Fostering hooks and shifts: Tutorial tactics for guided mathematical discovery

Technology, Knowledge and Learning

Volumn 17, Issue 1-2, 2012, Pages 61-86

  Abrahamson, Dor ^a   Gutiérrez, Jose ^a   Charoenying, Timothy ^a   Negrete, Andrea ^a   Bumbacher, Engin ^a  

^a Berkeley   (United States)

Author keywords

Cognition; Design based research; Discovery; Education; Embodied interaction; Guided reinvention; Insight; Mathematics education; Natural user interface (NUI); Proportion; Proportional reasoning; Remote control; Semiotic cultural; Sociocultural; Symbolic artifact; Teaching; Technology; Virtual object

Indexed keywords

DATA VISUALIZATION; EDUCATION; EDUCATION COMPUTING; REMOTE CONTROL; STUDENTS; TEACHING;

COGNITION; DESIGN-BASED RESEARCH; DISCOVERY; EMBODIED INTERACTION; GUIDED REINVENTION; INSIGHT; MATHEMATICS EDUCATION; NATURAL USER INTERFACES; PROPORTION; PROPORTIONAL REASONING; SOCIOCULTURAL; SYMBOLIC ARTIFACT; VIRTUAL OBJECTS;

USER INTERFACES;

EID: 84887536111     PISSN: 22111662     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10758-012-9192-7     Document Type: Article

References (106)

1. Abrahamson, D. (submitted). Toward a taxonomy of design genres: Fostering students' mathematical insight via perception-based and action-based experiences. Educational Studies in Mathematics.
2. Abrahamson, D. (2009a). Embodied design: Constructing means for constructing meaning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(1), 27-47. Electronic supplementary material at http://edrl.berkeley.edu/publications/ journals/ESM/Abrahamson-ESM/.
3. Abrahamson, D. (2009b). Orchestrating semiotic leaps from tacit to cultural quantitative reasoning - the case of anticipating experimental outcomes of a quasi-binomial random generator. Cognition and Instruction, 27(3), 175-224.
4. Abrahamson, D., Lee, R. G., Negrete, A. G., & Gutiérrez, J. F. (submitted). Coordinating visualizations of polysemous action: Values added for grounding proportion. In F. Rivera, H. Steinbring, & A. Arcavi (Eds.), Visualization as an epistemological learning tool [Special issue]. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education.
5. Abrahamson, D., & Trninic, D. (2011). Toward an embodied-interaction design framework for mathematical concepts. In P. Blikstein & P. Marshall (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th annual interaction design and children conference (IDC 2011) (Vol. ''Full papers'', pp. 1-10). Ann Arbor, MI: IDC.
6. Abrahamson, D., Trninic, D., Gutiérrez, J. F., Huth, J., & Lee, R. G. (2011). Hooks and shifts: A dialectical study of mediated discovery. Technology, Knowledge, and Learning, 16(1), 55-85.
7. Abrahamson, D., & Wilensky, U. (2007). Learning axes and bridging tools in a technology-based design for statistics. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 12(1), 23-55. (Pubitemid 46543641)
8. Alač, M., & Hutchins, E. (2004). I see what you are saying: Action as cognition in fMRI brain mapping practice. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 4(3), 629-661.
9. Antle, A. N., Corness, G., & Droumeva, M. (2009). What the body knows: Exploring the benefits of embodied metaphors in hybrid physical digital environments. In Ramduny-Ellis, D., Dix, A. J., Gill, S., & Hare, J. (Eds.), Physicality and interaction [Special issue]. Interacting with Computers, 21(1&2), 66-75.
10. Artigue, M., Cerulli, M., Haspekian, M., & Maracci, M. (2009). Connecting and integrating theoretical frames: The TELMA contribution. In M. Artigue (Ed.), Connecting approaches to technology enhanced learning in mathematics: The TELMA experience [Special issue]. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 14, 217-240.
11. Bakker, A., & Hoffmann, M. H. G. (2005). Diagrammatic reasoning as the basis for developing concepts: A semiotic analysis of students' learning about statistical distribution. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 60(3), 333-358. (Pubitemid 41699760)
12. Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389-407.
13. Bamberger, J. (1999). Action knowledge and symbolic knowledge: The computer as mediator. In D. Schön, B. Sanyal, & W. Mitchell (Eds.), High technology and low Income communities (pp. 235-262). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14. Barsalou, L. W. (2010). Grounded cognition: past, present, and future. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2(4), 716-724.
15. Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind: A revolutionary approach to man's understanding of himself. New York: Ballantine Books.
16. Bautista, A., & Roth, W.-M. (2012). The incarnate rhythm of geometrical knowing. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31(1), 91-104.
17. Behr, M. J., Harel, G., Post, T., & Lesh, R. (1993). Rational number, ratio, and proportion. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 296-333). NYC: Macmillan.
18. Borovcnik, M., & Bentz, H. -J. (1991). Empirical research in understanding probability. In R. Kapadia & M. Borovcnik (Eds.), Chance encounters: Probability in education (pp. 73-105). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
19. Botzer, G., & Yerushalmy, M. (2008). Embodied semiotic activities and their role in the construction of mathematical meaning of motion graphs. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 13(2), 111-134.
20. Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics (N. Balacheff, M. Cooper, R. Sutherland & V. Warfield, Trans.). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
21. Collins, A., & Ferguson, W. (1993). Epistemic forms and epistemic games: Structures and strategies to guide inquiry. Educational Psychologist, 28(1), 25-42.
22. Diénès, Z. P. (1971). An example of the passage from the concrete to the manipulation of formal systems. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 3(3/4), 337-352.
23. DiSessa, A. A. (2000). Changing minds: Computers, learning and literacy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
24. DiSessa, A. A. (2007). An interactional analysis of clinical interviewing. Cognition and Instruction, 25(4), 523-565.
25. Dourish, P. (2001). Where the action is: The foundations of embodied interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
26. Drijvers, P., Godino, J., Font, V., & Trouche, L. (in press). One episode, two lenses. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 1-27. doi:10.1007/s10649-012-9416-8.
27. Edelson, D. C., & Reiser, B. J. (2006). Making authentic practices accessible to learners: Design challenges and strategies. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 335-354). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
28. Fischer, U., Moeller, K., Bientzle, M., Cress, U., & Nuerk, H.-C. (2011). Sensori-motor spatial training of number magnitude representation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(1), 177-183.
29. Foster, C. (2011). Productive ambiguity in the learning of mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 31(2), 3-7.
30. Freudenthal, H. (1971). Geometry between the devil and the deep sea. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 3(3/4), 413-435.
31. Freudenthal, H. (1991). Revisiting mathematics education: China lectures. Dordrecth: Kluwer.
32. Froebel, F. (2005). The education of man (W. N. Hailmann, Trans.). New York: Dover Publications. (Original work published 1885).
33. Fyfe, E. R., Rittle-Johnson, B., & DeCaro, M. S. (in press). The effects of feedback during exploratory mathematics problem solving: Prior knowledge matters. Journal of Educational Psychology. doi: 10.1037/a0028389.
34. Gerofsky, S. (2011). Seeing the graph vs. being the graph: Gesture, engagement and awareness in school mathematics. In G. Stam & M. Ishino (Eds.), Integrating gestures (pp. 245-256). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
35. Ginsburg, H. P. (1997). Entering the child's mind. New York: Cambridge University Press.
36. Ginsburg, H. P., & Amit, M. (2008). What is teaching mathematics to young children? A theoretical perspective and case study. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29, 274-285.
37. Godino, J. D., Font, V., Wilhelmi, M. R., & Lurduy, O. (2011). Why is the learning of elementary arithmetic concepts difficult? Semiotic tools for understanding the nature of mathematical objects. In L. Radford, G. Schubring, & F. Seeger (Eds.), Signifying and meaning-making in mathematical thinking, teaching, and learning: Semiotic perspectives [Special issue]. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 77(2), 247-265.
38. Goldin, G. A. (1987). Levels of language in mathematical problem solving. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 59-65). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
39. Goldin, G. A. (2000). A scientific perspective on structured, task-based interviews in mathematics education research. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 517-545). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
40. Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 603-633.
41. Gopnik, A., Meltzoff, A. N., & Kuhl, P. K. (1999). The scientist in the crib: What early learning tells us about the mind. New York: Harper Collins.
42. Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
43. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1982). Epistemological and methodological bases of naturalistic inquiry. Educational Technology Research and Development, 30(4), 233-252.
44. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury, CA: SAGE Publication, Inc.
45. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1998). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (pp. 195-220). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
46. Gutiérrez, J. F., Trninic, D., Lee, R. G., & Abrahamson, D. (2011). Hooks and shifts in instrumented mathematics learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (SIG Learning Sciences). New Orleans, LA, 8-12 April 2011. http://edrl.berkeley.edu/ sites/default/files/AERA2011-Hooks-and-Shifts.pdf.
47. Harris, M. (1976). History and significance of the emic/etic distinction. Annual Review of Anthropology, 5, 329-350.
48. Heyd-Metzuyanim, E., & Sfard, A. (2012). Identity struggles in the mathematics classroom: on learning mathematics as an interplay of mathematizing and identifying. International Journal of Educational Research, 51-52, 128-145. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2011.12.015.
49. Howison, M., Trninic, D., Reinholz, D., & Abrahamson, D. (2011). The mathematical imagery trainer: From embodied interaction to conceptual learning. In G. Fitzpatrick, C. Gutwin, B. Begole, W. A. Kellogg & D. Tan (Eds.), Proceedings of the annual meeting of the association for computer machinery special interest group on computer human interaction: ''Human factors in computing systems'' (CHI 2011), Vancouver, 7-12 May 2011 (Vol. ''Full Papers'', pp. 1989-1998). New York: ACM Press.
50. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
51. Ingold, T. (2011). The perception of the environment: Essays on livelihood, dwelling, and skill (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
52. Isaacs, E. A., & Clark, H. H. (1987). References in conversations between experts and novices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116, 26-37.
53. Kamii, C. K., & DeClark, G. (1985). Young children reinvent arithmetic: Implications of Piaget's theory. New York: Teachers College Press.
54. Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1988). The child is a theoretician, not an inductivist. Mind & Language, 3(3), 183-195.
55. Karplus, R., Pulos, S., & Stage, E. K. (1983). Proportional reasoning of early adolescents. In R. Lesh & M. Landau (Eds.), Acquisition of mathematics concepts and processes (pp. 45-89). New York: Academic Press.
56. Kirsh, D. (1996). Adapting the environment instead of oneself. Adaptive Behavior, 4(3-4), 415-452.
57. Kirsh, D., & Maglio, P. (1994). On distinguishing epistemic from pragmatic action. Cognitive Science, 18(4), 513-549.
58. Lakatos, I., & Feyerabend, P. (1999). For and against method. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
59. Lamon, S. J. (2007). Rational numbers and proportional reasoning: Toward a theoretical framework for research. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 629-667). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing
60. 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), 29-63.
61. Lampert, M. (2001). Teaching problems and the problems of teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
62. Lemke, J. L. (1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science (pp. 87-113). London: Routledge.
63. Lemke, J. L. (2003). Mathematics in the middle: Measure, picture, gesture, sign, and word. In M. Anderson, A. Sa'enz-Ludlow, S. Zellweger, & V. V. Cifarelli (Eds.), Educational perspectives on mathematics as semiosis: From thinking to interpreting to knowing (pp. 215-234). Ottawa: Legas.
64. Mamolo, A. (2010). Polysemy of symbols: Signs of ambiguity. The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, 7(2&3), 247-261.
65. Mariotti, M. A. (2009). Artifacts and signs after a Vygotskian perspective: The role of the teacher. ZDM: The international Journal on. Mathematics Education, 41, 427-440.
66. Marshall, P., Antle, A. N., Hoven, E. v. d., & Rogers, Y. (Eds.). (in press). The theory and practice of embodied interaction in HCI and interaction design [Special issue]. ACM Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction.
67. Martin, T., & Schwartz, D. L. (2005). Physically distributed learning: Adapting and reinterpreting physical environments in the development of fraction concepts. Cognitive Science, 29(4), 587-625. (Pubitemid 41223556)
68. Nemirovsky, R. (2003). Three conjectures concerning the relationship between body activity and understanding mathematics. In R. Nemirovsky & M. Borba (Coordinators), Perceptuo-motor activity and imagination in mathematics learning (Research Forum). In N. A. Pateman, B. J. Dougherty & J. T. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty seventh annual meeting of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 1, pp. 105-109). Honolulu, Hawaii: Columbus, OH: Eric Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
69. Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989). The construction zone: Working for cognitive change in school. New York: Cambridge University Press.
70. Noss, R., Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (1997). The construction of mathematical meanings: Connecting the visual with the symbolic. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 33(2), 203-233. (Pubitemid 127095610)
71. Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (1996). Windows on mathematical meanings: Learning cultures and computers. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
72. Núñez, R. E., Edwards, L. D., & Matos, J. F. (1999). Embodied cognition as grounding for situatedness and context in mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 39, 45-65.
73. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. NY: Basic Books.
74. Piaget, J. (1971). Biology and knowledge: An essay on the relations between organic regulations and cognitive processes. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
75. Pirie, S. E. B., & Kieren, T. E. (1994). Growth in mathematical understanding: How can we characterize it and how can we represent it? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26, 165-190.
76. Pratt, D., Jones, I., & Prodromou, T. (2006). An elaboration of the design construct of phenomenalisation. Paper presented at the seventh international conference on teaching statistics, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil, July 2-7, 2006.
77. Pratt, D., & Noss, R. (2010). Designing for mathematical abstraction. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 15(2), 81-97.
78. Radford, L. (2002). The seen, the spoken, and the written: A semiotic approach to the problem of objectification of mathematical knowledge. For the Learning of Mathematics, 22(2), 14-23.
79. Radford, L. (2003). Gestures, speech, and the sprouting of signs: A semiotic-cultural approach to students' types of generalization. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 5(1), 37-70. (Pubitemid 36116844)
80. Radford, L. (2010). The eye as a theoretician: Seeing structures in generalizing activities. For the Learning of Mathematics, 30(2), 2-7.
81. Reinholz, D., Trninic, D., Howison, M., & Abrahamson, D. (2010). It's not easy being green: Embodied artifacts and the guided emergence of mathematical meaning. In P. Brosnan, D. Erchick & L. Flevares (Eds.), Proceedings of the thirty-second annual meeting of the North-American chapter of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (PME-NA 32) (Vol. VI, Ch. 18: Technology, pp. 1488-1496). Columbus, OH: PME-NA.
82. Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273-304. (Pubitemid 39063558)
83. Rotman, B. (2000). Mathematics as sign: Writing, imagining, counting. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
84. Rowland, T. (1999). Pronouns in mathematics talk: Power, vagueness and generalisation. For the Learning of Mathematics, 19(2), 19-26.
85. Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligences with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20(3), 2-9.
86. Saxe, G. B. (2004). Practices of quantification from a sociocultural perspective. In K. A. Demetriou & A. Raftopoulos (Eds.), Developmental change: Theories, models, and measurement (pp. 241-263). NY: Cambridge University Press.
87. Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. The American Journal of Sociology, 102(1), 161-216.
88. Schoenfeld, A. H., Smith, J. P., & Arcavi, A. (1991). Learning: The microgenetic analysis of one student's evolving understanding of a complex subject matter domain. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 55-175). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
89. Sebanz, N., & Knoblich, G. (2009). Prediction in joint action: What, when, and where. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(2), 353-367.
90. Sherin, M. G., Russ, R., Sherin, B. L., & Colestock, A. (2008). Professional vision in action: An exploratory study. Issues in Teacher Education, 17(2), 27-46.
91. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
92. Skemp, R. R. (1983). The silent music of mathematics. Mathematics Teaching, 102(58), 287-288.
93. Skemp, R. R. (1993). Theoretical foundations of problem solving: a position paper. Retrieved from http://www.skemp.org.uk/.
94. Slotta, J. D., & Linn, M. C. (2011). WISE science: Web-based inquiry in the classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
95. Smith, J. P., diSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115-163.
96. Stetsenko, A. (2002). Commentary: Sociocultural activity as a unit of analysis: How Vygotsky and Piaget converge in empirical research on collaborative cognition. In D. J. Bearison & B. Dorval (Eds.), Collaborative cognition: Children negotiating ways of knowing (pp. 123-135). Westport, CN: Ablex Publishing.
97. 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.
98. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
99. Sztajn, P., Confrey, J., Wilson, P. H., & Edgington, C. (2012). Learning trajectory based instruction. Educational Researcher, 41(5), 147-156. doi:10.3102/0013189x12442801.
100. Thurston, W. P. (1994). On proof and progress in mathematics. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 30, 161-177.
101. Trninic, D., & Abrahamson, D. (in press). Embodied interaction as designed mediation of conceptual performance. In D. Martinovic & V. Freiman (Eds.), Visual mathematics and cyberlearning
102. Vérillon, P., & Rabardel, P. (1995). Cognition and artifacts: A contribution to the study of thought in relation to instrumented activity. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10(1), 77-101.
103. Waismeyer, B. C., & Abrahamson, D. (submitted). Quantitative analysis of tutorial tactics for embodied interaction, (Manuscript submitted toward presentation at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, 2013).
104. White, T. (2008). Debugging an artifact, instrumenting a bug: Dialectics of instrumentation and design in technology-rich learning environments. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 13(1), 1-26. (Pubitemid 351543655)
105. Zhang, J., & Norman, D. A. (1994). Representations in distributed cognitive tasks. Cognitive Science, 18, 87-122.
106. Zhang, J., & Patel, V. L. (2006). Distributed cognition, representation, and affordance. In Harnad, S., & Dror, I. E. (Eds.), Distributed cognition [Special issue]. Pragmatics & Cognition, 14(2), 333-341. (Pubitemid 44541570)