Abstract
In this chapter, we examined the experiences of 10-year old (fourth grade) students in the United States involved in a dynamic multi-modal environment as they explored the characteristics of 3D geometrical shapes. The environment we developed provided visual and physical feedback to students through the PHANTOM Omni® haptic device. This dynamic multi-modal environment enabled semiotic mediation where meanings are generated and substantiated through social interaction as students worked in groups. Adhering to a socio-cultural theoretical perspective, we mainly focused on students’ discourse when exploring the affordances of multi-modal technologies in their mathematical experiences. Our preliminary findings indicated that such technologies have the potential to present students with the opportunities to explore 3D objects through multiple perceptions, supporting meaningful discourse as students engage in mathematical activities such as exploring, conjecturing, negotiating meaning, and sense-making.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The website for PHANTOM Omni® is http://www.sensable.com/haptic-phantom-omni.htm.
- 2.
Using 2D vocabulary to talk about 3D shapes was quite common in students’ discourse.
References
Dede, C. (1999). The role of emerging technologies for knowledge mobilization, dissemination, and use in education. Washington, DC: Department of Education.
Dede, C. (2007). Reinventing the role of information and communications technologies in education. In L. Smolin, K. Lawless, & N. Burbules (Eds.), Information and communication technologies: Considerations of current practice for teachers and teacher educators (pp. 11–38). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Dede, C., Salzman, M. C., Loftin, R. B., & Sprague, D. (1999). Multisensory immersion as a modeling environment for learning complex scientific concepts. In N. Roberts, W. Feurzeig, & B. Hunter (Eds.), Computer modeling and simulation in science education (pp. 282–319). New York: Springer.
Edwards, D. (1993). But what do children really think? Discourse analysis and conceptual content in children’s talk. Cognition and Instruction, 11(3/4), 207–225.
Falcade, R., Laborde, C., & Mariotti, M. A. (2007). Approaching functions: Cabri tools as instruments of semiotic mediation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66(3), 317–333.
Hasan, R. (1992). Speech genre, semiotic mediation and the development of higher mental functions. Language Sciences, 14(4), 489–528.
Hegedus, S. (2005). Dynamic representations: A new perspective on instrumental genesis. In M. Bosch (Ed.), Proceedings of CERME 4, the Fourth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education. Barcelona, Spain: Ramon Llull University.
Hegedus, S., Güçler, B., Robidoux, R., & Burke, J. (2011). Examining expressive discourse in multi-modal technology environments. In L. R. Wiest, & T. Lamberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 1989–1990). Reno, NV: University of Nevada.
Holland, D., Skinner, D., Lachicotte, W., & Cain, C. (2003). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Jackiw, N. (1991, 2009). The Geometer’s Sketchpad computer software (version 1; version 5). Emeryville, CA: Key Curriculum Press.
Jackiw, N., & Sinclair, N. (2007). Dynamic geometry activity design for elementary school mathematics. In C. Hoyles, J.-B. Lagrange, L. H. Sun, & N. Sinclair (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth ICMI Study Conference “Technology Revisited” (pp. 236–245). Paris: Hanoi Institute of Technology and Didirem University.
Kaput, J. (1992). Technology and mathematics education. In D. Grouws (Ed.), A handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 515–556). New York: Macmillan.
King, J. R., & Schattschneider, D. (Eds.). (1997). Geometry turned on! Dynamic software in learning, teaching and research. Washington, DC: The Mathematical Association of America.
Kozulin, A. (1990). Vygotsky’s psychology: A biography of ideas. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Laborde, J. M., & Straesser, R. (1990). Cabri-géomètre: A microworld of geometry for guided discovery learning. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 5, 171–177.
Lederman, S. J. (1983). Tactile roughness perception: Spatial and temporal determinants. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 37(4), 498–511.
Mariotti, M. A. (2000). Introduction to proof: The mediation of a dynamic software environment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44(1–2), 25–53.
Massachusetts Department of Education. (2011). Massachusetts curriculum framework for mathematics. Malden, MA: Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Massachusetts Department of Education. Available at http://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/math/0311.pdf/
McLaughlin, M., Hespanha, J., & Sukhatme, G. (2002). Touch in virtual environments: Haptics and the design of interactive systems. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Minogue, J., & Jones, M. G. (2006). Haptics in education: Exploring an untapped sensory modality. Review of Educational Research, 76(3), 317–348.
Moreno-Armella, L., Hegedus, S., & Kaput, J. (2008). From static to dynamic mathematics: Historical and representational perspectives. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 68(2), 99–111.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Pea, R. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 47–87). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Revesz, G. (1950). The psychology and art of the blind. London: Longmans Green.
Sathian, K., Zangaladze, A., Hoffman, J., & Grafton, S. (1997). Feeling with the mind’s eye. Neuroreport, 8(18), 3877–3881.
Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: Human development, the growth of discourses and mathematizing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Thompson Avant, M. J., & Heller, K. W. (2011). Examining the effectiveness of TouchMath with students with physical disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 32(4), 309–321.
Verry, R. (1998). Don’t take touch for granted: An interview with Susan Lederman. Teaching Psychology, 25(1), 64–67.
Vygotsky, L. (1980). Mind in society: The development of the higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Zangaladze, A., Epstein, C. M., Grafton, S. T., & Sathian, K. (1999). Involvement of visual cortex in tactile discrimination of orientation. Nature, 401(6753), 587–590.
Acknowledgments
This work is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. REC-0835395. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the agency.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Güçler, B., Hegedus, S., Robidoux, R., Jackiw, N. (2013). Investigating the Mathematical Discourse of Young Learners Involved in Multi-Modal Mathematical Investigations: The Case of Haptic Technologies. In: Martinovic, D., Freiman, V., Karadag, Z. (eds) Visual Mathematics and Cyberlearning. Mathematics Education in the Digital Era, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2321-4_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2321-4_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-2320-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-2321-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)