Does the integration of AI-driven robotics into mathematics education serve as a form of reterritorialization of an educator's professional identity?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55578/fepr.2509.009Keywords:
AI-driven Robotics, Mathematics Education, Reterritorialization, Educators’ professional Identity (EPI)Abstract
The integration of AI-driven robotics into mathematics education has emerged as a transformative force, reshaping traditional pedagogical practices and redefining educators' professional identities. Drawing on Deluzian theory, this article explores the concept of reterritorialization within the context of AI technology's incorporation into mathematics teaching. Through a systematic selection of 9 case studies, the article highlights the duality of educators’ professional identity (EPI) that educators experience: one that embraces innovative pedagogical methodologies and another that grapples with challenges posed by technological demands. The findings reveal that while AI-driven robotics can enhance student engagement and learning outcomes, they also impose constraints that may lead to feelings of inadequacy among educators.
References
1. Hu, L. (2022). Generative AI and future. https://pub.towardsai.net/generative-ai-and-future-c3b1695876f2
2. Baidoo-Anu, D., & Owusu Ansah, L. (2023). Education in the era of generative artificial intelligence (AI): Understanding the potential benefits of ChatGPT in promoting teaching and learning. Journal of AI, 7(1), 52–62.
3. Mohamed, M., Hidayat, R., Suhaizi, N., Sabri, N., Mahmud, M., & Baharuddin, S. (2022). Artificial intelligence in mathematics education: A systematic literature review. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 17(3), em0694. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/12132
4. Clarke, S. (2025). Exploring the landscape of GenAI and education literature: A taxonomy of themes and sub-themes. British Educational Research Journal, 00, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.4186
5. Popenici, S., & Kerr, S. (2017). Exploring the impact of artificial intelligence on teaching and learning in higher education. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 12(22), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-017-0062-8
6. Stone, P., & 16 Study Panel members. (2016). Artificial intelligence and life in 2030, one-hundred-year study on artificial intelligence. Report of the 2015 Study Panel. Stanford University. https://ai100.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj
7. Richter, A., Gacic, T., Koelmel, B., Waidelich, L., & Glaser, P. (2019). A review of fundamentals and influential factors of artificial intelligence. International Journal of Computer and Information Technology, 8(4), 142–156.
8. Grasse, O., Mohr, A., Lang, A., & Jahn, C. (2023). AI approaches in education based on individual learner characteristics: A review. In 2023 IEEE 12th International Conference on Engineering Education (ICEED). IEEE. (pp. 50 – 55) https://doi.org/10.1109/ICEED59801.2023.1026
9. Casler-Failing, S. (2018). Robotics and math: using action research to study growth problems. Canadian Journal of Action Research, 19 (2), 4-25.
10. Casler-Failing, S. (2021). Learning to teach mathematics with robots: Developing the ‘T’ in technological pedagogical content knowledge. Association for Learning Technology, 29, 1-20.
11. Davey, R. (2013). The Professional Identity of Teacher Educators: Career on the Cusp? London: Routledge.
12. Lopez-Caudana, E., Ramirez-Montoya, M., Martinez-Perez, S., & Rodriguez-Abitia, G. (2020). Using Robotics to Enhance Active Learning in Mathematics: A Multi-Scenario Study. Mathematics, 8 (2163), https://doi.org/10.3390/math8122163
13. Harper, F., Stumbo, Z., & Kim, N. (2021). When robots invade the neighbourhood: Learning to teach preK-5 mathematics leveraging both technology and community knowledge. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 21(1), 19-52.
14. Atkinson, E. (2000). In defence of ideas, or why ‘what works’ is not enough. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 21(3), 307–330.
15. Blackmore, J. (2002). Is it only ‘what works’ that counts in new knowledge economies? Evidence based practice, educational research and teacher education in Australia. Social Policy and Society, 1(3), 257–266.
16. Hargreaves, D. (1996). Teaching as a research-based profession: possibilities and prospects. Teacher Training Agency Annual Lecture. In M. Hammersley (Ed.), Educational Research and Evidence-Based Practice (pp. 3-17). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
17. Zhao, H., & Zhang, X. (2017). The influence of field teaching practice on pre-service teachers’ professional identity: A mixed methods study. Frontiers in Psychology, 24(8), 1264. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01264
18. Cordingley, P., Crisp, B., Johns, P., Perry, T., Campbell, C., Bell, M., & Bradbury, M. (2019). Constructing Teachers’ Professional Identities, Education International. Educational International & UNESCO.
19. Karousiou, C., Hajisoteriou, C., & Angelides, P. (2019). Teachers’ professional identity in super-diverse school settings: Teachers as agents of intercultural education. Teachers and Teaching, 25(2), 240-258.
20. Rodrigues, F., & M. Mogarro (2019). Student teachers’ professional identity: A review of research contributions. Educational Research Review, 28, 100286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100286
21. Mockler, N. (2020). Teacher professional learning under audit: reconfiguring practice in an age of standards. Professional Development in Education, 1-15.
22. Suarez, V. and McGrath, J. (2022). Teacher professional identify: how to develop and support it in times of change. OECD Education Working Paper No. 267. OECD.
23. Hanna, F., Oostdam, R., Severiens, S., & Zijlstra, B. (2019). Domains of teacher identity: A review of quantitative measurement instruments”. Educational Research Review, 27, 15-27.
24. Bullough, R. (1997). Practicing theory and theorizing practice. In J. Loughran, & T. Russell (Eds.), Purpose, passion and pedagogy in teacher education (pp. 13-31). London: Falmer Press.
25. Connelly, F., & Clandinin, D. (1999). Shaping a professional identity: Stories of education practice. London, ON: Althouse Press
26. Beijaard, D., Meijer, P, & Verloop, N. (2004). Reconsidering research on teachers’ professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20,107-128.
27. Erikson, E. (1968). Identity, youth and crisis. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
28. McCormick, C., & Pressley, M. (1997). Educational psychology: Learning, instruction, assessment. New York: Longman.
29. Mead, G. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
30. Gee, J. (2001). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. In W. G. Secada (Ed.), Review of research in education, 25, 99-125. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
31. Mockler, N. (2011). Beyond ‘what works’: understanding teacher identity as a practical and political tool. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 17(5), 517-528.
32. Hall, D., & McGinity, R. (2015). Conceptualizing teacher professional identity in neoliberal times: Resistance, compliance and reform. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(88). http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v23.2092.
33. Dewey, J. (1897) My Pedagogic Creed. School Journal, 54, 77-80. http://dewey.pragmatism.org/creed.htm
34. Nias, J. (1989). Primary teachers talking: A study of teaching as work. London: Routledge
35. Ogunleye, B., Zakariyyah, K., Ajao, O., Olayinka, O., & Sharma, H. (2024). A systematic review of generative AI for teaching and learning practice. Education Sciences, 14(6), 636. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14060636
36. Yusuf, A., Pervin, N., Roman-Gonzalez, M., & Md Noor, N. (2024). Generative AI in education and research: A systematic mapping review. BERA Review of Education, 12(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3489
37. Samala, A., Rawas, S., Wang, T., Reed, J., Kim, J., Howard, N., & Ertz, M. (2025). Unveiling the landscape of generative artificial intelligence in education: A comprehensive taxonomy of applications, challenges, and future prospects. Education and Information Technologies, 30, 3239–3278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12936-0
38. Willis, J. (2007). Foundations of qualitative research. Sage.
39. McChesney, K., & Aldridge, J. (2019). Weaving an interpretivist stance through mixed methods research. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 42(3), 225–238.
40. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (2010). O que é a filosofia? (3o ed). Editora 34
41. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (2011). Mil Platôs: Capitalismo e esquizofrenia 2 (2o ed, Vol. 1). Editora 34.
42. Page, M., McKenzie, J., Bossuyt, P., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T., Mulrow, C., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372(71), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
43. Greenhalgh, T. (2019). How to read a paper: The basics of evidence-based medicine. Wiley.
44. Flowerdew, J., & Habibie, P. (2021). Introducing English for research publication purposes. Routledge.
45. Jefferson, T., Alderson, P., Wager, E., & Davidoff, F. (2002). Effects of editorial peer review: A systematic review. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 287(21), 2784–2786.
46. McMillan, J., & Schumacher, S. (2013). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry (7th ed.). Pearson.
47. Kvale, S. (2007). Doing interviews. SAGE.
48. Harkness, J., Braun, M., Edwards, B., Johnson, T., Lyberg, L., Mohler, P., Pennel B-E., & Smith, T. (2010). Survey methods in multinational, multiregional, and multicultural contexts. Wiley.
49. Lincoln, Y., Lynham, S., & Guba, E. (2011). Paradigm controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 191–215). SAGE.
50. Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2018). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research. SAGE.
51. Merriam, S., & Grenier, R. (2019). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
52. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597.
53. Rico-Bautista, N., Rico-Bautista, D., & Medina-Cárdenas, Y. (2019). Collaborative work as a learning strategy to teach mathematics incorporating robotics using led godt education system and fischertechnik in seventh graders at the school Isidro Caballero Delgado in Floridablanca Santander Colombia. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1386 (012146), https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1386/1/012146
54. Saez‑Lopez, J-M., Sevillano‑Garcia, M-L., & Vazquez‑Cano, E. (2019). The effect of programming on primary school students’ mathematical and scientific understanding: educational use of mBot. Education Technology Research Development, 67, 1405–1425, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09648-5
55. Francis, K., & Davis, B. (2018). Coding Robots as a Source of Instantiations for Arithmetic. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 4, 71–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-018-0042-7
56. Forsström, S., & Afdal, G. (2020). Learning Mathematics Through Activities with Robots. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 6, 30–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-019-00057-0
57. Seckel, M., Breda, A., Font, V., & Vásquez, C. (2021). Primary School Teachers’ Conceptions about the Use of Robotics in Mathematics. Mathematics, 9 (3186), https://doi.org/10.3390/math9243186
58. Agee, J. (2004). Negotiating a teaching identity: An African American teacher’s struggle to teach in test driven contexts. Teachers College Record, 106(4), 747-774.
59. Korthagen, F. (2004). In search of the essence of a good teacher: towards a more holistic approach in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(1), 77-97.
60. Rots, I., Aelterman, A., Devos, G., & Vlerick, P. (2010). Teacher education and the choice to enter the teaching profession: A prospective study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(8), 619-1629.
61. Day, C., Elliot, B., & Kington, A. (2005). Reform, standards and teacher identity: Challenges of sustaining commitment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 563-577.
62. Galman, S. (2009). Doth the lady protest too much? Pre-service teachers and the experience of dissonance as a catalyst for development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(3), 468-481.
63. OECD (2020). TALIS 2018 Results (Volume II): Teachers and School Leaders as Valued Professionals. TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/19cf08df-en.
64. Schleicher, A. (2018). Valuing our Teachers and Raising their Status: How Communities Can Help. International Summit on the Teaching Profession, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264292697-en
65. Lanas, M. & Kelchtermans, G. (2015). “This has more to do with who I am than with my skills” – Student teacher subjectification in Finnish teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 47, 22-29.
Downloads
Published
Data Availability Statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Samuel Clarke (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.