentions
for the class use of the exercise.
Combining all these sources allows us to identify instrumentation and instrumentali-
sation processes, and stable instrumented didactical techniques, that we will now present.

4 A Case Study: An Instrumented Trigonometry Course

4.1 Presentation of the Teaching

4.1.1 French Curriculum of Trigonometry

In France, secondary education is organized in two parts: the college from grade 6 to
grade 9, and the Lycee from grade 10 to grade 12. The weekly work for mathematics
in grade 9 consists of 4 sessions of 55 minutes each. The official mathematical cur-
riculum comprises four main areas: (1) data proceeding and functions, (2) number and
operations, (3) geometry and (4) measurement. In this curriculum, trigonometry is not
related with functions. It belongs to a theme of the geometry area entitled right-angled
triangle, trigonometric relations. The contents of trigonometry in grade 9 are detailed
in Appendix 2. They include the introduction of the two ratios sin and tan and the
formulas cos2 ? sin2 = 1 and tan = sin/cos. The trigonometric ratio cos is known since
grade 8: inheritance of a previous curriculum, introducing the dot product. In the present
curriculum, the decision to spread this teaching over two years has no mathematical
reason.

123
8 L. Bueno-Ravel, G. Gueudet

4.1.2 Carmens Choices for Her Trigonometry Sequence

In March 2007, we observed two trigonometry teaching sessions in grade 9 involving

MEP. The following analysis focuses on Carmens sequence. Carmen started using MEP
four years ago; she is registered as a MEP user. Carmen has a strong degree of
integration of MEP (Assude 2007). She develops an instrument from MEP for several
didactical tasks; we will see it in what follows. Carmen had chosen to dedicate 9
sessions (S1S9) to trigonometry. MEP is used in 5 sessions: S1, S2, S4, S5 and S8.
Initially, Carmen had planned to use MEP in session 6 but a network breakdown made it
impossible. During sessions 6, 8 and 9 (assessment session), Carmen divided the students
in two groups she called the High Level group and the Low Level group. She
proposed a different type of work to each group of students. This didactical organization
is quite rare in France.
The use of MEP requires first and foremost, for a teacher, an important choice of
contents. In March 2007, the MEP trigonometry. We will not detail here Carmens choices
of mathematical content. Some of these choices will be analyzed in the following sections.
A detailed presentation of the full sequence is provided in Appendix 2, in relation with the
class textbook, and with MEP content. These choices were framed by general conditions
and constraints presented below.

4.1.3 General Conditions and Constraints for Carmens Trigonometry Teaching

The setting up of a trigonometry sequence incorporating MEP is subject to several kinds of

conditions and constraints. Some of these constraints depend on the scholar institution:
between 7 and 10 sessions is the allocated time for a trigonometry sequence in grade 9 (a
constraint linked with time economy, Ruthven 2007). Furthermore, some social conditions
and constraints are characteristic of Carmens school. Indeed, the students mostly have a
poor socio economic background. Teachers notice a lot of unacceptable behaviors and they
cannot imagine letting some students, even a few, work on their own on paper and pencil
exercises.
For our study, it is also necessary to take into account the specificities of the use of ICT
in classroom. The working environment (Ruthven 2007) and the available ICT facilities
strongly constrain the possible uses of MEP. Carmens school is equipped with two
computer laboratories (about 15 computers connected to the internet in each room), but
only one video projector for all classrooms in school. There are also several tables in the
middle of each computer laboratory. Thanks to this spatial organization, it is possible to
have half of the class working individually on computers while the other half is working on
paper and pencil in the same room. However the constraint concerning students behavior
in Carmens school makes this organization difficult to manage for the teachers. For
practical purposes, it is essential for a teacher working with two half-classes to have an
access to a room contiguous to the computer laboratory. The teacher can this way separate
the groups and simultaneously oversee their work.

4.2 Geneses and Didactical Techniques at the Sequence Level

We present here examples of didactical tasks, of associated instrumentation and instru-

mentalisation processes, and of didactical techniques, chosen to exemplify our approach
(Fig. 2).

123
Online Resources in Mathematics 9

Setting up the MO for Setting up the DO for

trigonometry in grade 9 trigonometry in grade 9

Choosing the MO Choosing

to constitute subgroups
subgroups

Choosing the MO Choosing the DO

for each subgroup for each subgroup

Choosing symbols Choosing the DO to

introduce the
symbols

Fig. 2 Co-determination of mathematical and didactical organizations, and didactical tasks at the sequence
level (the examples developed are in bold characters)

4.2.1 Choosing Subgroups of Students

Choosing subgroups of students (for the trigonometry teaching) is a didactical task, very
important in Carmens case. Her class comprises indeed 24 students, 5 of them with a very
low level in mathematics, 3 of them showing on the opposite good mathematical abilities,
and the others in between. This situation is one major reason for the use of MEP by
Carmen. She has developed several kinds of techniques to manage this heterogeneity,
involving several sets of resources, some including MEP and others not.
Even before the beginning of the trigonometry teaching session, Carmen intended to split
the class into two subgroups at least for a part of the teaching. Two main reasons governed
this choice: the low level in mathematics of a significant number of students and the orga-
nizational constraints of her working environment. It is naturally difficult for the teacher to
intervene with more than two subgroups. And the size of each subgroup is constrained by the
number of computers in the computer laboratory. Indeed, Carmen planned for each subgroup
a MEP session, with only individual students on the computers. Thus Carmen needed to
decide the composition of both subgroups. She used MEP for this decision. The two halves
were determined after an individual work on MEP in sessions 4 and 5. During these sessions,
the MEP exercises proposed were direct applications of the course. Carmen decided a priori
to create a Low Level group containing all the students who only got 3 out of 10 as a
maximum mark for at least one of the exercises. She used for this purpose MEP sessions
sheet, and a personal paper sessions sheet. She registered on this paper the best mark
reached by each student if several tries on the same exercise were made. After the sessions 4
and 5, Carmen filled the table in her sessions sheet. She retained the 7 students with one
mark lower than 3 for one of the exercises. Then she complemented the group to reach a
number of 12 students, choosing amongst the ones with a mark 4 or 5.
This description corresponds to a precise teaching. However, several elements of it
coincide with observations we made of Carmens work in other contexts: for example, the

123
10 L. Bueno-Ravel, G. Gueudet

use of a paper session sheet to record the best marks reached by the students. The technical
features of MEP do not include this access to the best mark. Carmen started to elaborate
such sheets four years ago. In her appropriation of MEP, Carmen designed this paper
device complementing the software: we interpret this as an instrumentalisation process.
When Carmen works on MEP with her students, she regularly programs different MEP
sessions for different students. We observe here, on one hand, an instrumentalisation
process: in the appropriation by Carmen of the feature of MEP that permits programming
different sessions for different students. On the other hand, we retain an evolution of
Carmens pedagogical practice towards more individualized teaching, corresponding to an
instrumentation process (Sect. 2).
This leads Carmen in particular to regularly encounter the didactical task choosing
subgroups of students. The composition of such subgroups can be decided according to an
average mark in mathematics; we have seen above that Carmens choice for the trigo-
nometry teaching was different. She considered trigonometry as a new topic, and did not
want to introduce for it a splitting of the class based on previous results. She chose to
organize her diagnostic on MEP, instead of proposing exercises on a paper to avoid a long
correction. MEP session sheet allowed her to compose the two groups within one day,
starting with the two half-classes the day after session 5. We observed similar choices by
Carmen for other mathematical contents when new notions are introduced; thus we
interpret the common elements in these choices as a didactical technique. This technique
can be described as make an introductory course, then direct application exercises on
MEP, and constitute a subgroup with the students who dont succeed. This is a didactical
technique, instrumented by MEP, for the general didactical task choosing subgroups of
students for a sequence about a new mathematical content.

4.2.2 Choosing the Didactical Organization for Managing the Subgroups

We want to emphasize here the didactical organizations retained during sessions 6 and 8,
were both subgroups worked on different contents. During both sessions, Carmen remained
most of the time with the Low Level group, providing help, watching the work being
done. This was more difficult to manage during session 6, because the High Level group
called for Carmen several times while working on the textbook. The High Level stu-
dents were organized in three subgroups of four students each. They were discussing aloud,
and sometimes disturbing the rest of the class. There was no comparable disturbance
during session 8. The High Level students worked individually on MEP. Carmen pre-
pared for them a MEP session with many exercises. Some students encountered difficulties,
but all these difficulties were overcome with MEP feedback and help.
Carmen chose a similar organization in several teaching devices with MEP, for several
classes. Thus we consider she has developed a didactical technique which can be described
as keep the High Level group busy with some exercises in order to be more present with
the Low Level group. In Carmens trigonometry teaching, this technique is instrumented
one time by the class textbook, and one time by MEP. But MEP turned out to be more
efficient, thanks to the help and feedback proposed.

4.2.3 Choosing the Mathematical Symbols Presented to the Students

For a trigonometry teaching session in grade 9 in France, an important question for

teachers is: can we accept the writing of sin-1 by the students? Indeed, in grade 9, the
trigonometric ratios: sin, tan are introduced in a right-angled triangle. They are not

123
Online Resources in Mathematics 11

(Translation of the text)

Exercise n5: computing an angle.
Question 1. Fill in
The triangle SFL is right-angled in L, and such that SF=13 and SL=9. Hence: .....
We compute with the calculator by typing sin-1(9/13).....

Fig. 3 Use of the notation sin-1 in MEP

presented as functions; in 2007, functions were presented in France only in grade 10, and
thus not known by grade 9 students. However, the students can use the sin key on their
calculator to compute the sine of a given angle; and even the sin-1 key to deduce an
angle from a given sine value. But some teachers, and some textbooks, prohibit the writing
of sin-1 by the students. In such cases, students are supposed to write things like
sin(a) = 0,8, thus a % 53.13, and writing 53.13 = sin-1(0,8) is forbidden. There is
no mathematical obstacle here: the angles considered are between 0 and 90, the sine
function has a reciprocal on this domain. But students sometimes mix up between an angle
and its sine, writing things like sin(0,5) = 30; according to some teachers, the intro-
duction of sin-1 might worsen this situation. The official curriculum does not take a
position in this debate. Carmen usually retains a sin-1 prohibition position. MEP adopts
an intermediate position (Fig. 3).
In MEP, the notation sin-1 is attached to the use of the calculator, but not figured as a
calculator key. In the example of Fig. 3, sin-1(9/13) is completely written (but included
in a sentence and not in an equation providing the angle).
Students who worked on such MEP screens started to use sin-1 themselves. Under these
conditions, the choice of Carmen was the following: no official position presented during
the course; and individual remarks like this must not be written when sin-1 appeared
in a students sheet.
In this particular example, MEP choice of a particular symbol clearly influenced Carmens
choice. We hypothesize that this is an observable outcome of an instrumentation process; but
a further observation of a similar phenomenon in another context would be necessary to
confirm this hypothesis. Before using MEP, Carmen developed a stable didactical technique
(this claim is grounded on Carmens declarations), related to the sin-1 symbol. This
symbol was presented as a calculator key, and it was clearly stated in class that it was
prohibited to write it. The use of MEP led to a change in this technique: no official prohibition

123
12 L. Bueno-Ravel, G. Gueudet

was announced, Carmen only corrected it in the students sheet. Once again, further obser-
vations would be needed to claim that this is the sign of a new didactical technique.

4.3 Didactic Tasks and Techniques in a Particular Session

We will focus on the analysis of session 2, which aims at introducing the sine and tangent
ratios.

4.3.1 Carmens Choices for Session 2

Carmen used the MEP exercise discovery of sine and a video projector to introduce sine
and tangent to the whole class. The analysis of Carmens scenarios has proven that this use
of MEP had become usual. She frequently starts lessons on a new content for the whole
class with MEP.
At first sight, it seems that Carmens use of ICT in this session does not disrupt a routine
structure. Students did not investigate by themselves with MEP or other ICT resources before
Carmen presented her lesson. They had to look at the projected MEP screen and answer
Carmens questions concerning sine. However, this use of MEP involves important changes
in the working environment and the resource system (Ruthven 2007) used by Carmen.
She had changed the spatial organization of her class. The MEP screen was projected on
the whiteboard, in front of the students. The computer was placed on the left side of the
class. Carmen stayed next to it, thus shifted from her usual central position. Nevertheless,
she sometimes wrote on the whiteboard, over or beside the projected MEP screen. This
organization can be considered as a didactical configuration: an arrangement by the tea-
cher of the available artifacts, within an instrumental orchestration: an intentional
organization, to guide the students geneses (Trouche 2004). However, we do not retain
here an interpretation in terms of instrumental orchestration, because we consider that the
management of students instrumental genesis is not central in Carmens objectives.
She had created a paper sheet for the students inspired by the MEP exercise. But the way
this sheet should be used with the students raised a real didactical problem for Carmen. She
was indeed wondering whether giving the sheet at the beginning of the session (but the
students will have all the reasoning stages under their eyes) or waiting until the end of the MEP
exercise before distributing the sheet (but this necessitates to go once more through the whole
MEP exercise). Eventually, she decided that the students will have to fill in the sheet as she
proceeds through the questions. Two main constraints can explain her didactical choice: the
time needed to do twice in a row a MEP exercise and MEP technical feature that does not allow
an access to a particular question of an exercise (an exercise has to be started by question 1).
For the sake of brevity, we wont detail here the analysis of the whole session. We will
focus on questions 4 and 5 of the MEP exercise discovery of sine.

4.3.2 Presentation of MEP Choices, and Classroom Discourse

We present below a copy of MEP screens for questions 4 and 5, with the mathematical task
at stake and the expected mathematical technique to achieve it (Fig. 4).
This exercise has been designed by this author to be used with a strong scaffolding of
the teacher or with a video projector, as Carmen did. This author expects a quick answer to
question 4 and a long time for the manipulation and this observation in question 5.
The fact that the value of the ratio will not change, whatever the length of the segments
is, is established in question 3, by proving the equality BC/AC = ST/AT with the

123
Online Resources in Mathematics 13

Translation of question 4: Translation of question 5:

Use points M and N to fill in: We try to reach 0.45 as a common value of the three
ratios. Try to move the three segments [MN] or [RS]
or [BC] and observe if the value changes. Then, you
will be able to try to change the value of the acute
angle A.
Task: Complete a length ratio equality (3rd Task: Observe if the value of equal length ratios
ratio) corresponding to the proportional changes when moving the parallels segments
segments theorem for three parallel lines
Tech: Identify on the figure the segments Tech: Move the segments extremities on the half-
playing the same role and transfer the lines by using the computer mouse .
points . (instrumented mathematical technique)

Fig. 4 Copies of MEP screens; questions 4 and 5 of the exercise discovery of sine

proportional segments theorem. Thus the sine could be defined in question 3 or 4. But the
choice of the designer was different. A third ratio is introduced in question 4. Moreover,
question 5 starts with the handling of the segments [BC] or [ST], and one more observation
of the invariance of the ratio. The succession of questions 3, 4 and 5 is not guided by
mathematical reasons but didactical ones. According to the designer of this exercise, the
role of the third ratios introduction is to be sure that students memorize this new ratio
(corresponding to opposite length/hypotenuse). This questions the status of a generic case
in relation to an accumulation of examples.
Let us provide elements of analysis of Carmens mathematical and didactical choices
during the projection of questions 4 and 5. There is here a single mathematical organization,
for the mathematical task: proving the invariance of the ratio. On this narrow level,
mathematical and didactical aspects are tightly interwoven, and we will not distinguish
between both. We focus on two specific tasks for Carmen: sharing the responsibilities,
and managing the time. The analysis corresponds to the transcribed extract, Fig. 5.

4.3.3 Sharing the Responsibilities Towards a New Mathematical Content

The didactical contract (Brousseau 1997) is a set of rules, often implicit, organizing the
roles of the teacher and the students, for a given mathematical content. It can be described
in terms of responsibilities towards this content, shared between the teacher and the

123
14 L. Bueno-Ravel, G. Gueudet

1. S: MN above AN?

2. C: MN above AN right? OK. So actually, here we have MN above AN. In other words,
whatever the triangle is, whatever the length of the sides of the triangle is; we could imagine
like that as many triangles as we want, of the moment they are right-angled, well then the
ratio provided that, what is in common, really what do they have in common these
triangles?

3. S: they are right-angled.

4. C: they are right-angled, and they have...

5. S: a side...they have a common side, because here... they have the same vertex.

6. C: they have the same vertex, do they have the same sides?

7. S: No no... angles.

8. C: Do they have the same angles? Yes, angle A is the same for everybody [Carmen shows
angle A on the projected MEP screen]. Are you OK? And these angles here, Are they equals?
Well yes, they are. OK it is not the length of the triangles which changes, whatever the
length of the sides is, le ratio here remains the same.

9. C: So we continue. [Beginning of question 5] So we try to reach 0,44 as a common value

for the three ratios. We have three equal ratios here; in this case, we have 0,53. The question
asks to try to move the segments, to see if it depends on the segments. So I hope Ill move them
correctly... If I do that with M, OK. Does it change?

10. S: No

11. C: No, Well come on...S...no either ... T ... no either. In other words, if... the ratio in
question, it does not depend, its what Ive already said just before, on the length of the sides.
So on the ... on the triangle itself. O.K. [Carmen presses the submit button to reach the
second part of question 5]

Fig. 5 Extract of session 2: at the beginning, students are asked to provide the answer to question 4

students. Balancing these responsibilities is an important task for the teacher, with both
mathematical and didactical aspects. During this session, Carmen often added some
mathematical technological explanations to justify the students answers to MEP questions.
She also formulated some properties which remain implicit in MEP questions. For
example, in question 4, she asked students to determine the ratio corresponding to the
triangle ANM. Once students gave the answer (line 1), the MEP mathematical task was
finished. Carmen filled in the answer but did not press the submit button. She took
advantage of this question to try to make explicit for the students the underlying property
of this question: in this configuration, if the angles of the triangles are equal, the ratio does
not change whatever the length of the sides of the triangles is. (Lines 2 to 8).
The elements described above concern a precise mathematical content, and we did only
observe this teaching by Carmen once. We can identify, however, common features with
Carmens practice on other mathematical topics. All of them are related with the sharing of
responsibilities between Carmen, the students, and the material used, for the introduction
of news mathematical contents.

123
Online Resources in Mathematics 15

MEPs role is to propose the mathematical tasks and techniques, while Carmen is in
charge of the mathematical technological elements. Moreover, Carmen questioned the class,
the students role was thus to answer Carmens tightly guided questions, with the help of the
projected MEP screens. We interpret this as a didactical technique, instrumented by MEP,
for the task sharing the responsibilities towards a new mathematical content.

4.3.4 Managing the Time for the Introduction of a New Mathematical Content

As already mentioned, it is not necessary to formulate the property: if the angles of two
right-angled triangles are equal, the length ratio does not change whatever the length of the
sides of the triangles is to answer MEP question 4. Moreover, question 5 allows the
investigation of this property through the move of the triangle vertices and the observation
of the value of the ratio. But Carmen made in question 4 a synthesis on a property which
lies at the heart of the research activity of question 5. So when she started with question
5, she had to go back to a research activity about this property whereas it would have
been natural for her to carry on the lesson (by answering the second part of question 5:
variation of the value of the acute angle A) or to do some exercises related to this property.
Carmens succession of mathematical and didactical organizations was different from the
MEP designers choices. Thus she quickly guided students observations in question 5. As
Carmen moved the points with the computer mouse, she told the students what to look at:
the value of the ratio. She clearly accelerated the rhythm of her course during the first part
of question 5. On one hand, MEP content influences her choices, because she was obliged
to go through question 5, without mathematical need, after the elements she gave (line 8).
On the other hand, she made an accelerated use of MEP question 5, different from the
designers intentions. This can be interpreted as instrumentation and instrumentalisation
processesbut we consider this interpretation as a hypothesis because we only observed
that phenomenon once.
However, more general features about time management can be observed in several
contexts. MEP entails a particular succession of mathematical organizations; articulating
old and new contents. When using MEP, the change of mathematical organization coin-
cides with the change of questions. It is thus instrumented by the fact of pressing the
submit button. In this session, Carmen kept the mouse; this was an important aspect of
her time management that we interpret as a part of a didactical technique for the task
managing the time during the introduction of new contents (it can be observed in
Carmens practice with other classes, for other mathematical contents).

5 Discussion and Conclusion

In this article we studied the consequences of the integration of an EEB in a mathematics

teaching session. More precisely, we formulated the following questions at the beginning
of our study (Sect. 1):
a. For a given teaching objective, how does the teacher use MEP?
b. Which kinds of appropriation processes are associated with the integration of MEP by
a teacher?
c. How does MEP influence the teachers practice?
We presented elements of answer to these questions, in the case of a trigonometry
teaching (Sect. 4). Different uses of MEP took place in this teaching session: in a

123
16 L. Bueno-Ravel, G. Gueudet

computer room, with students working by pairs, to recall previous knowledge (about
cosine); with a projection device for the whole class, for the introduction of a new notion
(about sine); as a diagnosis tool, with students working individually on computers etc.
This variety of uses evidences the appropriation of MEP by the teacher we observed, and
the integration of MEP amongst her teaching resources. MEP is combined with a text-
book and with paper sheets prepared by the teacher; this is an obvious outcome of the
appropriation process. Other consequences of this process require more precise obser-
vations: MEP screens associated with a teachers mathematical discourse; accelerated
display of screens that this discourse made useless, for example. We also noticed that
MEP features, allowing for programming different contents for different students, led the
teacher to organize more sessions with individualized teaching. And the mathematical
content (mathematical symbols for example) proposed by MEP also influenced the
teachers choices.
Beyond these elements of answer, in a specific case, we propose here a general per-
spective on these questions. We consider that the evolving interactions of a teacher with an
EEB can be conceptualized as geneses. The appropriation, transformation of the EEB,
corresponds to an instrumentalisation process, while the influence of the EEB on the
teachers practice is linked with the instrumentation process. This initial positioning is
complemented here by a study of the specific features of the teachers geneses. The data we
gathered, and our hypothesis (confirmed by the data) of the importance of the institutional
conditions and constraints for the teachers choices related with MEP uses, led us to
develop a specific framework for the study of these geneses, combining the cognitive
aspects of the instrumental approach with a specific institutional perspective, coming from
the anthropological approach. We propose a structure of the teachers activity grounded in
the notions of mathematical and didactical organizations, and observe didactical tech-
niques, developed by the teacher to accomplish didactical tasks, and instrumented by MEP.
According to Drijvers et al. (in press):
One of the future challenges for the further development of instrumentation theory is
to fine-tune the balanceincluding both the similarities and the differences
between the cognitive ergonomics frame and the anthropological theory of didactics.
We fully agree with this claim; balancing both perspectives is likely to enlighten each
approach, and is certainly necessary to study teachers interactions with EEBs, other
technologies, or even more general resources. The initial cognitive and institutional
perspectives entail different views on the teachers activity; however, common elements
certainly exist. We described here techniques as stabilized elements of the teachers
practice, while instrumentation and instrumentalization processes correspond to evolutions
of this practice. The situation is naturally more intricate. Geneses are ongoing processes,
but the schemes developed are cognitive structures grounding stable behaviours. Didactical
techniques can evolve as well, and these evolutions can be considered as an aspect of
teacher professional development. Thus the link between didactical techniques, instru-
mented schemes and, more generally, professional knowledge has to be investigated.
About mathematical techniques, Artigue (2002) explains:
A technique is a manner of solving a task, and as one goes beyond the body of routine
tasks for a given institution, each technique is a complex assembly of reasoning and
routine work. I would like to stress that techniques are most often perceived and
evaluated in terms of pragmatic value, that is to say, by focusing on their productive
potential (efficiency, cost, field of validity). But they have also an epistemic value, as

123
Online Resources in Mathematics 17

they contribute to the understanding of the objects they involve, and thus techniques
are a source of questions about mathematical knowledge. (p. 248).
Similar statements can be formulated about the way teachers perform didactical tasks. It
entails routine work, but also adaptations to what happens in class, to unexpected or new
conditions etc. Pragmatic value of didactical techniques can be observed through the
progress of the teaching, the evolution of the students knowledge etc. The techniques
certainly also have an epistemic value, contributing to the evolution of teachers profes-
sional knowledge and beliefs (Cooney 1999).
Our observations and analyses were focused here on MEP. We consider that raising
issues of professional development and knowledge requires an enlarged view on
teachers resources. Gueudet and Trouche (in press) propose a documentational approach
for the study of teachers professional development, inspired by the instrumental
approach but going beyond it, in particular by considering teachers interactions with
various kinds of resources. The analyses presented here could be generalized with a
notion of documented didactical techniques, considering how MEP, but also the text-
book, the students sheets, the discussions of Carmen with her colleague intervene in
such techniques. This would require specific methodological devices, complementing the
ones we presented here, in particular to gather information about the teachers out-of-
class work. We consider this enlarged theoretical positioning (and the associated
methodology) as a prerequisite for tackling the question of the articulation between
instrumented schemes for teachers and didactical techniques, and a perspective for a
further stage of our work.

