Advertisement

SOCIOMATHEMATICAL NORMS NEGOTIATED IN THE DISCUSSIONS OF TWO SMALL GROUPS INVESTIGATING CALCULUS

  • Anna-Maija PartanenEmail author
  • Raimo Kaasila
Article

ABSTRACT

The concepts of social and sociomathematical norms have proved to be useful in guiding the participation of students in mathematical discussions and developing the quality of their contributions when inquiry-based, collaborative approaches are applied in studying mathematics. The first author conducted a teaching experiment with her 17-year-old upper secondary students. Before teaching the concepts of calculus, she asked the students to answer some questions and solve problems in small groups. The aim was that the students would construct important aspects of the basic concepts by themselves whilst investigating and discussing mathematics. In this paper, we report some findings from the related ethnographic teacher research by describing three sociomathematical norms that were negotiated in the interactions of two small groups. Aspects new to the literature were the norm of creative investigating and the way the appreciation of symbolic representation prohibited the process of meaning construction. Furthermore, the sociomathematical norm of justifications being based on the properties of mathematical objects was established prior to the social norm of justifying.

KEYWORDS

collaborative learning emergent perspective inquiry mathematics small groups sociomathematical norms teacher research 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bauersfeld, H. (1995). The structuring of the structures: Development and function of mathematizing as a social practice. In L. P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 137–158). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. Bauersfeld, H., Krummheuer, G. & Voigt, J. (1988). Interactional theory of learning and teaching mathematics and related microethnographical studies. In H.G. Steiner & A. Vermandel (Eds.), Proceedings of the TME Conference, Foundations and methodology of the discipline of mathematics education. Antwerpen, Belgium (pp. 174-188)Google Scholar
  3. Bergqvist, T., Lithner, J. & Sumpter, L. (2008). Upper secondary students’ task reasoning. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 39(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations. Edited and translated by N. Balacheff, M. Cooper, R. Sutherland & V. Warfield. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Cobb, P., Wood, T. & Yackel, E. (1993). Discourse, mathematical thinking and classroom practice. In E. Forman & A. Stone (Eds.), Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children’s development (pp. 91–119). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cobb, P. & Yackel, E. (1996). Constructivist, emergent and sociocultural perspectives in the context of developmental research. Educational Psychologist, 31(3/4), 175–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cobb, P. & Yackel, E. (1998). A constructivist perspective on the culture of the mathematics classroom. In F. Seeger, J. Voigt & U. Waschescio (Eds.), The culture of the mathematics classroom (pp. 158–190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cobb, P., Yackel, E. & Wood, T. (1989). Young children’s emotional acts while engaged in mathematical problem solving. In D. B. McLeod & V. M. Adams (Eds.), Affect and mathematical problem solving (pp. 117–148). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. (1999). The teacher research movement: A decade later. Educational Researcher, 28(7), 15–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Edwards, J-A. (2007). The language of friendship: Developing sociomathematical norms in the secondary school classroom. In D. Pitta, P. Philippou & G. Philippou (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CERME 5) (pp. 1190–1199). Lancarna, Cyprus.Google Scholar
  12. Elia, I., Gagatsis, A., Panaoura, A., Zachariades, T. & Zoulinaki, F. (2009). Geometric and algebraic approaches in the concept of “limit” and the impact of the “didactic contract”. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(4), 765–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elliot, J. (1991). Action research for educational change. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Erickson, F. (1992). Ethnographic microanalysis of interaction. In M.D. Lecompte, W.L.Google Scholar
  15. Fukawa-Connelly, T. (2012). Classroom sociomathematical norms for proof presentation in undergraduate in abstract algebra. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31(3), 401–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Furinghetti, F. & Pehkonen, E. (2002). Rethinking characterisations of beliefs. In G. Leder, E. Pehkonen & G. Törner (Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education? (pp. 39–57). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  17. Good, T. L., Mulryan, C. & McCaslin, M. (1992). Grouping for instruction in mathematics: A call for programmatic research on small-group processes. In D. Grows (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 165–196). New York: McMillan.Google Scholar
  18. Gorgorio, N. & Planas, N. (2005). Reconstructing norms. In H.L. Chink & J.L. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME 29) Vol. 3 (pp. 65–72). Melbourne.Google Scholar
