Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.7468/mathedu.2021.60.1.1

Semiotic mediation through technology: The case of fraction reasoning  

Yeo, Sheunghyun (University of Alabama)
Publication Information
The Mathematical Education / v.60, no.1, 2021 , pp. 1-19 More about this Journal
Abstract
This study investigates students' conceptions of fractions from a measurement approach while providing a technological environment designed to support students' understanding of the relationships between quantities and adjustable units. 13 third-graders participated in this study and they were involved in a series of measurement tasks through task-based interviews. The tasks were devised to investigate the relationship between units and quantity through manipulations. Screencasting videos were collected including verbal explanations and manipulations. Drawing upon the theory of semiotic mediation, students' constructed concepts during interviews were coded as mathematical words and visual mediators to identify conceptual profiles using a fine-grained analysis. Two students changed their strategies to solve the tasks were selected as a representative case of the two profiles: from guessing to recursive partitioning; from using random units to making a relation to the given unit. Dragging mathematical objects plays a critical role to mediate and formulate fraction understandings such as unitizing and partitioning. In addition, static and dynamic representations influence the development of unit concepts in measurement situations. The findings will contribute to the field's understanding of how students come to understand the concept of fraction as measure and the role of technology, which result in a theory-driven, empirically-tested set of tasks that can be used to introduce fractions as an alternative way.
Keywords
fraction as measure; dynamic technology; semiotic mediation;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Kang, H. K., & Ko, J. H. (2003). The educational significance of the method of teaching natural and fractional numbers by measurement of quantity. School Mathematics, 5(3), 385-399.
2 Ministry of Education (2015). Mathematics curriculum. [Supplement 8]. Statute Notice of Ministryof Education (No. 2015-74). Seoul, South Korea: Ministry of Education.
3 Moreno-Armella, L., Hegedus, S. J., & Kaput, J. J. (2008). From static to dynamic mathematics: Historical and representational perspectives. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 68(2), 99-111.   DOI
4 Morris, A. K. (2000). A teaching experiment: Introducing fourth graders to fractions from the viewpoint of measuring quantities using Davydov's mathematics curriculum. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 22(2), 33-84.
5 Mortimer, E. F., & El-Hani, C. N. (2014). Conceptual profiles: A theory of teaching and learning scientific concepts. New York, NY: Springer.
6 National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
7 Ng, O. L., & Sinclair, N. (2015). Young children reasoning about symmetry in a dynamic geometry environment. ZDM, 47(3),421-434.   DOI
8 Noh, J., Lee, K., & Moon, S. (2019). A case study on the learning of the properties of quadrilaterals through semiotic mediation: Focusing on reasoning about the relationships between the properties. School Mathematics, 21(1), 197-214.   DOI
9 Arzarello, F. (2006). Semiosis as a multimodal process. RLIME-Revista Latino americana de Investigacionen Matematica Educativa, 9(1), 267-299.
10 Mack, N. K. (2001). Building on informal knowledge through instruction in a complex content domain: Partitioning, units, and understanding multiplication of fractions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(3), 267-295.   DOI
11 Common Core State Standards Initiative (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/wp-content/uploads/MathStandards.pdf
12 Davydov, V. V., & Tsvetkovich, Z. H. (1991). The object sources of the concept of fraction. In V. V. Davydov (Soviet Edition Editor) & L. P. Steffe (English Language Editor), Soviet studies in mathematics education: Psychological abilities of primary school children in learning mathematics (pp. 86-147). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
13 Dick, T. P., & Hollebrands, K. F. (2011). Focus in high school mathematics: Technology to support reasoning and sense making. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
14 Yeo, S. (2020). Integrating digital technology into elementary mathematics: Three theoretical perspectives. Journal of KSME Series D: Research in Mathematics Education, 23(3), 165-179.
15 Dougherty, B. J. (2008). Measure up: A quantitative view of early algebra. In J. J. Kaput, D. W. Carraher, & M. L. Blanton (Eds.), Algebra in the early grades (pp. 389-412). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
16 Empson, S. B. (1999). Equal sharing and shared meaning: The development of fraction concepts in a first-grade classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 17(3), 283-342.   DOI
17 Empson, S. B., Junk, D., Dominguez, H., & Turner, E. (2006). Fractions as the coordination of multiplicatively related quantities: Across-sectional study of children's thinking. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63(1), 1-28.   DOI
18 Empson, S. B., & Levi, L. (2011). Extending Children's Mathematics: Fractions and Decimals: [innovations in Cognitively Guided Instruction]. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
19 Alajmi, A. H. (2012). How do elementary textbooks address fractions? A review of mathematics textbooks in the USA, Japan, and Kuwait. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79(2), 239-261.   DOI
20 Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21 Arzarello, F., & Robutti, O. (2008). Framing the embodied mind approach within a multimodal paradigm. In L. English, M. Bartolini Bussi, G. Jones, R. Lesh, & D. Tirosh (Eds.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 720-749, 2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
22 Bartolini Bussi, M. G., & Mariotti, M. A. (2008). Semiotic mediation in the mathematics classroom: artefacts and signs after a Vygotskian perspective. In L. English, M. Bartolini Bussi, G. Jones, R. Lesh, & D. Tirosh (Eds.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 720-749, 2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
23 Streefland, L. (1991). Fractions in realistic mathematics education. Boston, MA: Kluwer.
24 Battista, M. T. (2008). Representations and cognitive objects in modern school geometry. In G. W. Blume, & M. K. Heid (Eds.), Research on technology and the teaching and learning of mathematics: Cases and perspectives (pp. 341-362). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
25 Behr, M. J., Harel, G., Post, Th. R., & Lesh, R. (1992). Rational number, ratio, and proportion. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 296-332). New York, NY: Macmilian Publishing Company.
26 Yang, E., & Shin, J. (2014). Students' mathematical reasoning emerging through dragging activities in open-ended geometry problems. Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics, 24(1), 1-27.
27 Yeo, S. (2019). Investigating children's informal thinking: The case of fraction division. Journal of KSME Series D: Research in Mathematics Education, 22(4), 283-304.
28 Steffe, L. P., & Olive, J. (2002). Design and use of computer tools for interactive mathematical activity (TIMA). Journal of Educational Computing Research, 27(1), 55-76.   DOI
29 Streefland, L. (1993). Fractions: A realistic approach. In T. P. Carpenter, E. Fennema, & T. A. Romberg (Eds.), Rational numbers: An integration of research (pp. 289-325). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
30 Suh, J., Moyer, P. S., & Heo, H. J. (2005). Examining technology uses in the classroom: Developing fraction sense using virtual manipulative concept tutorials. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 3(4), 1-21.
31 Simon, M. A., Placa, N., Avitzur, A., & Kara, M. (2018). Promoting a concept of fraction-as-measure: A study of the Learning Through Activity research program. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 52, 122-133.   DOI
32 Laborde, J. M. (2016). Technology-enhanced teaching/learning at a new type with dynamic mathematics as implemented in the new Cabri. In M. Bates & Z. Usiskin (Eds.). Digital curricula in school mathematics (pp. 53-74). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
33 Son, T., Hwang, S., & Yeo, S. (2020). An analysis of the 2015 revised curriculum addition and subtraction of fractionsin elementary mathematics textbooks. School Mathematics, 22(3), 489-508.   DOI
34 Thompson, P. W., & Saldanha, L. A. (2003). Fractions and multiplicative reasoning. In J. Kilpatrick, W. Gary Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 95-113). Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
35 Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
36 Webel, C., Krupa, E., & McManus, J. (2016). Using representations of fraction multiplication. Teaching Children Mathematics, 22(6), 366-373.   DOI
37 Kaur, H. (2015). Two aspects of young children's thinking about different types of dynamic triangles: Prototypicality and inclusion. ZDM, 47(3), 407-420.   DOI
38 Kieren, T. E. (1988). Personal knowledge of rational numbers: Its intuitive and formal development. In J. Hiebert & M. J. Behr (Eds.), Number concepts andoperations in the middle grades (pp. 162-181). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlba
39 Konold, C., Harradine, A., & Kazak, S. (2007). Understanding distributions by modeling them. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 12(3), 217-230.   DOI
40 Lee, J., & Pang, J. (2014). Sixth grade students' understanding on unit as a foundation of multiple interpretations of fractions. Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics, 24(1). 83-102.
41 Ginsburg, H. (1997). Entering the child's mind: The clinical interview in psychological research and practice. UK: Cambridge University Press.
42 Schoenfeld, A. H., Smith, J. P., & Arcavi, A. A. (1993). Learning: The microgenetic analysis of one student's evolving understanding of a complex subject matter domain. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in Instructional Psychology (Volume 4) (pp. 55-175). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
43 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.
44 Olive, J., & Lobato, J. (2008). The learning of rational number concepts using technology. In M. K. Heid & G. W. Blume (Eds.), Research on technology and the teaching and learning of mathematics: Research syntheses (pp.1-54). Charlotte, NC: Information Age and the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
45 Saxe, G. B., Diakow, R., & Gearhart, M. (2013). Towards curricular coherence in integers and fractions: A study of the efficacy of a lesson sequence that uses the number line as the principal representational context. ZDM, 45(3), 343-364.   DOI
46 Schmittau, J., & Morris, A. (2004). The development of algebra in the elementary mathematics curriculum of VV Davydov. The Mathematics Educator, 8(1), 60-87.
47 Schoenfeld, A. H. (2002). Making mathematics work for all children: Issues of standards, testing, and equity. Educational Researcher, 31(1), 13-25.   DOI
48 Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: Human development, the growth of discourses, and mathematizing. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
49 Hunting, R. P., Davis, G., & Pearn, C. A. (1996). Engaging whole-number knowledge for rational-number learning using a computer-based tool. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(3), 354-379.   DOI