Teaching geometry with problems: Negotiating instructional situations and mathematical tasks

Journal for Research in Mathematics Education

Volumn 37, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 313-347

  Herbst, Patricio G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

Classroom interaction; Geometry; High school, 9 12; Instructional intervention; Planning, decision making; Proof in geometry; Reasoning; Teaching practice

Indexed keywords

EID: 33745946665     PISSN: 00218251     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Balacheff, N. (1987). Processus de preuve et situations de validation [Processes of proof and situations of validation). Educational Studies in Mathematics, 18, 147-176.
2. Ball, D., & Bass, H. (2003). Making mathematics reasonable in school. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, & D. Shifter (Eds.), A research companion to Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (pp. 27-14). Reston, VA: NCTM.
3. Boero, P., Garuti, R., Lemut, E., & Mariotti, M. A. (1996). Challenging the traditional school approach to theorems: A hypothesis about the cognitive unity of theorems. In L. Puig & A. Gutiérrez (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 2 (pp. 113-120). Valencia, Spain.
4. Boero, P., Garuti, R., & Mariotti, M. A. (1996). Some mental processes underlying producing and proving conjectures. In L. Puig & A. Gutierrez (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 2 (pp. 121-128). Valencia, Spain.
5. Bourdieu, P. (1998). Practical reason. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
6. Boyd, C., Burrill, G., Cummins, J., Kanold, T., & Malloy, C. (1998). Geometry: Integration, Applications, Connections. New York: Glencoe-McGraw Hill.
7. Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics: Didactique des Mathematiques 1970-1990 (N. Balacheff, M. Cooper, R. Sutherland, & V. Warfield, Eds. & Trans.). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
8. Chazan, D. (1995). Where do student conjectures come from? Empirical exploration in mathematics classes. National Center for Research on Teacher Learning, Craft Paper 95-8. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
9. Christiansen, I. M. (1997). When negotiation of meaning is also negotiation of task. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 34, 1-25.
10. Cobb, P. (2000). Conducting teaching experiments in collaboration with teachers. In A. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 307-333). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
11. Comiti, C., Grenier, D., & Margolinas, C. (1995). Niveaux de connaissances en jeu lors d'interactions en situation de classe et modelisation de phenomenes didactiques [Levels of knowing at play during interactions in classroom situations and modeling of didactical phenomena]. In G. Arsac, J. Grea, D. Grenier, & A. Tiberghien (Eds.), Differents types de savoirs et leur articulation (pp. 93-127). Grenoble: La Pensée Sauvage.
12. Doyle, W. (1988). Work in mathematics classes: The context of students' thinking during instruction. Educational Psychologist, 23, 167-180.
13. Duval, R. (1991). Structure du raissonnement deductif et apprentissage de la demonstration. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22, 233-261.
14. Duval, R. (1992). Argumenter, demontrer, expliquer: Continuité ou rupture cognitive? Petit x, 31, 37-61.
15. Eggleton, P. (2001). Triangles à la fettuccine: A hands-on approach to triangle-congruence theorems. Mathematics Teacher, 94, 534-537.
16. Fuys, D., Geddes, D., & Tischler, R. (1988). The van Hiele model of thinking in geometry among adolescents. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education Monograph Number 3. Reston, VA: NCTM.
17. Goffman, E. (1997). The neglected situation. In C. Lemert & A. Branaman (Eds.), The Goffman reader (pp. 229-233). Oxford: Blackwell. (Original work published 1964).
18. Henningsen, M., & Stein, M. K. (1997). Mathematical tasks and student cognition: Classroom-based factors that support and inhibit high-level mathematical thinking and reasoning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 524-549.
19. Herbst, P. (2002a). Engaging students in proving: A double bind on the teacher. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33, 176-203.
20. Herbst, P. (2002b). Establishing a custom of proving in American school geometry: Evolution of the two-column proof in the early twentieth century. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49, 283-312.
21. Herbst, P. (2003). Using novel tasks to teach mathematics: Three tensions affecting the work of the teacher. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 197-238.
22. Herbst, P. (2004). Interaction with diagrams and the making of reasoned conjectures in geometry. Zentralblatt für Didaktikk der Mathematik, 36, 129-139.
23. Herbst, P. (2005). Knowing "equal area" while proving a claim about equal areas. Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques, 25, 11-56.
24. Herbst, P., & Brach, C. (2006). Proving and "doing proofs" in high school geometry classes: What is "it" that is going on for students and how do they make sense of it? Cognition and Instruction, 24, 73-122.
25. Herbst, P., & Chazan, D. (2003). Exploring the practical rationality of mathematics teaching through conversations about videotaped episodes: The case of engaging students in proving. For the Learning of Mathematics, 23(1), 2-14.
26. Hoffer, A., Koss, R., Beckmann, J., Duren, P., Hernandez, J., Schlesinger, B., et al. (1998). Focus on geometry: An integrated approach. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
27. Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and refutations: The logic of mathematical discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28. Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 29-63.
29. Lampert, M. (1993). Teachers' thinking about students' thinking about geometry: The effects of new teaching tools. In J. L. Schwartz, M. Yerushalmy, & B. Wilson (Eds.), The Geometric Supposer: What is it a case of? (pp. 143-177). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
30. Lampert, M. (2001). Teaching problems and the problems of teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale.
31. Lampert, M., & Ball, D. (1998). Teaching, multimedia, and mathematics: Investigations of real practice. New York: Teachers' College Press.
32. Lapp, D. (1999). Multiple representations for pattern exploration with the graphing calculator and manipulatives. Mathematics Teacher, 92, 109-113.
33. Mariotti, M. A., Bartolini-Bussi, M., Boero, P., Ferri, F., & Garuti, R. (1997). Approaching geometry theorems in contexts: From history and epistemology to cognition. In E. Pehkonen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 21st conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 1 (pp. 180-195). Lahti, Finland.
34. Mason, J. (1999). The role of labels in promoting learning from experience in teachers and students. In L. Burton (Ed.), Learning mathematics: From hierarchies to networks (pp. 187-208). London: Falmer Press.
35. Mehan, H., & Wood, H. (1975). The reality of ethnomethodology. Malabar, FL: Krieger.
36. Moise, E. (1963) Elementary geometry from an advanced standpoint. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
37. Moise, E. (1975). The meaning of Euclidean geometry in school mathematics. Mathematics Teacher, 68, 472-477.
38. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
39. Reid, D. (2002). Conjectures and refutations in grade 5 mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33, 5-29.
40. Schoenfeld, A. (1987). On having and using geometric knowledge. In J. Hiebert, (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics (pp. 225-264). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
41. Schoenfeld, A. (1988). When "good teaching" leads to bad results: The disasters of "well-taught" mathematics courses. Educational Psychologist, 23, 145-166.
42. Sekiguchi, Y. (1991). An investigation on proofs and refutations in the mathematics classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of Georgia, Athens.
43. Senk, S. (1989). Van Hiele levels and achievement in writing geometry proofs. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 309-321.
44. Simon, M. (1996). Beyond inductive and deductive reasoning: The search for a sense of knowing. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 30, 197-210.
45. Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W., & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 455-488.
46. Stigler, J., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap. New York: Basic Books.
47. Tall, D., Thomas, M., Davis, G., Gray, E., & Simpson, A. (2000). What is the object of the encapsulation of a process? Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18, 223-241.
48. van Dormolen, J. (1977). Learning to understand what giving a proof really means. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 8, 27-34.
49. Voigt, J. (1985). Patterns and routines in classroom interaction. Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques, 6, 69-118.