  19. Gravemeijer, K. (1997). Mediating between concrete and abstract. In T. Nunes & P. Bryant (Eds.), Learning and teaching mathematics: An international perspective (pp. 315–345). Hove, UK: Psychology Press Ltd.Google Scholar
  20. Hammersley, M. & Atkinson, P. (1983). Ethnography: Principles in practice. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
  21. Haylock, D. (1987). A framework for assessing mathematical creativity in schoolchildren. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 18(1), 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Herbel-Eisenmann, B., Hoffmann, A.J. & Seah, W.T. (2003). The role of beliefs, values and norms in mathematics classrooms: A conceptualization of theoretical lenses. Paper presented at the Research Pre-session of National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Annual Meeting, April 9-12, 2003. San Antonio, Texas.Google Scholar
  23. Herbst, P. (2006). Teaching geometry with problems: Negotiating instructional situations and mathematical tasks. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37(4), 313–347.Google Scholar
  24. Kaasila, R. & Lauriala, A. (2010). Towards a collaborative, interactionist model of teacher change. Teaching and Teacher Education 26(4), 854–862.Google Scholar
  25. Kaasila, R., Pehkonen, E. & Hellinen, A. (2010). Finnish pre-service teachers’ and upper secondary students’ understanding on division and reasoning strategies used. Educational Studies in Mathematics 73(3), 247–261.Google Scholar
  26. Kazemi, E. & Stipek, D. (2001). Promoting conceptual thinking in four upper elementary mathematics classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 102(1), 59–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kincheloe, J. (1991). Teachers as researchers: Qualitative inquiry as a path to empowerment. London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  28. Leikin, R. & Zaslavsky, O. (1997). Facilitating students’ interactions in mathematics in a cooperative learning setting. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(3), 331–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lester, F. K., Garofalo, J. & Kroll, D. L. (1989). Self-confidence, interest, beliefs, and metacognition: Key influences on problem-solving behaviour. In D. B. McLeod & V. M. Adams (Eds.), Affect and mathematical problem solving (pp. 75–88). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McClain, K. & Cobb, P. (2001). An analysis of development of sociomathematical norms in one first-grade classroom. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(3), 235–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mehan, H. & Wood, H. (1975). The reality of ethnomethodology. Malarbar, Florida: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company Inc.Google Scholar
  32. Park, J.H., Kwon, O.H., Ju, M.K., Rasmussen, C. & Marrongelle, K. (2007). Roles of revoicing in an inquiry-oriented mathematics class: The case of undergraduate differential equations. Paper presented at the 10th Conference on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 22-25 February 2007. San Diego, California.Google Scholar
  33. Partanen, A-M. (2007). Styles of linguistic peer interaction of girls and boys in four small groups investigating mathematics. Journal of Philosophy of Mathematics Education 21(2). Retrieved from http://people.exeter.ac.uk/PErnest/pome21/index.htm.
  34. Partanen, A-M. (2011). Challenging the school mathematics culture: An investigative small-group approach. Ethnographic teacher research on social and sociomathematical norms. Doctoral dissertation, University of Lapland, Rovaniemi, Finland.Google Scholar
  35. Patterson, N. & Norwood, K. (2004). A case study of teacher beliefs on students’ beliefs about multiple representations. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(1), 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sfard, A. (2001). There is more to discourse than meets the ears: Looking at thinking as communicating to learn more about mathematics learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 46, 13–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tatsis, K. & Koleza, E. (2008). Social and socio-mathematical norms in collaborative problem-solving. European Journal of Teacher Education, 31(1), 89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Treffers, A. (1987). Three dimensions. A model of goal and theory description in mathematics education. The Wiskobas Project. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  39. Voigt, J. (1994). Negotiation of mathematical meaning and learning mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26(2/3), 275–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Voigt, J. (1995). Thematic patterns of interaction and sociomathematical norms. In P. Cobb & H. Bauersfeld (Eds.), Emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom cultures (pp. 163–201). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
  41. von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. London: The Falmer Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yackel, E. & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Yackel, E. & Rasmussen, C. (2002). Beliefs and norms in the mathematics classroom. In G. C. Leder, E. Pehkonen & G. Törner (Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education (pp. 313–330). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationÅbo Akademi UniversityVaasaFinland
  2. 2.Faculty of EducationUniversity of OuluOuluFinland

Personalised recommendations