Advertisement

Different reading styles for mathematics text

  • Margot BergerEmail author
Article
  • 73 Downloads

Abstract

A broad categorisation of different reading styles for mathematics text is generated in this research. The styles derive from those found in literature around academic reading skills. These styles are inductively refined using video transcripts of five specially chosen students studying out loud from a prescribed mathematics textbook. The context is a self-study mathematics course directed at high school mathematics teachers with weak content knowledge. Reading is understood as a transaction (enacted curriculum) between text (written curriculum) and reader. Reading styles are characterised in terms of depth of reading, focus on different components of text or not, connections within text or to prior knowledge, and performance on exercises. Five different styles of reading mathematics text are identified: close reading with strong connections, close reading with some connections, scanning, skimming, and avoiding. The different reading styles are also interpreted in terms of structure, voice, and genre of the textbook.

Keywords

Mathematics reading styles Mathematics textbook analysis Written curriculum Enacted curriculum Learner’s use of mathematical textbook Form of address 

Notes

Funding information

This work is based on research supported in part by the National Research Foundation of South Africa: UID Number 85685.

References

  1. Adler, J., & Davis, Z. (2011). Modelling teaching in mathematics teacher education and the constitution of mathematics for teaching. In K. Ruthven & T. Rowland (Eds.), Mathematical knowledge in teaching (pp. 139–160). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. BBC. (2011). Skillswise: English and maths for adults. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/skillswise/factsheet/en05skim-e3-f-skimming-and-scanning. Accessed 6 Jan 2017.
  3. BBC & British Council. (2008). Intensive reading. Retrieved from https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/intensive-reading. Accessed 6 Jan 2017.
  4. Berger, M. (2016). Reading and learning from mathematics textbooks: An analytic framework. In C. Csikos, A. Rausch, & J. Szitanyi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 40th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 83–90). Szeged: PME.Google Scholar
  5. Berger, M. (2017). Reading mathematics text: A study of two empirical readings. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9867-6
  6. Bruner, J. S. (1985). The role of interaction formats in language acquisition. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Language and social situations (pp. 31–46). New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gerofsky, S. (1999). Genre analysis as a way of understanding pedagogy in mathematics education. For the Learning of Mathematics, 19(3), 36–46.Google Scholar
  8. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New Brunswick: Aldine Transaction.Google Scholar
  9. Kilpatrick, J. (2014). From clay tablets to computer tablet: The evolution of school mathematics textbooks. International Conference on Mathematics Textbook Research and Development 2014 (ICMT-2014) 29–31 July 2014, University of Southampton, UK.Google Scholar
  10. Lithner, J. (2003). Students’ mathematical reasoning in university textbook exercises. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 52(1), 29–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Massey University. (2012). The online writing and learning link. Reading styles. Retrieved from owll.massey.ac.nz/study-skills/reading-styles.php. Accessed 10 Jan 2017.
  12. Merriam-Webster Dictionary. (2016). Merriam-Webster Dictionary. USA: Merriam-Webster dictionary. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com. Accessed 28 May 2017.Google Scholar
  13. Österholm, M. (2006). Characterizing reading comprehension of mathematical texts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63, 325–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Österholm, M. (2008). Do students need to learn how to use their mathematics textbooks? The case of reading comprehension. NOMAD -Nordisk Matematikkdidakticc, 13(3), 53–73.Google Scholar
  15. Österholm, M., & Bergqvist, E. (2013). What is so special about mathematical texts? Analyses of common claims in research literature and of properties of textbooks. ZDM Mathematics Education, 45, 751–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Remillard, J. (2012). Modes of engagement: Understanding teachers’ transactions with mathematics curriculum resources. In G. Gueudet, B. Pepin, & L. Trouche (Eds.), From text to “lived” resources: Mathematics curriculum materials and teacher development (pp. 105–122). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Rezat, S. (2006). The structures of German mathematics textbooks. ZDM, 38(6), 482–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rezat, S. (2008). Learning mathematics with textbooks. In O. Figueras, L. Cortina, S. Alatorre, T. Rojano, & A. Sepulveda (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education and PME-NA XXX (Vol. 4, pp. 177–184). Morelia: PME.Google Scholar
  19. Rezat, S. (2013). The textbook-in-use: Students’ utilization schemes of mathematics textbook related to self-regulated practices. ZDM, 45, 659–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rezat, S., & Straesser, R. (2014). Mathematics textbooks and how they are used. In P. Andrews & T. Rowland (Eds.), MasterClass in mathematics education: International perspectives on teaching and learning (pp. 51–62). London & New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  21. Rosenblatt, L. M. (1982). The literary transaction: Evocation and response. Theory Into Practice, 21(4), 268–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Shepherd, M. D., Selden, A., & Selden, J. (2012). University students’ reading of their first-year mathematics textbooks. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 14(3), 226–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sierpinska, A. (1997). Formats of interaction and model readers. For the Learning of Mathematics, 17(2), 3–12.Google Scholar
  25. Sullivan, M. (2012). Precalculus (9th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  26. Valverde, G. A., Bianchi, L. J., Wolfe, R. G., Schmidt, W. H., & Houang, R. T. (2002). According to the book: Using TIMSS to investigate the translation of policy into practice through the world of textbooks. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Vygotsky, L. (1978). In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Weinberg, A., & Wiesner, E. (2011). Understanding mathematics textbooks through reader-oriented theory. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 76, 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of WitwatersrandJohannesburgSouth Africa
  2. 2.Division of Mathematics Education, School of EducationWits UniversityJohannesburgSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations