"I went by twos, he went by one": Multiple interpretations of inscriptions as resources for mathematical discussions

Journal of the Learning Sciences

Volumn 17, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 551-587

  Moschkovich, Judit N ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 54949114370     PISSN: 10508406     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10508400802395077     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Ball, D. L. (1991, November). What's all this talk about "discourse"? Arithmetic Teacher, 39, 44-47.
2. Ball, D. L. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary school mathematics. Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 373-397.
3. Bell, A., & Janvier, C. (1981). The interpretation of graphs representing situations. For the Learning of Mathematics, 2(1), 34-42.
4. Cobb, P., Stephan, M., McClain, K., & Gravemeijer, K. (2001). Participating in classroom mathematical practices. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10, 113-164.
5. Cobb, P., Wood, T., & Yackel, E. (1993). Discourse, mathematical thinking, and classroom practice. In E. Forman, N. Minick, & C. A. Stone (Eds.), Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children's development (pp. 91-119). New York: Oxford University Press.
6. Curcio, F. R. (1987). Comprehension of mathematical relationships expressed in graphs. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 18(5), 382-393.
7. Forman, E. (1996). Learning mathematics as participation in classroom practice: Implications of sociocultural theory for educational reform. In L. Steffe, P. Nesher, P. Cobb, G. Goldin, & B. Greer (Eds.), Theories of mathematical learning (pp. 115-130). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
8. Forman, E., & Ansell, E. (2002). Orchestrating the multiple voices and inscriptions of a mathematics classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 251-274.
9. Forman, E., McCormick, D., & Donato, R. (1998). Learning what counts as a mathematical explanation. Linguistics and Education, 9(4), 313-339.
10. Friel, S., Curcio, F., & Bright, G. (2001). Making sense of graphs: Critical factors influencing comprehension and instructional implications. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(2), 124-158.
11. Gee, J. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. London: Falmer Press.
12. Gee, J. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. New York: Routledge.
13. Goldenberg, C. (1991). Instructional conversations and their classroom application (Educational Practice Report No. 2). Washington, DC: National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning.
14. Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96, 606-633.
15. Greeno, J. (1994, August). The situativity of learning: Prospects for syntheses in theory, practice, and research. Paper presented at the 102nd Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles, CA.
16. Heritage, J. (2005). Cognition in discourse. In H. Molder & J. Potter (Eds.), Conversation and cognition (pp. 184-202). New York: Cambridge University Press.
17. Herscovics, N. (1989). Cognitive obstacles encountered in the learning of algebra. In S. Wagner & C. Kieran (Eds.), Research issues in the learning and teaching of algebra (Vol. 4, pp. 60-86). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
18. Hiebert, J., & Grouws, D. (2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students' learning. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 371-404). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
19. Hiebert, J., Stigler, J., & Manaster, A. (1999). Mathematical features of lessons in the TIMSS Video Study. ZDM, Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 31(6), 196-201.
20. Hindmarsh, J., & Heath, C. (2000). Embodied reference: A study of deixis in workplace interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1855-1878.
21. Kaput, J. (1998). Representations, inscriptions, descriptions and learning: A kaleidoscope of windows. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17(2), 265-281.
22. Kieran, C. (1992). The learning and teaching of school algebra. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research in mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 390-419). New York: Macmillan.
23. Kieran, C. (2007). Learning and teaching of algebra at the middle school through college levels. In F. Lester, Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research in mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 707-762). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
24. Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
25. Lamon, S. (1994). Ratio and proportion: Cognitive foundations in unitizing and norming. In G. Harel & J. Confrey (Eds.), The development of multiplicative reasoning in the learning of mathematics (pp. 89-120). New York: State University of New York Press.
26. Lamon, S. (1996). The development of unitizing: Its role in children's partitioning strategies. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(2), 170-193.
27. Lamon, S. (2007). Rational number and proportional reasoning: Toward a theoretical framework. In F. Lester, Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research in mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 629-667). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
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(1), 29-64.
29. Lappan, G., Fey, J. T., Fitzgerald, W. M., Friel, S. N., and Phillips, E. D. (1998). Connected Mathematics, White Plains, NY: Dale Seymour Publications.
30. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
31. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
32. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
33. Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., & Stein, M. K. (1990). Functions, graphs and graphing: Tasks learning and teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60(1), 1-64.
34. Moschkovich, J. N. (1996). Moving up and getting steeper: Negotiating shared descriptions of linear graphs. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5, 239-278.
35. Moschkovich, J. N. (1998). Resources for refining conceptions: Case studies in the domain of linear functions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 209-237.
36. Moschkovich, J. N. (2002). An introduction to examining everyday and academic mathematical practices. In M. Brenner & J. Moschkovich (Eds.), Everyday and academic mathematics: Implications for the classroom (Journal for Research in Mathematics Education Monograph, 11, 1-11). Reston, VA: NCTM.
37. Moschkovich, J. N. (2004). Appropriating mathematical practices: A case study of learning to use and explore functions through interaction with a tutor. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 55, 49-80.
38. Moschkovich, J. N. (2007). Examining mathematical discourse practices. For the Learning of Mathematics, 27(1), 24-30.
39. Moschkovich, J. N., Schoenfeld, A., & Arcavi, A. (1993). Aspects of understanding: On multiple perspectives and representations of linear relations, and connections among them. In T. A. Romberg, E. Fennema, & T. P. Carpenter (Eds.), Integrating research on the graphical representation of function (pp. 69-100). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
40. Nasir, N. (2002). Identity, goals, and learning: Mathematics in cultural practice. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 4(2&3), 213-247.
41. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2006). Curriculum focal points for prekindergarten through grade 8 mathematics: A quest for coherence. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
42. National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
43. Nemirovsky, R., & Monk, S. (2000). "If you look at it another way..." An exploration into the nature of symbolizing. In P. Cobb, E. Yackel, & K. McClain (Eds.), Symbolizing and communicating in mathematics classrooms: Perspectives on discourse, tools, and instructional design (pp. 177-221). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
44. Pimm, D. (1987). Speaking mathematically: Communication in mathematics classrooms. London: Routledge.
45. Pirie, S. (1991). Peer discussion in the context of mathematical problem solving. In K. Durkin & B. Shire (Eds.), Language in mathematical education: Research and practice (pp. 143-161). Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
46. Radford, L. (2001). Signs and meanings in students' emergent algebraic thinking: A semiotic analysis. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 42, 237-268.
47. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.
48. Rosebery, A., Warren, B., & Conant, F. (1992). Appropriating scientific discourse: Findings from language minority classrooms. Journal of the Learning of Sciences, 2, 61-94.
49. Savignon, S. (1991). Communicative language teaching: State of the art. TESOL Quarterly, 25(2), 261-277.
50. Scribner, S. (1984). Studying working intelligence. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Its development in social context (pp. 9-40). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
51. Sfard, A., & McClain, K. (2002). Analyzing tools: Perspectives on the role of designed artifacts in mathematics learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 153-161.
52. Stevens, R., & Hall, R. (1998). Disciplined perception: Learning to see in technoscience. In M. Lampert & M. L. Blunk (Eds.), Talking mathematics in school: Studies of teaching and learning (pp. 107-149). New York: Cambridge University Press.
53. Swain, M. (2001). Integrating language and content teaching through collaborative tasks. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(1), 44-63.
54. Tharp, R., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social context. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
55. Tharp, R., & Gallimore, R. (1991). The instructional conversation: Teaching and learning in social activity (Research Report No. 2). Washington, DC: National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning.
56. Thompson, A., & Thompson, P. (1996). Talking about rates conceptually, part II: Mathematical knowledge for teaching. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(1), 2-24.
57. Thompson, P. (1994). The development of the concept of speed and its relationship to concepts of rate. In G. Harel & J. Confrey (Eds.), The development of multiplicative reasoning in the learning of mathematics (pp. 181-236). Albany: State University of New York Press.
58. Thompson, P., & Thompson, A. (1994). Talking about rates conceptually, part I: A teacher's struggle. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(3), 279-303.
59. Warren, B., Ogonowski, M., & Pothier, S. (2005). "Everyday" and "scientific": Rethinking dichotomies in modes of thinking in science learning. In R. Nemirovsky, A. Rosebery, J. Solomon, & B. Warren (Eds.), Everyday matters in science and mathematics: Studies of complex classroom events (pp. 119-148). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.