Abstract
This study explores interactions with diagrams that are involved in geometrical reasoning; more specifically, how students publicly make and justify conjectures through multimodal representations of diagrams. We describe how students interact with diagrams using both gestural and verbal modalities, and examine how such multimodal interactions with diagrams reveal their reasoning. We argue that when limited information is given in a diagram, students make use of gestural and verbal expressions to compensate for those limitations as they engage in making and proving conjectures. The constraints of a diagram, gestures and linguistic systems are semiotic resources that students may use to engage in geometrical reasoning.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The word modality is often used to refer to each of the semiotic systems used in communication; thus the expression “multimodal representation” used above. Modality is also used in linguistics with a different meaning. Particularly, in systemic linguistics, modality is used to name one of the systems with which speakers construct relationships with their audience. This is the sense with which it is used in this section. Elsewhere in the paper we may use modality in the first, semiotic, sense. The context will help clarify what is the usage alluded to.
All the names of the teachers and students in this paper are pseudonyms.
References
Arzarello, F. (2006). Semiosis as a multimodal process. Revista Latinoamericana de Investigación en Matemática Educativa, 9(1), 267–299.
Arzarello, F., Paola, D., Robutti, O., & Sabena, C. (2009). Gestures as semiotic resources in the mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(2), 97–109.
Boyd, C., Burrill, G., Cummins, J., Kanold, T., & Malloy, C. (1998). Geometry: Integration, applications, connections. New York: Glencoe-Mc Graw Hill.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.
Common Core Standards Initiative [CCSI]. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Retrieved from Common Core Standards Initiative website: http://corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_Math%20Standards.pdf.
Cook, S. W., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2006). The role of gesture in learning: Do children use their hands to change their minds? Journal of Cognition and Development, 7(2), 211–232.
Duval, R. (1995). Geometrical pictures: Kinds of representation and specific processings. In R. Sutherland & J. Mason (Eds.), Exploiting mental imagery with computers in mathematics education (pp. 142–157). Berlin: Springer.
Fischbein, E. (1993). The theory of figural concepts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24, 139–162.
Goldin-Meadow, S., & Singer, M. A. (2003). From children‘s hands to adults’ ear: Gesture’s role in the learning process. Development psychology, 39(3), 509–520.
Greeno, J. G. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53(1), 5–26.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Hodder Arnold.
Herbst, P. (2004). Interaction with diagrams and the making of reasoned conjectures in geometry. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 36(5), 129–139.
Herbst, P. (2006). Teaching geometry with problems: Negotiating instructional situations and mathematical tasks. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37(4), 313–347.
Herbst, P., & Brach, C. (2006). Proving and proof in high school geometry: What is ‘it’ that is going on for students and how do they make sense of it? Cognition and Instruction, 24(1), 73–122.
Herbst, P., Chen, C.-L., Weiss, M., González, G., Nachlieli, T., Hamlin, M., et al. (2009). “Doing proofs” in geometry classrooms. In D. Stylianou, M. Blanton, & E. Knuth (Eds.), Teaching and learning proof across the grades (pp. 250–268). New York: Routledge.
Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: Visible action as utterance. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Laborde, C. (2005). The hidden role of diagrams in students’ construction of meaning in geometry. In J. Kilpartrick, C. Hoyles, O. Skovsmose, & P. Valero (Eds.), Meaning in mathematics education (pp. 159–179). New York: Springer.
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lemke, J. (2009). Learning to mean mathematically. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 16(3), 281–284.
Mariotti, M. A. (1995). Images and concepts in geometrical reasoning. In R. Sutherland & J. Mason (Eds.), Exploiting mental imagery with computers in mathematics education. Berlin: Springer.
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2003). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. London: Continuum.
Maschietto, M., & Bartolini Bussi, M. G. (2009). Working with artefacts: Gestures, drawings and speech in the construction of the mathematical meaning of the visual pyramid. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(2), 143–157.
McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McNeill, D. (1998). Speech and gesture integration. New Direction for Child Development, 79, 11–28.
NCTM. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Nemirovsky, R., & Tierney, C. (2001). Children creating ways to represent changing situations: On the development of homogeneous spaces. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 45, 67–102.
Nemirovsky, R., Tierney, C., & Wright, T. (1998). Body motion and graphing. Cognition and Instruction, 16(2), 119–172.
Núñez, R. (2004). Do real numbers really move? Language, thought, and gesture: The embodied cognitive foundations of mathematics. In F. Iida, R. Pfeifer, L. Steels, & Y. Kuniyashi (Eds.), Embodied artificial intelligence (pp. 54–73). Berlin: Springer.
O’Connor, M. C. (1998). Language socialization in the mathematics classroom: Discourse practices and mathematical thinking. In M. Lampert & M. Blunk (Eds.), Talking mathematics in school: Studies of teaching and learning (pp. 17–55). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pozzer-Ardenghi, L., & Roth, W.-M. (2005). Photographs in lectures: Gestures as meaning-making resources. Linguistics and Education, 15, 275–293.
Presmeg, N. C. (2001). Visualization and affect in nonroutine problem solving. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 3(4), 289–313.
Radford, L. (2009). Why do gestures matter? Sensuous cognition and the palpability of mathematical meanings. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(2), 111–126.
Roth, W.-M., & Lawless, D. (2002a). Scientific investigations, metaphorical gestures, and the emergence of abstract scientific concepts. Learning and Instruction, 12, 285–304.
Roth, W.-M., & Lawless, D. (2002b). When up is down and down is up: Body orientation, proximity, and gestures as resources. Language in Society, 31, 1–28.
Roth, W.-M., & Welzel, M. (2001). From activity to gestures and scientific language. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 103–136.
Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.
Sfard, A. (2001). There is more to discourse than meets the ears: Looking at thinking as communicating to learn more about mathematical learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 46, 13–57.
Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: Human development, the growth of discourses, and mathematizing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Zack, V., & Graves, B. (2001). Making mathematical meaning through dialogue: “Once you think of it, the Z minus three seems pretty weird”. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 46, 229–271.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The research reported in this study was done with the support of a National Science Foundation CAREER grant, REC 0133619 to the second author. All opinions are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Foundation.
Appendix: activity worksheet of the intervention lesson
Appendix: activity worksheet of the intervention lesson
There are six lines on the paper and some of their intersections are not visible.
-
1.
Would it be possible for somebody to determine the measures of all the angles formed by those lines, considering that not all angles can be measured? Explain.
-
2.
What is the total number of different angle measures that one would need to determine? Explain.
-
3.
How many of those angle measures would be impossible to find unless one could extend the lines beyond the screen limits? Explain.
-
4.
What is the minimum number of angles that one would have to measure before being able to say “I know all the angle measures”? Explain.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chen, CL., Herbst, P. The interplay among gestures, discourse, and diagrams in students’ geometrical reasoning. Educ Stud Math 83, 285–307 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9454-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9454-2