Using multiple metaphors and multimodalities as a semiotic resource when teaching year 2 students computational strategies
Abstract
Recent research indicates that using multimodal learning experiences can be effective in teaching mathematics. Using a social semiotic lens within a participationist framework, this paper reports on a professional learning collaboration with a primary school teacher designed to explore the use of metaphors and modalities in mathematics instruction. This video case study was conducted in a year 2 classroom over two terms, with the focus on building children’s understanding of computational strategies. The findings revealed that the teacher was able to successfully plan both multimodal and multiple metaphor learning experiences that acted as semiotic resources to support the children’s understanding of abstract mathematics. The study also led to implications for teaching when using multiple metaphors and multimodalities.
Keywords
Semiotic resources Mental strategies Primary mathematics Video researchReferences
- Ainsworth, S., Bibby, P., & Wood, D. (2009). Examining the effects of different representational systems in learning primary mathematics. Journal of the learning sciences, 11(1), 25–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Alibali, M., & Nathan, M. (2007). Teachers’ gestures as a means of scaffolding students’ understanding: evidence from an early algebra lesson. Video research in the learning sciences, 349–365.Google Scholar
- Arzarello , F. (2006). Semiosis as a multimodal process. Relime (Revista Latinoamericana de Investigación en Matemática Educativa),(Special issue), 267–299.Google Scholar
- Askew, M., Brown, M., Rhodes, V., Johnson, D., & Wiliam, D. (1997). Effective teachers of numeracy. London: Kings College.Google Scholar
- Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (2011). The Australian curriculum: Mathematics.Google Scholar
- Baroody, A. (1984). Children’s difficulties in subtraction: some causes and questions. Journal for research in mathematics education, 203–213.Google Scholar
- Edmonds-Wathan. (2012). Spatial metaphors of the number line. In J. Dindyal, L. PCheng, & S. F. Ng (Eds.), Mathematics education: expanding horizons : proceedings of the 35th annual conference of the mathematics education research group of Australasia. Singapore: MERGA.Google Scholar
- Erickson, F. (2006). Definition and analysis of data from videotape: some research procedures and their rationales. In J. Green, G. Camilli, & P. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 177–191). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Flewitt, R. (2006). Using video to investigate preschool classroom interaction: education research assumptions and methodological practices. Visual Communication, 5(25).Google Scholar
- Garcez, P. (1997). Microethnography. In N. H. Hornberger & D. Corson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: research methods in language and education (pp. 187–196). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Griffin, S. (2004). Number worlds: a research based mathematics program for young children. In D. Clements & J. Sarama (Eds.), Engaging young children in mathematics (pp. 325–342). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Hackling, M., Murcia, K., Ibrahim-Didi, K., & Hill, S. (2014). Methods for multimodal analysis and representation of teaching-learning interactions in primary science lessons captured on video . Paper presented at the proceedings of conference of the European science education research association, University of Cyprus, Nicosia.Google Scholar
- Haylock, D. (1984). A mathematical think-board. Mathematics Teaching (108), 4–5.Google Scholar
- Ho, S., & Lowrie, T. (2014). The model method: students’ performance and its effectiveness. The Journal of mathematical behavior, 35, 87–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Howell, S., & Kemp, C. (2005). Defining early number sense: a participatory Australian study. Educational Psychology, 25(5), 555–571. doi: 10.1080/01443410500046838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: a social semiotic approach to contemporary communication: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: the embodied mind and its challenge to western thought: Basic books.Google Scholar
- Lakoff, G., & Nunez, R. (2000). Where mathematics comes from. New York, NY: Basic books.Google Scholar
- Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: language learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publsihing Corporation.Google Scholar
- Lemke, J. (2002). Mathematics in the middle: measure, picture, gesture, sign, and word. In M. Anderson, A. Saenz-Ludlow, S. Zellweger, & V. Cifarelli (Eds.), Educational perspectives on mathematics as semiosis: from thinking to interpreting to knowing (pp. 215–234). Ottawa: Legas Publishing.Google Scholar
- McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: what gestures reveal about thought. University of Chicago pressGoogle Scholar
- Mildenhall P. (2015). Early years teachers’ perspectives on teaching through multiple. metaphors and multimodality. Paper presented at the Mathematics education in the margins, Sunshine Coast.Google Scholar
- Mowat, E., & Davis, B. (2010). Interpreting embodied mathematics using network theory: implications for mathematics education. Complicity: an international journal of complexity and education, 7(1).Google Scholar
- Murdiyani, N., Zulkardi, Z., Ilma, R., Galen, F., & Eerde, D. (2014). Developing a model to support students in solving subtraction. Journal on mathematics education, 4(01), 95–112.Google Scholar
- National Council of Mathematics Teachers. (2006). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Retrieved 2nd April, 2008, from http://www.nctm.org/standards/default.aspx?id=58
- O'Halloran, K. (2005). Mathematical discourse: language, symbolism and visual images. London, England: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
- Peirce, S., & Welby, V. (1977). Semiotic and Significs. London: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
- Radford, L. (2003). Gestures, speech, and the sprouting of signs: a semiotic-cultural approach to students' types of generalization. Mathematical thinking and learning, 5(1), 37–70. doi: 10.1207/S15327833MTL0501_02.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sarama, J., & Clements, D. (2004). Building blocks for early childhood mathematics. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19(1), 181–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: human development, the growth of discourse, and mathematizing. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Torbeyns, J., De Smedt, B., Stassens, N., Ghesquière, P., & Verschaffel, L. (2009). Solving subtraction problems by means of indirect addition. Mathematical thinking and learning, 11(1–2), 79–91. doi: 10.1080/10986060802583998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Vilette, B. (2002). Do young children grasp the inverse relationship between addition and subtraction?: evidence against early arithmetic. Cognitive development, 17(3), 1365–1383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Vygotsky, L. (1933). Play and its role in the mental development of the child. Soviet psychology, 12, 6–18.Google Scholar
- Wright, R., Stanger, G., Stafford, A., & Martland, J. (2014). Teaching number in the classroom with 4–8 year olds. London: Sage publications.Google Scholar
- Yin, R. (2009). Case study research design and methods. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.Google Scholar