You are here:

Designing applets that instantiate effective mathematics pedagogy

, , , , San Diego State University, United States

Journal of Technology and Teacher Education Volume 19, Number 1, ISSN 1059-7069 Publisher: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, Waynesville, NC USA


This report describes reflections from two cycles of developmental research that involved creating and refining a series of computer-based applets for reasoning about the relative magnitude of fractional quantities. The applet sequence stemmed from a cognitively demanding task used in face-to-face teacher education settings that involved placing sets of fractions on a number line. In order to bring the activity online, the instructors and programmer created interface features that attempted to instantiate some of the effective pedagogical strategies that were observed in the face to face sessions. Results from surveys conducted during both pre- and in-service teacher professional development classes indicated that the intent of many of these features did serve their intended pedagogical purposes. In particular, features such as strategic hint tools and nonjudgmental feedback enhanced users’ experiences but non-interactive aspects, such as written reflection questions, did not. These results and the accompanying design framework provide a new perspective for helping prospective and practicing teachers employ sound pedagogy when using innovative applets in their learning and, ultimately, future teaching.


Bowers, J., Bezuk, N., Aguilar, K. & Klass, S. (2011). Designing applets that instantiate effective mathematics pedagogy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 19(1), 45-72. Waynesville, NC USA: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education. Retrieved February 16, 2019 from .


View References & Citations Map


  1. Bay, J. M. (2001). Developing number sense on the number line. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 6(8), 448-451. Available from http://www.nctm .org
  2. Boaler, J. (1998). Open and closed mathematics: student experiences and understandings. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 29(1), 41-62.
  3. Bowers, J. S., & Nickerson, S. D. (2001). Identifying cyclic patterns of interaction to study individual and collective learning. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 3(1), 1-28.
  4. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141-178.
  5. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
  6. Cobb, P., & Yackel, E. (1996). Constructivist, emergent, and sociocultural perspectives in the context of developmental research. Educational Psychologist, 31(3/4), 175-190. &4_3
  7. Dugdale, S. (2008). From network to microcomputers and fractions to functions: Continuity in software research and design. In G. W. Blume & M. K. Heid (eds.), Research on technology and the teaching and learning of mathematics: Cases and perspectives (pp. 89-112). Charlotte, nC: information age. Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1990). Software design as a learning environment.
  8. Lampert, M. (1993). Teachers’ thinking about students’ thinking about geometry: the effects of new teaching tools. In J. L. Schwartz, M. Yerushalmy, &
  9. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, england: Cambridge university Press.
  10. Lerman, S. (1996). Intersubjectivity in mathematics learning: a challenge to the radical constructivist paradigm? Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(2), 133-150.
  11. Lerman, S., & Zevenbergen, R. J. (2007). Interactive whiteboards as mediating tools for teaching mathematics: rhetoric or reality? Proceedings of the 31st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (vol. 3, pp. 169-176). Seoul, south korea: PMe. Available from
  12. Marzano, R. J., & Haystead, M. (2009). Final report on the evaluation of the Promethean technology. Englewood, Co: Marzano research laboratory.
  13. Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: Human development, the growth of discourses, and mathematizing. Cambridge, england: Cambridge university Press.
  14. Snyder, T. F. F., & Palmer, J. (1988). In search of the most amazing thing: Children, education, and computers. Reading, Ma: addison-wesley.
  15. Steffe, L. P., & Thompson, P. W. (2000). Interaction or intersubjectivity?: a reply to lerman. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education , 31(2), 191-209.
  16. Thompson, P. W. (1994). Images of rate and operational understanding of the fundamental theorem of calculus. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26(2/3), 229-274.
  17. Thompson, P. W. (2002). Didactic objects and didactic models in radical constructivism. In K. Gravemeijer, R. Lehrer, B. Van oers, & L. Verschaffel (eds.), Symbolizing, modeling and tool use in mathematics education (pp. 197-220). Dordrecht, the netherlands: kluwer.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact