Abstract
According to our approach to mathematics education, the optimal aim of the teaching of mathematics is to assist students in achieving efficient mathematical work. But, what does efficient exactly mean in that case? And how can teachers reach this objective? The model of Mathematical Working Spaces with its three dimensions—semiotic, instrumental, discursive—allows us to address these questions in an original way based on a multidimensional approach to the use of tools and instruments and on the notion of complete mathematical work. The Mathematical work is considered complete when a genuine relationship exists between epistemological and cognitive aspects, and when the three dimensions of the model are appropriately articulated. Two teaching situations in probability for Grades 9 and 10 (age 14 and 15) are used to illustrate how the model can help identify either misunderstandings that are not acknowledged by the teacher, or complete mathematical work despite some differences between intended and actual work.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In this paper, “a mathematical work” will have a technical meaning referring to the completion of a set of tasks (successfully or unsuccessfully).
References
Aimani, S., Bonneval, L.-M., Devynck, J.-B., & Yvonnet, P. (2012). Transmath Terminale S. Paris: Nathan.
Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics: Didactique Des Mathematiques, 1970–1990. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Carranza, P. (2011). Dualité dans l’enseignement de la probabilité. Apport pour l’enseignement de la statistique. Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques, 31(2), 229–259.
Caveing, M. (2004). Le problème des objets dans la pensée mathématique. Paris: Vrin.
Douady, R. (1991). Tool, object, setting, window: elements for analysing and constructing didactical situations in mathematics. In A. J. Bishop & S. Melling Olsen (Eds.), Mathematical knowledge: Its growth through teaching (pp. 100–130). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Drouhard, J.-P. (2009). Epistemography and algebra. In V. Durand-Guerrier, S. Soury-Lavergne, & F. Arzarello (Eds.), Proceedings of CERME6. Lyon, France. http://ife.ens-lyon.fr/publications/edition-electronique/cerme6/wg4-07-drouhard.pdf.
Dupuis, C., & Rousset-Bert, S. (1996). Arbres et tableaux de probabilités: analyse en terme de registre de représentation. Repères Irem, 22, 51–72.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
Freudenthal, H. (1971). Geometry between the devil and the deep sea. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 3, 413–435.
Gomez-Chacon, I., & Kuzniak, A. (2015). Spaces for geometric work: Figural, instrumental, and discursive geneses of reasoning in a technological environment. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13, 201–226.
Heitele, D. (1975). An epistemological view: On fundamental stochastic ideas. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 6, 187–205.
Kuzniak, A. (2011). L’Espace de Travail Mathématique et ses genèses. Annales de Didactique et de Sciences Cognitives, 16, 9–24.
Kuzniak, A. (2013). Teaching and learning of geometry and beyond…Plenary lecture. In B. Ubuz, Ç. Haser, & M. A. Mariotti (Eds.), Proceedings of CERME8 (pp. 33–49). Antalya, Turkey.
Kuzniak, A. & Nechache, A. (2015). Using the geometric working spaces to plan a coherent teaching of geometry. In Proceedings of CERME9. Prague, Czech Republik (Forthcoming publication).
Kuzniak, A., & Richard, P. (2014). Spaces for mathematical work: Viewpoints and perspectives. Relime, 17(4.1), 17–26.
MENSEC (The Grade 10 Mathematics curriculum (2009). Grade 10 mathematics classes). http://media.education.gouv.fr/programme_mathematiques_seconde.pdf. Accessed July 2009.
Montoya-Delgadillo, E., Mena-Lorca, A., & Mena-Lorca, J. (2014). Circulaciones y génesis en el Espacio de Trabajo Matematico. Relime, 17(4.1), 181–197.
Nechache, A. (2015). Comparaison de la démarche de la validation dans les espaces de travail idoines en géométrie et en probabilité. In I. Gomez-Chacon (Ed.), Acte du quatrième symposium ETM (pp. 51–67). Madrid: IMI.
Parzysz, B. (1993). Des statistiques aux probabilités. Exploitons les arbres. Repères Irem, 10, 93–104.
Rabardel, P. (1995). Les hommes et les technologies. Une approche cognitive des instruments contemporains. Paris: Armand Colin.
RESSEC (The official resources for Grade 6 to 9 classes Probabilities). http://media.education.gouv.fr/file/Mathematiques/24/3/Probabilites.pdf. Accessed Mars 2008.
Serfati, M. (2010). Symbolic revolution, scientific revolution: mathematical and philosophical aspects. In A. Heeffer & M. Van Dyck (Eds.), Philosophical aspects of symbolic reasoning in early-modern mathematics (pp. 103–122). London: College Publications.
Sfard, A., & Linchevski, L. (1994). The gains and pitfalls of reification—The case of algebra. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26, 191–228.
Sigward, E., Brisoux, F., Bruckner, C., & Monka, Y. (2014). Manuel de Seconde, Odyssée. Paris: Hatier.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kuzniak, A., Nechache, A. & Drouhard, J.P. Understanding the development of mathematical work in the context of the classroom. ZDM Mathematics Education 48, 861–874 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-016-0773-0
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-016-0773-0