Abstract
Interactive textbooks appear to be the tools of choice in mathematics instruction in the foreseeable future. It is important, therefore, to establish the theoretical foundations of design that define student-textbook-teacher interactions. In our long-term research, we suggested, tested, and refined a semiotic framework that offers a set of terms helpful in analyzing how the designed features of interactive diagrams (IDs) function in these interactions. The present chapter summarizes key design decisions about resources and constraints of interactive texts according to various semiotic functions, and discusses the role of designed resources and constraints of the IDs in student engagement with interactive texts.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
In our earlier publications (e.g., 2005, 2009, 2011, 2011, 2013) we used the term “narrating ID”.
References
Borasi, R., Siegel, M., Fonzi, J., & Smith, C. F. (1998). Using transactional reading strategies to support sense-making and discussion in mathematics classrooms: An exploratory study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(3), 275–305.
Davydov, V. (1972/1990). Types of generalization in instruction. Soviet Studies in Mathematics Education, 2.
Goldenberg, P., & Mason, J. (2008). Shedding light on and with example spaces. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 69(2), 183–194.
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images the grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.
Love, E. (1995). The functions of visualisation in learning geometry. In R. Sutherland & J. Mason (Eds.), Exploiting mental imagery with computers in mathematics education (pp. 125–141). Berlin: Springer.
Margolinas, C. (2013). Task design in mathematics education. In Proceedings of ICMI Study 22. ICMI Study 22.
Mason, J., & Pimm, D. (1984). Generic examples: Seeing the general in the particular. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 15(3), 227–289.
Murata, A. (2008). Mathematics teaching and learning as a mediating process: The case of tape diagrams. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(4), 374–406.
Naftaliev, E. (2012). Interactive diagrams: Mathematical engagements with interactive text. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Haifa, Faculty of Education, Haifa.
Naftaliev, E. & Yerushalmy, M. (2009). Interactive diagrams: Alternative practices for the design of algebra inquiry. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, 185–192). Greece: Thessaloniki
Naftaliev, E., & Yerushalmy, M. (2011). Solving algebra problems with interactive diagrams: Demonstration and construction of examples. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 30(1), 48–61.
Naftaliev, E., & Yerushalmy, M. (2013). Guiding explorations: Design principles and functions of interactive diagrams. Computers in the Schools, 30(1–2), 61–75.
Nemirovsky, R., & Tierney, C. (2001). Children creating ways to represent changing situations: On the development of homogeneous spaces. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 45(1–3), 67–102.
Remillard, J. T., & Bryans, M. (2004). Teachers’ orientations toward mathematics curriculum materials: Implications for teacher learning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(5), 352–388.
Schwartz, J. L. (1995). The right size byte: Reflections on educational software designer. In D. Persinks, J. Schwartz, M. West, & S. Wiske (Eds.), Software goes to school (pp. 172–182). New York: Oxford University Press.
Schwartz, J. L. (1999). Can technology help us make the mathematics curriculum intellectually stimulating and socially responsible? International Journal of Computers in the Mathematical Learning, 4(2/3), 99–119.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–31.
Siegel, M. (1995). More than words: The generative power of transmediation for learning. Canadian Journal of Education, 20(4), 455–475.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Yerushalmy, M. (1993). Generalizations in geometry. In J. Schwartz, M. Yerushalmy, & B. Wilson (Eds.), The geometric supposer: What it is a case of? (pp. 57–84). NJ: Erlbaum Inc.
Yerushalmy, M. (2005). Functions of interactive visual representations in interactive mathematical textbooks. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 10(3), 217–249.
Yerushalmy, M., & Naftaliev, E. (2011). Design of interactive diagrams structured upon generic animations. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 16(3), 221–245.
Yerushalmy, M., Katriel, H., & Shternberg, B. (2002/2014). The VisualMath functions and algebra e-textbook. Israel: CET—The Centre of Educational Technology. http://www.cet.ac.il/math/function/english. New version http://visualmath.haifa.ac.il/. Accessed 12 Oct 2014.
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by the I-CORE Program of the Planning and Budgeting Committee and The Israel Science Foundation (1716/12).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Naftaliev, E., Yerushalmy, M. (2017). Engagement with Interactive Diagrams: The Role Played by Resources and Constraints. In: Leung, A., Baccaglini-Frank, A. (eds) Digital Technologies in Designing Mathematics Education Tasks. Mathematics Education in the Digital Era, vol 8. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43423-0_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43423-0_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-43421-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-43423-0
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)