Advertisement

A ROLE FOR LANGUAGE ANALYSIS IN MATHEMATICS TEXTBOOK ANALYSIS

  • Lisa O’KeeffeEmail author
  • John O’Donoghue
Article

Abstract

In current textbook analysis research, there is a strong focus on the content, structure and expectation presented by the textbook as elements for analysis. This research moves beyond such foci and proposes a framework for textbook language analysis which is intended to be integrated into an overall framework for mathematics textbook analysis. The language of mathematics plays a pivotal role in mathematics classrooms and textbooks worldwide. However, because of the complexity of this language, generic methods of language analysis are insufficient to effectively evaluate the language of mathematics as it is used in mathematics textbooks. This paper presents a framework for mathematics textbook language analysis. In support of the proposed framework, the paper also presents an initial application of this framework by means of an analysis of the language (English) in lower-level Irish secondary school mathematics textbooks. While this study is based in an Irish context, the framework and findings will be of interest to an international audience particularly those interested in textbook analysis and the language of mathematics and will add value to research in this area.

Key words

Halliday’s functional grammar analysis mathematics language analysis textbook analysis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abedi, J. & Lord, C. (2001). The language factor in mathematics tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 14(3), 219–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aiken, L. (1972). Language factors in learning mathematics. Review of Educational Research 5(3), 359–385.Google Scholar
  3. Austin, J. L., & Howson, A. G. (1979). Language and Mathematical Education. Educational Studies in Mathematics 10, 161–197.Google Scholar
  4. Baroody, A. J. (1993). Fostering the mathematical learning of young children. In B. Spodek (Ed.), Handbook of research on the education of young children (pp. 151–175). New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  5. Bell, P. (1970). Basic Teaching for Slow Learners. London: Miller.Google Scholar
  6. Chapman, A. (1993). Language and learning in school mathematics: a social semiotic perspective. Issues in Educational Research, 3(1), 35–46.Google Scholar
  7. Davis, B. (1997). Listening for differences: An evolving conception of mathematics teaching. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(3), 355–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DfE (1999). The national numeracy strategy; mathematics vocabulary. London: DfE publications.Google Scholar
  9. Ernest, P. (1989). The impact of beliefs on the teaching of mathematics. Mathematics Teaching: The State of the Art, 249–254.Google Scholar
  10. Ernest, P. (1991). The Philosophy of Mathematics Education. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  11. Fortanet, I. (2004). The use of ‘we’ in University Lectures: reference and function. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 45–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gerofsky, S. (1999). Genre analysis as a way of understanding pedagogy in mathematics education. For the Learning of Mathematics, 19(3), 34–46.Google Scholar
  13. Glynn, S. & Britton, B. (1986). Supporting reader' comprehension through effctive text design. Educational Technology, 24(10), 40–43.Google Scholar
  14. Godino, J., Font, V., Wilhelmi, M. & Lurduy, O. (2011). Why is the learning of elementary arithmetic concepts difficult? Semiotic tools for understanding the nature of mathematical objects. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 77(2), 247–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Halliday, M. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  16. Herbel-Eisenmann, B. & Wagner, D. (2005). In the middle of nowhere: How a textbook can position the mathematics learner. In H. L. Chick & J. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, volume 3, Melbourne (pp. 121–128).Google Scholar
  17. Hiebert, J. & Carpenter, T. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics education (pp. 65–97). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  18. Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., Garnier, H., Givvin, K. B., Hollingsworth, H., Jacobs, J., Chui, A., et al (2003). Teaching mathematics in seven countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study. Washington, DC: National Centre for Education Statistics, March.Google Scholar
  19. Kamio, A. (2001). English generic we, you and they: An analysis in terms of territory of information. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1111–1124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J. & Findell, B. (2001). Adding it up—Helping children learn mathematics. Washington DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  21. Marks, C., Doctorow, M. & Wittrock, M. (1974). Word frequency and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Research, 67, 259–262.Google Scholar
  22. Martin, J. (1989). Factual writing: Exploring and challenging social reality (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Martin, J. R. (1992). English Text: System and Structure. Philadelphia: John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar
  24. Mayer, R. (1981). Frequency norms and structural analysis of algebraic story problems into families. Categories and Templates, Instructional Science, 10, 135–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mikk, J. (2000). Textbook: Research and writing. Oxford: Lang.Google Scholar
  26. Mikk, J. & Kukemelk, H. (2010). The relationship of text features to the level of interest in science texts. TRAMES 14(1), 54–70.Google Scholar
  27. Morgan, C. (1995). An analysis of the discourse of written reports of investigative work in GCSE mathematics. Unpublished, University of London.Google Scholar
  28. Morgan, C. (2004). Writing mathematically: The discourse of investigation. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  29. NCCA (2006). Review of mathematics in post primary education: Report on the consultation. Dublin: Government Publications.Google Scholar
  30. Noonan, J. (1990). Readability problems presented by mathematics texts. Early Child Development and Care, 54, 57–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. O’Halloran, K. (2005). Mathematical discourse, language, symbolism and visual images. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  32. Orey, M. (2001). Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching and technology. Available from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=ConceptualChange. Accessed Oct 2008.
  33. Orton, A. (2004). Learning mathematics: Issues, theories and classroom practice. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  34. Österholom, M. (2005). Characterising reading comprehension of mathematical texts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63, 325–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Österholm, M. (2006). HYPERLINK http://osterholm.pcriot.com/publ-esm2006.shtml Characterizing reading comprehension of mathematical texts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63, 325–346.Google Scholar
  36. Pimm, D. (1987). Speaking mathematically: Communication in mathematics classrooms. London: Routledge Press.Google Scholar
  37. Pimm, D. (1997). Speaking Mathematically: Communication in Mathematics Classrooms. London: Routledge Press.Google Scholar
  38. Pingel, F. (1999). UNESCO guidebook on textbook research and textbook revision. France: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  39. Pinto, M. (1998). Student’ understanding of real analysis. Unpublished PhD thesis, Warwick University.Google Scholar
  40. Pinto, M. & Tall, D. (1999). Student constructions of formal theory: Giving and extracting meaning. In O. Zaslavsky (Ed.), Proceedings of the 23rd Conference of PME, 3. Haifa, Israel (pp. 281–288).Google Scholar
  41. Pinto, M. & Tall, D. (2002). Building formal mathematics on visual imagery: A case study and a theory. For the Learning of Mathematics, 22(1), 2–10.Google Scholar
  42. Rezat, S. (2006). The structures of German mathematics textbooks. The International Journal on Mathematics Education (ZDM), 38(6), 482–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rezat, S. (2008), Learning mathematics with textbooks. In O. Figueras, J. L. Cortina, S. Alatorre, T. Rojano & A. Sepúlveda (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Conference of PME, 4, (pp 177–184). Mexico.Google Scholar
  44. Rivers, J. (1990). Contextual analysis of problems in algebra 1 textbooks, University of South Carolina, presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April, Boston, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  45. Robinson, J. (1981). Research in Science Education: New Questions, New Directions. National Centre of Education, Educational Resources Information Centre.Google Scholar
  46. Robitaille, D. & Travers, K. (1992). International studies of achievement in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics education (pp. 687–709). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  47. Rotman, B. (2006). Towards a semiotics of mathematics. In R. Hersh (Ed.), 18 unconventional essays on the nature of mathematics, chapter 6 (pp. 97–127). Springer: New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schleppegrell, M. (2007). The linguistic challenges of mathematics teaching and learning: A research review. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23(2), 139–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., Valverde, G. A., Houang, R. T. & Wiley, D. E. (1997). Many visions, many aims—volume 1 (a cross national investigation of curricular intentions in school mathematics). London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  50. Schoenfeld, A. (1988). When good teaching leads to bad results: the disasters of “well-taught” mathematics courses. Educational Psychologists, 23(2), 145–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Shuard, H. & Rothery, A. (1984). Children reading mathematics. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  52. Silver, E. A. (1990). Contributions of research to practice: Applying findings, methods, and perspectives. In T. J. Cooney & C. R. Hirsch (Eds.), Teaching and learning mathematics in the 1990s (pp. 1–11). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  53. Skemp, R. (1971). The psychology of learning mathematics. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.Google Scholar
  54. Skemp, R. (1982). Communicating mathematics: surface structures and deep structure. Visible Language, 281–288.Google Scholar
  55. Sönnerhed, W.W. (2011). Mathematics textbooks for teaching: An analysis of content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge concerning algebra in mathematics textbooks in Swedish upper secondary education. Dissertation, Gothenburg University. Available from https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/27935/1/gupea_2077_27935_1.pdf. Accessed August 2012.
  56. State Examinations Commission (2011). Available [online], http://www.examinations.ie/statistics/statistics_2011/2011_Leaving_Certificate_Statistics.pdf, Accessed: February 2012.
  57. Svinicki, M. & Dixon, N. (1987). The Kolb model modified for classroom activities. College Teaching, 35, 141–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Valverde, G., Bianchi, L., Wolfe, R., Schmidt, W. & Houang, R. (2002). According to the book: Using TIMSS to investigate the translation of policy into practice through the world of textbooks. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Van Dormolen, J. (1986). Textual analysis. In B. Christiansen, A. G. Howson & M. Otte (Eds.), Perspectives on mathematical education (pp. 141–171). Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.NCE-MSTLUniversity of LimerickLimerickIreland
  2. 2.NCE-MSTL Department of EducationUniversity of BedfordshireLimerickIreland

Personalised recommendations