ZDM – Mathematics Education

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-024-01612-9

SURVEY PAPER

Mathematics teaching, learning, and assessment in the digital age

Hans-Georg Weigand1 · Jana Trgalova2 · Michal Tabach3

Accepted: 30 June 2024

© The Author(s) 2024

Abstract
The role of teaching, learning, and assessment with digital technology has become increasingly prominent in mathemat-
ics education. This survey paper provides an overview of how technology has been transforming teaching, learning, and
assessment in mathematics education in the digital age and suggests how the field will evolve in the coming years. Based
on several decades of research and educational practices, we discuss and anticipate the multifaceted impact of technol-
ogy on mathematics education, thus laying the groundwork for the other papers in this issue. After a brief introduction
discussing the motivations for this issue, we focus our attention on three lines of research: teaching mathematics with
technology, learning mathematics with technology, and assessment with technology. We point to new research orientations
that address the issue of teaching with technology, specifically describing attempts to conceptualise teachers’ mathematical
and digital competencies, perspectives that view teachers as designers of digital resources, and the design and evaluation
of long-term initiatives to support teachers as they develop innovative teaching practices enhanced by digital technolo-
gies. Our examination shows that learning with technology is still marked by new conceptualizations raised by researchers
that can further our understanding of this complex issue. These conceptualizations support the recognition that multiple
resources, ranging from paper and pencil to augmented reality, participate in the learning process. Finally, assessment with
technology, especially in the formative sense, offers new possibilities for offering individualised support for learners that
can benefit from adaptive systems, though more tasks for conceptual understanding need to be developed.

Keywords Teaching with technology · Learning with technology · Assessment with technology · Mathematics education

1 Introduction over the last decades in diverse mathematics education jour-

nals (see especially ZDM issues 55(1), 2023; 52(7), 2020;
The widespread availability of digital educational technolo- 52(5), 2020; 49(5), 2017; 44(6), 2012; 42(7), 2010; 41(4),
gies and resources will increasingly influence mathematics 2009; 34(3), 2002) and at many conferences, especially the
teaching and learning in the coming years. How will this biennial Congress of the European Society for Research in
growing influence affect teachers and students of math- Mathematics Education (CERME), which began in 1999.
ematics? Which digital and analogue resources will be used In 2018, a group of participants who were deeply involved
in the classroom? How will the use of digital technology in the CERME Thematic Working Groups on Technology
affect the theory of mathematics education and the imple- took the initiative to launch the ERME Topic Conference
mentation of ideas in the classroom? And finally, what are for Mathematics Education in the Digital Age (MEDA).
the consequences for ongoing and final classroom assess- This conference sought to expand discussion of theoretical
ments? These questions have been discussed extensively and practical knowledge and experience in the context of
digital technologies and to look ahead at how mathemat-
ics education ought to be shaped in the coming years. The
articles in this issue are significantly influenced by the three
Hans-Georg Weigand MEDA conferences and in particular are based on papers
[email protected] given at the 2022 MEDA3 conference held in Nitra, Slova-
1
University of Wuerzburg, Würzburg, Germany kia (Weigand et al., 2022).
2
We begin by explaining the terminology we use in this
Haute École Pédagogique, Lausanne, Switzerland
article, followed by our methodological considerations. The
3
Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel

13
 H.-G. Weigand et al.

literature uses various terms and expressions to refer to digi- guiding principles. On the one hand, we have attempted to
tal devices and digital content for mathematics teaching and avoid repeating information from recent publications. One
learning, the most common of which are digital tools, digi- example is the chapter on “Technology and Resources in
tal technology, digital resources, and digital media. Because Mathematics Education” (Trgalová et al., 2018) in the book
these terms are often used interchangeably, here we discuss Developing Research in Mathematics Education (Dreyfus
each of them briefly to support our decision regarding the et al., 2018), released to celebrate the 20th anniversary of
terms we use in this paper. Monaghan et al. (2016) broadly the European Society for Research in Mathematics Educa-
define a tool as “something you use to do something” (p. tion (ERME) and its tenth congress (CERME). The chap-
5), thus distinguishing a tool from an artefact, defined as an ter reviews the last 20 years of technology use in research
object (material or symbolic) made by humans for a specific and practice, describing the development of technology
purpose. According to these authors, “an artefact becomes and resources and the design and implementation of digital
a tool when it is used by an agent, usually a person, to do mathematical tasks and theories and approaches concern-
something” (ibid., p. 6). Hence, according to the instrumen- ing technology and resources. Another example is the book
tal approach a tool is called an instrument (Rabardel, 2002) Mathematics Education in the Digital Age (Clark-Wilson
in that it cannot be conceived without considering a user et al., 2021), which emerged from the intense communica-
and a purpose. The term digital technology usually refers tion and collaboration during and after the MEDA1 confer-
both to tangible devices such as computers or tablets and to ence. Finally, the recently published handbook on Digital
intangible means such as software. In the previous concep- Resources in Mathematics Education (Pepin et al., 2023)
tualization, digital technology was considered an artefact or “presents the state-of-the art scholarship on theoretical
a tool when someone used it to achieve a given goal. In the frames, mathematical content, learning environments, peda-
last decade, researchers have begun referring to resources gogic practices, teacher professional learning, and policy
available for teachers and students rather than to technol- issues related to the development and use of digital resources
ogy: “Resources might be software, computers, interactive in mathematics education” (p. 2). On the other hand, we
white-boards, online resources, but also traditional geom- have sought to be sensitive to the contributions appearing
etry tools and textbooks” (Trgalová et al., 2018, p. 146). The in this special issue. These two considerations reflect our
term resource was conceptualized by Adler (2000), who view of the purpose of this paper: to position the contribu-
suggested thinking of it “as the verb re-source, to source tions of the special issue in the broader context of the field.
again or differently” (p. 207). This perspective emphasizes We categorised these contributions into three topics inspired
the user-resource relationship in which the user’s activity is by the recent MEDA3 conference: teaching, learning, and
nourished by the resource and, in turn, the resource can be assessment with technology. These contributions propose
modified and adapted by the user. Yet another perspective new theoretical developments for tackling emergent issues
views mathematical knowledge as mediated by artefacts and employ a variety of research methods, leading to further
(Vygotsky, 1978). To stress the mediating role of a digital methodological elaborations: case studies and other qualita-
artefact, some researchers use the term digital media. Borba tive methods; quantitative studies; and mixed methods. In
et al. (2023) suggest considering media in a broad sense; for the survey we have also taken into consideration publica-
them “computers, videos, paper-and-pencil, regular class- tions from the last five years in journal papers and at leading
rooms, homes, and libraries are examples of media” (p. 2). conferences such as CERME, ICTMT, and MEDA.
According to the theoretical construct of “humans-with- Despite highlighting these three main aspects—teaching,
media”, digital technologies are thought “to be copartici- learning, and assessment with technology—we are aware of
pants in the production of mathematical knowledge” (ibid., other fields of interest related to technology in mathemat-
p. 3). ics education. While we do not explicitly refer to these,
In this paper, we use the term digital technology to refer we do touch upon them when relevant to this issue, e.g.,
to hardware or software. Furthermore, in referring to other technology and curriculum design, technology in instruc-
objects used in mathematics education, such as videos, tion processes, technology and embodiment, and technol-
e-textbooks, and interactive whiteboards, we have chosen ogy and beliefs of teachers and students. Moreover, many
to adopt the term resources (whether digital or non-digital) published studies have focused on young students working
that is widely used in mathematics education research. with digital technology, especially with tablets and special
After defining our terminology, we can now explain our apps (e.g., Cavalletti et al., 2023; Kortenkamp et al., 2020)
methodological approach to the topics of teaching, learning, using Scratch or TouchCount (Bakos, 2023). In this issue,
and assessment in the digital age. Like any survey, this sur- we concentrate on the use of digital resources in secondary
vey paper must set the boundaries of what to retain and what education as all the papers in this special issue address this
to omit. In setting these boundaries, we have adopted two school level.

13
Mathematics teaching, learning, and assessment in the digital age

We begin our discussion with an overview of recent researchers to studying teachers’ practices (e.g., Hennessy
developments in teaching with technology, with specific et al., 2005; Haspekian, 2014), knowledge, and skills
emphasis on teachers’ digital competencies in using tech- needed for effective use of digital technology (e.g., Niess
nology effectively in the classroom and on the role of et al., 2009; Rocha, 2013), obstacles to technology integra-
teachers as designers of digital resources. The section on tion (e.g., Jones, 2004), and affective aspects such as beliefs
learning with technology begins with an overview of the use or personal orientations (e.g., Thomas & Palmer, 2014).
of multiple resources while learning mathematics and then Considering both cognitive (knowledge) and non-cognitive
discusses new developments such as augmented reality and dimensions (e.g., affective, motivational) underscores the
video technology. The section on assessment with technol- need to focus on teachers’ competencies, as Carr (1993)
ogy emphasizes the meaning of formative and summative points out:
assessment and discusses automatic feedback and adaptive
assessment, conceptual understanding, and task design in It is argued that we need teachers who are not just
the development of assessment profiles. In discussing each knowledgeable or well-informed about education, but
of these topics, we anticipate the possible future develop- whose knowledge and understanding is expressed or
ments emerging from the present state of research to pro- exhibited in their abilities - teachers, in short, who are
vide further perspective on the use of digital resources in competent by virtue of the intelligent application of
the digital age. their knowledge and understanding in effective prac-
tice (p. 254, author’s emphasis).

2 Teaching with technology Hence, the notion of digital competency emerged in the
context of digital technology. Various frameworks are
In a recent survey paper on teaching mathematics with digi- available that describe this competency, mostly in institu-
tal technology, Clark-Wilson et al. (2020) noted that in the tional documents such as the European Commission Digital
last two decades, the focus of research studies has shifted Competence Framework for Educators (Redecker & Punie,
from how technology can foster students’ learning to “how 2017) or the UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for
teachers can make practical use of different types of digi- Teachers (Butcher, 2018) at the international level. These
tal technology to provide students with activities that will frameworks1 are general and apply to any subject matter and
enhance their mathematical learning” (p. 1223). This shift school level.
reflects researchers’ acknowledgement of the fact that “of In their recent literature review of teachers’ profes-
all the factors influencing student activity it is the teacher sional digital competence (TPDC), Skantz-Åberg et al.
who most influences learning” (ibid.). (2022) point to the scarcity of conceptualizations, stating
Topics that address teaching with digital technology and that almost 75% of papers reviewed do not provide a clear
resources include the investigation of obstacles and levers definition of the terms they use. The authors express regret
to digital technology integration (e.g., Thomas & Palmer, that the view of technological competence as “a set of basic
2014), teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and competences and technological skills” or “something that applies mainly to
the way these influence their digital practices (e.g., Remi- teachers’ handling of digital technology” (p. 10) is the most
llard et al., 2024), digital task design to support teachers’ prominent pedagogical view and that its development is
use of technology (Mariotti et al., 2023), design and evalu- considered to be the responsibility of individual teachers.
ation of teacher education, and professional development The authors conclude by claiming that
programs (e.g., Thurm et al., 2024).
In this section we provide an overview of three ‘hot’ the conceptualisation of TPDC needs to be directed
research topics in the area of teaching mathematics with away from the strong focus on the technological
digital technology that are also the focus of papers in this competence and basic hands-on skills of individual
special issue: teachers’ digital competencies, teachers as teachers to a focus on a collective responsibility and
designers, and innovative teaching practices leveraged by accountability for TPDC (p. 16).
digital technology.
In a similar study that examines teachers’ digital compe-
2.1 Teachers’ digital competencies tencies in higher education, Basilotta Gómez‑Pablos et al.
(2022) note that the various conceptualizations in the lit-
The belief that teachers are one of the most important fac- erature converge in “the need for teachers to have didactic
tors influencing student learning when it comes to inte-
1
grating digital technology in mathematics classrooms led An analysis of these frameworks can be found in (Tabach & Trga-
lová, 2019).

13
 H.-G. Weigand et al.

and technological knowledge that allow them to make use conceptualizations—MDCT and MPC model—draw on dif-
of digital technologies in their professional practice” (p. ferent theoretical frameworks, they share the view that digi-
2). The authors call attention to emerging lines of research, tal competencies allow teachers to identify the affordances
among them the necessity “to rely on frameworks and theo- and limits of digital tools and consequently select the appro-
retical reference models that identify the dimensions and priate ones to be used in support of students’ mathematics
components of digital competence” (p. 8, authors’ empha- learning.
sis) and to develop methods for assessing teachers’ digital
competencies, since currently most methods are based on 2.2 Teachers as designers
“teachers’ self-perception” (p. 9).
Gonscherowski and Rott (2023) also recently noted Many researchers have acknowledged the importance of
that self-assessment is a dominant instrument for assess- tasks in mathematics teaching and learning. Sierpinska
ing teachers’ digital competencies. Indeed, at CERME12 (2004) considers “the design, analysis and empirical testing
(Clark-Wilson et al., 2022) mathematics teachers’ digital of mathematical tasks, whether for the purposes of research
competences emerged as one of the “hot” topics in the field or teaching, as one of the most important responsibilities of
of research on teaching mathematics with digital technology mathematics education” (p. 10). Watson et al. (2013) claim
and resources. Conceptualising these competences requires that “task design is core to effective teaching” (p. 8). In rela-
considering relevant theoretical frameworks to provide an tion to digital technology, tasks appear even more critical,
operational definition of their dimensions and components as “some of the key affordances arising from technology
and to elaborate research methods for capturing and assess- use emanate from the tasks we use with it” (Thomas & Lin,
ing them. 2013, p. 109). The introduction to the proceedings of the
Recent mathematics education research includes initia- ICMI study 22, which is devoted to task design in math-
tives toward defining teachers’ digital competencies that ematics education, define a task as follows:
consider specificities related to teaching mathematics.
Based on the assumption that the distinction between stu- anything that a teacher uses to demonstrate mathemat-
dents’ mathematical and digital competencies tends to fade ics, to pursue interactively with students, or to ask
away, Geraniou and Jankvist (2020) contend that mathemat- students to do something. Task can also be anything
ical and digital competencies must be articulated for teach- that students decide to do for themselves in a particu-
ing as well. These authors use a network of four theoretical lar situation. Tasks, therefore, are the mediating tools
frameworks—the Danish KOM framework of mathematics for teaching and learning mathematics (Watson et al.,
teachers’ competencies (Niss & Højgaard, 2011), math- 2013, p. 10).
ematics knowledge for teaching (Ball et al., 2008), TPACK
(Mishra & Koehler, 2006), and instrumental orchestration Teaching thus includes the selection, adaptation, design,
(Trouche, 2004)—to conceptualise mathematical digital enactment, and evaluation of tasks (ibid.). Acknowledg-
competencies for teaching (MDCT). According to Gera- ing that interactions with tasks are an important facet of
niou et al. (2022), MDCT are “the competencies teachers teachers’ professional activity led researchers to consider
need (or have) to select and implement technology in their teachers as designers or partners in task design, rather than
practice in pedagogically productive ways” (p. 167). In this merely as task implementers (Brown, 2009; Jones & Pepin,
issue, Geraniou et al. (2024) further elaborate on these com- 2016). Hence, teaching design is gaining increased interest
petencies by drawing on the concept of mathematics digital in mathematics education research.
competence for students (Geraniou & Jankvist, 2019). They Two emerging research trends can be observed in recent
rely on the theory of instrumental orchestration, the KOM research studies in relation to teachers as designers of their
framework, and the documentational approach to didactics instruction. On the one hand, researchers’ attempts to under-
(Gueudet & Trouche, 2009; Trouche et al., 2018), illustrat- stand and describe the requirements of designing and using
ing their arguments with the case of an experienced teacher. (digital) tasks in terms of teachers’ competencies have led
Dilling et al. (2024, this issue) adopt a different to a focus on teacher design capacity. On the other hand,
approach. Extending the TPACK framework (Mishra & the emergence of communities engaged in collective task
Koehler, 2006), these authors propose the media, peda- design, such as communities of practice (Wenger, 1998),
gogy and content model (MPC) to describe mathematics communities of inquiry (Jaworski, 2014), or teacher design
teachers’ professional media competencies, which they teams (Handelzalts, 2009), has initiated a new research field
define as “competencies that enable a teacher to evalu- in teachers’ collaborative work that may be accompanied
ate and select digital technologies and use them in the and supported by facilitators.
mathematics classroom effectively”. Although these two

13
Mathematics teaching, learning, and assessment in the digital age

Teacher design capacity. During the last two decades, The 25th ICMI study devoted to teachers of mathemat-
researchers have begun exploring teachers’ interactions ics working and learning in collaborative groups (Borko
with curricular materials, for example by considering teach- & Potari, 2020) confirms the growing interest in this topic.
ing as a design process (Brown, 2009) and by viewing cur- The emergence of new theoretical frameworks during the
riculum materials as resources supporting such a process. last decade has allowed researchers to address collective
Researchers agree on the existence of a mutual influence aspects in teachers’ professional activities and to consider
between teachers and resources, such that resources affect how these aspects have affected teachers’ learning and pro-
teacher practice and teachers modify resources to adapt fessional development. Examples include the documen-
them to their own context and needs. Examining such tational approach to didactics (Gueudet et al., 2013) and
teacher-resource interactions necessitates understanding the meta-didactical transposition theory (Arzarello et al.,
“pedagogical design capacity”, defined as a teacher’s “skill 2014) of collaboration between two communities: teachers
in perceiving the affordances of the materials and making and researchers or teacher educators. Most research stud-
decisions about how to use them to craft instructional epi- ies focus on in-service mathematics teachers engaged in
sodes that achieve her goals” (Brown, 2009, p. 29). Pepin collaborative work. Other examples include the collective
et al. (2017) further conceptualised Brown’s pedagogical design of e-textbooks by an association of teachers (Sabra,
design capacity as “teacher design capacity” that incorpo- 2016), the documentation workmates initiative in which a
rates three main components: (1) an orientation or a goal for pair of teachers designed new resources for teaching algo-
the design, (2) a set of design principles, and (3) “reflection- rithms and programming (Wang, 2018), and collaborative
in-action” (p. 802). Building on existing conceptualisations work on scenario design to consider possible enactments
of teacher design capacity, Trgalová and Tabach (2024, this of classroom activities within a professional development
issue) propose a framework that incorporates the specifici- programme (Cusi et al., 2020). Yet very little research has
ties of mathematics and the use of digital technology, yield- considered collaboration among pre-service and in-service
ing a definition of teachers’ digital resource design capacity teachers. To fill this gap, Dilling et al. (2024, this issue)
(DRDC). The authors then elaborate a conceptualisation of report on a collaborative project between pairs of teachers
mathematics teachers’ DRDC, which they illustrate using made up of an in-service teacher and a pre-service teacher
two case studies from a course for pre-service mathematics trained to assist the in-service teacher in integrating digi-
teachers aimed at developing participants’ design capacity tal technology in the classroom. The paper highlights the
based on the DRDC conceptualization. importance of a sound distribution of responsibilities within
Teacher design teams. In their ICME13 survey paper, the teacher pairs so as to divide the workload.
Robutti et al. (2016) claim that “the notion of mathemat-
ics teachers’ working and learning through collaboration… 2.3 Innovative teaching practices leveraged by
gains increasingly more attention in educational research digital resources
and practice” (p. 651, authors’ emphasis). They point to
“ever-increased interest in exploring and examining dif- In the current digital age, mathematics teachers are pro-
ferent activities, processes, and the nature of differing col- vided with a profusion of digital resources, mainly avail-
laborations through which mathematics teachers work and able through the Internet. Consequently, much research in
learn” (p. 652). Their paper provides three emblematic mathematics education has focused on teachers’ interac-
examples to illustrate various forms of mathematics teach- tions with resources. Indeed, these interactions are thought
ers’ collaboration: (1) a school-based collaborative lesson to form the core of their professional activity (Remillard,
study in Japan that relies on iterative teacher processes of 2005; Gueudet & Trouche, 2009). As noted above, the con-
planning, teaching, lesson observation, and post-lesson dis- sensus is that teachers’ interactions with resources have the
cussion and reflection; (2) collaborative teacher projects in potential to affect both the resources themselves as they are
England involving schools and an “expert other” (p. 655), modified and combined with other resources and the teach-
aimed at producing resources, planning, implementing, ers’ practices that are shaped by the resource use. Hence,
and evaluating an intervention, and providing professional it is legitimate to expect that innovative digital resources
development for other teachers; (3) mathematics learning will lead to innovative teaching practices. Indeed, as Clark-
communities in Norway involving teams of researchers and Wilson (2017) notes, digital resources have the potential
teacher educators in partnership with schools and based on to offer learners an environment in which they can explore
“three layers of inquiry” (p. 656): in students’ mathematical mathematical ideas:
activity, in mathematics teaching, and in the research pro-
cess during the collaboration. The advent of dynamic mathematical digital resources
in the early 1990s promised a transformation of the

13
 H.-G. Weigand et al.

teaching and learning mathematics as the technol- 3 Learning with technology

ogy enabled teachers and learners to experience and
explore difficult mathematical ideas in more tangible In her paper “Solid Findings in Mathematics Education: The
ways. Influence of the Use of Digital Technology on the Teaching
and Learning of Mathematics in Schools”, Hoyles (2014)
Yet Clark-Wilson also notes that despite their potential, such stated: “Digital tools have the potential for transforming
technologies remain underused, mostly because of the com- teaching and learning mathematics in ways not possible
plexity of integrating them into teachers’ practices. Research with other tools” (p. 50). Indeed, according to Drijvers
projects examining teachers’ professional development (2019), learning mathematics with technology was found to
have sought to help teachers overcome barriers to technol- be beneficial for student learning, though the average effect
ogy use. One of these is the UK Cornerstone Maths project, size was small to moderate. At the same time, Hoyles stated:
which aimed to exploit the dynamic and visual affordances
of digital technology and provide students an environment In order for the potential for transforming mathemati-
in which “to explore and solve problems within structured cal practice through the use of digital technologies
activities” (Clark-Wilson et al., 2013, p. 13). Teachers’ for the benefit of all learners to be realised, teachers,
appropriation of specifically designed resources was accom- teachers’ practice and their beliefs about learning must
panied by professional development programs. Likewise, form part of the process (2014, p. 50).
Naftaliev and Barabash (2024, this issue) orchestrate teach-
ers’ interactions with a specific type of digital resources Taken together, these quotations tell the story of integrat-
known as technology-based interactive resources to foster ing technology in the mathematics classroom and student
the evolution of in-service teachers’ practices toward teach- learning: on the one hand, a clear vision of new opportuni-
ing experimental mathematics. ties that are realised to some extent, and on the other hand
Digital technology has also been explored as a vehicle acknowledgment of the practical complexity involved in
for the development of creativity, which is considered a “making good use” of these opportunities for the benefit of
21st century skill, for example in the book Creativity and all students.
Technology in Mathematics Education (Freiman & Tassel, The issue of student learning with technology raises many
2018). The European MC2-Mathematical creativity squared questions. For example, what do we know about learning
project demonstrated that digital technology can support with technology in different mathematical domains? Does
social creativity in the design of digital resources (Kynigos learning algebra differ from learning geometry? How does
et al., 2020) and at the same time can foster students’ cre- learning algebra in a CAS environment differ from learning
ative mathematical thinking (Trgalová et al., 2018b; Kolo- algebra in a graphical environment? What is the influence
vou & Kynigos, 2017). Ye et al. (2024, this issue) observe of tasks provided to students which use the same techno-
and analyse the mathematical creative actions of in-service logical tools? How does learning mathematics in techno-
teachers engaged in problem solving activities with Scratch, logical environments in elementary school differ from high
alongside their development of mathematics and program- school? Some of these questions are discussed in depth in
ming knowledge. the chapters of the newly published handbook titled Digital
To summarize, the above survey demonstrates several Resources in Mathematics Education (Pepin et al., 2023).
emerging trends and research evolutions in teaching math- For example, Leung et al. (2023) explore how digital tech-
ematics with digital technology, which are further discussed nology enhances geometric skills, Haspekian et al. (2023)
in the concluding section: a shift from reporting on the study algebra education with digital resources, and Biehler
complexity of digital technology integration in mathemat- et al. (2023) question the impact of digitalization on content
ics classrooms to exploring what teachers need to use digi- and goals of statistics education.
tal tools effectively in terms of mathematical and digital In the following concise review, we were guided by the
competencies; viewing teachers as designers of (digital) issues emerging from the papers in this issue. We chose two
resources rather mere resource implementers; development themes that on the one hand go beyond mathematical top-
of innovative teaching practices enhanced by digital tech- ics and on the other hand are linked to recent developments
nologies; and the need for long(er) term support for teachers in our field. We begin by discussing the use of multiple
in integrating digital technology in their classrooms. resources while learning mathematics—a conceptualization
that may shed new light on our understanding of learning
with resources. We then refer to a new adoption of technolo-
gies for learning mathematics that is influenced by develop-
ments in hardware, software, and accompanying pedagogy.

13
Mathematics teaching, learning, and assessment in the digital age

In each subsection we first describe the topic based on the about a concept or an object is learned with one resource and
literature and then refer to the papers in this issue. then used with a different resource, possibly also with dif-
ferent representations. For example, Panorkou et al. (2023)
3.1 Learning with multiple resources studied students’ covariation thinking while using several
resources (simulation, table, and graph) and described their
It is clear today that digital resources do not replace paper transition across the resources as “messy”. Specifically, the
and pencil resources, but rather are used alongside them. researchers “provide an insight into the nature of the syn-
Acknowledging the fact that learning mathematics takes ergy of artefacts that offers a constructive space for students
place both with analogue and with digital resources, Gera- to shape and reorganise their meanings about covarying
niou et al. (2023) asked quantities” (p. 131).
Four papers in this issue describe cases of transitions
how students (and subsequently teachers) conceptual- within, across, and beyond resources. Radmehr and Turgut
ise mathematics as they make transitions when using (2024, this issue) analyse online video resources for study-
digital resources, involving different mathematical ing the topic of derivation. The authors look for represen-
representations and different semiotic systems that tations [realisations in their terminology] of mathematical
may be using ‘new’ representations of mathematical objects in the video. These representations provide learners
concepts? (p. 1). opportunities to make transitions within the video resource
for the same mathematical object.
According to these authors, the use of graphs, symbolic Jaber et al. (2024, this issue) studied students working
expressions and numerical data can be considered as in an augmented reality environment in the mathematical
dynamic realisations of the same mathematical idea or as a context of covariational change. The authors offer learners
dynamic and connected means of bridging between virtual the possibility to make transitions across carefully designed
concrete-like phenomena and their abstract counterparts. physical phenomena and their mathematical representations
The authors further define transitions while working with (tables and graphs).
digital and other resources using the words “within, beyond Brnic et al. (2024, this issue) studied students’ transi-
and across” (ibid., p. 1). tions across resources such as digital textbooks, dynamic
A transition is considered “within” a resource if several visualisations, feedback formats, and digital tools, while
different representations of the same mathematical object or they learned about conditional probability. The authors also
concept are available for students, who need to make sense studied students’ transition beyond resources by analysing
of them. Bach (2023), for example, examines pairs of stu- students’ work on a paper and pencil test. They compared
dents who interacted with a dynamic geometry environment the achievements of students who learned with non-digital
and were also asked to report individually in a paper envi- resources to those who learned with the digital resources
ronment. Bach noted: and also compared gender differences.
Finally, Bach et al. (2024, this issue) studied students’
‘Transitions within a digital tool’ concern the coordi- transition beyond resources, moving from working with
nation of representations presented in a digital tool, dynamic geometry resources to oral and written communi-
which may be related to different content areas. ‘Tran- cation concerning the dynamic aspects of the mathematical
sitions beyond a digital tool’ include the coordination objects observed.
of digital tool representations to paper-based represen-
tations. Such a transition may be evident even when it 3.2 Technological developments adopted for school
is not undertaken (p. 344). mathematics

Thus, observing learners as they interact with resources can A different line of research examining students’ learning
shed light on transitions, as can researchers’ expectations with digital resources is related to technological hardware
regarding whether such transitions will take place, which and software developments and their influence on the uses
may be absent in students’ work. For example, while work- of innovative technologies for teaching and learning math-
ing with a spreadsheet, students need to write expressions ematics. For example, augmented reality (AR) was first
using such Excel-cell notations as 2*A2, whereas in a paper introduced by the US Air force in the early 1990s. AR can
environment they would use 2*x, 2x or 2*A. be defined as a system that incorporates three basic features:
A transition is considered to be “across” resources when real and virtual worlds, real-time interaction, and accurate 3D
the opportunity is provided to navigate between two or more registration of virtual and real objects (Wu et al., 2013). For
digital resources. In such cases, mathematical knowledge mathematics education, AR is “a mixed reality technology

13
 H.-G. Weigand et al.

that contains virtual objects that are implemented or ‘aug- were less prevalent in our field. There is still no consensus
mented’ with the real world” (Ahmad & Junaini, 2020, p. regarding how to design an instructional video or how to
107). That is, AR technology facilitates design in which vir- measure its effectiveness (Netzer & Tabach, 2023). Some
tual elements can be added for the viewer while looking at researchers use indirect methods such as students’ course
real world objects such as tables or graphs. grades, course dropout rate, and student feedback, while
In a systematic review of the use of AR in mathemat- others examine the actual way in which learners use the
ics education, Palancı and Turan (2021) found an increased video (Kim et al., 2014).
number of reports since 2010 that mainly used qualitative Three papers in this issue describe cases of using AR or
research methods. The researchers note that the use of AR video technology.
As noted above, Jaber et al. (2024, this issue) designed
supported learning and motivation and enhanced the special software that students could use to experiment with
spatial abilities of students. Additionally, the most fre- a physical phenomenon: while a cube slid down an inclined
quent disadvantages of AR in mathematics education plane (Galileo experiment) students observed the covaria-
were that it caused technical inconveniences and it is tion of time-distance in a table and in graph representations.
difficult to develop materials through AR (p. 89). They also observed the elongation of a physical spring under
various masses, where the stiffness of the spring served as a
As this AR example shows, it is less accurate to speak about parameter (Hooke’s Law). The AR technology enabled jux-
“new” and “old” technologies. Rather, we look for techno- taposing the view of the physical experiment and the math-
logical developments accompanied by new ways of exploit- ematical representations, allowing students to discuss and
ing hardware and software that have the potential to benefit make sense of these covariation phenomena.
students’ mathematics learning (Hoyles & Lagrange, 2010). Radmehr and Turgut (2024, this volume) took advantage
Another example is the use of video technology to cap- of the YouTube platform to identify online instructional
ture live images by electronic means. This technology was video on derivation by using the number of views for the
first developed for commercial television in the early 1950s video they chose to analyse as an inclusion criteria (more
to capture live images by electronic means. As is the case than 3.2 million views!). The starting point of the analy-
with other technical tools, these videos were adopted for sis was that this highly observed resource provides learning
educational purposes. Specifically, video recordings were opportunities for the students who watch it.
adopted for professional teacher development in that the Finally, Wirth and Greefrath (2024, this issue) designed
instruction of actual teachers in the classroom was recorded a video resource that students worked on in pairs to learn
as a basis for discussions and reflections at a professional how to handle modelling problems. The authors made use
development meeting (Jaworski, 1990). Teacher educa- of our knowledge as a research community regarding the
tors who are also mathematics education researchers used use of written examples and implemented this knowledge in
recordings of professional development meetings as an their instructional video. This video was shown to 18 pairs
opportunity to reflect on their own practice and research of students without prior experience in modelling; each pair
(Coles, 2014; Tirosh et al., 2014). Video technology was worked individually with the video to make sense of the
also adopted as part of learning while engaging with (seri- modelling process. The authors examine the students’ per-
ous) video games (e.g., dragonbox algebra2 for learning to ceived advantages and pitfalls following this experience.
solve linear equations, see Kapon et al., 2019). Indeed, it is In summary, although learning with technology has
hard to imagine flipped classrooms or MOOCs without the already been examined for several decades, the above sur-
use of videos (Lo et al., 2017). vey provides evidence that the field is far from reaching sta-
Kay (2012) identified two main factors that facilitated a bility. It is still characterised by new conceptualizations that
tremendous increase in the use of instructional videos for researchers have raised to further our understanding of this
learning aims: one is the YouTube platform, launched in complex issue. It is interesting to note how much time it is
2005, that allowed users to upload and watch videos with taking the education system to adopt technological innova-
ease; the other is the increasing size and availability of tions for research purposes, not to mention how much time
bandwidth, influencing the quality of what one might learn it is taking for these innovations to be implemented in math-
by watching such media. Kay and Kletskin (2012) identify ematics classrooms as an everyday reality.
two kinds of videos for use in mathematics higher educa-
tion—algorithm presentations and problem-based demon-
strations—claiming that problem-based demonstrations

2
https://dragonbox.com/about.

13
Mathematics teaching, learning, and assessment in the digital age

4 Assessment with technology to guide teachers and students in subsequent teaching and
learning (e.g., Stacey & Wiliam, 2013). Digital technology
Digital assessment also offers new types of affordances for has been and will continue to be used to enhance both sum-
assessment, such as automated scoring, feedback, and adap- mative and formative assessments.
tivity. These affordances provide new opportunities with Assessment is further marked by another duality: assess-
respect to developed tasks and assessment problems as well ment with digital technologies and assessment through digi-
as styles of performing tasks and means of solving prob- tal technologies (Stacey & Wiliam, 2013).3 Assessment with
lems (e.g., see Drijvers & Sinclair, 2023). Interactive soft- digital technologies is characterised by traditional paper-
ware such as Computer Algebra Systems (CAS), Dynamic based learning methods in which learners have access to
Geometry Systems (DGS), and spreadsheets offer oppor- digital learning opportunities such as software and videos
tunities for carrying out interactive and dynamic tasks that (Drijvers et al., 2016; Fahlgren et al., 2021). In many coun-
are not possible using paper and pencil means, as do films, tries today, especially in the West, handheld technology is
animations, and simulations. Assessment can be individual- allowed to be used or is even mandatory in examinations. In
ised in that feedback can be adapted to individual learners. contrast, in assessment through technology or technology-
Nevertheless, problems and difficulties associated with digi- based assessment (TBA), technology serves as a testing
tal assessment must be considered. One such problem is the environment.
possibility that problems will become more complex due Computer-based tests and (final) examinations have been
to a greater variety in representations. Another is the need in use for many years at the university level, e.g., in medi-
to assess conceptual knowledge in addition to procedural cine and engineering studies (Iannone, 2020). Recently,
knowledge, a form of assessment that is generally thought computer-based examinations have begun to be introduced
to be more difficult. Moreover, media use in the classroom in school mathematics. Computer-based versions of the
and on examinations can change many or even all aspects PISA test have been offered since 2012; by 2015, PISA’s
of assessment. primary mode of assessment of students’ skills was com-
puter-based and tasks were coded automatically (Jerrim,
There are new possibilities for the ways in which tasks 2016). One part of the national assessment of 18-year-old
are selected for use in assessments, in the way they are high school students in Finland is a computer-based test
presented to students, in the ways that students oper- using the Abitti system. In this system, students work in an
ate while responding to the task, in the ways in which environment isolated from the digital world yet still have
evidence generated by students is identified, and how access to mathematical tools like GeoGebra, Maxima, Casio
evidence is accumulated across tasks. (Stacey & Wil- ClassPad or TI-Nspire (Drijvers, 2018). The Dutch Minis-
iam, 2013, p. 722) try of Education developed a diagnostic test for 15-year-
old students used on final examinations in lower secondary
In the following section, we begin with some general obser- mathematics education (ibid.).
vations on the use of digital technologies in formative and In addition to summative assessment, in recent years for-
summative assessment. We then discuss specific aspects we mative assessment has gained importance in assessing class-
expect to be more important in the coming years: automatic room work and supporting the learning process, especially
feedback and adaptive assessment, assessment of conceptual while using digital technologies (Aldon et al., 2017; Dalby
understanding, and task development for digital assessment. & Swan, 2019; Olsher, 2019; Cusi & Morselli, 2024). In
2009, Black and Wiliam (2009) provided a widely accepted
4.1 Digital technologies in formative and specification of formative assessment:
summative assessment
Formative assessment (FA) is conceived as a method
Assessment in mathematics education is characterised by of teaching in which evidence about student achieve-
a well-accepted duality between large-scale or summative ment is elicited, interpreted, and used by teachers,
assessment on the one hand and classroom or formative learners, or their peers, to make decisions about the
assessment on the other. Summative assessment refers to next steps in instruction that are likely to be better,
the assessment of learning that is associated with evaluation or better founded, than the decisions they would have
of student knowledge and learning at the end of a course taken in the absence of the evidence that was elicited
or teaching unit, quite often with the aim of assessing stu- (p. 7).
dents’ proficiency level. In contrast, formative assessment
is assessment for learning that entails gathering information
3
about a student’s current state of knowledge and learning The use of the word “with” in this paper has a narrower interpreta-
tion than the word “with” in the rest of this paragraph.

13
 H.-G. Weigand et al.

In addition to the key areas and moments in which formative it possible to select appropriate exercises for individual
assessment is used, the European Formative Assessment learners. These kinds of adaptive systems will become
in Science and Mathematics Education project (FaSMEd, increasingly meaningful in the coming years.
Aldon et al., 2017) emphasises three main elements or tech- An important issue in current research is how to help
nology functionalities of formative assessment: sending teachers make productive use of the results of digital learn-
and displaying; processing and analysing; and providing an ing assessments in the classroom (Dalby & Swan, 2019).
interactive environment (Cusi, 2022). These functionalities Klingbeil et al. (2024, this ZDM-issue) describe the devel-
should be integrated into the whole teaching and learning opment and evaluation of the online formative assessment
process. They are especially represented in classroom com- system SMART, which is designed improve mathematics
munication (e.g., with systems like MOODLE or ILIAS), in learning among upper primary and junior secondary school
feedback (e.g., with systems like STACK), and in interac- students. The system provides teachers an informative
tive work with digital technology (e.g., with systems like diagnosis of students’ conceptual understanding (Stacey
GeoGebra). In this ZDM-issue, two contributions refer to et al., 2009; Haspekian, 2020; Fahlgren et al., 2021). Each
specific questions concerning formative assessment. Cusi SMART test is individually evaluated and identifies stu-
and Morselli (2024, this issue) investigate the specific roles dents’ understanding, misconceptions, and knowledge gaps.
played by teachers when making conscious in-the-moment Further, it provides teachers useful information about pos-
decisions during classroom discussions to foster the devel- sible future steps, tasks to solve, or instructions to improve.
opment of effective formative assessment processes. Hersh- In SMART, only the teacher receives the results of the test
kovitz et al. (2024, this issue) evaluate the use of feedback because the teacher is considered the initiator of the devel-
on the topic of reflective symmetry in digital learning opmental process.
environments among 9- to 12-year-old elementary school Individualisation of the learning process requires more
students. than individual feedback on solutions and solution pro-
cesses. Indeed, the problems of the next learning step must
4.2 Automatic feedback and adaptive assessment also be individualised and individual learning trajecto-
ries must be adaptive. Since the time teaching and learn-
Feedback is perhaps the most important aspect of teach- ing machines were first introduced, adaptive assessment
ing and learning (Hattie & Clarke, 2018). Feedback with was always an important aspect of individual learning
digital technologies, and particularly computer algebra sys- (Olsher et al., 2023). OPTES, for example, categorises a
tems like GeoGebra-CAS, Mathematica or STACK, are best special mathematical field, e.g., algebra or calculus, based
suited for algorithmic calculations. When these technolo- on a didactical reference model concerned with particular
gies are used for learning, two types of use-software inter- aspects of knowledge. Problems in one category are more
actions are important: system input and system output. In closely related than problems from different categories. All
the case of input, users must be confident with the question problems in this field are arranged in a graph with special
to be answered and its representation in the technical input transformation probabilities. If a learner does not solve a
scripts. In the case of output, users must to be able to inter- problem, the probability of getting a similar problem is
pret the system feedback and validate it with respect to the higher than if the problem is solved correctly. The transfor-
posed problem. Even though the calculations are done auto- mation probabilities are calculated in a training process with
matically, the feedback system developer, the task designer a large number of users (Wankerl et al., 2019).
or the teacher must construct the kind of feedback required
in advance. For example, STACK generates automatic dif- 4.3 Digital assessment and conceptual
ferentiated feedback from student solutions. For each task, understanding
the designer must define relevant and possible outputs in
advance, which will then be checked vis-à-vis the task or Competency assessment is a central but demanding task
problem solution. Various forms of feedback can provide for which digital technologies are increasingly being used
verbal, numerical, graphical or algebraic information about in different contexts. In assessing procedural knowledge—
students’ answers (Pinkernell et al., 2019). Students in tech- i.e., knowing how to use procedures like transformations
nical and science fields use the interactive adaptive assess- of terms, how to solve equations with formulas or how to
ment system OPTES (or its follow-up system DigikoS) as calculate square roots with the Heron algorithm—computer
supplementary materials to repeat school mathematics in the algebra systems such Mathematica or STACK are adequate
introductory phase of their studies (see Roos et al., 2019). tools that allow the development of fully automated exami-
In OPTES, STACK tasks are used to develop an adaptive nation evaluation and grading. The assessment of conceptual
learning and training system (Wankerl et al., 2019), making understanding is far more complex for it entails assessing the

13
Mathematics teaching, learning, and assessment in the digital age

understanding of mathematical concepts and the adequate or learners should work (in relation to software function-
application of mathematical concepts in internal and exter- ality); (3) the evaluation of students’ work and answers,
nal mathematical problem-solving situations. This assess- and (4) the feedback on students’ solutions. A major theory
ment is best accomplished by oral tests, interviews or any has evolved regarding principles of designing assessment
kind of project work. Concerning digital assessment, Olsher tasks for both summative and formative assessment. Suur-
et al. (2023) note the risk that this kind of assessment “is not tamm et al. (2016) believe that the principles underlying
commonly testing competencies that match what it means to these two forms of assessment are similar because “large-
‘do mathematics’ in the 21st century” (p. 21). Hoogland and scale and classroom assessment interact with one another
Tout (2018) even see “mathematics education… at risk of in different ways” (p. 25). Still of major importance is the
focusing too much on assessment of lower order goals, such emphasis in the NCTM assessment standards (1995) “that
as the reproduction of procedural, calculation based, knowl- both large-scale and classroom assessment should take into
edge and skills” (p. 675). Nevertheless, in the context of account not only content but also mathematical practices,
the increasing importance of digital assessment, means must processes, proficiencies, or competencies” (p. 5). Yet many
also be developed for assessing conceptual understanding. questions concerning task design in digital environments
The so-called Basic Mental Models (in German “Grund- still remain: Who designs the problems? Who has control
vorstellungen”) (vom Hofe & Blum, 2016) can serve as a over the assessment platforms (e.g., to what extent can indi-
good basis for the development of conceptual understand- vidual teachers write their own assessments)? Which tools
ing. A Basic Mental Model (BMM) of a mathematical con- are allowed? (e.g., Nortvedt & Buchholtz, 2018).
cept is a conceptual interpretation that gives it meaning. Yet Questions with verbal answers are clearly better suited
BMMs still need to be developed and empirically validated for assessing higher order mathematics skills than multiple
(Greefrath et al., 2021), as do appropriate assessment tasks. choice tests, as these questions enable students to express
Some empirically based suggestions for the use of digital themselves more freely. Yet assessing handwritten questions
technologies in developing conceptual understanding have is often challenging. Moons et al. (2024, this issue) devel-
already been proposed. Weigand and Günster (2022) used oped a “checkbox grading system” that (human) assessors
digital tools (GeoGebra) to develop the dynamic view of can use to assess handwritten mathematics exams as “atomic
functions on these levels of understanding. Ruchniewicz feedback”. The idea is to combine pre-defined answers for
and Barzel (2019) developed a digital tool for student self- test problems by using a list of checkboxes for classifica-
diagnostics as they work with different representations of tion. The system then automatically calculates the grade and
functions. Yerushalmy and Olsher (2020) and Popper and provides individualised feedback to students.
Yerushalmy (2022) developed a digital tool for the devel- A great deal of experience has accumulated regarding
opment of reasoning while working with and classifying assessment with technology, especially using CAS-systems.
quadrilaterals. For example, CAS-supported examinations have been in
use in Great Britain, France, Germany and the Scandinavian
4.4 Task design for digital assessment countries for many years (Bach, 2023). Leigh-Lancaster and
Stacey (2022) give an overview of the 20 years in which
Task design is a crucial element in mathematics educa- CAS-calculators were used in Australia, showing that the
tion (Watson et al., 2013; Watson & Ohtani, 2021). Digi- availability of sophisticated digital technologies does not
tal assessment raises a number of questions concerning necessarily make assessment easy.
task design: What new kinds of questions do digital tests One reason for digital assessment is pragmatic: it offers
allow (e.g., how to integrate films, simulations or interactive an effective means of designing and implementing tests and
applets into the questions)? How do working styles in digital examinations. Moreover, the use of digital technologies
tests differ from those of paper-and-pencil tests (e.g., doing in tests and examinations is known for allowing enhanced
preliminary considerations and sketches on paper alongside experimental and heuristic work in problem-solving phases
the digital test, using interactive programs like GeoGebra or and for providing opportunities for realistic modelling tasks
hand-held-technology in addition to the digital test)? How (Fahlgren et al., 2021). Yet this experimentation requires
do the test questions influence the general classroom work sufficient time to try out different methods and pursue them
(e.g., does the use laptops, hand-held devices or computer thoroughly, which is very difficult to implement within the
programs in examinations influence the need for hand cal- confines of the time-limited tests that have been the predom-
culations with paper-and-pencil)? inant form of examination up to now. Yet, aligning learning
Concerning the development of tasks in digital assess- activities in the instructional learning process with assess-
ment systems, four aspects need to be taken into consid- ment activities is a crucial part of the learning process: “Any
eration: (1) the task representation; (2) the way students course needs to be designed so that the learning activities

13
 H.-G. Weigand et al.

and assessment tasks are aligned with the learning outcomes Nevertheless, based on the experience of the last decades
that are intended in the course. This means that the system and on the discussion in the above sections about teaching,
is consistent” (Hattie, 2009, p. 6). The issue of the use of learning, and assessment with technologies, we can still
digital media in examinations must therefore also be accom- make some comments, suggestions, and recommendations
panied by a discussion of alternative forms of examination, regarding the use of digital technologies and resources in
such as portfolios, individual studies, and project work (Ball the digital age:
et al., 2018).
In summary, in the coming years assessment with and ● Despite major expectations on the part of the public, the
through technologies will play an important and increas- use of digital technologies is not an end in itself. Rather,
ing role in formative and summative assessment. During these technologies must be critically evaluated in the
the pandemic, many teachers were exposed to new possi- context of the intended goals of mathematics learning.
bilities for digital assessment (e.g., online quizzes or digital ● Digital technologies for new curriculum developments,
interactive learning trajectories) and later adapted some of task design, and the development of new problems and
these in their traditional teaching (Cusi et al., 2023; Engel- tasks for teaching, learning, and assessing are continu-
brecht & Borba, 2023). Some current developments will ally being explored.
surely influence assessment in the coming years. Inputting ● Current digital technologies should be integrated into
symbolic expressions using a formula editor is still not very all levels of pre- and in-service teacher education. Nev-
convenient and “limits the expressivity of ideas due to the ertheless, this integration must be flexible and open to
efforts of communicating them. Here technological devel- further technical developments and must not focus on
opments such as optical character recognition (OCR) may special hardware or software.
provide useful solutions” (Olsher et al., 2023, p. 22). Fur- ● As we show in the section devoted to teaching with
thermore, the issue of how to use Virtual and Augmented digital technology, the mathematics education research
Reality not only in the classroom but also in assessment community has demonstrated growing interest in con-
situations remains an open question (Wu, 2013; Palancı & ceptualising mathematics teachers’ professional com-
Turan, 2021). petencies, with the goal of using digital artefacts in
classrooms effectively. The current lack of consensual
conceptualization highlights the diverse opinions re-
5 Conclusion garding what makes mathematics teachers competent
users of digital artefacts in their instruction.
Teaching, learning, and assessment are closely related in ● As discussed in the section on assessment with digital
learning environments, especially in mathematics class- technology, formative assessment could benefit from
rooms. Hence, they must be oriented towards goals in terms the potential offered by digital technologies, especially
of mathematical knowledge and general competencies. On concerning individual feedback as a crucial element of
the one hand, digital technologies and resources must be mathematics learning and teaching.
selected with a view to achieving these goals, while on the ● The development of digital technologies for tests, ex-
other hand, digital technologies and resources also influence aminations, and summative assessment should be inten-
the way in which these goals are achieved. This interrela- sified, especially concerning conceptual understanding.
tionship, along with new developments in digital resources The fact that examination problems set standards for
such as artificial intelligence products (e.g., adaptive digital learning and teaching in the classroom is well-known.
learning systems or generative artificial intelligence sys- ● Most recent research studies, including those in this
tems like chatbots) make planning for the future very dif- volume, highlight the need for networking theories to
ficult or even impossible. In the digital age, all stakeholders address complex issues related to the use of digital arte-
in the educational system—politicians, school administra- facts in mathematics teaching, learning, and assessment.
tors, teachers, and students alike—must be flexible and Likewise, the field requires large-scale studies using
prepared for continuous adaptations and corrections in the quantitative methods to complement the qualitative re-
educational process. Moreover, in view of the diversity of search methodologies dominating the research field.
educational systems, together with different national and ● Embodiment and embodied cognition, especially in con-
regional peculiarities and traditions and diverse convictions nection with virtual and augmented reality, will become
and emphases, it is unlikely that generally accepted strate- increasingly important. Hence, research on this topic as
gies for dealing with digital technologies and resources in well as adequate classroom examples that go beyond the
mathematics education will emerge. equipment debate need to be developed.

