Advertisement

ZDM

, Volume 50, Issue 6, pp 1041–1051 | Cite as

A framework for the study of written and spoken discourse: school mathematics in Palestine

  • Jehad Alshwaikh
  • Candia Morgan
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

The way in which mathematics is communicated and represented in schools (including the written language, symbols and diagrams of mathematics textbooks and the verbal/spoken classroom interaction itself) constructs particular views of the nature of mathematics and expectations about students’ participation in mathematical activity. In a previous article, we developed an analytic framework for examining the nature of mathematics and mathematical activity in textbooks in Palestinian schools and England. Here we extend our analysis to include the verbal/spoken language in two classrooms. To illustrate the application of the suggested framework, we present three cases from a particular social context (Palestine). We analyse an instance of a written textbook for grade 7 and spoken discourse in two classes in grades 5 and 6. We show how studying written and spoken discourse enables us to draw a picture of mathematics, mathematical activities and learning mathematics in schools context.

Keywords

School mathematics Written and spoken discourse analysis Nature of mathematics Learner activity Social semiotics 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks to the teachers, students and their school who agreed to video record them. A special thanks to the colleague who did the video recording. Thanks to the Palestinian Curriculum Development Center for its permission to reproduce the text in Fig. 1. The project “Analysing Palestinian school mathematics textbooks” was supported by the British Academy International Partnership and Mobility Scheme.

References

  1. Adler, J., & Ronda, E. (2015). A framework for describing mathematics discourse in instruction and interpreting differences in teaching. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19(3), 237–254.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10288457.2015.1089677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alomar, F. (2015). Beliefs of upper basic level mathematics teachers in the Governate of Ramallah and Al-Bireh about the nature of mathematics. Unpublished master’s thesis, Birzeit University, Birzeit, Palestine.Google Scholar
  3. Al-Ramahi, R., Alshwaikh, J., & Masad, F. (2016). Learning geometry in Palestine: An outlook at students and teachers. Mediterranean Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 15, 77–94.Google Scholar
  4. Alshwaikh, J. (2011). Geometrical diagrams as representation and communication: A functional analytic framework. Unpublished PhD thesis, Institute of Education, University of London, London, UK.Google Scholar
  5. Alshwaikh, J. (2016). Investigating the geometry curriculum in Palestinian textbooks: Towards multimodal analysis of Arabic mathematics discourse. Research in Mathematics Education, 18(2), 165–181.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2016.1177580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Alshwaikh, J., & Morgan, C. (2013). Analysing the Palestinian school mathematics textbooks: A multimodal (multisemiotic) perspective. Proceedings of the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics, 33(2), 70–75.Google Scholar
  7. Alshwaikh, J., & Straehler-Pohl, H. (2017). Interrupting passivity: Attempts to interrogate political agency in Palestinian school mathematics. In H. Straehler-Pohl, N. Bohlmann, & A. Pais (Eds), The Disorder of Mathematics Education. Challenging the Socio-Political Dimensions of Research (pp. 191–208). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baker, D. (1998). Numeracy as social practice. Literacy and Numeracy Studies, 8(1), 37–51.Google Scholar
  9. Bernstein, B. (1990). Class, codes and control, Vol. IV: The structuring of pedagogic discourse. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Christie, F. (2002). Classroom discourse analysis. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  11. Davis, P. J., & Hersh, R. (1981). The mathematical experience. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  12. Dowling, P. (1998). The sociology of mathematics education: Mathematical myths/pedagogic texts. London: Falmer.Google Scholar
  13. Duval, R. (2006). A cognitive analysis of problems of comprehension in a learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61(1–2), 103–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  15. Hashem-Aramouni, E. (2011). The impact of diglossia on Arabic language instruction in higher education: Attitudes and experiences of students and instructors in the U.S. Unpublished PhD dissertation, California State University, Sacramento, USA.Google Scholar
  16. Jewitt, C., Bezemer, J., & O’Halloran, K. (2016). Introducing multimodality. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Kress, G. (2011). Multimodal discourse analysis. In J. P. Gee & M. Handford (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 35–50). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design (2nd edn.). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lerman, S. (2000). The social turn in mathematics education research. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 19–44). Westport: Ablex.Google Scholar
  20. Maamouri, M. (1998). Language education and human development: Arabic diglossia and its impact on the quality of education in the Arab region. Paper presented at the The World Bank, The Mediterranean Development Forum, Marrakech, 3–6 September 1998.Google Scholar
  21. Maheux, J. F., & Proulx, J. (2015). Doing|mathematics: Analysing data with/in an enactivist-inspired approach. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(2), 211–221.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-014-0642-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ministry of Education-MoE. (2016). Preliminary results of the National Assessment Study “Attainment of the fourth and the tenth graders in Arabic language, mathematics and science 2015/2016”. Ramallah: MoE.Google Scholar
  23. Morgan, C. (1996). Writing mathematically: The discourse of investigation. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  24. Morgan, C. (2006). What does social semiotics have to offer mathematics education research? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61(1/2), 219–245.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-5477-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Morgan, C., Mariotti, M. A., & Maffei, L. (2009). Representation in computational environments: epistemological and social distance. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 14, 241–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Morgan, C., & Sfard, A. (2016). Investigating changes in high-stakes mathematics examinations: A discursive approach. Research in Mathematics Education, 18(2), 92–119.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2016.1176596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Arora, A. (2012). TIMSS 2011 international results in mathematics. Chestnut Hill: TIMSS and PIRLS International Study Centre, Boston College.Google Scholar
  28. Newman, R. (2016). Working talk: developing a framework for the teaching of collaborative talk. Research Papers in Education 31(1), 107–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. O’Halloran, K. L. (2005). Mathematical discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  30. Pimm, D. (1987). Speaking mathematically: Communication in mathematics classrooms. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Rewadi, F. (2005). A comparison of mathematical reasoning in the Palestinian curriculum with the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Standards 2000. Masters dissertation, Birzeit University, Palestine.Google Scholar
  33. Rotman, B. (1988). Towards a semiotics of mathematics. Semiotica, 72(1/2), 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: Human development, the growth of discourses, and mathematizing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sfard, A. (2012). Why mathematics? What mathematics? The Mathematics Educator, 22(1), 3–16.Google Scholar
  36. Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Tang, S., Morgan, C., & Sfard, A. (2012). Investigating the evolution of school mathematics through the lens of examinations: Developing an analytical framework. Paper presented at the 12th International Congress on Mathematical Education, Topic Study Group 28 on Language and Mathematics, Seoul, Korea.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Curriculum and Instruction Department, Faculty of EducationBirzeit UniversityBirzeitPalestine
  2. 2.Department of Curriculum Pedagogy and AssessmentUniversity College London Institute of EducationLondonUK

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options