Advertisement

ZDM

, Volume 45, Issue 3, pp 365–376 | Cite as

Cultivating inquiry about space in a middle school mathematics classroom

  • Richard Lehrer
  • Marta Kobiela
  • Paul J. Weinberg
Original Article

Abstract

During 46 lessons in Euclidean geometry, sixth-grade students (ages 11, 12) were initiated in the mathematical practice of inquiry. Teachers supported inquiry by soliciting student questions and orienting students to related mathematical habits-of-mind such as generalizing, developing relations, and seeking invariants in light of change, to sustain investigations of their questions. When earlier and later phases of instruction were compared, student questions reflected an increasing disposition to seek generalization and to explore mathematical relations, forms of thinking valued by the discipline. Less prevalent were questions directed toward search for invariants in light of change. But when they were posed, questions about change tended to be oriented toward generalizing and establishing relations among mathematical objects and properties. As instruction proceeded, students developed an aesthetic that emphasized the value of questions oriented toward the collective pursuit of knowledge. Post-instructional interviews revealed that students experienced the forms of inquiry and investigation cultivated in the classroom as self-expressive.

Keywords

Mathematical inquiry Interest and disposition Mathematical habits-of-mind Spatial mathematics Mathematical practices 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the editor, three anonymous reviewers, and Leona Schauble for their constructive and productive critique. Parts of this research were supported by the National Science Foundation, DRL-1252875. Any recommendations or conclusions stated here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the NSF.

References

  1. Abelson, H. & diSessa, A. A. (1980). Turtle geometry: The computer as a medium for exploring mathematics. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  2. Azevedo, F. S. (2006). Personal excursions: Investigating the dynamics of student engagement. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 11, 57–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ball, D. L. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary school mathematics. The Elementary School Journal, 4, 373–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barron, B. (2006). Interest and self-sustained learning as catalysts of development: A learning ecology perspective. Human Development, 49, 193–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boaler, J. (2002). Experiencing school mathematics: Traditional and reform approaches to teaching and their impact on student learning (Revised and Expanded Edition ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Association.Google Scholar
  6. Borasi, R. (1992). Learning mathematics through inquiry. New Hampshire: Heinemann Educational Books, Inc.Google Scholar
  7. Chapin, S. H., O’Connor, C., & Anderson, N. C. (2003). Classroom discussions. Using MATH TALK to help students learn. Sausalito, CA: Math Solutions.Google Scholar
  8. de Villiers, M. (1998). An alternative approach to proof in dynamic geometry. In R. Lehrer & D. Chazan (Eds.), Designing learning environments for developing understanding of geometry and space (pp. 369–393). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. diSessa, A. A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition & Instruction, 22(3), 293–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Driscoll, M., DiMatteo, R. W., Nikula, J. E., & Egan, M. (2007). Fostering geometric thinking: A guide for teachers grades 5–10. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  11. Ellis, A. B. (2011). Generalizing-promoting actions: How classroom collaborations can support students’ mathematical generalizations. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education., 42(4), 308–345.Google Scholar
  12. Goldenberg, E. P., & Cuoco, A. A. (1998). What is dynamic geometry? In R. Lehrer & D. Chazan (Eds.), Designing learning environments for developing understanding of geometry and space (pp. 351–367). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Goldenberg, E. P., Cuoco, A. A., & Mark, J. (1998). A role for geometry in general education. In R. Lehrer & D. Chazan (Eds.), Designing learning environments for developing understanding of geometry and space (pp. 3–44). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  14. Gresalfi, M. S. (2009). Taking up opportunities to learn: Constructing dispositions in mathematics classrooms. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(3), 327–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hadas, N., Hershkowitz, R., & Schwarz, B. B. (2000). The role of contradiction and uncertainty in promoting the need to prove in dynamic geometry environments. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44, 127–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harel, G. (2008). What is mathematics? A pedagogical answer to a philosophical question. In B. Gold & R. Simons (Eds.), Current issues in the philosophy of mathematics from the perspective of mathematicians. Washington, DC: Mathematical American Association.Google Scholar
  17. Henderson, D. W., & Taimina, D. (2005). Experiencing geometry: Euclidean and non-euclidean with history. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  18. Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hufferd-Ackles, K., Fuson, K. C., & Sherin, M. G. (2004). Describing levels and components of a math-talk learning community. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35, 81–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hwang, S., & Roth, W.-M. (2011). Scientific and mathematical bodies. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Knorr Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and refutations: The logic of mathematical discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lakoff, G., & Nunez, R. (2000). Where mathematics comes from. How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
  24. Latour, B. (1990). Drawing things together. In M. Lynch & S. Woolgar (Eds.), Representation in scientific practice (pp. 19–68). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Lehrer, R. (2009). Designing to develop disciplinary knowledge: Modeling natural systems. American Psychologist, 64(8), 759–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lehrer, R., Jacobson, C., Kemeny, V., & Strom, D. (1999). Building on children’s intuitions to develop mathematical understanding of space. In E. Fennema & T. A. Romberg (Eds.), Mathematics classrooms that promote understanding (pp. 63–87). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  27. Lehrer, R., Randle, L., & Sancilio, L. (1989). Learning preproof geometry with LOGO. Cognition and Instruction, 6(2), 159–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. O’Connor, M. K., & Michaels, S. (1996). Shifting participant frameworks: Orchestrating thinking practices in group discussion. In D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse, learning and schooling (pp. 63–103). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  30. Renninger, K. A. (2009). Interest and identity development in instruction: An inductive model. Educational Psychologist, 44(2), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Roth, W.-M., & McGinn, M. K. (1998). Inscriptions: Toward a theory of representing as social practice. Review of Educational Research, 68, 35–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Simon, M. A. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(2), 114–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sinclair, N. (2004). The roles of the aesthetic in mathematical inquiry. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(3), 261–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Staples, M. (2007). Supporting whole-class collaborative inquiry in a secondary mathematics classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 25(2), 161–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stein, M. K., Engle, R. A., Smith, M. S., & Hughes, E. K. (2008). Orchestrating productive matheamtical discussions: Five practices for helping teachers move beyond show and tell. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(4), 313–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. van Hiele, P. M. (1986). Structure and insight: A theory of mathematics education. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  37. Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomath norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 458–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard Lehrer
    • 1
  • Marta Kobiela
    • 1
  • Paul J. Weinberg
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Teaching and LearningVanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations