Using social semiotics to prepare mathematics teachers to teach for social justice

Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education

Volumn 12, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 187-203

  de Freitas, Elizabeth ^a   Zolkower, Betina ^b  

^a ADELPHI UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

Author keywords

Critical pedagogy; Discourse analysis; Social justice; Social semiotics; Systemic functional linguistics

Indexed keywords

EID: 67349126603     PISSN: 13864416     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10857-009-9108-1     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Abedi, J., & Lord, C. (2001). The language factor in mathematics tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 14, 219-234.
2. Adler, J. (1999). The dilemma of transparency: Seeing and seeing through talk in the mathematics classroom. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(1), 47-64.
3. Ahlquist, R. (2001). Critical multicultural mathematics curriculum: Multiple connections through the lenses of race, ethnicity, gender, and social class. In J. E. Jacobs, J. R. Becker, & G. F. Glimer (Eds.), Changing the faces of mathematics: Perspectives on gender (pp. 25-36). Reston, VA: NCTM Publishing.
4. Amit, M., & Fried, M. N. (2005). Authority and authority relations in mathematics education: A view from an 8th grade classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 58, 145-168.
5. Atweh, B., Bleicher, R. E., & Cooper, T. J. (1998). The construction of the social context of mathematics classrooms: A sociolinguistic analysis. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(1), 63-82.
6. Bakker, A. (2007). Diagrammatic reasoning and hypostatic abstraction in statistics education. Semiotica, 164 (1/4), 9-29.
7. Bakker, A., & Hoffmann, M. (2005). Diagrammatic reasoning as the basis for developing concepts: A semiotic analysis of students' learning about statistical distribution. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 60, 333-358.
8. Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique (revised edition 2000). London: Taylor and Francis.
9. Boler, M., & Zembylas, M. (2003). Discomforting truths: The emotional terrain of understanding difference. In P. P. Trifonas (Ed.), Pedagogies of difference: Rethinking education for social change (pp. 110-136). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
10. Bourdieu, P. (1999). Language and symbolic power. In A. Jaworski & N. Coupland (Eds.), The discourse reader (pp. 502-513). New York: Routledge.
11. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
12. Chapman, A. (2003). Language practices in school mathematics: A social semiotic approach. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press.
13. Christie, F. (2000). Classroom discourse analysis. London: Continuum.
14. Christie, F., & Martin, J. R. (Eds.). (2007). Language, knowledge and pedagogy: Linguistic and sociological perspectives. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
15. de Freitas, E. (2008a). Troubling teacher identity: Preparing mathematics teachers to teach for diversity. Teaching Education, 19(1), 43-55.
16. de Freitas, E. (2008b). Critical mathematics education: Recognizing the ethical dimension of problem solving. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 3(#2), 79-95. Available at http://www.iejme.com/.
17. Driscoll, M. (2003). The sound of problem solving. In H. L. Schoen (Ed.), Teaching mathematics through problem solving (pp. 161-176). Reston: NCTM publishing.
18. Ernest, P. (2004). Postmodernity and social research in mathematics education. In P. Valero & R. Zevenbergen (Eds.), Researching the socio-political dimensions of mathematics education: Issues of power and methodology (pp. 65-84). New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
19. Ernest, P. (2008). Opening the mathematics text: What does it say? In E. de Freitas & K. Nolan (Eds.), Opening the research text: Critical insights and in(ter)ventions into mathematics education (pp. 65-80). New York: Springer.
20. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
21. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analyzing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. New York: Routledge.
22. Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Arnold.
23. Hasan, R. (1999). The disempowerment game: Bourdieu and language in literacy. Linguistics and Education, 10(1), 25-87.
24. Huang, J., Normandia, B., & Greer, S. (2005). Communicating mathematically: Comparison of knowledge structures in teacher and student discourse in a secondary math classroom. Communication Education, 54(1), 34-51.
25. Kenney, J. M., Heuer, L., & Hancewicz, E. (2005). Literacy strategies for improving mathematics instruction. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
26. Lager, C.A. (2004). Unlocking the language of mathematics to ensure our English learners acquire algebra, No. PB-006-1004. Los Angeles: University of California.
27. Lemke, J. L. (2002). Mathematics in the middle: Measure, picture, gesture, sign and word. In M. Anderson, A. Saenz-ludlow, S. Zellweger, & V. Cifarelli (Eds.), Educational perspectives on mathematics as semiosis: From thinking to interpreting to knowing (pp. 215-234). Ottawa: Legas Publishing.
28. Lemke, J. L. (2004). The literacies of science. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 33-47). Arlington, VA: NSTA press.
29. Leonard, J., & Jackson Dantley, S. (2005). Breaking through the ice: Dealing with issues of diversity in mathematics and science education courses. In A. Rodriguez & R. Kitchen (Eds.), Preparing mathematics and science teachers for diverse classrooms: Promising strategies for transformative pedagogy (pp. 87-118). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
30. MacGregor, M. (2002). An exploration of aspects of language proficiency and algebra learning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30, 449-467.
31. Martin, J. R. (1992). English text: System and structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
32. Martin, J. R. (1993). Genre and literacy: Modeling context in educational linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 141-172.
33. Martin, J. R. (2000). Design and practice: Enacting functional linguistics in Australia. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 116-126.
34. Moje, E. B. (1997). Exploring discourse, subjectivity, and knowledge in chemistry class. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 32, 35-44.
35. Morgan, C. (2005). Words, definitions, and concepts in discourses of mathematics, teaching, and learning. Language and Education, 19(2), 103-117.
36. Morgan, C. (2006). What does social semiotics have to offer mathematics education research? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61, 219-245.
37. Moschkovich, J. (1999). Supporting the participation of English language learners in mathematical discussions. For the Learning of Mathematics, 19, 11-19.
38. Moschkovich, J. (2007). Using two languages when learning mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 64(2), 121-144.
39. O'Halloran, K. L. (1999). Towards a systemic functional analysis of multisemiotic mathematics texts. Semiotica, 124(1/2), 1-29.
40. O'Halloran, K. L. (2003). Educational implications of mathematics as a multisemiotic discourse. In M. Anderson, A. Saenz-ludlow, S. Zellweger, & V. Cifarelli (Eds.), Educational perspectives on mathematics as semiosis: From thinking to interpreting to knowing (pp. 185-214). Ottawa: Legas Publishing.
41. O'Halloran, K. L. (2005). Mathematical discourse: Language, symbolism and visual images. London: Continuum.
42. Ongstad, S. (2006). Mathematics and mathematics education as triadic communication? A semiotic framework exemplified. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61, 247-277.
43. Pimm, D. (1987). Speaking mathematically. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
44. Presmeg, N. (2006). Semiotics and the "connections" standard: Significance of semiotics for teachers of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61, 163-182.
45. Radford, L. (2000). Signs and meanings in students' emergent algebraic thinking: A semiotic analysis. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 42, 237-268.
46. Rodriguez, A. J., & Kitchen, R. S. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing mathematics and science teachers for diverse classrooms: Promising strategies for transformative pedagogy. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
47. Rogers, M. P., Malancharuvil-Berkes, E., Mosley, M., Hui, D., & O'Garro Joseph, G. (2005). Critical discourse analysis in education: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 365-416.
48. Rotman, B. (2000). Mathematics as sign: Writing, imagining, counting. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
49. Rowland, T. (2002). Language issues in mathematics. In L. Haggarty (Ed.), Aspects of teaching secondary mathematics: Perspectives on practice (pp. 179-190). Buckingham: Open University Press.
50. Schleppegrell, M. (2007). The linguistic challenges of mathematical teaching and learning: A research review. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 23(2), 139-159.
51. Setati, M. (2005). Learning and teaching mathematics in a primary multilingual classroom. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36(5), 447-466.
52. Skovsmose, O. (2008). Mathematics education in a knowledge market: Developing functional and critical competencies. In E. de Freitas & K. Nolan (Eds.), Opening the research text: Critical insights and in(ter)ventions into mathematics education. New York: Springer.
53. Veel, R. (1999). Language, knowledge, and authority in school mathematics. In F. Christie (Ed.), Pedagogy and the shaping of consciousness (pp. 185-216). London: Cassell.
54. Zevenbergen, R. (2003). Teachers' beliefs about teaching mathematics to students from socially disadvantaged backgrounds: Implications for social justice. In L. Burton (Ed.), Which way social justice and mathematics education? (pp. 133-151). London: Praeger Publishers.