13
Mathematics teaching, learning, and assessment in the digital age

(CERME13) (pp. 2598–2605). Alfréd Rényi Institute of Math-

● Finally, it is reasonable to assume that Artificial Intel- ematics and ERME.
ligence will exert a major influence on educational sys- Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge
tems. For the time being, the topic of how language gen- for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Educa-
eration models such as ChatGPT will influence teaching, tion, 59(5), 389–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108324554
Ball, L., Drijvers, P., Ladel, S., Siller, H. S., Tabach, M., & Vale,
learning, and assessment remains an open question. C. (Eds.). (2018). Uses of technology in primary and sec-
ondary Mathematics Education. Springer. https://doi.
Despite the ubiquity of digital technology and resources, this org/10.1007/978-3-319-76575-4
issue demonstrates that old but still relevant themes require Basilotta Gómez-Pablos, V., Matarranz, M., Casado-Aranda, L. A., et
al. (2022). Teachers’ digital competencies in higher education: A
further theoretical and methodological investigation. systematic literature review. International Journal of Educational
Technology in Higher Education, 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/
Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt s41239-021-00312-8
DEAL. Biehler, R., Frischemeier, D., Gould, R., & Pfannkuch, M. (2023).
Impacts of digitalization on content and goals of Statistics Educa-
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons tion. In B. Pepin, G. Gueudet, & J. Choppin (Eds.), Handbook of
Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, Digital Resources in Mathematics Education. Springer. https://
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95060-6_20-1
as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the Black, P., & William, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative
source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate assessment. Educational Assessment Evaluation and Account-
if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this ability, 21, 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless Borba, M. C., Souto, D. L. P., Cunha, J. F. T., & Domingues, N. S. (2023).
indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not Humans-with-Media: Twenty-five years of a theoretical construct
included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended in Mathematics Education. In B. Pepin, G. Gueudet, & J. Choppin
use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted (Eds.), Handbook of Digital Resources in Mathematics Educa-
use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright tion. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95060-6_7-1
holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons. Borko, H., & Potari, D. (Eds.). (2020). Teachers of Mathematics Work-
org/licenses/by/4.0/. ing and Learning in Collaborative Groups. Proceedings of the
Twenty-Fifth ICMI Study. National and Kapodistrian University
of Athens. https://www.mathunion.org/fileadmin/ICMI/Publi-
cations/ICMI Study 25/updated DD/201114 ICMI25Proceed-
References ings6.13.2020.pdf
Brnic, M., Greefrath, G., & Reinhold, F. (2024). Working with digital
Adler, J. (2000). Conceptualising resources as a theme for teacher edu- textbooks or printed materials: A study with boys and girls on
cation. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 3, 205–224. conditional probability. ZDM - Mathematics Education, 56(4).
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009903206236 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-023-01543-x
Ahmad, N. I. N., & Junaini, S. N. (2020). Augmented reality for learn- Brown, M. W. (2009). The teacher-tool relationship: Theorizing the
ing mathematics: A systematic literature review. International design and use of curriculum materials. In J. T. Remillard, et al.
Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 15(16), (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum
106–122. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v15i16.14961 materials and classroom instruction (pp. 17–36). Routledge.
Aldon, G., Cusi, A., Morselli, F., Panero, M., & Sabena, C. (2017). Butcher, N. (2018). UNESCO ICT competency framework for teachers.
Formative assessment and technology: reflections developed UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000265721
through the collaboration between teachers and researchers. In Carr, D. (1993). Question of competence. British Journal of Educa-
G. Aldon, F. Hitt, L. Bazzini & U. Gellert (Ed.), Mathematics tional Studies, 41(3), 253–271. https://doi.org/10.2307/3122287
and technology: A CIEAEM source book (pp. 551–578). Springer. Cavalletti, S., Manzoni, V., Bolondi, G., Cazzaniga, P., & Giberti, C.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51380-5_25 (2023). Mathematical discussion in problem solving activities
Arzarello, F., Robutti, O., Sabena, C., Cusi, A., Garuti, R., Malara, supported by technology: An achievable goal in primary school.
N., & Martignone, F. (2014). Meta-didactical transposition: In P. Drijvers, C. Csapodi, H. Palmér, K. Gosztonyi, & E. Kónya
A theoretical model for teacher education programmes. In A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Congress of the European
Clark-Wilson, O. Robutti, & N. Sinclair (Eds.), The mathemat- Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CERME13) (pp.
ics teacher in the digital era (pp. 347–372). Springer. https://doi. 2903–2910). Alfréd Rényi Institute of Mathematics and ERME.
org/10.1007/978-94-007-4638-1_15 Clark-Wilson, A. (2017). Transforming mathematics teaching with
Bach, C. C. (2023). Adapting profiles for CAS to students’ use of digital technologies: A community of practice perspective. In
DGE: Through a transition perspective. Digital Experiences in Marcus-Quinn, A., Hourigan, T. (Eds.), Handbook on Digital
Mathematics Education, 9(2), 343–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/ Learning for K-12 Schools (pp. 45–57). Springer. https://doi.
s40751-022-00123-0 org/10.1007/978-3-319-33808-8_4
Bach, C. C., Bergqvist, E., & Jankvist, U. T. (2024). Students’ dynamic Clark-Wilson, A., Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (2013). CornerstoneMath:
communication while transforming mathematical representations Designing for scale. In C. Smith (Ed.), Proceedings of the Brit-
in a dynamic geometry environment. ZDM - Mathematics Educa- ish Society for Research into Learning Mathematics 33(2) (pp.
tion, 56(4). 13–18). Sheffield Hallam University, UK.
Bakos, S. (2023). Sociocultural influences while implementing Touch- Clark-Wilson, A., Robutti, O., & Thomas, M. (2020). Teaching with
Times. In P. Drijvers, C. Csapodi, H. Palmér, K. Gosztonyi, & digital technology. Zdm Mathematics Education, 52(7), 1223–
E. Kónya (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Congress of 1242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01196-0
the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education

13
 H.-G. Weigand et al.

Clark-Wilson, A., Donevska-Todorova, A., Faggiano, E., Trgalová, J., Drijvers, P., & Sinclair, N. (2023). The role of digital technologies in
& Weigand, H. G. (2021). Mathematics education in the digital mathematics education: Purposes and perspectives. ZDM - Math-
age - learning, practice and theory. Routledge. ematics Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-023-01535-x
Clark-Wilson, A., Robutti, O., Turgut, M., Bozkurt, G., & Thurm, D. Drijvers, P., Ball, L., Barzel, B., Heid, M. K., Cao, Y., & Maschietto,
(2022). Introduction to the papers of TWG 15. Teaching math- M. (2016). Uses of technology in lower secondary mathemat-
ematics with technology and resources. In J. Hodgen, E. Gera- ics education. A concise topical survey. Springer. https://doi.
niou, G. Bolondi, & F. Ferretti (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twelfth org/10.1007/978-3-319-33666-4
Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Engelbrecht, J., & Borba, M. C. (2023). Recent developments in using
Education (CERME12) (pp. 2472–2479). Free University of digital technology in mathematics. ZDM– Mathematics Educa-
Bozen-Bolzano, Italy and ERME. tion. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-023-01530-2
Coles, A. (2014). Mathematics teachers learning with video: The role, Fahlgren, M., Brunström, M., Dilling, F., Kristinsdóttir, B., Pinker-
for the didactician, of a heightened listening. Zdm, 46(2), 267– nell, G., & Weigand, H. G. (2021). Technology-rich assessment in
278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0541-3 mathematics education. In A. Clark-Wilson, A. Donevska-Todor-
Cusi, A. (2022). Formative assessment in mathematics in the digital ova, E. Faggiano, Trgalová, & H. G. Weigand (Eds.), Mathemat-
age: teacher’s practices and roles. In H-G. Weigand et al. (Eds.), ics Education in the Digital Age (pp. 69–83). Routledge.
MEDA3 Mathematics Education in the Digital Age 3: Proceed- Freiman, V., & Tassell, J. L. (Eds.). (2018). Creativity and tech-
ings of the 13th ERME Topic Conference (ETC3) (pp. 161–168). nology in mathematics education. Springer. https://doi.
Constantine the Philosopher University of Nitra. 2–11. https://hal. org/10.1007/978-3-319-72381-5
science/hal-03925304v1/ Geraniou, E., & Jankvist, U. T. (2019). Towards a definition of mathe-
Cusi, A., & Morselli, F. (2024). The key-roles of the expert during matical digital competency. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
classroom discussions aimed at fostering formative assess- 102, 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-019-09893-8
ment processes through the use of digital technologies. ZDM Geraniou, E., & Jankvist, U. T. (2020). Mathematical digital compe-
- Mathematics Education, 56(4). https://doi.org/10.1007/ tencies for teaching from a networking of theories perspective. In
s11858-024-01572-0 B. Barzel, R. Bebernik, L. Göbel, M. Pohl, H. Ruchniewicz, F.
Cusi, A., Faggiano, E., Swidan, O., & Prodromou, T. (2020). The Schacht, & D. Thurm (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th International
collaborative work on scenario design as a tool to foster teach- Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching– ICTMT 14
ers’ professional development. In H. Borko & D. Potari (Eds.), (pp. 368–375). https://doi.org/10.17185/duepublico/70775
Teachers of Mathematics Working and Learning in Collaborative Geraniou, E., Jankvist, U. T., Elicer, R., Tamborg, A. L., & Misfeldt,
Groups. Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth ICMI Study (pp. 605– M. (2022). On mathematical digital competency for teaching: The
612). National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. case of an expert teacher. In H-G. Weigand et al. (Eds.), MEDA3
Cusi, A., Schacht, F., Aldon, G., & Swidan, O. (2023). Assessment Mathematics Education in the Digital Age 3: Proceedings of
in mathematics: A study on teachers’ practices in times of pan- the 13th ERME Topic Conference (ETC3) (pp. 161–168). Con-
demic. ZDM– Mathematics Education, 55, 221–233. https://doi. stantine the Philosopher University of Nitra. https://hal.science/
org/10.1007/s11858-022-01395-x hal-03925304v1/.
Cusi, A., Aldon, G., Barzel, B., & Olsher, S. (2024). Rethinking teach- Geraniou, E., Baccaglini-Frank, A., Finesilver, C., et al. (2023). Intro-
ers’ formative assessment practices within technology-enhanced duction to the special issue supporting transitions within, across
classrooms. In B. Pepin, G. Gueudet, & J. Choppin (Eds.), Hand- and beyond digital experiences for the teaching and learning of
book of Digital Resources in Mathematics Education. Springer. mathematics. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95060-6_29-1 9(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-023-00125-6
Dalby, D., & Swan, M. (2019). Using digital technology to enhance Geraniou, E., Jankvist, U. T., Elicer, R., Tamborg, A. L., & Misfeldt,
formative assessment in mathematics classrooms: Using digital M. (2024). Towards a definition of mathematical digital compe-
technology in formative assessment. British Journal of Edu- tency for teaching. ZDM - Mathematics Education, 56(4).
cational Technology, 50(2), 832–845. https://doi.org/10.1111/ Gonscherowski, P., & Rott, B. (2023). Selecting digital technology:
bjet.12606 a review of TPACK instruments. In M. Ayalon, B. Koichu, R.
Dilling, F., Schneider, R., Weigand, H. G., & Witzke, I. (2024a). Leikin, L. Rubel & M. Tabach (Eds.), Proceedings of the 46th
Describing the digital competencies of mathematics teachers: Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of
Theoretical and empirical considerations on the importance of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 379–386). PME 46.
experience and reflection. ZDM - Mathematics Education, 56(4). Greefrath, G., Oldenburg, R., Siller, S., Ulm, V., & Weigand, H. G.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-024-01560-4 (2021). Basic mental models of integrals: Theoretical concep-
Dilling, F., Witzke, I., Hörnberger, K., & Trgalová, J. (2024b). Co- tion, development of a test instrument, and first results. ZDM -
designing teaching with digital technologies: A case study on Mathematics Education, 53, 649–661. https://doi.org/10.1007/
mixed pre-service and in-service mathematics teacher design s11858-020-01207-0
teams. ZDM - Mathematics Education, 56(4). Gueudet, G., & Trouche, L. (2009). Towards new documentation sys-
Dreyfus, T., Artigue, M., Potari, D., Prediger, S., & Ruthven, K. tems for mathematics teachers? Educational Studies in Mathemat-
(Eds.). (2018). Developing research in mathematics education. ics, 71(3), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-008-9159-8
Twenty years of communication, cooperation and collaboration Gueudet, G., Pepin, B., & Trouche, L. (2013). Collective work
in Europe. Routledge. with resources: An essential dimension for teacher docu-
Drijvers, P. (2018). Digital assessment of mathematics: Opportuni- mentation. Zdm, 45(7), 1003–1016. https://doi.org/10.1007/
ties, issues and criteria. Mesure et évaluation en éducation, 41(1), s11858-013-0527-1
41–66. https://doi.org/10.7202/1055896ar Handelzalts, A. (2009). Collaborative curriculum development
Drijvers, P. (2019). Embodied instrumentation: Combining different in teacher design teams. Doctoral dissertation, University
views on using digital technology in mathematics education. In of Twente, The Netherlands. http://doc.utwente.nl/67385/1/
U. T. Jankvist, Van den M. Heuvel-Panhuizen, & M. Veldhuis thesis_A_Handelzalts.pdf
(Eds.), Eleventh Congress of the European Society for Research Haspekian, M. (2014). Teachers practices and professional geneses
in Mathematics Education (pp. 8–28). Freudenthal Group & with ICT. Research Journal of Mathematics & Technology, 3,
Freudenthal Institute, Utrecht University and ERME. 96–105.

13
Mathematics teaching, learning, and assessment in the digital age

Haspekian, M. (2020). Teaching practices in digital era: some theo- Human Behavior, 28(3), 820–831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
retical and methodological perspectives. In Donevska-Todorova, chb.2012.01.011
D., Faggiano, E., Trgalová, J., Lavicza, Z., Weinhandl, R., Clark- Kay, R., & Kletskin, I. (2012). Evaluating the use of problem-based
Wilson, A., & Weigand, H.-G. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd video podcasts to teach mathematics in higher education. Com-
MEDA-conference (pp. 3–10). https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ puters & Education, 59(2), 619–627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
hal-02932218 compedu.2012.03.007
Haspekian, M., Kieran, C., Drijvers, P., Bråting, K., & Tabach, M. Kim, J., Guo, P. J., Seaton, D. T., Mitros, P., Gajos, K. Z., & Miller, R.
(2023). Algebra education and digital resources: A long-distance C. (2014). Understanding in-video dropouts and interaction peaks
relationship? In B. Pepin, G. Gueudet, & J. Choppin (Eds.), Hand- in online lecture videos. In Proceedings of the first ACM con-
book of Digital Resources in Mathematics Education. Springer. ference on Learning @ scale conference (L@S’ 14) (pp. 31–40).
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95060-6_16-1 ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556325.2566237
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning– a synthesis of over 800 meta-anal- Klingbeil, K., Rösken, F., Barzel, B., Schacht, F., Stacey, K., Steinle, V.,
yses relating to achievement. Routledge. & Thurm, D. (2024). Validity of multiple-choice digital formative
Hattie, J., & Clarke, S. (2018). Visible learning: Feedback. Taylor & assessment for assessing students’ (mis)conceptions: Evidence
Francis. from a mixed-methods study in algebra. ZDM - Mathematics
Hennessy, S., Ruthven, K., & Brindley, S. (2005). Teacher perspec- Education, 56(4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-024-01556-0
tives on integrating ICT into subject teaching: Commitment, Kolovou, A., & Kynigos, C. (2017). Teachers designing e-books to
constraints, caution, and change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, foster creative mathematical thinking: the case of curvature. In T.
37(2), 155–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027032000276961 Dooley & G. Gueudet (Eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth Congress
Hershkovitz, A., Noster, N., Siller, S., & Tabach, M. (2024). Learning of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education
analytics in mathematics education: The case of feedback use in (CERME 10) (pp. 2423–2429). Institute of Education, Dublin
a digital classification task on reflective symmetry. Zdm, 56(4). City University, Ireland, and ERME.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-024-01551-5 Kortenkamp, U., Etzold, H., Larkin, K., Ladel, S., & Abt, L. (2020).
Hoogland, K., & Tout, D. (2018). Computer-based assessment of Impact of place value chart app on students’ understanding of
mathematics into the twenty-first century: Pressures and ten- bundling and unbundling: Mathematics education in the digi-
sions. Zdm Mathematics Education, 50, 675–686. https://doi. tal age. In A. Donevska-Todorova, E. Faggiano, J. Trgalová,
org/10.1007/s11858-018-0944-2 Z. Lavicza, R. Weinhandl, A. Clark-Wilson, & H.-G. Weigand
Hoyles, C. (2014). Solid findings in mathematics education: the influ- (Eds.), Proceedings of MEDA 2020 (pp. 231–238). https://hal.
ence of the use of digital technology on the teaching and learning science/hal-02932218v1
of mathematics in schools. EMS Newsletter, 91, 49–51. Kynigos, C., Essonnier, N., & Trgalová, J. (2020). Social creativity in
Hoyles, C., & Lagrange, J. B. (2010). Mathematics education the education sector: The case of collaborative design of digital
and technology - rethinking the terrain. Springer. https://doi. resources in mathematics. Creativity Research Journal, 32(1),
org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0146-0 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2020.1712166
Iannone, P. (2020). Assessment of mathematics in the digital age: The Leigh-Lancaster, D., & Stacey, K. (2022). Evolution over two decades
case of university mathematics. In A. Donevska-Todorova, E. of CAS-active senior secondary mathematics curriculum and
Faggiano, J. Trgalová, Z. Lavicza, R. Weinhandl, et al. (Eds.), assessment. Mathematics, 10(13), 2333. https://doi.org/10.3390/
Proceedings of the 10th ERME Topic Conference Mathematics math10132333
Education in the Digital Age (MEDA) (pp. 11–18). Leung, A., Baccaglini-Frank, A., Mariotti, M. A., & Miragliotta, E.
Jaber, O., Bagossi, S., Fried, M. N., & Swidan, O. (2024). Conceptual- (2023). Enhancing geometric skills with digital technology: The
izing functional relationships in an AR environment: Connecting case of dynamic geometry. In B. Pepin, G. Gueudet, & J. Choppin
real and virtual worlds. ZDM - Mathematics Education, 56(4). (Eds.), Handbook of Digital Resources in Mathematics Educa-
Jaworski, B. (1990). Video as a tool for teachers’ professional develop- tion. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95060-6_15-1
ment. Journal of In-Service Education, 16(1), 60–65. https://doi. Lo, C. K., Hew, K. F., & Chen, G. (2017). Toward a set of design
org/10.1080/0305763900160112 principles for mathematics flipped classrooms: A synthesis
Jaworski, B. (2014). Communities of inquiry in mathemat- of research in mathematics education. Educational Research
ics teacher education. In Lerman, S. (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Review, 22, 50–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.08.002
mathematics education (pp. 76–87). Springer. https://doi. Mariotti, M. A., Trgalová, J., Maracci, M., & Højsted, I. H. (2023).
org/10.1007/978-94-007-4978-8_24 Resources promoting digital tools integration: Design principles.
Jerrim, J. (2016). PISA 2012: How do results for the paper and com- In B. Pepin, G. Gueudet, & J. Choppin (Eds.), Handbook of Digi-
puter tests compare? Assessment in Education: Principles. Pol- tal Resources in Mathematics Education. Springer. https://doi.
icy & Practice, 23(4), 495–518. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695 org/10.1007/978-3-030-95060-6_38-1
94X.2016.1147420 Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical con-
Jones, A. (2004). A review of the research literature on barriers to the tent knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teach-
uptake of ICT by teachers. British Educational Communications ers’ knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
and Technology Agency (BECTA). http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/1603/1/ https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
becta_2004_barrierstouptake_litrev.pdf Monaghan, J., Trouche, L., & Borwein, J. M. (2016). Tools and math-
Jones, K., & Pepin, B. (2016). Research on mathematics teachers as part- ematics. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02396-0
ners in task design. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, Moons, F., Iannone, P., & Vandervieren, E. (2024). Checkbox grad-
19(2/3), 105–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-016-9345-z ing of handwritten mathematics exams with multiple assessors:
Kapon, S., Hallun, A., & Tabach, M. (2019). Incorporating a digital How do students react to the resulting atomic feedback? A mixed-
game into the formal instruction of algebra. Journal of Research in method study. ZDM - Mathematics Education, 56(4). https://doi.
Mathematics Education, 50(5), 555–591. https://doi.org/10.5951/ org/10.1007/s11858-024-01550-6
jresematheduc.50.5.0555 Naftaliev, E., & Barabash, M. (2024). Teachers’ professional develop-
Kay, R. H. (2012). Exploring the use of video podcasts in educa- ment for inclusion of experimental mathematics and interactive
tion: A comprehensive review of the literature. Computers in resources in the classroom. ZDM - Mathematics Education, 56(4).

13
 H.-G. Weigand et al.

NCTM - National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1995). - Mathematics Education, 56(4). https://doi.org/10.1007/
Assessment standards for school mathematics. National Council s11858-024-01564-0
of Teachers of Mathematics. Redecker, C., & Punie, Y. (2017). European framework for the digital
Netzer, E., & Tabach, M. (2023). Instructional short videos in calculus: competence of educators: DigCompEdu. Publications Office of
The mathematical didactical structures and watching patterns. In the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/178382
M. Ayalon, B. Koichu, R. Leikin, L. Rubel & M. Tabach (Eds.). Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’
Proceedings of the 46th conference of the International Group for use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research,
the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 397–404). 75(2), 211–246. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075002211
University of Haifa, Israel: PME. Remillard, J., Cusi, A., Clark-Wilson, A., & Van Steenbrugge, H.
Niess, M. L., Ronau, R. N., Shafer, K. G., Driskell, S. O., Harper, S. R., John- (2024). Research on the relationships between mathematics
ston, C., Browning, C., Özgün-Koca, S. A., & Kersaint, G. (2009). teachers’ practices, knowledge, and skills and the use of digital
Mathematics teacher TPACK standards and development model. resources. In B. Pepin, G. Gueudet, & J. Choppin (Eds.), Hand-
Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher Education, 9(1), book of digital resources in mathematics education. Springer.
4–24. https://citejournal.org/volume-9/issue-1-09/mathematics/ https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95060-6_27-1
mathematics-teacher-tpack-standards-and-development-model Robutti, O., Cusi, A., Clark-Wilson, A., Jaworski, B., Chapman, O.,
Niss, M., & Højgaard, T. (Eds.). (2011). Competencies and math- Goos, M., Isoda, M., Joubert, M., & Esteley, C. (2016). ICME
ematical learning ideas and inspiration for the development international survey on teachers working and learning through
of mathematics teaching and learning in Denmark. IMFUFA collaboration: June 2016. Zdm, 48(5), 651–690. https://doi.
tekst no. 485. Roskilde University. https://www.researchgate. org/10.1007/s11858-016-0797-5
net/publication/270585013_Competencies_and_Mathemati- Rocha, H. (2013). Knowledge for Teaching Mathematics with Tech-
cal_Learning_Ideas_and_inspiration_for_the_development_of_ nology—A new framework of teacher knowledge. In A. Lind-
mathematics_teaching_and_learning_in_Denmark meier & A. Heinze (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th PME (Vol. 4,
Nortvedt, G-A., & Buchholtz, N. (2018). Assessment in mathematics pp. 105–112). PME.
education: Responding to issues regarding methodology, policy, Roos, A. K., Götz, G., Weigand, H. G., & Wörler, J. (2019). OPTES+–
and equity. Zdm Mathematics Education, 50, 555–570. https:// A Mathematical Bridging Course for Engineers. In U. T. Jankvist,
doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0963-z M. Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen & M. Veldhuis (Eds.), Proceed-
Olsher, S. (2019). Making good practice common using computer- ings of the 11th Congress of the European Society for Research
aided formative assessment. In G. Aldon & J. Trgalová (Eds.), in Mathematics Education (pp. 2642–2643). Utrecht University,
Technology in Mathematics Teaching (pp. 31–47). Springer. the Netherlands.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19741-4_2 Ruchniewicz, H., & Barzel, B. (2019). Technology supporting stu-
Olsher, S., Chazan, D., Drijvers, P., Sangwin, C. J., & Yerush- dent self-assessment in the field of functions—A design-based
almy, M. (2023). Digital assessment and the machine. In B. research study. In G. Aldon & J. Trgalová (Eds.), Technol-
Pepin, G. Gueudet, & J. Choppin (Eds.), Handbook of digi- ogy in mathematics teaching (pp. 49–74). Springer. https://doi.
tal resources in mathematics education. Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-030-19741-4_3
org/10.1007/978-3-030-95060-6_44-1 Sabra, H. (2016). L’étude Des rapports entre documentations individu-
Palancı, A., & Turan, Z. (2021). How does the use of the augmented elle et collective: Incidents, connaissances et ressources mathé-
reality technology in mathematics education affect learning matiques. Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques, 36(1),
processes? A systematic review. International Journal of Cur- 49–95. https://revue-rdm.com/2016/l-etude-des-rapports-entre/
riculum and Instructional Studies, 11(1), 89–110. https://doi. Sierpinska, A. (2004). Research in mathematics education through a
org/10.31704/ijocis.2021.005 keyhole: Task problematization. For the Learning of Mathemat-
Panorkou, N., York, T., & Germia, E. (2023). Examining the messiness ics, 24(2), 7–15.
of transitions between related artifacts. Digital Experiences in Skantz-Åberg, E., Lantz-Andersson, A., Lundin, M., & Williams, P.
Mathematics Education, 9(1), 131–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/ (2022). Teachers’ professional digital competence: An overview
s40751-022-00112-3 of conceptualisations in the literature. Cogent Education, 9(1).
Pepin, B., Gueudet, G., & Choppin, J. (Eds.). (2023). Handbook of https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2063224
digital resources in mathematics education. Springer. https://doi. Stacey, K., & Wiliam, D. (2013). Technology and assessment in math-
org/10.1007/978-3-030-95060-6 ematics. In M. Clements, A. Bishop, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, &
Pepin, B., Gueudet, G., & Trouche, L. (2017). Refining teacher design F. Leung (Eds.), Third International Handbook of Mathematics
capacity: Mathematics teachers’ interactions with digital cur- Education (Vol. 27, pp. 721–752). Springer, Springer. https://doi.
riculum resources. Zdm Mathematics Education, 49, 999–812. org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4684-2_23. International Handbooks of
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0870-8 Education.
Pinkernell, G., Gulden, L., & Kalz, M. (2019). Automated feedback at Stacey, K., Price, B., Steinle, V., Chick, H., & Gvozdenko, E. (2009).
task level: Error analysis or worked out examples. Which type is SMART assessment for learning. In Papers from the Conference
more effective? In B. Barzel et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th of the International Society for Design and Development in Edu-
International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teach- cation, ISDDE2009 (pp. 1–11). International Society for Design
ing– ICTMT 14 (pp. 221–228). Essen. and Development in Education. http://www.isdde.org/isdde/
Popper, P., & Yerushalmy, M. (2022). Online example-based assess- cairns/pdf/papers/isdde09_stacey.pdf
ment as a resource for teaching about quadrilaterals. Educational Suurtamm, C., Thompson, D. R., Kim, R. Y., Moreno, L. D., Sayac, N.,
Studies in Mathematics, 110, 83–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/ Schukajlow, S., et al. (Eds.). (2016). Assessment in mathematics
s10649-021-10109-1 education: Large-scale assessment and classroom assessment.
Rabardel, P. (2002). People and technology: a cognitive approach to Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32394-7
contemporary instruments. Université Paris 8. https://hal.science/ Tabach, M., & Trgalová, J. (2019). The knowledge and skills that mathe-
hal-01020705/file/people_and_technology.pdf matics teachers need for ICT integration: The issue of standards. In
Radmehr, F., & Turgut, M. (2024). Learning more about deriva- Aldon, G., Trgalová, J. (Eds.), Technology in Mathematics Teach-
tive: Leveraging online resources for varied realizations. ZDM ing. Mathematics Education in the Digital Era (Vol 13, pp. 183–
203). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19741-4_8

13
Mathematics teaching, learning, and assessment in the digital age

Thomas, M. O. J., & Lin, C. (2013). Designing tasks for use with Wang, C. (2018). Mathematics teachers’ expertise in resources work
digital technology. In Margolinas, C. (Ed.), Task Design in Math- and its development in collectives. A French and a Chinese
ematics Education. Proceedings of ICMI Study 22 (pp. 109–117). Cases. In Fan, L., Trouche, L., Rezat, S., Qi, C., & Visnovska,
ICMI. J. (Eds.), Research on Mathematics Textbooks and Teachers’
Thomas, M. O. J., & Palmer, J. (2014). Teaching with digital tech- Resources: Advances and issues (pp. 193–213). Springer. https://
nology: Obstacles and opportunities. In A. Clark-Wilson, O. doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73253-4_9
Robutti, & N. Sinclair (Eds.), The mathematics teacher in the Wankerl, S., Götz, G., & Hotho, A. (2019). Solving mathematical exer-
digital era: An international perspective on technology focused cises: prediction of students’ success. In Jäschke, R. & Weidlich,
professional development (pp. 71–89). Springer. https://doi. M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Conference on „Lernen, Wissen,
org/10.1007/978-94-007-4638-1_4 Daten, Analysen (Vol. 2454, pp. 190–194). Humboldt-Universität
Thurm, D., Bozkurt, G., Barzel, B., Sacristán, A. I., & Ball, zu Berlin. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2454/paper_84.pdf
L. (2024). A review of research on professional develop- Watson, A., & Ohtani, M. (Eds.). (Eds., 2021). Task design in math-
ment for teaching mathematics with digital technology. In B. ematics education: An ICMI study 22. Springer. https://doi.
Pepin, G. Gueudet, & J. Choppin (Eds.), Handbook of Digital org/10.1007/978-3-319-09629-2
Resources in Mathematics Education. Springer. https://doi. Watson, A., Ohtani, M., Ainley, J. (2013). Introduction. In Margolinas,
org/10.1007/978-3-030-95060-6_49-1 C. (Ed.), Task design in mathematics education. Proceedings of
Tirosh, D., Tsamir, P., Levenson, E., et al. (2014). Using video as a tool ICMI Study 22 (pp. 7–13). ICMI.
for promoting inquiry among preschool teachers and didacticians Weigand, H. G., Donevska-Todorova, A., Faggiano, E., Iannone, P.,
of mathematics. Zdm, 46(2), 253–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/ & Medová, J. (Eds.). (2022). MEDA3 Mathematics Education in
s11858-013-0563-x Digital Age 3. Proceedings of the 13th ERME Topic Conference
Trgalová, J., & Tabach, M. (2024). Pre-service teachers’ development (ETC13) (pp. v-viii). Constantine the Philosopher University in
of digital resource design capacity. ZDM - Mathematics Educa- Nitra. https://hal.science/hal-03925304
tion, 56(4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-024-01554-2 Weigand, H. G., & Günster, S. (2022). Digital technologies and the
Trgalová, J., Clark-Wilson, A., & Weigand, H. G. (2018a). Technol- development of the dynamic view of functional thinking. In C.
ogy and resources in mathematics education. In T. Dreyfus, M. Fernándes, S. Llinares, A. Gutiérrez, & N. Planas (Eds.), Pro-
Artigue, D. Potari, S. Prediger, & K. Ruthven (Eds.). Developing ceedings of the 45th PME (Vol. 4, pp. 139–146). Universidad de
Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 142–161), Routledge. Alicante.
ISBN 9781315113562. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and
Trgalová, J., El-Demerdash, M., Labs, O., & Nicaud, J. F. (2018b). identity. Cambridge University Press.
Design of digital resources for promoting creative mathemati- Wirth, L., & Greefrath, G. (2024). Working with an instructional video
cal thinking. In L., Ball, P., Drijvers, S., Ladel, H-S., Siller, on mathematical modeling: Upper-secondary students’ perceived
M., Tabach, & C., Vale, (Eds.), Uses of technology in primary advantages and challenges. ZDM - Mathematics Education,
and secondary mathematics education (pp. 289–300). Springer. 56(4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-024-01546-2
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76575-4_15 Wu, H. K., Lee, W. Y., Chang, S., H-Y., & Liang, J. C. (2013). Cur-
Trouche, L. (2004). Managing the complexity of human/machine rent status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality
interactions in computerized learning environments: Guiding in education. Computers & Education, 62, 41–49. https://doi.
students’ command process through instrumental orchestrations. org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.024
International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, Ye, H., Ng, O. L., & Leung, A. (2024). Examining mathematics teach-
9, 281–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-004-3468-5 ers’ creative actions in programming-based mathematical activi-
Trouche, L., Gueudet, G., & Pepin, B. (2018). Documenta- ties. ZDM - Mathematics Education, 56(4).
tional approach to didactics. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Ency- Yerushalmy, M., & Olsher, S. (2020). Online assessment of students’
clopedia of Mathematics Education. Springer. https://doi. reasoning when solving example-eliciting tasks: Using conjunc-
org/10.1007/978-3-319-77487-9_100011-1 tion and disjunction to increase the power of examples. ZDM -
vom Hofe, R., & Blum, W. (2016). Grundvorstellungen as a category Mathematics Education, 52, 1033–1049. https://doi.org/10.1007/
of subject-matter didactics. Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik, s11858-020-01134-0
37(S1), 225–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13138-016-0107-3
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to juris-
psychological processes. Harvard University Press. dictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

13