# The mathematical discourse of 13-year-old partnered problem solving and its relation to the mathematics that emerges

- 381 Downloads
- 16 Citations

## Abstract

This paper, written within a discursive perspective, explores the co-shaping of public and private discourse, and some of the circumstances under which one occasions the other, in the evolution of mathematical thinking by pairs of 13-year-olds. The discourse of six pairs of students, engaged in interpreting and graphing problem situations involving rational functions, was analyzed by means of recently developed methodological tools. The nature of the mathematics that emerged for each pair was found to be related to several factors that included the characteristics of the interpersonal object-level utterances both before and after the solution path had been generated, the degree of activity of the personal channels of the interlocutors, and the extent to which the thoughts of participants were made explicit in the public discourse. The analysis of the discursive interactions provided evidence that adolescents within novel problem situations can experience some difficulty in making their emergent thinking available to their partners in such a way that the interaction be highly mathematically productive for both of them.

## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## REFERENCES

- Bartolini Bussi, M.G. and Mariotti, M.A.: 1999, ‘Semiotic mediation: from history to the mathematics classroom’,
*For the Learning of Mathematics*19(2), 27–35.Google Scholar - Cole, M. and Wertsch, J.V.: n.d.,
*Beyond the individual-social antimony in discussions of Piaget and Vygotsky*, Web site: http://www.massey.ac.nz/~ALock/virtual/colevyg.htm.Google Scholar - Dembo, M.H. and McAuliffe, T.J.: 1987, ‘Effects of perceived ability and grade status on social interaction and influence in cooperative groups’,
*Journal of Educational Psychology*79, 415–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Edwards, D.: 1993, ‘But what do children really think?: Discourse analysis and conceptual content in children's talk’,
*Cognition and Instruction*11(3&4), 207–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Edwards, D. and Potter, J.: 1992,
*Discursive Psychology*,Sage, London, UK.Google Scholar - Fey, J. and Heid, M.K.: 1991,
*Computer-intensive algebra*,The University of Maryland and The Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar - Forman, E.: 1989, ‘The role of peer interaction in the social construction of mathematical knowledge’, in N.M. Webb (ed.),
*Peer Interaction, Problem-Solving, and Cognition: Multidisciplinary Perspectives*, Pergamon, Oxford, U.K., pp. 55–70.Google Scholar - Forman, E.A. and Cazden, C.B.: 1985, ‘Exploring Vygotskian perspectives in education: The cognitive value of peer interaction’, in J.V. Wertsch (ed.),
*Culture, Communication, and Cognition: Vygotskian Perspectives*,Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 323–347.Google Scholar - Fuson, K.C.: 1980, ‘An explication of three theoretical constructs from Vygotsky’, in T. Kieren (ed.),
*Recent Research in Number Learning*, ERIC/SMEAC, Columbus, OH.Google Scholar - Glachan, M. and Light, P.: 1982, ‘Peer interaction and learning: Can two wrongs make a right?’, in G. Butterworth and P. Light (eds.),
*Social Cognition: Studies in the Development of Understanding*, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 238–262.Google Scholar - Grice, H.P.: 1968,
*Logic and Conversation: The William James Lectures*,Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar - Harré R. and Gillett, G.: 1994,
*The Discursive Mind*,Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar - Hatano, G. and Inagaki, K.: 1994, April,
*A Two-Level Analysis of Collective Comprehension Activity*,Paper presented at the Symposium on Integrating the Cognitive and Social in the Construction of Mathematical and Scientific Knowledge, AERA meeting, New Orleans.Google Scholar - Hershkowitz, R. and Schwarz, B.: 1997, ‘Unifying cognitive and sociocultural aspects in research on learning the function concept’, in E. Pehkonen (ed.),
*Proceedings of the 21st International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education*,PME Program Committee, Lahti, Finland, Vol. 1, pp.148–164.Google Scholar - Kieran, C.: 1994, ‘A functional approach to the introduction of algebra: Some pros and cons’, in J.P. da Ponte and J.F. Matos (eds.),
*Proceedings of the 18th International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education*,PME Program Committee, Lisbon, Portugal, Vol. 1, pp.157–175.Google Scholar - Kieran, C. and Dreyfus, T.: 1998, ‘Collaborative versus individual problem solving: Entering another's universe of thought’, in A. Olivier and K. Newstead (eds.),
*Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education*,PME Program Committee, Stellenbosch, South Africa, Vol. 3, pp. 112–119.Google Scholar - Kieran, C. and Sfard, A.: 1999, ‘Seeing through symbols: The case of equivalent expressions’,
*Focus on Learning Mathematics*21(1),1–17.Google Scholar - Leikin, R. and Zaslavsky, O.: 1997, ‘Facilitating student interactions in mathematics in a cooperative learning setting’,
*Journal for Research in Mathematics Education*28,331–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O. and Stein, M.K.: 1990, ‘Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning, and teaching’,
*Review of Educational Research*60, 1–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Lerman, S.: 1998, ‘A moment in the zoom of a lens: Toward a discursive psychology of mathematics teaching and learning’, in A. Olivier and K. Newstead (eds.),
*Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education*, PME Program Committee, Stellenbosch, South Africa, Vol. 1, pp.66–81.Google Scholar - Linn, M.C. and Burbules, N.C.: 1993, ‘Construction of knowledge and group learning’, in K. Tobin (ed.),
*The Practice of Constructivism in Science Education*, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC, pp.91–119.Google Scholar - Lotman, Y.M.: 1988, ‘Text within a text’,
*Soviet Psychology*26(3),32–51.Google Scholar - Meira, L. and Carraher, D., (eds.): 1995,
*Proceedings of the 19th International Conference for the Psychology ofMathematics Education*,PME Program Committee, Recife, Brazil.Google Scholar - Noss, R. and Hoyles, C.:1996,
*Windows on Mathematical Meanings: Learning Cultures and Computers*,Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar - O'Connor, M.C.: 1996, ‘Managing the intermental: Classroom group discussion and the social context of learning’, in D.I. Slobin, J. Gerhardt, A. Kyratzis and J. Guo (eds.),
*Social Interaction, Social Context, and Language*,Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp.495–509.Google Scholar - Reddy, M.J.: 1979, ‘The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language’, in A. Ortony (ed.),
*Metaphor and Thought*,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.282–324.Google Scholar - Rosenberg, J.: 1992,
*Math Connections: Algebra II*[Computer software],WINGS for Learning, Inc., Scotts Valley, CA.Google Scholar - Salomon, G. and Globerson, T.: 1989, ‘When teams do not function the way they ought to’, in N.M. Webb (ed.),
*Peer Interaction, Problem-Solving, and Cognition: Multidisciplinary Perspectives*,Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK, pp. 89–99.Google Scholar - Sfard, A.: 2000, ‘Steering (dis)course between metaphors and rigor: Using focal analysis to investigate an emergence of mathematical objects’,
*Journal for Research inMathematics Education*31,296–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Sfard, A. and Kieran, C.: 2001, ‘Cognition as communication: Rethinking learning-bytalking through multi-faceted analysis of students' mathematical interactions’,
*Mind, Culture, and Activity*8(1),42–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Shotter, J. and Billig, M.: 1998, ‘A Bakhtinian psychology: From out of the heads of individuals and into the dialogues between them’, in M.M. Bell and M. Gardiner (eds.),
*Bakhtin and the Human Sciences*, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 13–29.Google Scholar - Streefland, L., (ed.): 1985,
*Proceedings of the 9th International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education*,PME Program Committee, Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands.Google Scholar - Teasley, S.D.: 1995, ‘The role of talk in children's peer collaborations’,
*Developmental Psychology*31(2),207–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Trognon, A.:1993, ‘How does the process of interaction work when two interlocutors try to resolve a logical problem?’,
*Cognition and Instruction*11(3&4),325–345.Google Scholar - Vion, R.: 1999, ‘Linguistique et communication verbale’, in M. Gilly, J.-P. Roux and A. Trognon (eds.),
*Apprendre dans l'Interaction: Analyse des Médiations Sémiotiques*, Presses universitaires de Nancy, Nancy, FR, pp.41–67.Google Scholar - Vygotsky, L.S.: 1981, ‘The instrumental method in psychology’, in J.V. Wertsch (ed.),
*The Concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology*,M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY, pp. 134–143.Google Scholar - Vygotsky, L.S.:1987, ‘Thinking and speech’, in R.W. Rieber and A.S. Carton (eds.),
*The Collected Works of L.S. Vygotsky: Vol. 1, Problems of General Psychology*(trans. N. Minick), Plenum, NY, pp.39–285.Google Scholar - Webb, N.M.: 1991, ‘Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups’,
*Journal for Research in Mathematics Education*22, 366–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Wertsch, J.V., (ed.): 1985,
*Culture, Communication, and Cognition: Vygotskian Perspectives*, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar - Wertsch, J.V.: 1998,
*Mind as Action*, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar - Wittgenstein, L.: 1953,
*Philosophical Investigations*(trans. G.E.M. Anscombe), Blackwell, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar