Search

Non-mathematics specialists' competence and confidence in mathematics in their disciplines have been highlighted as in need of improvement. We report from a collaborative, developmental research project which explores the conjecture that greater integration of mathematics and biology in biology study programs, for example through engaging students with Mathematical Modeling (MM) activities, is one way to achieve this improvement. We examine the evolution of 12 first-semester biology students' mathematical discourse as they engage with such activities in four sessions which ran concurrently with their mandatory mathematics course and were taught by a mathematician with extensive experience with MM. The sessions involved brief introductions to different aspects of MM, followed by small-group work on tasks set in biological contexts. Our analyses use the "theory of commognition" to investigate the tensions between "ritualized and exploratory participation" in the students' MM activity. We focus particularly on a quintessential "routine" in MM, "assumption building": we trace attempts which start from ritualized engagement in the shape of "guesswork" and evolve into more productively exploratory formulations. We also identify signs of persistent "commognitive conflict" in the students' activity, both "intra-mathematical" (concerning what is meant by a "math task") and "extra-mathematical" (concerning what constitutes a plausible solution to the tasks in a biological sense). Our analyses show evidence of the fluid interplay between ritualized and exploratory engagement in the students' discursive activity and contribute towards what we see as a much needed distancing from operationalization of the commognitive constructs of ritual and exploration as an unhelpfully dichotomous binary.

We examine teachers' use of resources as they prepare to teach the topic of numerical series of real numbers, in order to identify how their "personal relationship" with mathematical content--and its teaching--interacts with their use of a commonly used textbook. We describe this interplay between textbook and personal relationship, a term coined in the Anthropological Theory of the Didactic (ATD, Chevallard, 2003), in terms of "documentation work" ("resources," "aims," "rules of action," "operational invariants"), a key construct from the documentational approach (DA, Gueudet & Trouche, in "Educational Studies in Mathematics," 71, 199-218, 2009). We do so in the case of five post-secondary teachers who use the same textbook as a main resource for teaching the topic. Documentational analysis of interviews with the teachers led to the identification of their aims and rules of action (the "what" and "how" of their resource use as they organise their teaching of the topic) as well as the operational invariants (the "why" for this organisation of their teaching). We describe the teachers' documentation work in two sets of aims/rules of action: scaffolding mathematical content (series as a stepping stone to learning about Taylor polynomials and Maclaurin series), and organising student learning about series through drill exercises, visualisation, examples, and applications. Our bridging (networking) of theoretical constructs originating in one theoretical framework (personal relationship, ATD) with the constructs of a different, yet compatible, framework (documentation work, DA) aims to enrich the latter (teachers' documentation work) with the individual agency (teachers' personal relationships with the topic) provided by the former.

This paper is a commentary on the classroom interventions on the teaching and learning of proof reported in the seven empirical papers in this special issue. The seven papers show potential to enhance student learning in an area of mathematics that is not only notoriously difficult for students to learn and for teachers to teach, but also critically important to knowing and doing mathematics. Although the seven papers, and the intervention studies they report, vary in many ways--student population, content domain, goals and duration of the intervention, and theoretical perspectives, to name a few--they all provide valuable insight into ways in which classroom experiences might be designed to positively influence students' learning to prove. In our commentary, we highlight the contributions and promise of the interventions in terms of whether and how they present capacity to change the classroom culture, the curriculum, or instruction. In doing so, we distinguish between works that aim to enhance students' preparedness for, and competence in, proof and proving and works that explicitly foster appreciation for the need and importance of proof and proving. Finally, we also discuss briefly the interventions along three dimensions: how amenable to scaling up, how practicable for curricular integration, and how capable of producing long-lasting effects these interventions are.

Storytelling is an engaging way through which lived experience can be shared and reflected upon, and a tool through which difference, diversity--and even conflict--can be acknowledged and elaborated upon. Narrative approaches to research bring the richness and vibrancy of storytelling into how data is collected and interpretations of it shared. In this paper, I demonstrate the potency of the narrative approach of "re-storying" for a certain type of university mathematics education research ("non-deficit," "non-prescriptive," "context-specific," "example-centred" and "mathematically focused") conducted at the interface of two communities: mathematics education and mathematics. I do so through reference to "Amongst Mathematicians" (Nardi, 2008), a study carried out in collaboration with 20 university mathematicians from six UK mathematics departments. The study deployed re-storying to present data and analyses in the form of a "dialogue" between two fictional, yet entirely data-grounded, characters--M, mathematician, and RME, researcher in mathematics education. In the dialogues, the typically conflicting epistemologies--and mutual perceptions of such epistemologies--of the two communities come to the fore as do the feasibility-of, benefits-from, obstacles-in and conditions-for collaboration between these communities. First, I outline the use of narrative approaches in mathematics education research. Then, I introduce the study and its use of re-storying, illustrating this with an example: the construction of a dialogue from interview data in which the participating mathematicians discuss the potentialities and pitfalls of visualisation in university mathematics teaching. I conclude by outlining re-storying as a vehicle for community rapprochement achieved through generating and sharing research findings--the "substance" of research--in "forms" that reflect the fundamental principles and aims that underpin this research. My conclusions resonate with sociocultural constructs that view mathematics teacher education as contemporary "praxis" and the aforementioned inter-community discussion as taking place within a "third" space.

In this paper, we propose an approach to analysing teacher arguments that takes into account field dependence--namely, in Toulmin's sense, the dependence of warrants deployed in an argument on the field of activity to which the argument relates. Freeman, to circumvent issues that emerge when we attempt to determine the field(s) that an argument relates to, proposed a classification of warrants ("a priori, empirical, institutional and evaluative"). Our approach to analysing teacher arguments proposes an adaptation of Freeman's classification that distinguishes between: epistemological and pedagogical a priori warrants, professional and personal empirical warrants, epistemological and curricular institutional warrants, and evaluative warrants. Our proposition emerged from analyses conducted in the course of a written response and interview study that engages secondary mathematics teachers with classroom scenarios from the mathematical areas of analysis and algebra. The scenarios are hypothetical, grounded on seminal learning and teaching issues, and likely to occur in actual practice. To illustrate our proposed approach to analysing teacher arguments here, we draw on the data we collected through the use of one such scenario, the Tangent Task. We demonstrate how teacher arguments, not analysed for their mathematical accuracy only, can be reconsidered, arguably more productively, in the light of other teacher considerations and priorities: pedagogical, curricular, professional and personal.

Looks back over a number of exploratory studies that have researched young children's construction of meaning for graphs produced from data entered into spreadsheets. Discusses children's use of normalizing, an activity in which children 'correct' data towards some perceived norm. (Author/MM)

Identifies and explores the difficulties in the novice mathematician's encounter with mathematical abstraction. Observes 20 first-year mathematics undergraduates and extracts sets of episodes from the transcripts of the tutorials and interviews within five topics in pure mathematics. Discusses issues related to the learning of one mathematical topic, Group Theory. (Contains 26 references.) (Author/ASK)