Appendix 1

See Table 1.

Table 1 Grid for the description of scenarios features

1. Work plan
2. Teachers interventions during
computer session(s)
3. Students activities
1.1 Resources: chosen EEB, other ICT, other supports
1.2 For a sequence : sessions distribution and articulation, number,
time
1.3 Mathematical content, objectives
1.4 Session(s) type(s): discovery, remedial, evaluation; precise
the EEB function
1.5 For a sequence: references to the EEB in paper and pencil
sessions
2.1 Content
2.2 Support
3.1 Written notes expected during computer session (s) and
written documents provided
3.2 Alone/pair/group work during computer session(s)
3.3 Work with computer out of class
3.4 Differentiation
3.5 Progression: imposed, with thresholds, free

123
18 L. Bueno-Ravel, G. Gueudet

Appendix 2

See Table 2.

Table 2 Carmens trigonometry sequence. The second column presents MEP contents; the third column of
the table presents Carmens choices, corresponding to each entry of the curriculum
Curriculum and textbooks MEP Carmens organization

a Right-angled triangles Chapter cos in grade 8. S1: Work in pairs with MEP. Grade 9
properties and associated In grade 9: for a good exercises: cosines and
vocabulary. Cosine (pre start series. (configurations). Write on a paper the
requisite) solutions of 8 MEP questions.
b Sine and tangent definition Two exercises named S2: Whole class, video projector. Carmen
discovery: one for leans on MEP exercise discovery from
sine and one for the series sine. The exercise is
tangent. transformed to introduce also tangent.
Students have a sheet built from MEP to
fill in.
c Calculations of cos, sin, tan for Three exercises on the use S3: Whole class, paper and pencil work,
a given angle. Calculation of of calculator: sin, tan calculator.
an angle with a calculator and synthesis. Assessed in S9.
for a given value of cos, sin
or tan
d Simple uses, direct Simple calculations of Exercises sheet for homework distributed
calculations of cos, sin, tan; sin, tan and synthesis. at the end of S2. S4/S5: two half-class
writing the appropriate A synthesis series named (split according to the alphabetical
ratios in a right-angle Sin, cos or tan? order). Simple exercises on MEP
triangle. (synthesis) and on paper. Exercises sheet
Choose the appropriate for homework distributed at the end of
formula: cos, sin, tan S5.
Assessed in S9 for the Low Level group.
e Use of cos, sin, tan to Seven exercises on sin, On MEP and paper in S4/S5. (Support) for
determine a missing length, tan and synthesis. the Low Level group in S6 and S8 on
a missing angle. paper. Assessed for the whole class in S9
f Concrete problems One exercise On MEP in S4/S5.
For the High Level group in S6 with
paper and S8 with MEP. For the Low
Level group in S8 with paper.
Assessed in S9 with detailed questions for
the Low Level group, with no detailed
questions for the High Level group.
g Particular values of sin and One exercise on exact S7: Whole class, paper and pencil work. For
cos. values the High Level group on MEP in S8.
Formulas: cos2 ? sin2 = 1 Three exercises on the Exact values assessed in S9 for the High
and tan = sin/cos formulas Level group.
h Calculations in complex One exercise. For the High Level group on MEP in S8.
configurations. Assessed in S9 for the High Level group.
i Complementary angles. Angles One exercise For the High Level group on MEP in S8
in 3-D. Two exercises (3 exercises).
Discovery of the unit circle. Four exercises.

Trigonometry in grade 9: mathematical organization in the curriculum, in MEP and in Carmens sequence

123
Online Resources in Mathematics 19

References

Artigue, M. (2002). Learning mathematics in a CAS environment: The genesis of a reflection about
instrumentation and the dialectics between technical and conceptual work. International Journal of
Computers for Mathematical Learning, 7(3), 245274. doi:10.1023/A:1022103903080.
Assude, T. (2007). Teachers practices and degree of ICT integration. In D. Pitta-Pantazi & G. Philippou
(Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics
Education (pp. 13391348). Larnaca, Cyprus: CERME 5.
Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics 19701990. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Bueno-Ravel, L., & Gueudet, G. (2007). Online resources in mathematics: Teachers genesis of use. In D.
Pitta-Pantazi & G. Philippou (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Congress of the European Society for
Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 13591368). Larnaca, Cyprus: CERME 5.
Cazes, C., Gueudet, G., Hersant, M., & Vandebrouck, F. (2007). Using e-exercise bases in mathematics:
Case studies at university. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 11(3), 327
350. doi:10.1007/s10758-006-0005-8.
Chevallard, Y. (1992). Concepts fondamentaux de la didactique: perspectives apportees par une approche
anthropologique. Recherches en Didactique des Mathematiques, 12(1), 77111.
Chevallard, Y. (2002). Ecologie et regulation. In J. L. Dorier, M. Artaud, M. Artigue, R. Berthelot, & R.
Floris (Eds.), Actes de la XIeme Ecole dete de didactique des mathematiques, Corps (pp. 4156).
Grenoble: La Pensee Sauvage.
Cooney, T. J. (1999). Conceptualizing teachers ways of knowing. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 38,
163187. doi:10.1023/A:1003504816467.
Drijvers, P., Kieran, C., & Mariotti, M. A. (in press). Integrating technology into mathematics education:
Theoretical perspectives. In C. Hoyles & J.-B. Lagrange (Eds.), Digital technologies and mathematics
teaching and learning: Rethinking the terrain. New York: Springer.
Gueudet, G. (2006). Scenarios dusage de base dexercices en ligne. In H. Godinet & J.-P. Pernin (Eds.),
Scenariser lenseignement et lapprentissage: une nouvelle competence pour le praticien? (pp. 3944).
Lyon: INRP. http://www.inrp.fr/publications/edition-electronique/. Accessed October 15, 2008.
Gueudet, G. (2008). Learning mathematics with e-exercises: A case study about proportional reasoning.
International Journal of Technology in Mathematics Education, 14(4), 169182.
Gueudet, G., & Trouche, L. (in press). Towards new documentation systems for teachers? Educational
Studies in Mathematics. doi:10.1007/s10649008-9159-8.
Guin, D., Ruthven, K., & Trouche, L. (Eds.). (2005). The didactical challenge of symbolic calculators:
Turning a computational device into a mathematical instrument. New York: Springer.
Lagrange, J. B. (2000). Lintegration dinstruments informatiques dans lenseignement: une approche par les
techniques. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 43(1), 130. doi:10.1023/A:1012086721534.
Lagrange, J. B., Bessieres, D., Blanchard, M., Loisy, C., & Vandebrouck, F. (Eds.). (2007). Geneses
dusages professionnels des technologies chez les enseignants, rapport intermediaire de lACI GUP-
TEn. http://gupten.free.fr. Accessed October 15, 2008.
Rabardel, P. (1995). Les hommes et les technologies, approche cognitive des instruments contemporains. Paris:
Armand Colin. (English version at http://ergoserv.psy.univ-paris8.fr/Site/default.asp?Act_group=1.
Accessed October 15, 2008).
Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers use of mathematics curricula.
Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211246. doi:10.3102/00346543075002211.
Ruthven, K. (2007). Teachers, technologies and the structures of schooling. In D. Pitta-Pantazi & G.
Philippou (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Congress of the European Society for Research in Math-
ematics Education (pp. 5267). Larnaca, Cyprus: CERME 5.
Sensevy, G., Schubauer-Leoni, M. L., Mercier, A., Ligozat, F., & Perrot, G. (2005). An attempt to model the
teachers action in the mathematical class. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 59, 153181. doi:
10.1007/s10649-005-5887-1.
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(3), 281307. doi:10.1007/s10758-004-3468-5.
Trouche, L., & Guin, D. (2006). Des scenarios pour et par les usages. In H. Godinet & J. P. Pernin (Eds.),
Scenariser lenseignement et lapprentissage: une nouvelle competence pour le praticien? (pp. 7782).
Lyon: INRP. http://www.inrp.fr/publications/edition-electronique/. Accessed October 15, 2008.
Vergnaud, G. (1998). Toward a cognitive theory of practice. In A. Sierpinska & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.),
Mathematics education as a research domain: A search for identity (pp. 227241). Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.

123
20 L. Bueno-Ravel, G. Gueudet

Wozniak, F. (2007). Conditions and constraints in the teaching of statistics: The scale of levels of deter-
mination. In D. Pitta-Pantazi & G. Philippou (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Congress of the European
Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 18081818). Larnaca, Cyprus: CERME 5.

123