Advertisement

Investigating the Mathematical Discourse of Young Learners Involved in Multi-Modal Mathematical Investigations: The Case of Haptic Technologies

  • Beste GüçlerEmail author
  • Stephen Hegedus
  • Ryan Robidoux
  • Nicholas Jackiw
Chapter
Part of the Mathematics Education in the Digital Era book series (MEDE, volume 1)

Abstract

In this chapter, we examined the experiences of 10-year old (fourth grade) students in the United States involved in a dynamic multi-modal environment as they explored the characteristics of 3D geometrical shapes. The environment we developed provided visual and physical feedback to students through the PHANTOM Omni® haptic device. This dynamic multi-modal environment enabled semiotic mediation where meanings are generated and substantiated through social interaction as students worked in groups. Adhering to a socio-cultural theoretical perspective, we mainly focused on students’ discourse when exploring the affordances of multi-modal technologies in their mathematical experiences. Our preliminary findings indicated that such technologies have the potential to present students with the opportunities to explore 3D objects through multiple perceptions, supporting meaningful discourse as students engage in mathematical activities such as exploring, conjecturing, negotiating meaning, and sense-making.

Keywords

Multi-modal technologies Mathematical discourse Semiotic mediation Dynamic geometry Haptic technology 3D geometry Elementary grades 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. REC-0835395. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the agency.

References

  1. Dede, C. (1999). The role of emerging technologies for knowledge mobilization, dissemination, and use in education. Washington, DC: Department of Education.Google Scholar
  2. Dede, C. (2007). Reinventing the role of information and communications technologies in education. In L. Smolin, K. Lawless, & N. Burbules (Eds.), Information and communication technologies: Considerations of current practice for teachers and teacher educators (pp. 11–38). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Dede, C., Salzman, M. C., Loftin, R. B., & Sprague, D. (1999). Multisensory immersion as a modeling environment for learning complex scientific concepts. In N. Roberts, W. Feurzeig, & B. Hunter (Eds.), Computer modeling and simulation in science education (pp. 282–319). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Falcade, R., Laborde, C., & Mariotti, M. A. (2007). Approaching functions: Cabri tools as instruments of semiotic mediation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66(3), 317–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hasan, R. (1992). Speech genre, semiotic mediation and the development of higher mental functions. Language Sciences, 14(4), 489–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hegedus, S. (2005). Dynamic representations: A new perspective on instrumental genesis. In M. Bosch (Ed.), Proceedings of CERME 4, the Fourth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education. Barcelona, Spain: Ramon Llull University.Google Scholar
  8. Hegedus, S., Güçler, B., Robidoux, R., & Burke, J. (2011). Examining expressive discourse in multi-modal technology environments. In L. R. Wiest, & T. Lamberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 1989–1990). Reno, NV: University of Nevada.Google Scholar
  9. Holland, D., Skinner, D., Lachicotte, W., & Cain, C. (2003). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Jackiw, N. (1991, 2009). The Geometer’s Sketchpad computer software (version 1; version 5). Emeryville, CA: Key Curriculum Press.Google Scholar
  11. Jackiw, N., & Sinclair, N. (2007). Dynamic geometry activity design for elementary school mathematics. In C. Hoyles, J.-B. Lagrange, L. H. Sun, & N. Sinclair (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth ICMI Study Conference “Technology Revisited” (pp. 236–245). Paris: Hanoi Institute of Technology and Didirem University.Google Scholar
  12. Kaput, J. (1992). Technology and mathematics education. In D. Grouws (Ed.), A handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 515–556). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  13. King, J. R., & Schattschneider, D. (Eds.). (1997). Geometry turned on! Dynamic software in learning, teaching and research. Washington, DC: The Mathematical Association of America.Google Scholar
  14. Kozulin, A. (1990). Vygotsky’s psychology: A biography of ideas. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  15. Laborde, J. M., & Straesser, R. (1990). Cabri-géomètre: A microworld of geometry for guided discovery learning. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 5, 171–177.Google Scholar
  16. Lederman, S. J. (1983). Tactile roughness perception: Spatial and temporal determinants. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 37(4), 498–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mariotti, M. A. (2000). Introduction to proof: The mediation of a dynamic software environment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44(1–2), 25–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Massachusetts Department of Education. (2011). Massachusetts curriculum framework for mathematics. Malden, MA: Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Massachusetts Department of Education. Available at http://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/math/0311.pdf/
  19. McLaughlin, M., Hespanha, J., & Sukhatme, G. (2002). Touch in virtual environments: Haptics and the design of interactive systems. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  20. Minogue, J., & Jones, M. G. (2006). Haptics in education: Exploring an untapped sensory modality. Review of Educational Research, 76(3), 317–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Moreno-Armella, L., Hegedus, S., & Kaput, J. (2008). From static to dynamic mathematics: Historical and representational perspectives. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 68(2), 99–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  23. Pea, R. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 47–87). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Revesz, G. (1950). The psychology and art of the blind. London: Longmans Green.Google Scholar
  25. Sathian, K., Zangaladze, A., Hoffman, J., & Grafton, S. (1997). Feeling with the mind’s eye. Neuroreport, 8(18), 3877–3881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: Human development, the growth of discourses and mathematizing. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Thompson Avant, M. J., & Heller, K. W. (2011). Examining the effectiveness of TouchMath with students with physical disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 32(4), 309–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Verry, R. (1998). Don’t take touch for granted: An interview with Susan Lederman. Teaching Psychology, 25(1), 64–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vygotsky, L. (1980). Mind in society: The development of the higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Zangaladze, A., Epstein, C. M., Grafton, S. T., & Sathian, K. (1999). Involvement of visual cortex in tactile discrimination of orientation. Nature, 401(6753), 587–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Beste Güçler
    • 1
    Email author
  • Stephen Hegedus
    • 1
  • Ryan Robidoux
    • 1
  • Nicholas Jackiw
    • 2
  1. 1.Kaput Center for Research and Innovation in STEM EducationUniversity of Massachusetts DartmouthFairhavenUSA
  2. 2.KCP TechnologiesEmeryvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations