Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Sweeping Area across Physical and Virtual Environments

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The concept of area measure is widely viewed as fundamental. It is both intrinsically important and also structurally significant, as a representative of the class of continuous multiplicative quantities. Operating flexibly in this context with meaning and conceptual understanding is thus a critical objective for elementary education. Meanwhile, the difficulties learners encounter with area are well documented in the literature and include challenges with visualizing structured 2D space and conceptualizing the referent-transforming action that converts two length measures into area measure. Responding to these challenges, we present an analysis of their activity where third-grade learners generated figures with area by sweeping one length (a ‘squeegee’) through another length. We describe a ‘duo’ of physical and virtual learning environments that we developed to enable this ‘sweeping’ approach to area – and we show how this duo supported a classroom group of students in engaging with the two challenges mentioned above. In our analysis, we draw upon Charles Goodwin’s framework of co-operative action, showing how, at both individual and group levels, learners began to build professional vision around area measure and how the shared gestures they developed pointed toward emerging collective understanding of area as a dynamic quantity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24
Fig. 25
Fig. 26

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Available in the Apple AppStore as a free download for iPads and as a web application for all devices at: http://modelsandmodeling.org/sweepingarea

References

  • Arzarello, F., & Robutti, O. (2010). Multimodality in multi-representational environments. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 42(7), 715–731.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baccaglini-Frank, A. (2015). Preventing low achievement in arithmetic through the didactical materials of the PerContare project. In X. Sun, B. Kaur, & J. Novotná (Eds.), Proceedings of the ICME 23 study conference (pp. 169–176). Macau: ICME.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartolini Bussi, M., & Mariotti, M. (2008). Semiotic mediation in the mathematics classroom: Artifacts and signs after a Vygotskian perspective. In L. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 746–783). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Battista, M. (2007). The development of geometric and spatial thinking. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 843–908). Charlotte: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Battista, M., Clements, D., Arnoff, J., Battista, K., & Borrow, C. (1998). Students’ spatial structuring of 2D arrays of squares. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(5), 503–532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckmann, S., & Izsák, A. (2015). Two perspectives on proportional relationships: Extending complementary origins of multiplication in terms of quantities. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 46(1), 17–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becvar, L., Hollan, J., & Hutchins, E. (2005). Hands as molecules: Representational gestures used for developing theory in a scientific laboratory. Semiotica, 156, 89–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Church, R., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (1986). The mismatch between gesture and speech as an index of transitional knowledge. Cognition, 23(1), 43–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clements, D., Sarama, J., Van Dine, D., Barrett, J., Cullen, C., Hudyma, A., Dolgin, R., Cullen, A., & Eames, C. (2018). Evaluation of three interventions teaching area measurement as spatial structuring to young children. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 50, 23–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • do Carmo, M. (2016). Differential geometry of curves and surfaces (2nd ed.). New York: Dover Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, M., & Forman, E. (2006). Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. Review of Research in Education, 30(1), 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, N. (1976). Languages of art: An approach to a theory of symbols. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606–633.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, C. (2018). Co-operative action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, D. (2013). Differential geometry: A geometric introduction (3rd edn). (https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.bia/1399917370).

  • Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Izsák, A. (2005). “You have to count the squares”: Applying knowledge in pieces to learning rectangular area. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(3), 361–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Izsák, A., & Beckmann, S. (2019). Developing a coherent approach to multiplication and measurement. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 101(1), 83–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janke, H. (1980). Numbers and quantities: Pedagogical, philosophical, and historical remarks. Paper presented at ICME IV, Berkeley.

  • Jorgensen, D. (1989). Participant observation: A methodology for human studies. London: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaput, J. (1985). Multiplicative word problems and intensive quantities: An integrated software response. Technical report 85-19. (https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED295787).

  • Kara, M., Eames, C., Miller, A., Cullen, C., & Barrett, J. (2011). Developing an understanding of area measurement concepts with triangular units. In L. Wiest & T. Lamberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd annual meeting of the north American chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of mathematics education (pp. 1015–1023). Reno: University of Nevada, Reno.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kobiela, M., & Lehrer, R. (2019). Supporting dynamic conceptions of area and its measure. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 29(3), 178–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kobiela, M., Lehrer, R. & Pfaff, E. (2010). Students’ developing conceptions of area via partitioning and sweeping. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American education research association, Denver.

  • Lakoff, G., & Núñez, R. (2000). Where mathematics comes from. How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • LeBaron, C., & Streeck, J. (2000). Gestures, knowledge, and the world. In D. McNeill (Ed.), Language and gesture (pp. 118–138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lebesgue, H. (1966). Measure of magnitudes. In K. May (Ed.), Henri Lebesgue: Measure and the integral (pp. 10–175). San Francisco, CA: Holden-Day. (A translation of a series of articles by Lebesgue published serially in l’EnseignementMathématique between 1931 and 1935.)

  • Lehrer, R., & Slovin, H. (2014). Developing essential understanding of geometry and measurement in grades 3–5. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, R., Jacobson, C., Thoyre, G., Kemeny, V., Strom, D., Horvath, J., Gance, S., & Koehler, M. (1998). Developing understanding of geometry and space in the primary grades. In R. Lehrer & D. Chazan (Eds.), Designing learning environments for developing understanding of geometry and space (pp. 169–200). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, E., & Fowler, C. (2000). The role of gestures and other graded language forms in the grounding of reference in perception. In D. McNeill (Ed.), Language and gesture (pp. 215–234). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maschietto, M., & Soury-Lavergne, S. (2013). Designing a duo of material and digital artifacts: The pascaline and Cabri Elem e-books in primary school mathematics. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(7), 959–971.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, D. (2008). Gesture and thought. Chicago: University of Ch icago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moyer-Packenham, P., & Westenskow, A. (2013). Effects of virtual manipulatives on student achievement and mathematics learning. International Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning Environments, 4(3), 35–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nemirovsky, R., Tierney, C., & Wright, T. (1998). Body motion and graphing. Cognition and Instruction, 16(2), 119–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ochs, E., Jacoby, S., & Gonzales, P. (1994). Interpretive journeys: How physicists talk and travel through graphic space. Configurations, 2(1), 151–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Outhred, L., & Mitchelmore, M. (2000). Young children's intuitive understanding of rectangular area measurement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(2), 144–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panorkou, N. (2018). Rethinking the teaching and learning of area measurement. In J. Kay & R. Luckin (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th international conference of the learning sciences (Vol. 2, pp. 863–870). London: International Society of the Learning Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panorkou, N. (2021). Reasoning dynamically about the area of a rectangle: The case of Lora and Isaac. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 7(1).

  • Panorkou, N., & Pratt, D. (2016). Using Google SketchUp to research students’ experiences of dimension in geometry. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 2(3), 199–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, J. (1988). Intensive quantity and referent transforming arithmetic operations. In J. Hiebert & M. Behr (Eds.), Number concepts and operations in the middle grades (pp. 41–52). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, J. (1996). Semantic aspects of quantity. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.622.7161&rep=rep1&type=pdf.

  • Simon, M., & Blume, G. (1994). Building and understanding multiplicative relationships: A study of prospective elementary teachers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(5), 472–494.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, M., & Blume, G. (1996). Justification in the mathematics classroom: A study of prospective elementary teachers. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 15(1), 3–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J., Males, L., & Gonulates, F. (2016). Conceptual limitations in curricular presentations of area measurement: One nation’s challenges. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 18(4), 239–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steffe, L. (1988). Children’s construction of number sequences and multiplying schemes. In J. Hiebert & M. Behr (Eds.), Number concepts and operations in the middle grades (pp. 119–140). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strom, D., Kemeny, V., Lehrer, R., & Forman, E. (2001). Visualizing the emergent structure of children's mathematical argument. Cognitive Science, 25(5), 733–773.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P. (2000). What is required to understand fractal dimension? Mathematics Educator, 10(2), 33–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P., & Carlson, M. (2017). Variation, covariation, and functions: Foundational ways of thinking mathematically. In J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for research in mathematics education (pp. 421–456). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P., & Saldanha, L. (2003). Fractions and multiplicative reasoning. In J. Kilpatrick, G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 95–113). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verillon, P., & Rabardel, P. (1995). Cognition and artifacts: A contribution to the study of thought in relation to instrumented activity. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10(1), 77–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vishnubhotla, M. &Panorkou, N. (2017). A learning trajectory for visualizing area as a dynamic continuous quantity. Paper presented at the National Council of teachers of Mathematics – Research Conference, San Antonio.

  • Voltolini, A. (2018). Duo of digital and material artefacts dedicated to the learning of geometry at primary school. In L. Ball, P. Drijvers, S. Ladel, H. Siller, M. Tabach, & C. Vale (Eds.), Uses of Technology in Primary and Secondary Mathematics Education (pp. 83–99). Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vossoughi, S., Jackson, A., Chen, S., Roldan, W., & Escudé, M. (2020). Embodied pathways and ethical trails: Studying learning in and through relational histories. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 29(2), 183–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitney, H. (1968a). The mathematics of physical quantities: Part I mathematical models for measurement. The American Mathematical Monthly, 75(2), 115–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitney, H. (1968b). The mathematics of physical quantities: Part II quantity structures and dimensional analysis. The American Mathematical Monthly, 75(3), 227–256.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant #1621088

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA

    Corey Brady & Richard Lehrer

Authors
  1. Corey Brady
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Richard Lehrer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Corey Brady.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Brady, C., Lehrer, R. Sweeping Area across Physical and Virtual Environments. Digit Exp Math Educ 7, 66–98 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-020-00076-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-020-00076-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation