Abstract
Diagrams and physical manipulatives are often recommended as useful semiotic resources for visualising area and volume problems in which nonlinear reasoning is appropriate. However, the mere presence of diagrams and physical manipulatives does not guarantee students will recognise the appropriateness of nonlinear reasoning.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
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.
Blum, W., & Niss, M. (1991). Applied mathematical problem solving, modelling, applications, and links to other subjects – State, trends and issues in mathematics instruction. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22(1), 37–68.
De Bock, D., van Dooren, W., Janssens, D., & Verschaffel, L. (2002). Improper use of linear reasoning: An in-depth study of the nature and the irresistibility of secondary school students’ errors. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 50, 311–334.
De Bock, D., Verschaffel, L., Janssens, D., van Dooren, W., & Claes K. (2003). Do realistic contexts and graphical representations always have a beneficial impact on students’ performance? Negative evidence from a study on modeling non-linear geometry problems. Learning and Instruction, 13, 441–463.
Diezmann, C. (2005). Primary students’ knowledge of the properties of spatially oriented diagrams. In H. Chick & J. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 281–288). Melbourne, Australia: PME.
Duval, R. (2006).A cognitive analysis of problems of comprehension in a learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61, 103–131.
Esteley, C., Villarreal, M., & Alagia, H. (2004). Extending linear models to non-linear contexts: An in depth study about two university students’ mathematical productions. In M. J. Høines & A. B. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 343–350). Bergen, Norway: International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.
Gibson, D, (1998). Students’ use of diagrams to develop proofs in an introductory analysis course. In A. Schoenfeld, J. Kaput, & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), Research in collegiate mathematics education (Vol. 7, pp. 284–307). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.
Kaput, J. J. (1989). Linking representations in the symbol systems of algebra. In S. Wagner & C. Kieran (Eds.), Research issues in the learning and teaching of algebra (pp. 167–194). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Koedinger, K. (1994). Emergent properties and structural constraints: Advantages of diagrammatic representations for reasoning and learning. In B. Chandrasekaran & H. Simon (Eds.), Reasoning with diagrammatic representations (pp. 151–156). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
Lamon, S. (2007). Rational numbers and proportional reasoning: Toward a theoretical framework for research. In F. K. J. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 629–667). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. (Eds.). (2003). Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lesh, R., Hoover, M., Hole, B., Kelly, A., & Post, T. (2000). Principles for developing thought-revealing activities for students and teachers. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 591–646). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Liljedahl, P. (2005). Mathematical discovery and affect: The effect of AHA! Experiences on undergraduate mathematics students. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 36(2–3), 219–236.
Modestou, M., Elia, I., & Gagatsis, A. (2008). Behind the scenes of pseudo proportionality. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 39(3), 313–332.
Niss, M., Blum, W., & Galbraith, P. (2007). Introduction. In W. Blum, P. Galbraith, M. Niss, & H.-W. Henn (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education: The 14th ICMI study (New ICMI Studies Series) (Vol. 10, pp. 3–33). New York, NY: Springer.
Nunokawa, K. (2006). Using drawings and generating information in mathematical problem solving. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2(3), 33–35.
Pantziara, M., Gagatsis, A., & Elia, I. (2009). Using diagram as tools for the solution of non-routine mathematical problems. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72, 39–60.
Peirce, C. S. (1931/1958). In C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss, & A. Burks (Eds.), Collected papers (Vols. I–VIII). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Polya, G. (1957). How to solve it. Princeton, NJ: University Press.
Radford, L. (2009). Why do gestures matter? Sensuous cognition and the palpability of mathematical meanings. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(2), 111–126.
Schoenfeld, A. (1994). Mathematical thinking and problem solving. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Shaughnessy, J. M. (1992). Research in probability and statistics: Reflections and directions. In A. D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research in mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 465–494). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Stillman, G., Galbraith, P., Brown, J., & Edwards, I. (2007). A framework for success in implementing mathematical modelling in the secondary classroom. In J. Watson & K. Beswick (Eds.), Mathematics: Essential research, essential practice: Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Research Group of Australiasia, Hobart (pp. 688–707). Adelaide, Australia: MERGA.
Thomas, M. O. J. (2008). Developing versatility in mathematical thinking. Mediterranean Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 7(2), 67–87.
Thompson, D. W. (1992). On growth and form: The complete revised edition. New York, NY: Dover Publications.
Treffers, A. (1987). A model of goal and theory description in mathematics instruction: The Wiskobas project. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.
van Dooren, W., De Bock, D., Hessels, A., Janssens, D., & Verschaffel, L. (2005). Not everything is proportional: Effects of age and problem type on propensities for over generalization. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 57–86.
van Leeuwen, T. (2005). Introducing social semiotics. New York, NY: Routledge.
Yoon, C., Radonich P., & Sullivan, N. (in press). Volume and space: The snapper problem and variations. New Zealand: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Sense Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Yoon, C., Miskell, T. (2016). Visualising Cubic Reasoning with Semiotic Resources and Modeling Cycles. In: Sáenz-Ludlow, A., Kadunz, G. (eds) Semiotics as a Tool for Learning Mathematics. Semiotic Perspectives in the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics Series. SensePublishers, Rotterdam. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-337-7_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-337-7_5
Publisher Name: SensePublishers, Rotterdam
Online ISBN: 978-94-6300-337-7
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)