The Development of Two High School Students’ Discourses on Geometric Translation in Relation to the Teacher’s Discourse in the Classroom
More details
Hide details
Gazi University, Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Ankara, TURKEY
University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, Kaput Center for Research and Innovation in STEM Education, Dartmouth, Massachusetts, USA
Online publish date: 2018-02-10
Publish date: 2018-02-10
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2018;14(5):1605–1619
Academic Editor: Susanne Prediger
Research exploring student development on geometric translation in relation to classroom teaching is scarce. We used a qualitative case study design and examined two students’ development of thinking on translation in relation to the teacher’s discourse in a Turkish high school classroom through a discursive framework. We examined the teacher’s discourse through the video-taped classroom session in which he talked about translation. We examined the students’ discursive development through three video-taped task-based interviews. Finally, we compared the students’ discourses on translation with the teacher’s discourse. The teacher’s discourse on translation in the classroom was formal and based on an algebraic realization of the concept as an addition and a geometric transformation. The students adopted particular discursive elements used by the teacher right after instruction but later abandoned some of those and used their more established realizations of translation. The findings revealed the complexity of discursive development as the students continually and actively adjusted their discourses by taking into account the teacher’s discourse while also making it compatible with their own realizations of translation. We conclude that socio-cultural and discursive approaches have the potential to shed additional light on issues regarding learning and teaching of geometric translation.
1. Bar-Tikva, J. (2009). Old meta-discursive rules die hard. In F. Lin, F. Hsieh, G. Hanna, & M. deVilliers (Eds.), Proceedings of the ICMI Study 19: Proof and Proving in Mathematics Education (vol. 1, pp. 89-93). Taipei, Taiwan: ICMI.
2. Boulter, D. R., & Kirby. J. R. (1994). Identification of strategies used in solving transformational geometry problems. Journal of Educational Research, 87(5), 298-303.
3. Clements, D. H., Battista, M. T., Sarama, J., Swaminathan, S., & McMillen, S. (1997). Students’ development of length concepts in a Logo-based unit on geometric paths. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(1), 70–95.
4. Clements, D. H. (2003). Teaching and learning geometry. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 151-178). Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Inc.
5. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6. Edwards, L. D. (1991). Children’s learning in a computer microworld for transformation geometry. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(2), 122–137.
7. Edwards, L. D. (1997). Exploring the territory before proof: Students’ generalizations in a computer microworld for transformation geometry. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 2(3), 187–215.
8. Edwards, L. D. (2003). The nature of mathematics as viewed from cognitive science. Paper presented at the Third Conference of European Research in Mathematics Education, Bellaria, Italy.
9. Flanagan, K. A. (2001). High school students’ understandings of geometric transformations in the context of a technological environment (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania.
10. Glass, B. J. (2001). Students’ reification of geometric transformations in the presence of multiple dynamically linked representations (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). University of Iowa, Iowa.
11. Güçler, B. (2013). Examining the discourse on the limit concept in a beginning-level calculus classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 82(3), 439-453.
12. Güçler, B. (2014). The role of symbols in mathematical communication: The case of the limit notation. Research in Mathematics Education, 16(3), 251-268.
13. Güçler, B. (2016). Making implicit metalevel rules of the discourse on function explicit topics of reflection in the classroom to foster student learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 91(3), 375-393.
14. Güçler, B., Wang, S., & Kim, D. J. (2015). Conceptualizing Mathematics as Discourse in Different Educational Settings. International Education Studies, 8(12), 25-32.
15. Harper, S. R. (2002). Enhancing elementary pre-service teachers’ knowledge of geometric transformations (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). University of Virginia, Virginia.
16. Hollebrands, K. F. (2003). High school students’ understandings of geometric transformations in the context of a technological environment. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 22, 55–72.
17. Hollebrands, K. F. (2004). High school students’ intuitive understandings of geometric transformations. Mathematics Teacher, 97(3), 207–214.
18. Hollebrands, K. F. (2007). The Role of a Dynamic Software Program for Geometry in the Strategies high school mathematics students employ. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(2), 164–192.
19. Howe, C. & Abedin, M. (2013). Classroom dialogue: a systematic review across four decades of research. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(3), 325–356.
20. Jones, K. (2000). Critical issues in the design of the geometry curriculum. In B. Barton (Ed.), Readings in mathematics education (pp. 75–90). Auckland, New Zealand: University of Auckland.
21. Kjeldsen, T. H., & Blomhøj, M. (2012). Beyond motivation: History as a method for learning meta-discursive rules in mathematics. Educational Studies in Math., 80(3), 327-349.
22. Laborde, C. (2001). Integration of technology in the design of geometry tasks with Cabri-geometry. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6, 283–317.
23. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
24. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25. Ministry of National Education (MoNE) (2009). Talim ve terbiye kurulu başkanliği, ilköğretim matematik dersi (6-8. sınıflar) öğretim programı [Board of Education, Elementary school mathematics curriculum (6-8th grades)]. Ankara: MEB Basımevi.
26. Ministry of National Education (MoNE) (2010). Talim ve terbiye kurulu başkanliği, ortaöğretim geometri dersi (9-10.siniflar) öğretim programi [Board of Education, Secondary school geometry curriculum (9-10th grades)]. Ankara: MEB Basımevi.
27. Moyer, J. C. (1978). The relationship between the mathematical structure of Euclidean transformations and the spontaneously developed cognitive structures of young children. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 9(2), 83–92.
28. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA.
29. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30. Portnoy, N., Grundmeimer, T. A., & Graham, K. J. (2006). Students’ understanding of mathematical objects in the context of transformational geometry: Implications for constructing and understanding proofs. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 25, 196–207.
31. Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D., & Hamilton, H. E. (Eds.). (2003). The handbook of discourse analysis. Blackwell Publishing.
32. Sfard, A. (2001). There is more to discourse than meets the ears: Looking at thinking as communicating to learn more about mathematical learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 46(1/3), 13-57.
33. Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as Communicating: Human development, the growth of discourses, and mathematizing. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
34. Sünker, S., & Zembat, İ. Ö. (2012). Teaching of translations through use of vectors in Wingeom-tr Environment. Elementary Education Online, 11(1), 173–194.
35. Schultz, K. A., & Austin, J. D. (1983). Directional effects in transformation tasks. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 14(2), 95–101.
36. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
37. Yanik, H. B. (2011). Prospective middle school mathematics teachers’ preconceptions of geometric translations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 78, 231–260.
38. Yanik, H. B., & Flores, A. (2009). Understanding rigid geometric transformations: Jeff’s learning path for translation. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 28, 41–57.
39. Zembat, İ. Ö. (2010). A micro-curricular analysis of unified mathematics curricula in Turkey. ZDM Mathematics Education, 42, 443–455.