Barbie Bungee Jumping, Technology and Contextualised Learning of Mathematics

Aibhin Bray, Brendan Tangney


There is ongoing debate about the quality of mathematics education at post-primary level. Research suggests that, while the capacity to use mathematics constructively is fundamental to the economies of the future, many graduates of the secondary-school system have a fragmented and de-contextualised view of the subject, leading to issues with engagement and motivation. In an attempt to address some of the difficulties associated with mathematics teaching and learning, the authors have developed a set of design principles for the creation of contextualised, collaborative and technology-mediated mathematics learning activities. This paper describes the implementation of two such activities. The study involved 24 students aged between 15 and 16 who engaged in the activities for 2.5 hours each day over a week long period. Initial results indicate that the interventions were pragmatic to implement in a classroom setting and were successful in addressing some of the issues in mathematics education evident from the literature.


  1. Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-Based Research A Decade of Progress in Education Research? Educational researcher, 41(1), 16-25.
  2. Bénard, D. (2002). A method of non-formal education for young people from 11 to 15. Handbook for Leaders of the Scout Section. World Scout Bureau, Geneva.
  3. Boaler, J. (1993). Encouraging the transfer of 'school'mathematics to the 'real world'through the integration of process and content, context and culture. Educational studies in mathematics, 25(4), 341-373.
  4. Bray, A., & Tangney, B. (2013a). The Human Catapult and Other Stories - Adventures with Technology in Mathematics Education. 11th International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching (ICTMT11), 77 - 83.
  5. Bray, A., & Tangney, B. (2013b). Mathematics, Pedagogy and Technology - Seeing the Wood From the Trees. 5th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU2013), 57 - 63.
  6. Confrey, J., Hoyles, C., Jones, D., Kahn, K., Maloney, A. P., Nguyen, K. H., . . . Pratt, D. (2010). Designing software for mathematical engagement through modeling Mathematics Education and TechnologyRethinking the Terrain: The 17th ICMI Study (Vol. 13, pp. 19-45): Springer.
  7. Dede, C. (2010). Comparing frameworks for 21st century skills. In J. Bellanca & R. Brandt (Eds.), 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn (pp. 51-76). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
  8. Drijvers, P., Mariotti, M. A., Olive, J., & Sacristán, A. I. (2010). Introduction to Section 2. In C. Hoyles & J. B. Lagrange (Eds.), Mathematics Education and Technology - Rethinking the Terrain: The 17th ICMI Study (Vol. 13, pp. 81 - 88): Springer.
  9. Ernest, P. (1997). Popularization: myths, massmedia and modernism. In A. J. Bishop, K. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick & C. Laborde (Eds.), International Handbook of Mathematics Education (pp. 877-908). Netherlands: Springer.
  10. Geiger, V., Faragher, R., & Goos, M. (2010). CASenabled technologies as 'agents provocateurs' in teaching and learning mathematical modelling in secondary school classrooms. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 22(2), 48-68.
  11. Gross, J., Hudson, C., & Price, D. (2009). The long term costs of numeracy difficulties. Every Child a Chance Trust. Retrieved from http://www.northumberland.
  12. Grossman, T. A. (2001). Causes of the decline of the business school management science course. INFORMS Transactions on Education, 1(2), 51-61.
  13. Hoyles, C., & Lagrange, J. B. (2010). Mathematics education and technology: rethinking the terrain: the 17th ICMI study (Vol. 13): Springerverlag Us.
  14. Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (2009). The Technological Mediation of Mathematics and Its Learning. Human Development, 52(2), 129-147.
  15. Jonassen, D. H., Carr, C., & Yueh, H. P. (1998). Computers as mindtools for engaging learners in critical thinking. TechTrends, 43(2), 24-32.
  16. Joubert, M. (2012). Using digital technologies in mathematics teaching: developing an understanding of the landscape using three “grand challenge” themes. Educational studies in mathematics, 1-19.
  17. Kieran, C., & Drijvers, P. (2006). Learning about equivalence, equality, and equation in a CAS environment: the interaction of machine techniques, paper-and-pencil techniques, and theorizing. In C. Hoyles, J. B. Lagrange, L. H. Son & N. Sinclair (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth Study Conference of the International Commission on Mathematical Instruction (pp. 278-287): Hanoi Institute of Technology and Didirem Université Paris 7.
  18. Laborde, C. (2002). Integration of technology in the design of geometry tasks with Cabri-Geometry. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6(3), 283-317.
  19. Lawlor, J., Conneely, C., & Tangney, B. (2010). Towards a pragmatic model for group-based, technologymediated, project-oriented learning-an overview of the B2C model. Technology Enhanced Learning. Quality of Teaching and Educational Reform, 602-609.
  20. McNaught, C., & Lam, P. (2010). Using Wordle as a supplementary research tool. The qualitative report, 15(3), 630-643.
  21. Means, B. (2010). Technology and education change: Focus on student learning. Journal of research on technology in education, 42(3), 285-307.
  22. Mor, Y., & Winters, N. (2007). Design approaches in technology-enhanced learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 15(1), 61-75.
  23. Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (1996). Windows on mathematical meanings: Learning cultures and computers (Vol. 17): Springer.
  24. Oates, G. (2011). Sustaining integrated technology in undergraduate mathematics. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 42(6), 709-721. doi: 10.1080/0020739x.2011.575238.
  25. Oldknow, A. (2009). Their world, our world-bridging the divide. Teaching Mathematics and its Applications, 28(4), 180-195.
  26. Olive, J., Makar, K., Hoyos, V., Kor, L. K., Kosheleva, O., & Sträßer, R. (2010). Mathematical knowledge and practices resulting from access to digital technologies Mathematics Education and Technology - Rethinking the Terrain: The 17th ICMI Study (Vol. 13, pp. 133- 177): Springer.
  27. Ozdamli, F., Karabey, D., & Nizamoglu, B. (2013). The Effect of Technology Supported Collaborativelearning Settings on Behaviour of Students Towards Mathematics Learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 83, 1063-1067.
  28. Pierce, R., Stacey, K., & Barkatsas, A. (2007). A scale for monitoring students' attitudes to learning mathematics with technology. Computers & Education, 48(2), 285- 300.
  29. Pimm, D., & Johnston-Wilder, S. (2004). TECHNOLOGY, MATHEMATICS AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS: A BRIEF UK HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE. In S. Johnston-Wilder & D. Pimm (Eds.), Teaching secondary mathematics with ICT (pp. 3-17).
  30. Sinclair, N., Arzarello, F., Gaisman, M. T., Lozano, M. D., Dagiene, V., Behrooz, E., & Jackiw, N. (2010). Implementing digital technologies at a national scale Mathematics Education and Technology-Rethinking the Terrain: The 17th ICMI Study (Vol. 13, pp. 61- 78): Springer.
  31. Tangney, B., & Bray, A. (2013). Mobile Technology, Maths Education & 21C Learning. 12th world conference on mobile and contextual learning (Mlearn2013), In Press.

Paper Citation

in Harvard Style

Bray A. and Tangney B. (2014). Barbie Bungee Jumping, Technology and Contextualised Learning of Mathematics . In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 3: CSEDU, ISBN 978-989-758-022-2, pages 206-213. DOI: 10.5220/0004945802060213

in Bibtex Style

author={Aibhin Bray and Brendan Tangney},
title={Barbie Bungee Jumping, Technology and Contextualised Learning of Mathematics},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 3: CSEDU,},

in EndNote Style

JO - Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 3: CSEDU,
TI - Barbie Bungee Jumping, Technology and Contextualised Learning of Mathematics
SN - 978-989-758-022-2
AU - Bray A.
AU - Tangney B.
PY - 2014
SP - 206
EP - 213
DO - 10.5220/0004945802060213