Conceptual understanding of the dot product
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7146/nomad.v10i3-4.147164Abstract
The aim of this study is to investigate whether it is possible to illuminate the development of conceptual understanding of the dot product through analyses of smallgroup dialogues. In the study we will focus on language, i.e. on the nature of the argumentation that develops. The article presents a rationale for conceptual learning and collaborative learning from a socio-cultural perspective. The article focuses on four sequences that make intelligible how the students use mathematical language and show a highly coordinated thinking-together mode. In spite of inaccurate mathematical formulations, the problem-solving process evolves and the students understand each other. The sequences also show how the students’ argumentation evolved, how it changed because of the listeners’ contributions, and in which way definitions are understood, used and applied.
References
Bauersfeld, H. (1980). Hidden dimensions in the so-called reality of a mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 11, 23-41. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00369158
Bjuland, R. (1998). Lærerstudenters matematiske tenkning og utvikling i en sosial kontekst. Nordisk matematikkdidaktikk, 2, 41-65.
Bjuland, R. (2002). Problem solving in geometry. Reasoning processes of student teachers working in small groups. A dialogical approach [Published doctoral dissertation]. University of Bergen.
Carlsen, M. (2002). Smågruppeundervisning i matematikk. Ei dialogisk tilnærming til samarbeid i ei gruppe av faglig sterke elever i videregående skole [Unpublished master degree thesis]. Kristiansand: Agder University College.
Cestari, M. L. (1997). Communication in mathematics classrooms. A dialogical approach [Unpublished doctoral dissertion]. University of Oslo.
Damon, W. & Phelps, E. (1989). Peer interaction, problem solving, and cognition: multidisciplinary perspectives. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 9-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-0355(89)90013-X
Davidson, N. (1990). Cooperative learning in mathematics - A handbook for teachers. New York: Addison-Wesley.
Davidson, N. & Kroll, D. L. (1991). An overview of research on cooperative learning related to mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 362-365. https://doi.org/10.2307/749185
Hiebert, J. (1992). Reflection and communication: cognitive considerations in school mathematics reform. International Journal of Educational Research, 17, 439-456. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(05)80004-7
Hiebert, J. & Lefevre, P. (1986). Conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics: an introductory analysis. In J. Hiebert (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: the case of mathematics. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kieran, C. & Dreyfus, T. (1998). Collaborative versus individual problem solving: entering another's universe of thought. In A. Olivier & K. Newstead (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd international conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, PME 22, Vol. 3 (pp. 112-119). University of Stellenbosch.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355
Linell, P. & Markovà, I. (1993). Acts in discourse: from monological speech acts to dialogical inter-acts. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 23, 173-195. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.1993.tb00236.x
Manes, M. (1996). Student Learning in linear algebra: the gateways to advance mathematical thinking project. Proceedings of the fifth Conference on the Teaching of Mathematics. Retrieved January 13, 2006 from http://archives. math.utk.edu/CTM/5th.html.
Markovà, I. (1990a). Introduction. In I. Markovà & K. Foppa (Eds.), The dynamics of dialogue (pp. 1-22). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Markovà, I. (1990b). A three-step process as a unit of analysis in dialogue. In I. Markovà & K. Foppa (Eds.), The dynamics of dialogue (pp. 129-146). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Schoultz, J., Säljö, R., & Wyndhamn, J. (2001). Conceptual knowledge in talk and text: what does it take to understand a science question? Instructional Science, 29, 213-236. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017586614763
Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69, 21-51. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543069001021
Säljö, R. (2001). Læring i praksis. Et sosiokulturelt perspektiv. Oslo: Cappelen Akademisk Forlag.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1975). Thought and language. Cambridge, Mass: The M. I. T. Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Webb, N. M. (1991). Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 366-389. https://doi.org/10.2307/749186
Wertsch, J. V. (1990). Dialogue and dialogism in a socio-cultural approach to mind. In I. Markovà & K. Foppa (Eds.), The dynamics of dialogue (pp. 62-82). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Wiliam, D. (1986). A 'black box' approach to scalar and vector products. The Mathematical Gazette, 70, 197-200. https://doi.org/10.2307/3615676
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
