The role of semiotic resources when reading and solving mathematics tasks

Authors

Anneli Dyrvold

Abstract

One part of being proficient in mathematics is to be able to read and solve mathematics tasks where mathematics is represented using different semiotic resources (i.e. natural language, mathematical notation, and different types of images). In the current study, statistical methods are used to investigate the potential meaning that the presence and co-occurrences of semiotic resources have for how demanding a mathematical task is to read and solve. The results reveal that the number of different semiotic resources in a mathematical task is not related to difficulty, but that difficulty is related to the particular combinations of semiotic resources where pictorial images are one of the resources. The results also indicate that the difficulty related to these semiotic characteristics is not related to an unnecessary reading demand.

References

Adams, T. L. (2003). Reading mathematics: more than words can say. Reading Teacher, 56 (8), 786-795.

Adams, T. L. & Lowery, R. M. (2007). An analysis of children's strategies for reading mathematics. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23 (2), 161-177. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560601158479

Ainsworth, S., Bibby, P. & Wood, D. (2002). Examining the effects of different multiple representational systems in learning primary mathematics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11 (1), 25-61. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1101_2

Berends, I. E. & van Lieshout, E. M. (2009). The effect of illustrations in arithmetic problem-solving: effects of increased cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 19 (4), 345-353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.06.012

Bergqvist, E. & Österholm, M. (2010). A theoretical model of the connection between the process of reading and the process of solving mathematical tasks. In C. Bergsten, E. Jablonka & T. Wedege (Eds.), Mathematics and mathematics education: cultural and social dimensions. Proceedings of MADIF 7: the seventh Mathematics Education Research Seminar (pp. 47-57). Linköping: SMDF.

Cohen, J. W. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cromley, J. G., Snyder-Hogan, L. E. & Luciw-Dubas, U. A. (2010). Cognitive activities in complex science text and diagrams. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35 (1), 59-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.10.002

Duru, A. & Koklu, O. (2011). Middle school students' reading comprehension of mathematical texts and algebraic equations. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science & Technology, 42 (4), 447-468. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2010.550938

Duval, R. (2006). A cognitive analysis of problems of comprehension in a learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61, 103-131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-0400-z

Dyrvold, A., Bergqvist, E. & Österholm, M. (2015). Uncommon vocabulary in mathematical tasks in relation to demand of reading ability and solution frequency. Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education, 20 (1), 101-128.

Elia, I., Gagatsis, A. & Demetriou, A. (2007). The effects of different modes of representation on the solution of one-step additive problems. Learning and Instruction, 17 (6), 658-672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.011

Gagatsis, A. & Elia, I. (2004). The effects of different modes of representations on mathematical problem solving. 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. 447-454). Bergen: PME.

Garderen, D. van (2006). Spatial visualization, visual imagery, and mathematical problem solving of students with varying abilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39 (6), 496-506. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194060390060201

Goldin, G. A. (1998). The PME working group on representations. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17 (2), 283-301. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0364-0213(99)80063-9

Hegarty, M. & Kozhevnikov, M. (1999). Types of visual-spatial representations and mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91 (4), 684-689. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.4.684

Hiebert, J. & Carpenter, T. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathemaitics teaching and learning (pp. 65-97). New York: Macmillan.

Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension. A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge University Press.

Lemke, J. L. (1998). Multiplying meaning: visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science (pp. 87-113). London: Routledge.

Lemke, J. L. (2003). Mathematics in the middle: measure, picture, gesture, sign, and word. In M. Andersson, A. Sáenz-Ludlow, S. Zellweger & V. Cifarelli (Eds.), Educational perspectives on mathematics as semiosis: from thinking to interpreting to knowing (pp. 215-234). Ottawa: Legas Publishing.

Lin, Y., Wilson, M. & Cheng, C. (2013). An investigation of the nature of the influences of item stem and option representation on student responses to a mathematics test. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28 (4), 1141-1161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-012-0159-9

Lowrie, T., Diezmann, C. M. & Logan, T. (2011). Understanding graphicacy: students' making sense of graphics in mathematics assessment tasks. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 12, 1-32. Retreived from http://www.cimt.plymouth.ac.uk/journal/default.htm

Martiniello, M. (2009). Linguistic complexity, schematic representations, and differential item functioning for English language learners in math tests. Educational Assessment, 14 (3-4), 160-179. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627190903422906

Mitchell, W. (1986). Iconology: image, text, ideology. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226148052.001.0001

Mundy, E. & Gilmore, C. K. (2009). Children's mapping between symbolic and nonsymbolic representations of number. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 103 (4), 490-502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2009.02.003

NCTM. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Niss, M. (2003). Mathematical competencies and the larning of mathematics: The Danish KOM project. Paper presented at the third Mediterranean conference on mathematics education, Athens.

O'Halloran, K. (2005). Mathematical discource: language, symbolism and visual images. London: Continuum.

O'Halloran, K. (2007). Systemic functional multimodal discourse analysis (SF-MDA) approach to mathematics, grammar and literacy. In R. Wittaker, M. O'Donnel & A. McCabe (Eds.), Advances in language and education (pp. 77-102). London: Continuum.

O'Halloran, K. (2008). Inter-semiotic expansion of experiental meaning: hierarchical scales and metaphor in mathematics discourse. In E. Ventola & C. Jones (Eds.), From language to multimodality. New developments in the study of ideational meaning (pp. 231-254). London: Equinox.

Pimm, D. (1987). Speaking mathematically: communication in mathematics classrooms. London: Routledge Kegan & Paul.

Pimm, D. (1995). Symbols and meanings in school mathematics. London: Routledge.

Radford, L. & Puig, L. (2007). Syntax and meaning as sensous, visual, historical forms of algebraic thinking. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66, 145-164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-9024-6

Rousselle, L. & Noel, M. (2007). Basic numerical skills in children with mathematics learning disabilities: a comparison of symbolic vs non- symbolic number magnitude processing. Cognition, 102 (3), 361-395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.01.005

Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: human development, the growth of discources, and mathematizing. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511499944

Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2006). Using multivariate statistics (Vol. 5, rev. ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Vukovic, R. K. & Lesaux, N. K. (2013). The language of mathematics: Investigating the ways language counts for children's mathematical development. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 115 (2), 227-244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2013.02.002

Winter, J. C. F. de (2013). Using the student's t-test with extremely small sample sizes. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 18 (10), 1-12.

Österholm, M. (2006). Characterizing reading comprehension of mathematical texts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63, 325-346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-005-9016-y

Österholm, M. & Bergqvist, E. (2012). Methodological issues when studying the relationship between reading and solving mathematical tasks. Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education, 17 (1), 5-30.

Downloads

Published

2024-11-19

How to Cite

Dyrvold, A. (2024). The role of semiotic resources when reading and solving mathematics tasks. NOMAD Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education, 21(3), 51–72. Retrieved from https://tidsskrift.dk/NOMAD/article/view/148736