Situated technological mediation for mathematics teaching in contexts of connectivity precarity
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.71112/f8j6jp93Keywords:
educational technology, appropriate technology, digital divide, GeoGebra, computational thinking, inclusive education, Colombian CaribbeanAbstract
This article develops the second line of flight of a Participatory Action Research study with a post-qualitative opening conducted in a public school in Valledupar, Colombia, namely situated technological mediation. In a classroom with intermittent connectivity and limited equipment, the proposal articulated free software installable offline, including GeoGebra, spreadsheets and block programming, together with low-cost analog materials operating as a permanent pedagogical backup. The total connectivity outage during session 9, resolved in three minutes with cardboard rods prepared in advance, is analyzed as evidence for the central thesis. Technology amplifies mathematical thinking when it acts under clear pedagogical direction, and precarity can become a condition of invention when the didactic apparatus is ready. The analysis engages techno-enthusiast and techno-pessimist positions and proposes backup pedagogy as an operational contribution transferable to Latin American schools in similar conditions.
Downloads
References
Alba Pastor, C. (2016). Diseño Universal para el Aprendizaje: educación para todos y prácticas de enseñanza inclusivas. Ediciones Morata.
Armstrong, T. (2012). El poder de la neurodiversidad. Paidós.
Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Duke University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822388128
Center for Applied Special Technology [CAST]. (2024). Universal Design for Learning guidelines version 3.0. CAST. https://udlguidelines.cast.org/
Connell, R. W. (1997). Escuelas y justicia social. Ediciones Morata.
Cristia, J., Ibarrarán, P., Cueto, S., Santiago, A., y Severín, E. (2017). Technology and child development: Evidence from the One Laptop per Child program. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 9(3), 295–320. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20150385 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20150385
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Harvard University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674030107
Deleuze, G., y Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. University of Minnesota Press.
Denzin, N. K. (2012). Triangulation 2.0. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 80–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689812437186 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689812437186
Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadística [DANE]. (2024). Pobreza monetaria y multidimensional en Colombia 2023: boletín técnico. DANE.
Escueta, M., Nickow, A. J., Oreopoulos, P., y Quan, V. (2020). Upgrading education with technology: Insights from experimental research. Journal of Economic Literature, 58(4), 897–996. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.20191507 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.20191507
Fals Borda, O. (1986). La investigación-acción participativa: política y epistemología. Banda Oriental.
Fals Borda, O. (1991). Acción y conocimiento: cómo romper el monopolio con investigación-acción participativa. CINEP.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogía del oprimido. Siglo XXI.
Lather, P. (2013). Methodology-21: What do we do in the afterward? International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(6), 634–645. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2013.788753 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2013.788753
Lundy, L. (2007). “Voice” is not enough: Conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. British Educational Research Journal, 33(6), 927–942. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920701657033 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920701657033
Ministerio de Educación Nacional [MEN]. (2022). Visión STEM+ Colombia: modelo nacional de educación STEM. MEN.
Mishra, P., y Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810610800610
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2015). Students, computers and learning: Making the connection. OECD Publishing.
Pacey, A. (1990). La cultura de la tecnología. Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books.
Resnick, M. (2017). Lifelong kindergarten: Cultivating creativity through projects, passion, peers, and play. MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11017.001.0001
Santos, B. de S. (2010). Descolonizar el saber, reinventar el poder. Ediciones Trilce.
Selwyn, N. (2011). Education and technology: Key issues and debates. Bloomsbury.
Singer, J. (1998). Odd people in: The birth of community amongst people on the autistic spectrum. University of Technology Sydney.
Skliar, C. (2005). Poner en tela de juicio la normalidad, no la anormalidad. Revista Educación y Pedagogía, 17(41), 11–22.
Skovsmose, O. (2012). Investigación, práctica, incertidumbre y responsabilidad. En P. Valero y O. Skovsmose (Comps.), Educación matemática crítica: una visión sociopolítica del aprendizaje y la enseñanza de las matemáticas (pp. 269-297). Ediciones Uniandes.
St. Pierre, E. A. (2011). Post-qualitative research: The critique and the coming after. En N. K. Denzin y Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4.ª ed., pp. 611-635). SAGE.
Strauss, A., y Corbin, J. (2002). Bases de la investigación cualitativa. Universidad de Antioquia.
Torres Carrillo, A. (2024). Génesis y legado de la investigación (acción) participativa. Cambios y Permanencias, 15(2), 35–46. https://doi.org/10.18273/cyp.v15n2-202404 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18273/cyp.v15n2-202404
Torres Santomé, J. (2011). La justicia curricular: el caballo de Troya de la cultura escolar. Ediciones Morata.
Toyama, K. (2015). Geek heresy: Rescuing social change from the cult of technology. PublicAffairs.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO]. (2023). Global education monitoring report 2023: Technology in education. ¿A tool on whose terms? UNESCO.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1995). Fundamentos de defectología (Obras escogidas, Tomo V). Visor.
Walsh, C. (2010). Interculturalidad crítica y educación intercultural. En J. Viaña, L. Tapia y C. Walsh, Construyendo interculturalidad crítica (pp. 75-96). Instituto Internacional de Integración del Convenio Andrés Bello.
Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6699.001.0001
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215
Winner, L. (1986). The whale and the reactor: A search for limits in an age of high technology. University of Chicago Press.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Leonar Socarras Molina (Autor/a)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
