Teachers’ Experiences of the Integration of 21st Century Learning in the Mathematics Classroom - The Bridge21 Model in Action

Aibhin Bray


Current research indicates a need for ongoing support and continuous professional development (CPD) for teachers in order to facilitate the development of 21st Century pedagogies and the integration of technology, as well as to scaffold their changing role in the classroom. This article describes a particular model of 21st Century teaching and learning and an associated approach to CPD, with a particular focus on mathematics education. A qualitative, case study approach has been taken in order to explore the teachers’ experiences of using the model of teaching and learning, as well as their perceptions of the students’ experiences. A total of 15 teachers who attended a Contextual Mathematics module on the CPD course provided consent for their data to be used in this study and a constant comparative analytic technique has been used to analyse their written reflections. Results indicate that the approach has the potential to address many of the difficulties associated with 21st Century teaching and learning identified in the literature review.


  1. Albert, L. R., & Kim, R. (2013). Developing creativity through collaborative problem solving. Journal of Mathematics Education at Teachers College, 4(2), 32 - 38.
  2. Bénard, D. (2002). A method of non-formal education for young people from 11 to 15. Handbook for Leaders of the Scout Section. World Scout Bureau, Geneva.
  3. Boaler, J. (1993). Encouraging the transfer of 'school 'mathematics to the 'real world' through the integration of process and content, context and culture. Educational studies in mathematics, 25(4), 341-373.
  4. Bray, A., Oldham, E., & Tangney, B. (2013). The Human Catapult and Other Stories - Adventures with Technology in Mathematics Education. 11th International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching (ICTMT11), 77 - 83.
  5. Bray, A., Oldham, E., & Tangney, B. (in press). Technology-Mediated Realistic Mathematics Education and the Bridge21 Model: A Teaching Experiment. Ninth Congress of European Research in Mathematics Education (CERME9).
  6. Bray, A., & Tangney, B. (2013a). Mathematics, Pedagogy and Technology - Seeing the Wood From the Trees. 5th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2013), 57 - 63.
  7. Bray, A., & Tangney, B. (2013b). Mathematics, Technology Interventions and Pedagogy. Eighth Congress of European Research in Mathematics Education (CERME8), 2774 - 2776.
  8. Bray, A., & Tangney, B. (2014). Barbie Bungee Jumping, Technology and Contextual Learning of Mathematics. 6th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2014), 3, 206 - 213.
  9. Bray, A., & Tangney, B. (In Press). Enhancing Student Engagement through the Affordances of Mobile Technology: A 21st Century Learning Perspective on Realistic Mathematics Education. Mathematics Education Research Journal.
  10. Bridge21. (2014). Postgraduate Certificate in 21st Century Teaching and Learning Course Handbook 2014/2015. Dublin: Trinity College Dublin.
  11. Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard business review, 86(6), 84.
  12. Clements, M. A., Keitel, C., Bishop, A. J., Kilpatrick, J., & Leung, F. K. S. (2013). From the few to the many: Historical perspectives on who should learn mathematics. In M. A. Clements, A. J. Bishop, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & F. K. S. Leung (Eds.), Third International Handbook of Mathematics Education (pp. 7 - 40). New York: Springer.
  13. Commission of the European Communitities. (2008). Improving competences for the 21st Century: An Agenda for European Cooperation on Schools (SEC(2008) 2177). Retrieved from http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2 008:0425:FIN:EN:PDF.
  14. Conneely, C., Girvan, C., & Tangney, B. (2015). An Exploratory Case Study into the Adaption of the Bridge21 Model for 21st Century Learning in Irish Classrooms. In D. Butler, K. Marshall, & M. Leahy (Eds.), Shaping our Future: How the lessons of the past can shape educational transformation (pp. 348-381). Dublin: Liffey Press.
  15. Conneely, C., Lawlor, J., & Tangney, B. (2013). Technology, Teamwork and 21st Century Skills in the Irish Classroom. In K. Marshall (Ed.), Shaping our Future: How the lessons of the past can shape educational transformation. Dublin: Liffey Press.
  16. Conneely, C., Murchan, D., Tangney, B., & Johnston, K. (2013). 21 Century Learning - Teachers' and Students' Experiences and Views of the Bridge21 Approach within Mainstream Education. Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International conference (SITE), 5125 - 5132.
  17. Conole, G. (2008). New schemas for mapping pedagogies and technologies. Ariadne(56), 2.
  18. Dede, C. (2010a). Comparing frameworks for 21st century skills. In J. Bellanca & R. Brandt (Eds.), 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn (pp. 51-76). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
  19. Dede, C. (2010b). Technological supports for acquiring 21st century skills. International Encyclopedia of Education, 158-166. Retrieved from https://ejournal.narotama.ac.id/files/Technological%20 Supports%20for%20Acquiring%2021st%20Century% 20Skills.pdf.
  20. Department of Education and Skills. (2012). A Framework for Junior Cycle. Retrieved from Dublin: www.juniorcycle.ie/NCCA_JuniorCycle/media/NCC A/Documents/JC-Framework_FINAL_02oct12.pdf.
  21. Donnelly, D., McGarr, O., & O'Reilly, J. (2011). A framework for teachers' integration of ICT into their classroom practice. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1469-1483.
  22. Euler, M., & Maaß, K. (2011). Report about the survey on inquiry-based learning and teaching in the European partner countries. Retrieved from Freiburg: http://www.primas-project.eu/
  23. Freudenthal, H. (1991). Revisiting mathematics education: China lectures (Vol. 9). Dordrecht/Boston/London: Springer.
  24. Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2014). A rich seam: How new pedagogies find deep learning (Vol. 100). London: Pearson.
  25. Glaser, B. G. (1965). The Constant Comparative Method of Qualitative Analysis. Social Problems, 12(4), 436-445.
  26. Green, H., & Hannon, C. (2007). Their Space. Education for a Digital Generation. Retrieved from London: www.demos.co.uk/files/Their%20space%20- %20web.pdf.
  27. Lawlor, J., Conneely, C., & Tangney, B. (2010). Towards a pragmatic model for group-based, technologymediated, project-oriented learning-an overview of the B2C model. In M. D. Lytras, P. Ordonez De Pablos, D. Avison, J. Sipior, Q. Jin, W. Leal, L. Uden, M. C. Thomas, S., & D. G. Horner (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2010 TechEduca Conference (pp. 602-609). Athens.
  28. Lawlor, J., Marshall, K., & Tangney, B. (2015). Bridge21 - Exploring the potential to foster intrinsic student motivation through a team-based, technology mediated learning mode. Technology, Pedagagy and Education, in press, 1-20.
  29. Lewis, C. C., Perry, R. R., & Hurd, J. (2009). Improving mathematics instruction through lesson study: A theoretical model and North American case. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 12(4), 285-304.
  30. Maaß, K., & Artigue, M. (2013). Implementation of inquiry-based learning in day-to-day teaching: a synthesis. ZDM, 45(6), 779-795.
  31. Martin, A., & Grudziecki, J. (2006). DigEuLit: concepts and tools for digital literacy development. Innovation in Teaching And Learning in Information and Computer Sciences, 5(4), 249-267.
  32. Means, B. (2010). Technology and education change: Focus on student learning. Journal of research on technology in education, 42(3), 285-307.
  33. Oldknow, A. (2009). Their world, our world-bridging the divide. Teaching Mathematics and its Applications, 28(4), 180-195.
  34. Pierce, R., Stacey, K., & Barkatsas, A. (2007). A scale for monitoring students' attitudes to learning mathematics with technology. Computers & Education, 48(2), 285- 300.
  35. Puentedura, R. (2006). Transformation, Technology, and Education. Retrieved from http://hippasus.com/resources/tte/
  36. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (2008). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory 3e (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
  37. Takahashi, A., & Yoshida, M. (2004). Lesson-Study Communities. Teaching Children Mathematics, 10(9), 436-437.
  38. Tangney, B., Bray, A., & Oldham, E. (2015). Realistic Mathematics Education, Mobile Technology & The Bridge21 Model for 21st Century Learning - A Perfect Storm. In H. Crompton & J. Traxler (Eds.), Mobile Learning and Mathematics: Foundations, Design, and Case Studies (pp. 96 - 106). Oxon, UK: Routledge.
  39. Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competences: implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(3), 299- 321.

Paper Citation

in Harvard Style

Bray A. (2016). Teachers’ Experiences of the Integration of 21st Century Learning in the Mathematics Classroom - The Bridge21 Model in Action . In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 2: CSEDU, ISBN 978-989-758-179-3, pages 219-230. DOI: 10.5220/0005759302190230

in Bibtex Style

author={Aibhin Bray},
title={Teachers’ Experiences of the Integration of 21st Century Learning in the Mathematics Classroom - The Bridge21 Model in Action},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 2: CSEDU,},

in EndNote Style

JO - Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 2: CSEDU,
TI - Teachers’ Experiences of the Integration of 21st Century Learning in the Mathematics Classroom - The Bridge21 Model in Action
SN - 978-989-758-179-3
AU - Bray A.
PY - 2016
SP - 219
EP - 230
DO - 10.5220/0005759302190230