Research in Mathematical Education (한국수학교육학회지시리즈D:수학교육연구)

Korean Society of Mathematical Education (한국수학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Coherence Structure in the Discourse of Probability Modelling

  • Received : 2013.02.02
  • Accepted : 2013.03.21
  • Published : 2013.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Stochastic phenomena induce us to construct a probability model and structure our thinking; corresponding models help us to understand and interpret the reality. They in turn equip us with tools to recognize, reconstruct and solve problems. Therefore, various implications in terms of methodology as well as epistemology naturally flow from different adoptions of models for probability. Right from the basic scenarios of different perspectives to explore reality, students are occasionally exposed to misunderstanding and misinterpretations. With realistic examples a multi-faceted image of probability and different interpretation will be considered in mathematical modelling activities. As an exploratory investigation, mathematical modelling activity for probability learning was elaborated through semiotic analysis. Especially, the coherence structure in mathematical modelling discourse was reviewed form a semiotic perspective. The discourses sampled from group activities were analyzed on the basis of semiotic perspectives taxonomical coherence relations.

Keywords

References

  1. Brown, R. A. J. & Renshaw, P. D. (2000). Collective argumentation: A sociocultural approach to reframing classroom teaching and learning. In: H. Cowie and G. van der Aalsvoort (Eds.), Social interaction in learning and instruction: The meaning of discourse for the construction of knowledge (pp. 52-66). Amsterdam: Pergamon Press.
  2. Chaput, B.; Grad, C. J. & Henry, M. (2011). Frequentist Approach: Modelling and Simulation in Statistics and Probability Teaching. In: Carmen Batanero et al. (Eds.), Teaching statistics in school mathematics — challenges for teaching and teacher education. A joint ICMI/IASE Study: The 18th ICMI Study (pp. 85-95). Berlin: Springer. ME 2012b.00960
  3. Duval, R. (2006). A cognitive analysis of problems of comprehension in a learning mathematics. Educ. Stud. Math. 61(1-2), 103-131. ME 2006c.01581 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-0400-z
  4. Godino, J. D.; Batanero, C. & Font,V. (2007) The onto-semiotic approach to research in mathematics education. ZDM 39(1-2), 127-135. ME 2009e.00177 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-006-0004-1
  5. Gusmao, T.; Santana, E.; Cazorla, I. & Cajaraville, J. (2010). A semiotic analysis of "Monica's random walk" Activity to teach basic concepts of probability. Paper presented at the Eighth International Conference on Teaching Statistics (ICOTS8, July, 2010). Available from: http://www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/-iase/publications/icots8/ICOTS8_C140_GUSMAO.pdf
  6. O'Halloran, K. L. (2005). Mathematical discourse, language, symbolism and visual images. London and New York: Continuum.
  7. Radford. L . (2001). On the relevance of Semiotics in Mathematics Education. Paper presented to the Discussion Group on Semiotics and Mathematics Education at the 25th PME International Conference, Netherlands, University of Utrecht, Netherlands; July 12-17, 2001.
  8. Sanders, T.; Spooren, W. & Noordman, L. (1992). Toward a Taxonomy of Coherence Relations. Discourse Processes 15(1), 1-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539209544800
  9. Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: Human development, the growth of discourses and mathematizing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ME 2011d.00346
  10. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2002). A highly interactive discourse structure. In: Social constructivist teaching, Vol. 9 (pp. 131-169). New York: Elsevier Science Ltd. http://umdscienceedseminar.pbworks.com/f/Schoenfeld+(2002).pdf
  11. Steinbring, H. (2006). What makes a sign a mathematical sign? An epistemological perspective on mathematical interaction. Educ. Stud. Math. 61(1-2), 133-162. ME 2006c.01718 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-5892-z
  12. Yackel, E. & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. J. Res. Math.Educ. 27(4), 458-477. ME 1997f.03754 https://doi.org/10.2307/749877