Advertisement

Mathematics Education Research Journal

, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 347–369 | Cite as

Gestures and a chain of signification: the case of equilibrium solutions

  • Karen Allen Keene
  • Chris Rasmussen
  • Michelle Stephan
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

This paper provides an exposition of the unfolding and growing complexities of student and instructor gesturing over time. Specifically, it provides an account of how different forms of gestures, all related to the same mathematical idea, can create a chain of signs that support and enhance increasingly sophisticated understanding of one important concept in the learning of differential equations. The chain of gestures presented in this paper offers researchers, instructors, and instructional designers a view of the way in which different gestures can form a common conceptual thread. Expanding on Walkerdine’s (1988) theory of chains of signification, gestures are framed as signs in a chain of signification that captures the evolution of the idea over an extended period of time. Data for the analysis comes from a semester-long classroom teaching experiment in a first course in differential equations.

Keywords

Gestures Chain of signification Differential equations Mathematics education Conceptual thread 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Support for this paper was funded in part by the National Science Foundation under grant no. DRL 0634074. The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of the foundation.

References

  1. Alibali, M., & DiRusso, A. (1999). The function of gesture in learning to count: more than keeping track. Cognitive Development, 14, 37–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alibali, M., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (1993). Gesture–speech mismatch and mechanisms of learning: what the hands reveal about a child’s state of mind. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 468–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alibali, M. W., & Nathan, M. J. (2007). Instructors’ gestures as a means of scaffolding students’ understanding: evidence from an early algebra lesson. In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron, & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences. Mahwah, NH: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Arzarello, F., & Edwards, L. (2005). Gesture and the construction of mathematical meaning. Proceedings of PME XXIX, Melbourne, vol. 1, pp. 122–145.Google Scholar
  5. Broaders, S. C., Cook, S. W., Mitchell, Z., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2007). Making children gesture brings out implicit knowledge and leads to learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 136(4), 539–549.Google Scholar
  6. Cassell, J. (2000). Nudge nudge wink wink: elements of face-to-face conversation for embodied conversational agents. In J. Cassell, J. Sullivan, S. Prevost, & E. Churchill (Eds.), Embodied conversational agents (pp. 1–27). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cobb, P. (2000). Conducting teaching experiments in collaboration with instructors. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 307–334). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Cobb, P., Gravemeijer, K., Yackel, E., McClain, K., & Whitenack, J. (1997). Symbolizing and mathematizing: the emergence of chains of signification in one first-grade classroom. In D. Kirshner & J. A. Whitson (Eds.), Situated cognition theory: social, semiotic, and neurological perspectives (pp. 151–233). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Gravemeijer, F. K., Bowers, F. J., & Stephan, M. (2003). Continuing the design research cycle: a revised measurement, arithmetic instruction sequence. In M. Stephan, J. Bowers, P. Cobb, and K. Gravemeijer (Eds.), Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. Monograph, Supporting Students’ Development of Measuring Conceptions: Analyzing Students’ Learning in Social Context, Vol. 12 (pp. 103–122). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  10. Hadar, U., & Butterworth, B. (1997). Iconic gestures, imagery, and word retrieval in speech. Semiotica, 115, 147–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: the social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  12. Hostetter, A. B., & Alibali, M. (2008). Visible embodiment: gestures as simulated action. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 15(3), 495–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hostetter, A. B., Bieda, K., Alibali, A. W., Nathan, M. J., & Knuth, E. J. (2006). Don’t just tell them, show them! Instructors can intentionally alter their instructional gestures. In R. Sun & N. Miyake (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1523–1528). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  14. Keene, K. A. (2007). A characterization of dynamic reasoning: reasoning with time as parameter. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 26, 230–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lacan, J. (1977). Ecrits: a selection. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
  16. Lakoff, G., & Nunez, R. (2000). Where mathematics comes from. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  17. Lampert, M., & Cobb, P. (2003). White paper on communication and language. In J. Kilpatrick, D. Shifter, & G. Martin (Eds.), Principles and practices of school mathematics: research companion volume (pp. 237–249). Reston, VA: National Council of Instructors of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  18. Markovits, Z., Eylon, B., & Bruckheimer, M. (1986). Functions today and yesterday. For the Learning of Mathematics, 6(2), 18–28.Google Scholar
  19. McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: what gestures reveal about thought. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  20. McNeill, D. (2000). Catchments and contexts: non-modular factors in speech and gesture production. In D. McNeill (Ed.), Language and gesture (pp. 312–328). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Monk, S. (1992). Students’ understanding of a function given by a physical model. In G. Harel & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), MAA notes, vol. 25. The concept of function: aspects of epistemology and pedagogy (pp. 175–193). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.Google Scholar
  22. Morgan, C. (2006). What does social semiotics have to offer mathematics education research? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61, 219–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nemirovsky, R., Tierney, C., & Wright, T. (1998). Body motion and graphing. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 119–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pea, R. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Solomon (Ed.), Distributed cognition (pp. 47–87). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Rasmussen, C. (2001). New directions in differential equations: a framework for interpreting students’ understandings and difficulties. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 20, 55–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rasmussen, C., & Kwon, O. (2007). An inquiry oriented approach to undergraduate mathematics. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 26, 189–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rasmussen, C., Yackel, E., & King, K. (2003). Social and sociomathematical norms in the mathematics classroom. In H. Schoen & R. Charles (Eds.), Teaching mathematics through problem solving: grades 6–12 (pp. 143–154). Reston, VA: National Council of Instructors of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  28. Rasmussen, C., Nemirovsky, R., Olszewski, J., Dost, K. and Johnson, J. (2004). On forms of knowing: the role of bodily activity and tools in mathematical learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 57.Google Scholar
  29. Rasmussen, C., Stephan, M., & Allen, K. (2004). Classroom mathematical practices and gesturing. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 23, 301–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Reynolds, F. J., & Reeve, R. A. (2002). Gesture in collaborative mathematical problem-solving. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 20, 447–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Roth, W. (2001). Gestures: their role in teaching and learning. Review of Educational Research, 71, 365–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sfard. (1991). On the dual nature of mathematical conceptions: reflections on processes and objects as different sides of the same coin. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sfard. (1992). Operational origins of mathematical objects and the quandary of reification––the case of function. In E. Dubinsky (Ed.), The concept of function: aspects of epistemology and pedagogy (MAA notes #25) (pp. 59–84). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.Google Scholar
  34. Sfard. (2001). There is more to discourse than meets the ears: looking at thinking as communication to learn more about mathematical learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 46, 13–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Newport Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Vinner, S., & Dreyfus, T. (1989). Images and definitions for the concept of function. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 356–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Walkerdine, V. (1988). The mastery of reason: cognitive development and the production of rationality. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Yackel, E., & Rasmussen, C. (2002). Beliefs and norms in the mathematics classroom. In G. Leder, E. Pehkonen, & G. Toerner (Eds.), Beliefs: a hidden variable in mathematics education? (pp. 313–330). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  40. Zandieh, M., & McDonald, M. (1999). Student understanding of equilibrium solution in differential equations. In F. Hitt & M. Santos (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 253–258). Columbus, OH: ERIC.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Inc. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karen Allen Keene
    • 1
  • Chris Rasmussen
    • 2
  • Michelle Stephan
    • 3
  1. 1.North Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  2. 2.San Diego State UniversitySan DiegoUSA
  3. 3.Center for STEM EducationUniversity of North Carolina CharlotteCharlotteUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options