Educational Studies in Mathematics

, Volume 77, Issue 2–3, pp 157–174 | Cite as

The role of gestures in the mathematical practices of those who do not see with their eyes

  • Lulu Healy
  • Solange Hassan Ahmad Ali Fernandes
Article

Abstract

In this paper, we aim to contribute to the discussion of the role of the human body and of the concrete artefacts and signs created by humankind in the constitution of meanings for mathematical practices. We argue that cognition is both embodied and situated in the activities through which it occurs and that mathematics learning involves the appropriation of practices associated with the sets of artefacts that have historically come to represent the body of knowledge we call mathematics. This process of appropriation involves a coordination of a variety of the semiotic resources—spoken and written languages, mathematical representation systems, drawings, gestures and the like—through which mathematical objects and relationships might be experienced and expressed. To highlight the connections between perceptual activities and cultural concepts in the meanings associated with this process, we concentrate on learners who do not have access to the visual field. More specifically, we present three examples of gesture use in the practices of blind mathematics students—all involving the exploration of geometrical objects and relationships. On the basis of our analysis of these examples, we argue that gestures are illustrative of imagined reenactions of previously experienced activities and that they emerge in instructional situations as embodied abstractions, serving a central role in the sense-making practices associated with the appropriation of mathematical meanings.

Keywords

Gestures Blind mathematics learners Mediation Abstraction Embodied cognition 

References

  1. Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartolini Bussi, M. G., & Mariotti, M. A. (2008). Semiotic mediation in the mathematics classroom: Artefacts and signs after a Vygotskian perspective. In L. English, M. Bartolini Bussi, G. Jones, R. Lesh, & D. Tirosh (Eds.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (2nd ed., pp. 720–749). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  3. Cole, M., & Wertsch, J. V. (1996). Beyond the individual–social antinomy in discussions of Piaget and Vygotsky. Human Development, 39, 250–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Confrey, J. (1995). How compatible are radical constructivism, sociocultural approaches and social constructivism? In L. P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 185–226). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  5. Confrey, J. (1998). Voices and perspectives: Hearing epistemological innovation in students’ words. In M. Larochelle, N. Bednarz, & J. Garrison (Eds.), Constructivism and education (pp. 104–120). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fernandes, S. H. A. A. & Healy, L. (2007). Ensaio sobre a inclusão na educação matemática. [Reflections on inclusion in mathematics education] Unión. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación Matemática. Federación Iberoamericana de Sociedades de Educación Matemática—FISEM, 10, 59–76.Google Scholar
  7. Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G. (2005). The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory–motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22, 455–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Goldin-Meadow, S. (2003). Hearing gestures: How our hands help us think. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Greenwood, D., & Levin, M. (2000). Reconstructing the relationships between universities and society through action research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 85–106). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  10. Healy, L.(S.) (2002) Iterative design and comparison of learning systems for refection in two dimensions, Unpublished PhD thesis. University of London.Google Scholar
  11. Healy, L. & Fernandes, S. H. A. A. (2008). The role of gestures in the mathematical practices of blind learners. In: Proceedings of the Joint Meeting of PME 32 and PME-NA XXX (Vol. 3, 137–144). Morelia, México: Cinvestav-UMSNH,Google Scholar
  12. Healy, L. & Fernandes, S. H. A. A. (2009). Relationships between sensory activity, cultural artefacts and mathematical cognition. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. (Vol. 3, 137–144). Thessalonki, Greece.Google Scholar
  13. Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (Eds.). (1992). Learning mathematics and logo. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  14. Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (1993). Out of the Cul-De-Sac? In: Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference of North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. (Vol. 1, 83–90). California: San Jose State University.Google Scholar
  15. Iverson, J. M., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (1998). Why people gesture when they speak, vol. 396 (p. 228). London: Macmillan Publishers Ltd. Nature.Google Scholar
  16. Kosslyn, S. T. (2004). Mental images and the brain. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22(3), 333–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mason, J. (1989). Mathematical abstraction as the result of a delicate shift of attention. For the Learning of Mathematics, 9(2), 2–8.Google Scholar
  18. McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (1996). Windows on mathematical meaning: Learning cultures and computers. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.Google Scholar
  20. Ochaita, E. & Rosa, A. (1995). Percepção, ação e conhecimento nas crianças cegas. [Perception, action and knowledge of blind children]. In: C. Coll, J. Palacios, A. Marchesi (Eds.). Desenvolvimento psicológico e educação: necessidades educativas especiais e aprendizagem escolar (Vol. 3, 183–197). Tradução Marcos A. G. Domingues. Porto Alegre: Artes Médicas.Google Scholar
  21. Presmeg, N. C. (1997). Generalization using imagery in mathematics. In L. D. English (Ed.), Mathematical reasoning: Analogies, metaphors and images (pp. 299–312). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  22. Pylyshyn, Z. (2003). Seeing and visualizing: It's not what you think. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  23. Radford, L. (2002). The seen, the spoken and the written: A semiotic approach to the problem of objectification of mathematical knowledge. For the Learning of Mathematics, 22(2), 14–23.Google Scholar
  24. Radford, L. (2009). Why do gestures matter? Sensuous cognition and the palpability of mathematical meanings. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(2), 111–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Radford, L., Bardini, C., Sabena, C., Diallo, P., & Simbagoye, A. (2005). On embodiment, artifacts, and signs: A semiotic–cultural perspective on mathematical thinking. In H. L. Chick & J. L. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, vol. 4 (pp. 113–120). Australia: University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
  26. Radford, L., Edwards, L., & Arzarello, F. (Eds) (2009). Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(2).Google Scholar
  27. UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca Statement and framework for action on special needs education. World Conference on Special Needs Education: Access and Quality. Salamanca: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  28. Van Oers, B., & Poland, M. (2007). Schematising activities as a means for encouraging young children to think abstractly. In M. C. Mitchelmore & P. White (Eds.), Special issue: Abstraction in mathematics education. Mathematics Education Journal, 19(2), 10–22.Google Scholar
  29. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978/1930). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The instrumental method in psychology. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 134–143). Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  31. Vygotsky, L. (1997). Obras escogidas V—Fundamentos da defectología [The Fundamentals of defectology]. Traducción: Julio Guillermo Blank. Madrid: Visor.Google Scholar
  32. Wilensky, U. (1991). Abstract meditations on the concrete and concrete implications for mathematics education. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 193–204). Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lulu Healy
    • 1
  • Solange Hassan Ahmad Ali Fernandes
    • 1
  1. 1.Post-Graduate Programme in Mathematics EducationBandeirante University of São PauloSão PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations