math insrumentation

© All Rights Reserved

3 vues

math insrumentation

© All Rights Reserved

- Mircom TX3-TOUCH-S22 Data Sheet
- esa_80 (1)
- Computer General Awareness
- Inglesgarantizado y el club de tenis murcia.
- Why Study Math
- Dantis Embedded Datasheet en
- Techs Daily Recap2 556)
- Tablet Pc Case Study Report
- primary math
- Independent School District of Boise
- Technically
- WG17_Zembat(T7)
- PCR_ESPECIFICACIONES_TECNICAS.pdf
- DSKP Mathematics Year 4
- resume assignment
- Newsletter September 16
- MTAP Reviewer for Grade 1 Part 2 - Techie Math Teacher
- New Alfa Leaflet 23.06 With Address
- 2 Test a Febbraio
- April Contracts_final (1)

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 15

DOI 10.1007/s11858-010-0269-2

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

flashback into the future

Luc Trouche Paul Drijvers

FIZ Karlsruhe 2010

overcoming infrastructural limitations that had hindered

until then the integration of ICT in mathematics education.

In this paper, we reflect on this integration of handheld

technology from a personal perspective, as well as on the

lessons to be learnt from it. The main lesson in our opinion

concerns the growing awareness that students mathematical thinking is deeply affected by their work with technology in a complex and subtle way. Theories on

instrumentation and orchestration make explicit this subtlety and help to design and realise technology-rich mathematics education. As a conclusion, extrapolation of these

lessons to a future with mobile multi-functional handheld

technology leads to the issues of connectivity and in- and

out-of-school collaborative work as major issues for future

research.

Keywords Mathematics education

Handheld technology Instrumentalisation

Instrumentation Orchestration

L. Trouche (&)

INRP (National Institute for Pedagogical Research),

Lyon, France

e-mail: luc.trouche@inrp.fr

URL: http://educmath.inrp.fr/Educmath/recherche/educmath/

page_luc_trouche

P. Drijvers

Freudenthal Institute for Science and Mathematics Education,

Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

1 Introduction

Since its origin, mankind has developed tools to assist in

labour. In ancient times, stones were shaped and used as

fist hammers for carrying out handicraft work. Later, the

abacus was used for arithmetic tasks in trade and bargaining affairs. In mathematics, a diversity of tools have

been in use, such as clay tablets, compasses, rulers, books,

paper, pencils, and, in present times, calculators and

computers (Maschietto & Trouche, 2010). Seen in a historical perspective, handheld tools have a long tradition of

being at the heart of mathematical and scientific practice.

In the 60s of the previous century, four-function calculators and scientific calculators became very popular types

of handheld devices for mathematicians who had to do

computations. Engineers used relatively big and complex

calculator tools, requiring reverse polish notation and

offering programming facilities to carry out high-precision

calculations. An era of tremendous technological developments was heralded with the emergence of new devices

for information and communication: the digital society.

Computers were big and expensive, but handheld calculators penetrated all sectors of society, including schools.

In the 1990s, HHT became popular in mathematics

education in some countries. Graphing and symbolic calculators in particular became affordable and widespread,

not in the least because of enthusiasm amongst teachers,

educators and researchers, who were interested in the

opportunities technology offers. The numbers of desktop

PCs in homes and schools also increased exponentially, but

access to computers still was a matter of concern, not to

speak of constraints on communication and technical

support.

Nowadays, PCs are widespread. The development of

laptop and notebook computers has moved PCs in the

123

L. Trouche, P. Drijvers

Fig. 1 Graphing calculator

applications on an iPhone

handheld device

and Internet access from anywhere. PDAs and smartphones

are now in the pocket and offer applications for mathematics as well (see Fig. 1). It seems that HHT is entering a

new era.

On looking back at the recent role of HHT in mathematics education, one may wonder why such tools, and in

particular the graphing and symbolic calculators, became

so popular in the previous decades. What made them so

attractive to students and teachers? How did their implementation in mathematics education work? Were the

sometimes high expectations of the use of HHT, which was

supposed to improve mathematics learning and teaching,

met in practice? How do we reflect on these developments

in retrospect? It is time for a flashback.

We are also interested in lessons to be learnt for the

future. What can we learn from the integration of HHT into

mathematics education in the past decades? Which lessons

to learn, what guidelines to extrapolate for future, what

issues to take care of, and which directions to go? These

are the central questions of this contribution. In short, the

purpose of this flashback is to consider the implications for

the future.

In this paper, we try to address the above questions by

looking back from a personal perspective (see Fig. 2). We

try to trace our own work through these last two decades.

Of course, we do not mean to disregard the relevance of the

excellent work done by many teachers, educators and

researchers in the field (e.g. see Burril et al., 2002 for an

overview); rather, we try to backtrack our personal research

trajectories considering them as exemplary of the recent

history of research into the use of HHT in mathematics

education.

123

looking for the main trends of recent research in this field,

to capture on the one hand the obstacles and the dead ends

and on the other the fruitful ideas, so as to provide some

hints for further research.

As indicated in the previous section, in some countries the

use of HHT became widespread in the mid-1990s amongst

students, teachers, educators and researchers in the mathematics education community. How did this happen, and

why? What were the reasons for the successful dissemination of graphing calculators, in particular, and, to a lesser

extent, symbolic calculators? Why did these types of

technology become so widespread?

As a first explanation for this phenomenon, it should be

noted that in spite of the high expectations expressed by

many researchers and educators (e.g. Papert, 1980),

implementation of technology in the mathematics classroom was inhibited by infrastructural limitations. Hardware

was organised in computer laboratories that were difficult

to access, and the technology was operating far from

smoothly. Network technology was primitive, so installing

software in a computer laboratory was quite a job. Also,

most computer laboratories were not appropriate for

whole-class teaching or interactive teaching techniques.

Lessons in the computer laboratories needed a lot of

preparation by the teacher, and the use of technology

usually had to be teacher driven. Compared to this situation, HHT had some important trumps: it could be used in

any ordinary classroom, without additional infrastructural

Fig. 2 Authors personal

backgrounds

Paul Drijvers

As a teacher trainer in the 90s, I was

fascinated by the phenomenon of computer

algebra, and excited that a machine was able

to carry out sophisticated procedures, such

as calculating limits and derivatives and

algebraic simplifications, techniques I

considered these procedures, we spent so

much time on teaching, to be at the heart of

mathematics.

Mathematics

trivialised?

Where is the heart of mathematics?

In the mid-90s, the availability of HHT

solved our infrastructural issues. Now

technology was really integrated! But what

do we want to teach? And why dont

students see the mathematics in the

techniques the way we see them? How to

approach this difficulty?

requirements. There was no need to make computer laboratory reservations, or to have to use technology during the

complete lesson because the room did not allow for anything else. It was always available without dominating the

classroom. In short, HHT made it possible to bypass the

infrastructural limitations within schools.

In addition to this, a second explanation is that HHT also

made the teachers lives easier. Lesson preparation was no

longer that laborious, and the initiative and responsibility

of using technology could eventually be handed over to the

students, who could themselves decide on when and how to

use the device. Different teaching techniques, including

individual work, group work and whole-class work, could

be used and intertwined. Integrating technology into

assessment, an important concern if one wants the assessment to reflect the teaching, became feasible through the

use of HHT. In short, HHT offered new possibilities for the

teacher who wanted to make use of the opportunities

technology brought about. So finally, technology in the

mathematics classroom was no longer beyond reach, but

manageable!

The assessment argument also convinced authorities and

policy makers that HHT could, on the one hand, bring

technology into the classroom, but, on the other, leave

assessment formats unchanged, even if the content of the

test might be questioned. In several countries, this led to

HHT entering national examinations, though this was not

as straightforward as it might seem in many cases (Brown,

2010; Drijvers, 1998, 2009). In its turn, such national

measures left teachers and students who were less

favourable towards technology with no choice: once the

national policy was decided upon, nobody would want to

put their students at a disadvantage. A third explanation,

therefore, is that national policies made it difficult for midadopting teachers to neglect HHT.

Luc Trouche

Beginning as a teacher (1975) facing the

introduction of scientific calculators,

following on as a teacher educator (1985)

facing the introduction of graphing

calculators, then as a researcher (1995),

facing the introduction of symbolic

calculators, my professional development

was, in some way, drawn by technological

development.

A threefold questioning rose: what are tools,

what is mathematics, what are learning

processes? Finally, what was the most

important question? Difficult to say, but one

element seemed to have been decisive:

calculators were in the students hands and

in the classroom. If we wanted to teach

mathematics, we had to teach with such

technology.

appreciation. As is the case of other popular technological

devices such as television, at the heart of the HHT is a

screen with dynamic images (Trouche, 1994). Furthermore,

an advantage of the personal handheld device is that the

students familiarity and confidence with it develops

quickly because of its permanent availability (Lagrange,

1999). Also, HHT is personal technology. Students have a

sense of ownership and the means for personalisation and

customisation (e.g. through the installation of games or the

production of additional programs), which facilitate

appropriation. On the one hand, this personal and private

character of HHT, which makes students feel free to try

things and to make errors, contributes to its popularity

(Ruthven, 1990). On the other hand, this privacy might

hinder students from sharing their results, and questions,

with peers and their teacher (Doerr & Zangor, 2000).

Not only did teachers and students get excited about the

possibilities offered by HHT, but also researchers and

educators in the 1990s were optimistic about the positive

effect of its introduction into mathematics classrooms.

Many explorative studies were conducted and reports on

experiences with the use of HHT, such as graphing calculators, appeared in both scientific and professional forums (e.g. see Fig. 3). In most cases, these reports were

quite positive:

Use of the graphics calculator stimulates the posing

of new questions and the generalization of problems.

For the student, this involves [] a change of attitude

with respect to mathematics from one of passiveperformance to that of active-investigation.

(Drijvers & Doorman, 1996, p. 429)

The interest and activity within the research community

contributed to the dissemination of ideas on the easy

123

L. Trouche, P. Drijvers

Fig. 3 A dialogue making use

of graphical exploration options

offered by HHT (Drijvers &

Doorman, 1996)

two places to the right?

Johan: y = x2 + 2

He enters this and presses GRAPH.

Johan: Oh no! y = x2 + 2x, GRAPH... that's not

right either.

Alex: y = x2 + 4x + 4, no, that's not right, the

graph shifted two places to the left. So then it is

y = x2 4x + 4. That's right.

Teacher: And three places to the right?

Alex tries this on the graphics calculator.

Alex: y = x2 6x + 9.

Rewriting the formulas gives y = (x 2)2 and y =

(x 3)2.

Erik: And if you have y = x2 + 2x and you shift

that three places to the right?

Teacher: What do you think?

Erik: First complete the square, that'll give you

y = (x + 1)2 1, and then three places to the right,

so -3 in parentheses, that's y = (x 2)2 1.

students, and means to focus on mathematical thinking

rather than on procedural skills. In fact, HHT technology

was considered to be a means to implement reform agendas

for mathematics education, as a lever for educational

change that was in the air. Of course, there were also

critical comments, for example on the costs of personal

HHT, on its role in assessment and on the effects of its use

on basic skills and on conceptualisation of mathematical

objects (Trouche, 2000).

Altogether, HHT in the 1990s in the eyes of many

stakeholders seemed to be the right thing at the right

moment, allowing for a real integration of technology in

mathematics teaching and learning, and giving way to

contemporary, challenging and motivating mathematics

education. Meanwhile, things turned out to be more complicated and a growing need emerged for theoretically

based research, which would go beyond the somewhat

nave idea that the simple integration of HHT would work

out well.

123

or interpretation

3.1 First ideas on opportunities offered by HHT

As indicated above, initial ideas on the use of HHT for

mathematics education, as shared amongst researchers and

educators in the 1990s, focused on the opportunities that

technology in general, and HHT in particular, would offer

for students learning. For example, is was claimed that

graphs, in traditional mathematics education at that time

the final result of a long and routine process of function

analysis, would now be the starting point for interesting

function investigations rather than the end point (Kindt,

1992a, 1992b). Also, the graphical output of HHT could

constitute for the students an occasion for explorations

leading to algebraic thinking. Figure 4, for example,

shows that students can explore the effect, on their

product, of changing linear functions Y1 and/or Y2. This

naturally leads to questions about properties of the product

Fig. 4 Exploring the product of

two linear functions (Doorman,

Drijvers, & Kindt, 1994)

calculating the number of zeros

at the end of n! (Drijvers, 1999;

Trouche, 1998; Weigand, 1989)

inappropriate TI-81 graphical

representation of (x2 ? x - 1)/

(x - 1) on paper (Drijvers,

1995)

building blocks.

As a second example of ideas for capitalising on

opportunities that HHT offers, Fig. 5 shows how students

captured a procedure for calculating the number of zeros at

the end of n! Like programming, setting up such a procedure after some paper-and-pencil explorations can be

considered as a means of condensing and reifying the

process. This suggests that the use of HHT can promote

object thinking and encapsulation of mathematical processes, which is seen as an important mathematical

achievement (e.g. see Sfard, 1991).

These examples show that HHT was initially used to

achieve high educational goals such as the ability to relate

graphic and algebraic properties, mathematical investigation and reification of processes into mathematical objects.

The introduction of HHT in mathematics education can be

characterised as a phase of improvisation, both by students,

who were confronted with new types of mathematical

activities, and teachers, educators and researchers, who

were searching for a means to exploit HHTs potential for

the learning of mathematics.

In spite of the inspiring teaching activities using HHT that

were available, teachers sometimes were confronted with

disappointing student results and with unexpected difficulties. Dealing with graphs, for example, was not as easy

for students as it might seem at a first glance. To understand the empty screens that in some cases appear as a

result of pressing a graph button, students need to become

aware of the idea that a viewing window represents a

rectangular view on just a limited part of the theoretically

infinite plane, which may or may not hit the graph.

Strange graphical representations appeared on the screen,

due to inappropriate window settings or pixel effects, the

latter particularly for the first-generation graphing calculator, and were copied on paper inappropriately (see Fig. 6)

or interpreted incorrectly (see Fig. 7).

These difficulties and sometimes misconceptions

attracted attention. As a result, a growing awareness

emerged amongst educators and researchers, an awareness

of students concept images (Tall & Vinner, 1981), their

conceptual knowledge and the meaning they attach to these

123

L. Trouche, P. Drijvers

Fig. 7 A convincing image:

the limit of x ? ln x ? 10 sin x

should not exist (Guin &

Trouche, 1999)

most of students infer, from the

oscillation of the curve, that the limit of

this function, when x tends towards

infinity, does not exist.

Without access to a graphing calculator,

students used to say: the behaviour of

such a function depends on ln x, which

is much bigger than sin x.

considered as intersection points

of graphs

their work with HHT. Tool constraints needed to be dealt

with, and techniques for using the tools gave rise to new

meanings. For example, the technique of solving an

equation by drawing graphs of the left-hand side and the

right-hand side and then approximating the coordinates of

the intersection points leads to a graphical, mental image of

an equation rather than an algebraic one (see Fig. 8).

A second example of new epistemologies concerns the

profound change in the relationships between a drawing

and a figure from a paper-and-pencil environment to a

dynamic geometry environment.1 Parzysz (1988) distinguishes a drawing (a picture object of seeing) from a figure

(integrating properties, object of knowing). In a paper-andpencil environment, a drawing has to be marked (for

example, to indicate that two sides are equal) to show its

properties. In a dynamic geometry environment, the technique of dragging reveals the constructions properties,

which might remain hidden in the drawing (Falcade,

Laborde & Mariotti, 2007; Laborde & Capponi, 1994).

The growing awareness of changing epistemologies,

sometimes for better but sometimes for worse, clearly

evoked the need for theoretical reflection and

1

123

reconsideration, as exploiting the benefits from the integration of HHT in mathematics education turned out to be

not as simple as expected.

3.3 Theoretical advancements

As a result of the experiences described above, there was a

need for new theoretical approaches, which would do justice to the observation that using tools is not just a matter of

transforming mathematical thinking into commands for the

tool, but that the relation between user and tool is a bidirectional one: the user shapes the techniques for using the

tool, but the tool shapes the users thinking as well:

Tools matter: they stand between the user and the

phenomenon to be modelled, and shape activity

structures. (Hoyles & Noss, 2003, p. 341)

The relationship between techniques for using a tool and

mathematical thinking is a subtle and delicate one, which

requires theoretical frames of equal subtlety. For example,

the notion of situated abstraction (Noss & Hoyles, 1996)

refers to the mathematical knowledge, which emerges

within the frame of using technological tools in a particular

situation, and which to a certain extent remains attached

to these technological experiences. Theories on semiotic

tools in the process of the user making sense of a task (e.g.

see Falcade, Laborde & Mariotti, 2007). Gravemeijer

(1999) develops the notion of emergent modelling to point

out how mathematical meaning co-emerges with the

development of students symbolisations made with

whatever kind of tool. Though these theoretical approaches

are quite different, they share an interest in meaning

making, symbolising and in the relation between these

processes and the techniques with which technological

tools are used.

Another theoretical framework, which emerged in the

context of integrating HHT into mathematics education,

concerns instrumental approaches to using tools. As we

consider them to be highly relevant, we address them in

more detail. An essential starting point in instrumentation

theory is the distinction between artefact and instrument

(Rabardel, 2002). An artefact is the, often but not necessarily physical, object that is used as a tool. We speak about

an instrument if a meaningful relationship exists between

the artefact and the user for a specific type of task. Besides

the artefact, the instrument also involves the techniques

and mental schemes that the user develops and applies

whilst using the artefact. Put in the form of a somewhat

simplified formula: instrument = artefact ? schemes.

The process of an artefact becoming part of an instrument

in the hands of a user, in our case the student, is called

instrumental genesis (Artigue, 2002). During instrumental

genesis, a bilateral relationship between the artefact and the

user is established: whilst the students knowledge guides

the way the tool is used and in a sense shapes the tool (this

is called instrumentalisation), the affordances and constraints of the tool influence the students problem-solving

strategies and the corresponding emergent conceptions

(this is called instrumentation). As an anecdotal example of

instrumentalisation, we recall an incident involving some

students who programmed a RESET screen on a graphing

calculator, so as to simulate a system reset before the

written test in which this was a requirement.

more or less stable way to deal with specific situations or

tasks. As we see a scheme here as part of an instrument,

we speak of an instrumentation scheme. Within instrumentation schemes, schemes of instrumented action and

utilisation schemes are distinguished. Utilisation schemes

are directly related to the artefact and are building blocks

for more integrated schemes of instrumented action, which

are more global schemes directed towards an activity with

the object (Trouche, 2004). In these mental schemes,

technical and conceptual aspects are intertwined and codevelop. We cannot look into the heads of our students

[even if neuroscientists are advancing (Thomas et al.,

2008)!], so schemes cannot be observed directly but have

to be inferred from what can be observed, the instrumented techniques. Instrumented techniques are more or

less stable sequences of interactions between the user and

the artefact with a particular goal. In this interpretation,

the technique can be seen as the observable counterpart of

the invisible mental scheme. Finally, a scheme is constituted by instrumented techniques and knowledge guiding

these techniques. Vergnaud (1996) identifies concepts in

action and theorems in action as the heart of this knowledge, built through and for students instrumented activity

(which is not always what the teacher expects to be

built!). The students techniques can be seen as actual

interpretations of their schemes, which reflect their personal thinking. Techniques, of course, depend on the tools,

and reconciling paper-and-pencil techniques with HHT

techniques may be a challenge for students (Kieran &

Drijvers, 2006).

As an example of a scheme, Fig. 9 shows a screen of

symbolic calculator in which a solve technique is applied to

a parametric equation. The ovals around the screen sketch

some concepts in action, which are involved in this technique, and reflect the scheme. One of the main concepts in

action of the scheme is the notion of a solution of a parametric equation being an algebraic expression instead of

the usual numerical value.

technique of solving a

parametric equation (Drijvers,

Kieran & Mariotti, 2009)

123

L. Trouche, P. Drijvers

this section, we note that theoretical frameworks have been

developed to respond to the observed difficulties that students have whilst using HHT, as well as to its constraints

and opportunities. These theoretical approaches, with the

instrumental approach as one of the most promising, serve

to make explicit the subtle relationship between tool use

and the process of meaning making, as well as to study,

design and evaluate this process.

or a symphonic orchestra

The theoretical developments described above focus on

HHT gradually becoming a personal instrument, integrated

by each student whilst interpreting her/his own scores. But

how about the teacher? How can s/he exploit the availability of HHT in the mathematics classroom? What

teaching techniques and working formats should be used?

As is the case for learning with technology, learning to

teach with technology is a subtle process, which has to be

tackled gradually through some crucial steps.

4.1 What about the musical scores?

Within the instrumental metaphor, tasks can be thought of

as musical scores. The awareness that problem solving is at

the heart of mathematics (Vergnaud, 1996) leads us to

think about the new mathematical tasks or problem situations that fit well to the new technological environments.

This is not specific for HHT, but, as will be pointed out in

Sect. 4.3, the students permanent access to this kind of

technology makes this issue more important.

After the first, somewhat too optimistic, illusions

(enjoy mathematics with HHT!), it appeared that it was

Fig. 10 Thinking on

calculators the required answers

(Trouche, 1998)

123

not that easy to design new mathematical problem situations, which, on the one hand, took advantage of technology and, on the other, required mathematical thinking

about what was beyond a given HHT result or image.

Examples of such mathematical situations are quite rare in

textbooks and essentially can be found in research literature (for example, Artigue, in Guin et al. 2005). Figure 10

shows an example of a situation, which has a great

potential for exploring and learning mathematics. To find

the second expected root, a student has to exploit both the

functionalities of the calculator (looking for a right

window) and his/her mathematical knowledge (transforming for example the equation, for the positive numbers, into

x = 20 ln(x) to get reasonable values). To be able to

design such tasks themselves, teachers need to master both

the functionalities of the artefact as well as the mathematical and didactical backgrounds of the mathematical

topic to be taught.

4.2 What about the tuning of instruments?

Once such a mathematical problem situation is designed

and presented, an essential question is how to make it

work in the classroom, how to organise students work in

time and space, how to combine individual and collective

phases within problem solving, and how to integrate each

students instrument into the orchestra as a whole? For

answering these questions, the notion of instrumental

orchestration was introduced (Trouche, 2005). The strength

of the metaphor is that it stresses the need for whole-class

management, even when individual technology is used.

Instrumental orchestration applied to a mathematical situation proposes didactical configurations for integration of

the available artefacts in the classroom activity and

exploitation modes for these configurations. Figure 11

sketches an example of an orchestration: the Sherpa

introduce the notion of infinite

limit of a function. More

precisely, she wants to

illustrate the theorem: the

exponential function grows

faster than any power

function, which means that,

from a certain point, the

exponential curve will be

above the graph of the power

function.

The answer provided by the

calculator is surprising: it

seems that, from the second

given root, the power curve

will always remain above

the exponential curve.

Fig. 11 The Sherpa-student

configuration (Trouche, 2004)

on the exploitation of a particular role to

the so-called Sherpa-student, who is

using the technology in front of the class.

The teacher is thus responsible for

guiding, more or less, through this

student using the calculator, which in

fact is the whole classes calculator. The

teacher thus fulfils the function of an

orchestra conductor rather than a onemans band.

Several

exploitation

configuration

can

modes

be

of

this

considered:

by

the

Sherpa-student

under

the

work could free; the role of Sherpa can

be

switched

to

different

students,

spot, or the Sherpa can be the same

student for the whole lesson, etc.

orchestration in which one of the students uses the technology in a way that all students can follow it, and the

teacher guides this students use.

the context of a symphonic orchestra with a classical

conductor

the importance of instruments for developing mathematical activity and stresses the teachers responsibility with

respect to these instruments. It reveals the need for not

only designing good mathematical problems, but also

corresponding orchestrations that take into account the

technical aspects of the environment. It helps to identify

and design appropriate ways of teaching using technology.

The orchestration metaphor, however, could be questioned. As Hoyles (2003) pointed out, orchestrations might

neglect students creativity, particularly if prepared

beforehand and applied in a rigid way. These criticisms led

to a more balanced definition of orchestration (Drijvers &

Trouche, 2008). Teachers should consider the students

instrumentalisation processes as potential enrichments of

the artefacts. Therefore, whilst orchestrating a mathematical

situation in the classroom, the teacher should combine the

guidance of instrumentation processes with the recognition

of new instrumented techniques proposed by students. In

this sense, the metaphor of orchestration is to be understood

orchestration, we realise that so far it has not been widely

adopted (except for our own area) in the community of

research, nor in the domain of teacher education. Two

reasons might explain this weak dissemination: the small

number of examples of practical orchestrations and the lack

of elaboration of the concept itself. Let us consider these

two shortcomings.

The main configuration that we have exploited is the

Sherpa-student one. In the context of isolated HHT (each

student has a personal HHT, with a very small screen, and

that does not communicate easily with the others), this

configuration had a great potential. Nowadays, the

increasing connectivity of HHT opens ways for a greater

diversity of configurations. For example, the TI-Navigator

environment, offering connectivity between the calculators

of groups of four students (students quartets, following the

metaphor), can be seen as a generalisation of the Sherpastudent configuration: it is up to the teacher, at any time, to

project one or several calculator screen(s) on the classroom

whiteboard. Many configurations are possible, reflecting

123

L. Trouche, P. Drijvers

how small changes in the configuration of the classroom

can have important consequences for the communication

between the students, and between the teacher and the

students. These remarks are not restricted to HHT: similar

experiences with computer laboratories have been reported

(Drijvers et al., 2010, submitted data). Also, students

access to laptop or notebook computers with wireless

Internet connection will increase. This offers new means

for orchestrating the learning.

