Research in Mathematical Education (한국수학교육학회지시리즈D:수학교육연구)

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

DOI QR Code

Understanding of Mathematics Terms with Lexical Ambiguity

  • Received : 2021.03.10
  • Accepted : 2021.06.28
  • Published : 2021.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to explore how mathematics educators understand the terms having lexical ambiguity. Five terms with lexical ambiguity, leave, times, high, continuous, and convergent were selected based on literature review and recommendations of college calculus instructors. The participants consisted of four mathematics educators at a large Midwestern university. The qualitative data were collected from open-ended items in the survey. As a result of analysis, I provided participants' sentences with five terms showing their understanding of each term. The data analysis revealed that mathematics educators were not able to separate the meanings of the words such as leave and high when these words are frequently used in daily life, and the meanings in mathematics context are similar with that in daily context. Lexical ambiguity shown by mathematics educators can help mathematics teachers to understand the terms with lexical ambiguity and improve their instructions when those terms should be found in students' conversations.

Keywords

References

  1. Barwell, R. (2005). Ambiguity in the mathematics classroom. Language and Education, 19(2), 118-126.
  2. Continuous. (1893). In Oxford English online dictionary (1st ed.). Retrieved from http://www.oed.com
  3. Convergent. (1893). In Oxford English online dictionary (1st ed.). Retrieved from http://www.oed.com
  4. Durkin, K. & Shire, B. (1991). Lexical ambiguity in mathematical contexts. In K. Durkin & B. Shire(Eds.), Language in mathematical education: Research and practice (71-84). Open University Press.
  5. Forman, E. A. (2003). A sociocultural approach to mathematics reform: speaking, inscribing, and doing mathematics within communities of practice. In Kilpatrick, J., Martin, W. G., Schifter, D. (Eds.), A research companion to Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (pp. 333-352). The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Inc.
  6. Fulmer, G. W., Hwang, J., Ding, C., Hand, B., Suh, J. K., & Hansen, W. (2020). Development of a questionnaire on teachers' knowledge of language as an epistemic tool. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 58(4), 459-490. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21666
  7. High. (1898). In Oxford English online dictionary (1st ed.). Retrieved from http://www.oed.com
  8. Kaplan, J. J., Fisher, G. D., & Rogness, T. N. (2009). Lexical ambiguity in statistics: What do students know about the words association, average, confidence, random and spread? Journal of Statistics Education, 17(3), 1-19.
  9. Leave. (1902). In Oxford English Online Dictionary (1st ed.). Retrieved from http://www.oed.com
  10. Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Ablex Publishing Corporation.
  11. Simon, M. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(2), 114-145. https://doi.org/10.2307/749205
  12. Time. (2012) In Oxford English online dictionary (3rd ed.). Retrieved from http://www.oed.com
  13. Times. (2012) In Oxford English online dictionary (3rd ed.). Retrieved from http://www.oed.com
  14. Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131-175. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543072002131