Low Achieving Students’ Realization of the Notion of Mathematical Equality with an Interactive Technological Artifacts

Osama Swidan; Wajeeh M. Daher

doi:10.29333/ejmste/103073

Full Text (PDF)

Osama Swidan ¹, Wajeeh M. Daher ² ³ ^*

More Detail

¹ Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, P.O.B. 653, Be’er-Sheva, 8410501, ISRAEL² Al-Qasemi Academic College of Education, P.O.B. 124, Baqa-El-Gharbia, 30100, ISRAEL³ An-Najah National University, P.O.B 7, Nablus, PALESTINE^* Corresponding Author

Abstract

In this study we analyzed the discursive actions employed by low-achieving students when they used an interactive technological artifact that simulates a two-pan balance scale to learn about mathematical equality. The study was guided by the commognition framework. Three pairs of low-achieving 16-year-old students participated in this study, in which they were asked to use the artifact to compare mathematical expressions. The results indicate that the commognitive processes exploited by students as they learned the mathematical equality-inequality were reflected in the evolution of their discourse. This evolution was present in the sequence of routines, with which the students were engaged. This routine evolution advanced from everyday discourse into mathematical discourse. The routines’ evolution was guided by the teacher, and therefore, we conclude that the combination of the potentials of the artifact together with the teacher’s actions helped students understand the mathematical equality-inequality.

Keywords

commognition
discourse
equality
low-achieving students
technological tools

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Article Type: Research Article

EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, Volume 15, Issue 4, April 2019, Article No: em1690

https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/103073

Publication date: 21 Jan 2019

Article Views: 2406

Article Downloads: 1333

Open Access References How to cite this article

References

Ball, D. L. (2003). What mathematical knowledge is needed for teaching mathematics. Secretary’s Summit on Mathematics, US Department of Education.
Ben-Yehuda, M., Lavy, I., Linchevski, L., & Sfard, A. (2005). Doing wrong with words: What bars students’ access to arithmetical discourses. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36(3), 176-247. https://doi.org/10.2307/30034835.
Berger, M. (2013). Examining mathematical discourse to understand in-service teachers’ mathematical activities. pythagoras, 34(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.4102/pythagoras.v34i1.197.
Broza, O., & Ben‑David-Kolikant, Y. (2015). Contingent teaching to low‑achieving students in mathematics: Challenges and potential for scaffolding meaningful learning. ZDM, 47, 1093-1105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-015-0724-1.
Cardelle-Elawar, M. (1995). Effects of metacognitive instruction on low achievers in mathematics problems. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(1), 81-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(94)00019-3.
Chazan, D. (2000). Beyond formulas in mathematics and teaching: Dynamics of the high school algebra classroom. Teachers College Press.
Denmark, T., Barco, E., & Voran, J. (1976). Final report: A teaching experiment on equality. Project for the Mathematical Development of Children (PMDC) Technical Report, (6).
Freudenthal, H. (1991). Revisiting mathematics education. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Fuchs, L. S., Seethaler, P. M., Powell, S. R., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Fletcher, J. M. (2008) Effects of preventative tutoring on the mathematical problem solving of third-grade students with math and reading difficulties. Exceptional Children, 74, 155–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290807400202.
Geary, D. C. (2004). Mathematics and learning disabilities. Journal of learning disabilities, 37(1), 4-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194040370010201.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. Basic books, New York.
Goldman, S. R. (1989). Strategy instruction in mathematics. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12(1), 43-55. https://doi.org/10.2307/1510251.
Gray, E., Pitta, D., & Tall, D. (2000). Objects, actions, and images: A perspective on early number development. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18(4), 401-413. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-3123(00)00025-0.
Haylock, D. (1991). Teaching mathematics to low attainders, 8-12. SAGE.
Hunter, J. (2007). Relational or calculational thinking: Students solving open number equivalence problems. In Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (Vol. 2, pp. 421-429).
Jitendra, A. K., Star, J. R., Starosta, K., Leh, J. M., Sood, S., Caskie, G., & Mack, T. R. (2009). Improving seventh grade students’ learning of ratio and proportion: The role of schema based instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 250–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.06.001.
Jones, I., & Pratt, D. (2006). Connecting the equals sign. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 11(3), 301-325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-006-9107-6.
Karsenty, R., Arcavi, A., & Hadas, N. (2007). Exploring informal mathematical products of low achievers at the secondary school level. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 26(2), 156-177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2007.05.003.
Kieran, C. (1981). Concepts associated with the equality symbol. Educational studies in Mathematics, 12(3), 317-326. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00311062.
Knuth, E. J., Alibali, M. W., Hattikudur, S., McNeil, N. M., & Stephens, A. C. (2008). The Importance of Equal Sign Understanding in the Middle Grades. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 13(9), 514-519. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41182605.
Kress, G. R., & Van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. Psychology Press.
Leone, P., Wilson, M., & Mulcahy, C. (2010). Making it count: Strategies for improving mathematics instruction for students in short-term facilities. Washington, DC: National Evaluation and Technical Assistance Center for Children and Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent or At Risk (NDTAC).
McNeil, N. M., & Alibali, M. W. (2005). Knowledge change as a function of mathematics experience: All contexts are not created equal. Journal of Cognition and Development, 6, 285–306. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327647jcd0602_6.
McNeil, N. M., Grandau, L., Knuth, E. J., Alibali, M. W., Stephens, A. C., Hattikudur, S., & Krill, D. E. (2006). Middle-school students’ understanding of the equal sign: The books they read can’t help. Cognition and Instruction, 24(3), 367-385. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2403_3.
Miller, S. P., & Hudson, P. J. (2007). Using evidence-based practices to build mathematics competence related to conceptual, procedural, and declarative knowledge. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 22, 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00230.x.
Moyer-Packenham, P. S., & Suh, J. M. (2012). Learning mathematics with technology: The influence of virtual manipulatives on different achievement groups. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 31(1), 39-59.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
NCTM (2015). Pan Balance – Numbers [computer application]. Retrieved from https://illuminations.nctm.org/Activity.aspx?id=3530.
Peltenburg, M. C. (2012). Mathematical potential of special education students.
Powell, S. R. (2012). Equations and the equal sign in elementary mathematics textbooks. Elementary School Journal, 112, 627–648. https://doi.org/10.1086/665009.
Radford, L. (2008). Culture and cognition: Towards an anthropology of mathematical thinking. In L. English (Ed.), Handbook of International Research in Mathematics Education, 2nd Edition (pp. 439 – 464). New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.11.014.
Saenz-Ludlow, A., & Walgamuth, C. (1998). Third graders’ interpretations of equality and the equal symbol. Educational studies in mathematics, 35(2), 153-187. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003086304201.
Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: Human development, the growth of discourses, and mathematizing. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511499944.
Sherman, J., & Bisanz, J. (2009). Equivalence in symbolic and nonsymbolic contexts: Benefits of solving problems with manipulatives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 88. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013156.
Stacey, K., & Chick, H. (2004). Solving the problem with algebra. In K. Stacey, H. Chick, & M. Kendal (Eds), The future of the teaching and learning of algebra (Vol. 8, pp. 1-20). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-8131-6_1.
Taylor-Cox, J. (2003). Algebra in the early years. Young Children, 58(1), 14-21.
Vukovic, R. K., & Siegel, L. S. (2010). Academic and cognitive characteristics of persistent mathematics difficulty from first through fourth grade. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 25, 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2009.00298.x.
Wolters, M. A. (1991). The equal sign goes both ways. How mathematics instruction leads to the development of a common misconception. In PME conference (vol. 3, pp. 348-355).
Yerushalmy, M. (2006). Slower algebra students meet faster tools: Solving algebra word problems with graphing software. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37(5), 356-387.
Zwetzschler, L. & Prediger, S. (2013). Conceptual challenges for understanding the equivalence of expressions – a case study. In B. Ubuz, Ç. Haser, & M.A. Mariotti (Eds), Proceedings of the eighth congress of European research in mathematics education (CERME 8) (pp.558-567). Antalya, Turkey: ERME.

How to cite this article

APA

Swidan, O., & Daher, W. M. (2019). Low Achieving Students’ Realization of the Notion of Mathematical Equality with an Interactive Technological Artifacts. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(4), em1690. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/103073

Vancouver

Swidan O, Daher WM. Low Achieving Students’ Realization of the Notion of Mathematical Equality with an Interactive Technological Artifacts. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2019;15(4):em1690. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/103073

AMA

Swidan O, Daher WM. Low Achieving Students’ Realization of the Notion of Mathematical Equality with an Interactive Technological Artifacts. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2019;15(4), em1690. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/103073

Chicago

Swidan, Osama, and Wajeeh M. Daher. "Low Achieving Students’ Realization of the Notion of Mathematical Equality with an Interactive Technological Artifacts". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2019 15 no. 4 (2019): em1690. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/103073

Harvard

Swidan, O., and Daher, W. M. (2019). Low Achieving Students’ Realization of the Notion of Mathematical Equality with an Interactive Technological Artifacts. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(4), em1690. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/103073

MLA

Swidan, Osama et al. "Low Achieving Students’ Realization of the Notion of Mathematical Equality with an Interactive Technological Artifacts". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 15, no. 4, 2019, em1690. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/103073