In this era of technological expansion, the need for and

the design of rich orchestrations will develop. Drijvers

et al. (2010, submitted data) propose, for this purpose, a

repertoire of new configurations covering a diversity of

possible orchestrations for the teacher (e.g. see Fig. 13).

Certainly, to design orchestrations that fit to her didactical

objectives, it is necessary for the teacher to have at her

disposal both a repertoire of problems and a repertoire of

configurations.

A second weakness of the notion of orchestration is a

theoretical one. When introducing orchestration, we

defined it as an intentional and systematic management of

artefacts, aiming at the implementation of a given mathematical situation in a given classroom. This clearly suggests an a priori design before the implementation in a

classroom. However, according to the instrumental point of

view, with its focus on instrumental genesis, techniques,

through using tools during teaching. To address this issue,

we distinguished between the orchestration work (preparing the teaching) and the band leaders work (facing the

students).

With this in mind, Drijvers et al. (ibidem) add to the

configurations and exploitation modes a third level, the

essential level of didactical performance:

A didactical performance involves the ad hoc

decisions taken while teaching on how to actually

perform in the chosen didactic configuration and

exploitation mode: what question to pose now, how

to do justice to (or to set aside) any particular student

input, how to deal with an unexpected aspect of the

mathematical task or the technological tool, or other

emerging goals (Drijvers et al., 2010, submitted

data).

An orchestration can be seen in this frame as an artefact

for a teacher, evolving through successive phases of design

and implementation in classroom situations.

So far, we have considered the integration of HHT only

in classroom situations. The technological evolution,

mainly the development of connectivity, makes the issue of

integration even more complex for the teacher as well as

for the students, as learning and teaching will take place

both inside and outside of the classroom.

configuration with important

consequences (Hoyles et al.,

2009)

configuration (Drijvers et al.,

2010, submitted data)

the situation in which the teacher has the

opportunity to spot the students work

while preparing the lesson and to decide

deliberately to show selected parts of it as

a starting point for whole-class discussion

during the lesson. In the sketch on the

right, the lesson preparation takes place

late in the evening.

123

Reflecting on the history of HHT since the 1980s from a

certain distance, one is tempted to frame the developments

as a convergent process with calculators becoming more

sophisticated, PCs becoming increasingly smaller and

therefore PCs and HHT merging into one single, rather

complex tool. However, this somewhat simplistic view

needs additional considerations for at least three reasons.

First, with the development of connectivity between

HHT as well as PCs, the unit of analysis is not a single

HHT or PC, but a network composed of HHT and PCs.

This raises orchestrational issues. Second, through the

development of the Internet, which obviously relies on

connectivity, the HHT is no longer a stand-alone device,

which needs to contain all the necessary resources. Additional resources can simply be downloaded or accessed

directly online. The third additional consideration to the

simplistic view of merging tools relates to the previous

one. As it is not practical to have a dedicated HHT for each

type of task or subject (1 HHT for mathematics, 1 HHT for

geography, etc.), HHT is becoming quite generic, not

specifically dedicated to learning, but used for everyday

life (see the smartphone example in Fig. 1), raising new

questions about learning and teaching.

5.1 Connectivity and new challenge for orchestration

Connectivity is identified as an important issue in future

development of technology in education:

Thinking about the evolution of ICT in education,

the key expression that comes to the fore is connectivity. The interest in personal communication

strongly drives the need for connectivity. Even more

than is the case nowadays, students and their teachers

will communicate in oral or written form through the

Internet, through electronic learning environments,

and through classroom connectivity facilities that

allow for gathering students results from handheld

whiteboard. []. Computer tools offer options for

file transfer between handheld and desktop devices,

and between different types of software applications

such as DGE and CAS (Drijvers, Kieran, &

Mariotti, 2009, p. 121).

Through connectivity, new opportunities enter the world

of education, with a focus on collaboration:

Digital technologies are already changing the ways

we think about interacting with mathematical objects,

especially in terms of dynamic visualisations and the

multiple connections that can be made between different kinds of symbolic representation. At the same

time, we are seeing rapid developments in the ways

that it is possible for students to share resources and

ideas and to collaborate through technological devices both in the same physical space and at a distance

(Hoyles et al., 2009, p. 439).

The potential of connectivity is particularly important in

the case of HHT. Section 4.4 shows how the small screens

of HHT beg for the development of devices for communication, such as TI-Navigator (Fig. 14, left). What appears

(for us) as a necessity in the case of HHT is an opportunity

in the case of PC: an opportunity to open the space of

debate into the classroom. For example, the confrontation

on a common screen of rapid scribbles made on each

students laptop (see Fig. 14, right screen) opens the way

for building a shared notion of fraction. In line with this,

Patton et al. (2008) introduce the idea of rapid collaborative knowledge building (RCKB) based on six principles

developed by Scardamalia (2002):

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Class accepts new ideas, and constantly improves

ideas

Explore many ideas, and from many different angles

Students take initiative for their own learning

Everybody participates actively and contributes

knowledge

experience (Hoyles et al., 2009)

to a GroupScribbles experience

(Patton et al., 2008)

123

L. Trouche, P. Drijvers

Fig. 15 A duo of HHTPC

inviting the development of a

system of instruments (Aldon

et al., 2008)

(6)

certainly makes it technically easier to set up in a classroom.2 It is not didactically easier for the teacher, as these

configurations confront her with a complex process of

management. Whilst using a quick poll, for TI-Navigator, or rapid collaborative knowledge building in the

case of GroupScribbles, multiple ad hoc decisions have to

be taken by the teacher, and have to be taken just on time.

The new didactical configurations lead to complex didactical performances, including the need to adjust orchestration under the fire of action.

5.2 Connectivity and new challenge for systems

of instruments

Connectivity concerns connecting students as well as

teachers different HHT and PC tools. The TI-Nspire

environment (Aldon et al., 2008, see Fig. 15), for example,

provides such connectivity. It offers similar and compatible

environments on both HHT and PC, and resources can

move between the two platforms. It is also possible to have

an active image of the HHT on the PC screen; in this way,

the HHT can be used through the PC (Fig. 15, right

part).

USB flash drives also offer this kind of connectivity: one

can easily bring her/his own resources and implement them

on another device. These keys certainly have potential for

disseminating and sharing new resources. For this reason,

the French Ministry of Education has decided to give each

new teacher a key to start (une cle pour demarrer, in

French), which provides access to a portal of resources

dedicated to teaching the subject matter in question. This

key does not make teacher training redundant, but provides

novice teachers with an easy access to a set of resources,

2

The wireless connection works between the students HHT and the

teachers PC, not between the students HHT, which is certainly a

result of institutional constraints: the students are not allowed to

communicate during the examinations.

123

good practices.

Practically, both teachers as well as students have to

combine sets of artefacts: different HHT (calculators, USB

keys), different computers (personal computers, shared

computers, in school for example), overhead projectors,

view screens, interactive whiteboards, etc. Clearly, there is

a need, for each individual, to constitute a system of

instruments (Trouche, 2005). This new level of instrumental genesis is certainly an important issue for further

research. Finally, it leads to considering each individual as

a one-man band, managing sets of artefacts, and, inside

the classroom, the teacher as the person who is in the

uncomfortable (and challenging) position of managing a

band of one-man bands

5.3 A duo of HHT and Internet

The most revolutionary manifestation of connectivity is

certainly the access to the World Wide Web via Internet. It

gives access to pedagogical resources and to online artefacts for the exploitation of theses resources (Fig. 16, left

side). As a consequence, it is no longer necessary to have

these resources physically installed on ones own PC/HHT.

The device can become a light machine, making use of

distant resources. As the Internet is not particularly dedicated to mathematics, there is a tendency to use generic

artefacts. For example, we observed with surprise students

in 6th grade using Google as their calculator (Fig. 16, right

side)!

This example gives rise to some crucial reflections.

First, the conceptualisation of mathematical objects and

processes will be deeply modified: using Google to multiply two numbers develops a new view of what is a

multiplication. The result lies somewhere (just as it does if

we ask what is the main town in Transylvania?); we

have to search for the result and not imagine a constructive

way to build it by our own means. Second, as soon as each

student can download particular resources such as applications that increase the power of the calculator,

Fig. 16 A duo of HHT and

Internet, towards light HHT?

game, in the thread of HHT

dynamics? (Habgood et al.,

2005)

function behaviour, or games, the process of instrumentalisation is amplified. This increases the teachers

responsibility to incorporate each instrument in her new

orchestrations. Third, the need for developing high-quality

resources for mathematics teaching as well as criteria for

this quality is clearly urgent; this is currently the purpose of

several research projects at the European level (Trgalova

et al., 2009).

5.4 What is a learning tool, and what is a learning

activity?

At the beginning of this HHT-in-school story, the issue was

how to benefit from HHT dedicated to mathematics education (mainly calculators). Nowadays, it seems that we

have to face another process: students, on a daily basis, use

HHT, which is not dedicated to mathematics learning. Is it

possible to also gain benefit inside the classroom from

these kinds of HHT? This question opens a wide field of

research on mobile learning (Roschelle, 2003). For example: how would we integrate smartphones for the purpose

of mathematical activities in and out of school? More

generally, this raises two major questions, not only about

artefacts, but also about activities: how would it be possible

to motivate students to engage in mathematical activity out

of school, and how do we exploit the results of this activity

in school? In line with this, serious games and its

educators and researchers (Habgood et al., 2005, Fig. 17).

Modelling mathematics learning as a challenge, or a

game (Brousseau, 1997), where the learner builds his/her

knowledge by engaging in this game, is quite usual in our

research community. Usually, however, the teacher designs

the game, its rules and its management. In the case of

serious games, the game and its rules are designed outside

of schools. In the early times of calculators, educators had

to think about the integration of these HHT into classrooms; perhaps, nowadays we should seriously consider the

integration into school of serious games, which might be

considered as HHA (handheld activities), due to their

quite natural appropriation. A shift in focus from technologies towards activities requires a rethinking of forms of

instrumentalisation and orchestration.

6 Conclusion

What do we learn from this history of the use of HHT for

learning mathematics from 1980 until today? First, we have

learnt to be less nave about machines and mediation,

primarily involving the learner who uses the tools and, at a

second level, the teacher who learns to integrate HHT into

her teaching. Machines are not neutral, but deeply influence activity, conceptualisation and, more generally, students and teachers development.

123

L. Trouche, P. Drijvers

computing, graphing, investigation, problem solving,

learning or teaching. Doing requires appropriating a given

tool, and appropriating in its turn presupposes putting in

the machine something of oneself or, to put it another

way, personalisation and customisation. This strong point

of view leads to the consideration of each user as an

essential partner in the process of designing artefacts,

mathematical situations, orchestrations and resources.

Third, we have learnt that teaching is a responsibility of

the teacher, of course, but also of the students. In this

perspective, the Sherpa-student configuration can be considered as a good metaphor of the essential contribution of

students to teaching.

Fourth, bearing in mind the wide scope of HHT devices

and of tools for mathematics learning, we wonder how

mathematics education might benefit from students out of

school activities such as engagement in serious games,

often incorporated in multipurpose mobile HHT.

Fifth and last, but not least, our flashback leads us

towards the future of research, thinking beyond HHT in a

double direction. The first challenge concerns extending

the notions of mathematical situations and their orchestrations to out-of-school learning environments. The second challenge concerns renewing, from a practical and

theoretical point of view, the notion of artefacts for

learning and teaching. To enter these fields, we need to be

aware that HHT is no longer an isolated artefact, but

integrated in and articulated with a network of resources,

particularly online resources (Gueudet & Trouche, 2009).

References

Aldon, G., Artigue, M., Bardini, C., Baroux-Raymond, D., Bonnafet,

J.-L., Combes, M.-C., et al. (2008). Nouvel environnement

technologique, nouvelles ressources, nouveaux modes de travail:

Le projet e-CoLab (experimentation Collaborative de Laboratoires mathematiques). Repe`res IREM, 72, 5178.

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, 245274.

Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactic situations. Dordrecht:

Kluwer.

Brown, R. G. (2010). Does the introduction of the graphics calculator

into system-wide examinations lead to change in the types of

mathematical skills tested? Educational Studies in Mathematics,

73(2), 181203.

Burril, G., Allison, J., Breaux, G., Kastberg, S., Leatham, K., &

Sanchez, W. (Eds.). (2002). Handheld graphing technology in

secondary mathematics: Research findings and implications for

classroom practice. Dallas, USA: Texas Instruments.

Doerr, H. M., & Zangor, R. (2000). Creating meaning for and with the

graphing calculator. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 41,

143163.

123

rekenmachine in het wiskundeonderwijs [The graphic calculators in mathematics education]. Utrecht: Freudenthal Instituut.

Drijvers, P. (1995). Neem de grafiek over [Copy the graph].

Nieuwe Wiskrant, tijdschrift voor Nederlands wiskundeonderwijs,

14(4), 2935.

Drijvers, P. (1998). Assessment and new technologies: Different

policies in different countries. The International Journal on

Computer Algebra in Mathematics Education, 5(2), 8193.

Drijvers, P. (1999). Op hoeveel nullen eindigt 1998!? [With how

many zeros ends 1998!?]. Euclides, 74, 275277.

Drijvers, P. (2009). Tools and tests: Technology in national final

mathematics examinations. In C. Winslow (Ed.), Nordic

research on mathematics education, proceedings from

NORMA08 (pp. 225236). Rotterdam: Sense.

Drijvers, P., & Doorman, M. (1996). The graphics calculator in

mathematics education. Journal of Mathematical Behaviour,

14(4), 425440.

Drijvers, P., Doorman, M., Boon, P., Reed, H., & Gravemeijer, K.

(2010). The teacher and the tool: instrumental orchestrations in

the technology-rich mathematics classroom. Educational Studies

in Mathematics (submitted).

Drijvers, P., Kieran, C., & Mariotti, M. A. (2009). Integrating

technology into mathematics education: Theoretical perspectives. In C. Hoyles & J.-B. Lagrange (Eds.), Digital technologies

and mathematics teaching and learning: Rethinking the terrain

(pp. 89132). New York: Springer.

Drijvers, P., & Trouche, L. (2008). From artefacts to instruments: A

theoretical framework behind the orchestra metaphor. In G. W.

Blume & M. K. Heid (Eds.), Research on technology and the

teaching and learning of mathematics. Cases and perspectives

(Vol. 2, pp. 363392). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Falcade, R., Laborde, C., & Mariotti, M. A. (2007). Approaching

functions: Cabri tools as instruments of semiotic mediation.

Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66, 317333.

Gravemeijer, K. (1999). How emergent models may foster the

constitution of formal mathematics. Mathematical Thinking and

Learning, 1, 155177.

Gueudet, G., & Trouche, L. (2009). Towards new documentation

systems for mathematics teachers? Educational Studies in

Mathematics, 71, 199218.

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.

Guin, D., & Trouche, L. (1999). The complex process of converting

tools into mathematical instruments: The case of calculators.

International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning,

3, 195227.

Habgood, M. P. J., Ainsworth, S. E., & Benford, S. (2005).

Endogenous fantasy and learning in digital games. Simulation

and Gaming, 36(4), 483498.

Hoyles, C. (2003). From instrumenting and orchestrating convergence

to designing and recognising diversity. In Lecture presented at

the CAME3 conference, Reims, June 2324. http://www.lkl.ac.

uk/research/came/events/reims/. Accessed 4 Oct 2009.

Hoyles, C., Kalas, I., Trouche, L., Hivon, L., Noss, R., & Wilensky,

U. (2009). Connectivity and virtual networks for learning. In C.

Hoyles & J.-B. Lagrange (Eds.), Digital technologies and

mathematics teaching and learning: Rethinking the terrain (pp.

439462). New York: Springer.

Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (2003). What can digital technologies take

from and bring to research in mathematics education? In A. J.

Bishop, M. A. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & F. K. S.

Leung (Eds.), Second international handbook of mathematics

education (pp. 323349). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Kieran, C., & Drijvers, P. (2006). The co-emergence of machine

techniques, paper-and-pencil techniques, and theoretical reflection: A study of CAS use in secondary school algebra.

International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning,

11(2), 205263.

Kindt, M. (1992a). Functie-onderzoek begint met de grafiek I

[Function investigation starts with the graph I]. Euclides, 67,

200204.

Kindt, M. (1992b). Functie-onderzoek begint met de grafiek II

[Function investigation starts with the graph II]. Euclides, 67,

227230.

Laborde, C., & Capponi, B. (1994). Cabri-geome`tre Constituant dun

Milieu pour lApprentissage de la Notion de Figure Geometrique.

Recherches en Didactique des Mathematiques, 14, 165210.

Lagrange, J.-B. (1999). Complex calculators in the classroom:

Theoretical and practical reflections on teaching pre-calculus.

International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning,

4, 5181.

Maschietto, M., & Trouche, L. (2010). Mathematics learning and

tools from theoretical, historical and practical points of view:

The productive notion of mathematics laboratories. ZDM, 42,

3347.

Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (1996). Windows on mathematical meanings.

Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful

ideas. New York: Basic Books.

Parzysz, B. (1988). Knowing vs seeing, problems of the plane

representation of space geometry figures. Educational Studies in

Mathematics, 19(1), 7992.

Patton, C. M., Tatar, D., & Dimitriadis, Y. (2008). Trace theory,

coordination games and GroupScribbles. In J. Voogt & G.

Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 921994). New

York: Springer.

Rabardel, P. (2002). People and technologyA cognitive approach to

contemporary instruments. http://ergoserv.psy.univ-paris8.fr.

Accessed 20 Dec 2005.

Roschelle, J. (2003). Unlocking the learning value of wireless mobile

devices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(3), 260272.

Ruthven, K. (1990). The influence of graphic calculator use on

translation from graphic to symbolic forms. Educational Studies

in Mathematics, 21(5), 431450.

Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the

advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education

in a knowledge society (pp. 6798). Chicago: Open Court.

Reflections on processes and objects as different sides of the

same coin. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22, 136.

Tall, D., & Vinner, S. (1981). Concept image and concept definition

in mathematics with particular reference to limits and continuity.

Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12, 151169.

Thomas, M. O. J., Wilson, A. J., Corballis, M. C., & Lim, V. K.

(2008). Neuropsychological evidence for the role of graphical

and algebraic representations in understanding function. In M.

Goos, K. Makar, & R. Brown (Eds.), Navigating currents and

charting directions, proceedings of the 30th annual conference

of the mathematics education research group of Australasia

(Vol. 2, pp. 515521). Brisbane: MERGA Inc.

Trgalova, J., Jahn, A. P., & Soury-Lavergne, S. (2009). Quality

process for dynamic geometry resources: the Intergeo project. In

V. Durand-Guerrier, S. Soury-Lavergne & F. Arzarello (Eds.),

Proceedings of CERME 6 (pp. 11611170). Lyon: INRP.

Trouche, L. (1994). Calculatrices graphiques, la grande illusion.

Repe`res IREM, 20, 3955.

Trouche, L. (1998). Experimenter et prouver, 38 variations sur un

the`me impose [Experimentation and evidence, 38 variations to an

imposed theme]. Montpellier: IREM, Universite Montpellier 2.

Trouche, L. (2000). La parabole du gaucher et de la casserole a` bec

verseur: Etude des processus dapprentissage dans un environnement de calculatrices symboliques [The parable of the lefthanded and the skillet: Study on the learning process in a

symbolic calculator environment]. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 41, 239264.

Trouche, L. (2004). Managing 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). Construction et conduite des instruments dans les

apprentissages mathematiques: Necessite des orchestrations.

Recherches en didactique des mathematiques, 25, 91138.

Vergnaud, G. (1996). Au fond de lapprentissage, la conceptualisation. In R. Noirfalise & M.-J. Perrin (Eds.), Actes de lecole dete

de didactique des mathematiques (pp. 174185). ClermontFerrand: IREM, Universite Clermont-Ferrand 2.

ber die Anzahl der Endnullen bei n!. Praxis

Weigand, H.-G. (1989). U

der Mathematik, 31, 343349.

123

- Mircom TX3-TOUCH-S22 Data SheetTransféré parJMAC Supply
- esa_80 (1)Transféré par1976a
- Computer General AwarenessTransféré parrahulgkrishnan
- Inglesgarantizado y el club de tenis murcia.Transféré paringlesgarantizado academia idiomas murcia
- Why Study MathTransféré parsallyem703623
- Dantis Embedded Datasheet enTransféré pardanhavands
- Techs Daily Recap2 556)Transféré parDoulton Evans
- Tablet Pc Case Study ReportTransféré para.arvindprakash
- primary mathTransféré parapi-33610044
- Independent School District of BoiseTransféré parinalal
- TechnicallyTransféré parZsófia Gergely
- WG17_Zembat(T7)Transféré parRicardo Melendez
- PCR_ESPECIFICACIONES_TECNICAS.pdfTransféré parmatallanaparedes
- DSKP Mathematics Year 4Transféré parAnonymous HK3LyOqR2g
- resume assignmentTransféré parapi-232618648
- Newsletter September 16Transféré parjuliezacarias
- MTAP Reviewer for Grade 1 Part 2 - Techie Math TeacherTransféré parGregory
- New Alfa Leaflet 23.06 With AddressTransféré parJagdish Rajan
- 2 Test a FebbraioTransféré partopastro69
- April Contracts_final (1)Transféré parDC Public Charter School Board
- app 5Transféré parapi-315623968
- weekly newsletter 8-27Transféré parapi-367549467
- Alfordk 1. Policies, Procedures, Programs, And Funding ReflectionTransféré parmalcolm1911
- WM220i Installation Guide Feb 2 2016Transféré parNureva
- UpdatesTransféré parAnonymous JWvBXcMmM
- Catalog Produse KEY AUTOMATION - Smilo HoldingTransféré parSmilo Holding
- Digi Schmidt BrochureTransféré parAbib
- 2 Intro CloudTransféré paragny reza
- 051023182998051023182998_4 (1)Transféré parjoseluck
- English Computer 1-1[1]Transféré parNV Gaming

- Better TestsTransféré parSheenah Siapno
- Letter for PriestTransféré parChristopher Pontejo
- 201 Files ChecklistTransféré parChristopher Pontejo
- Finger Math PresentationTransféré parChristopher Pontejo
- The Advantages of a Washing MachineTransféré parChristopher Pontejo
- Item Assessment Analysis Math iTransféré parChristopher Pontejo
- Collaborative LearningTransféré parChristopher Pontejo
- Home Visitation FormTransféré parChristopher Pontejo
- Itinerary of TravelTransféré parChristopher Pontejo
- HOME VISITATION FORM.docxTransféré parChristopher Pontejo
- Peace Activities Palkan NHSTransféré parChristopher Pontejo
- Palkan National High School - EBEIS 2017-2018Transféré parChristopher Pontejo
- Modular ArithmeticTransféré parChristopher Pontejo
- Inventory of ComputersTransféré parChristopher Pontejo
- SHS - OutputTransféré parChristopher Pontejo
- Math CGTransféré parPergie Telarma
- TLE-ICT 9Transféré parChristopher Pontejo
- ReadingsTransféré parChristopher Pontejo
- Mass Song2Transféré parChristopher Pontejo
- Changing Wooksheet ViewsTransféré parChristopher Pontejo
- Case Study 4Transféré parChristopher Pontejo
- Briefer 2Transféré parChristopher Pontejo
- Briefer 1Transféré parChristopher Pontejo
- QA Briefer3 qualityTransféré parChristopher Pontejo
- QA Briefer4 Supply Chaininventory MgtTransféré parChristopher Pontejo
- QA Briefer5 on CPM PERTTransféré parChristopher Pontejo
- Routine MemoTransféré parChristopher Pontejo

- Anagam Saya ThetgyiTransféré parAravind Veeraraghavan
- Managing Your TeamTransféré parFlorentina Andre
- Different Models of CurriculumTransféré parvyasnaiko
- The Buddhist Doctrine of MomentarinessTransféré parའཇིགས་བྲལ་ བསམ་གཏན་
- 2017 - 2018 Marshall Student HandbookTransféré parCarla
- Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 2000 Anderson 329 32Transféré parpaenman1
- jaime clarkTransféré parapi-289030107
- Acoustics New Zealand 2016Transféré parAnonymous BS8NvkVyl
- 17-04-072. Proportional Vacation Pay Computation (PVP) 2016-2017Transféré parRam-Ram Elocig
- resume - tressa johnson - 10 23 17Transféré parapi-351784888
- Fmfp BrochureTransféré parAnonymous ZwfLcoMmQ9
- 3300177Transféré parLopez Manilyn C
- Architectural Thesis- Music in ArchitectureTransféré parSinoj
- Lesson PlanTransféré parjdwhite55
- ARUSHA TECHNICAL COLLEGE - PROSPECTUS 2012/2013Transféré parGasto Leseiyo
- 06_Handout_1(3)Transféré parCatherine Lagario Renante
- ADC Annual Fund BrochureTransféré parDanny Zacharias
- us history 9 syllabus 1Transféré parapi-475789334
- program evaluationTransféré parapi-248144908
- ELA Grade 8 Course Syllabus 2012-2013Transféré parmrsjpryor
- 7-13_Sandy_Hernandez-signed.pdfTransféré parsandy hernandez
- tmp9D01.tmpTransféré parFrontiers
- Mapeh AssessmentTransféré parLeoncio Lumaban
- Becoming a Strategic ThinkerTransféré parluckieman
- Akerlof (2016) the Role of EsteemTransféré parJoe
- School System English(1)Transféré parzan
- mykahTransféré parapi-243099237
- DP Unit Planner Style 2Transféré parSavithaBroonan
- Teaching ReadingTransféré parapi-17615813
- 10263531_Mahsa_BiglowTransféré parShahid Manzoor

## Bien plus que des documents.

Découvrez tout ce que Scribd a à offrir, dont les livres et les livres audio des principaux éditeurs.

Annulez à tout moment.