Students’ agency, creative reasoning, and collaboration in mathematical problem solving
Tóm tắt
This paper aims to give detailed insights of interactional aspects of students’ agency, reasoning, and collaboration, in their attempt to solve a linear function problem together. Four student pairs from a Norwegian upper secondary school suggested and explained ideas, tested it out, and evaluated their solution methods. The student–student interactions were studied by characterizing students’ individual mathematical reasoning, collaborative processes, and exercised agency. In the analysis, two interaction patterns emerged from the roles in how a student engaged or refrained from engaging in the collaborative work. Students’ engagement reveals aspects of how collaborative processes and mathematical reasoning co-exist with their agencies, through two ways of interacting: bi-directional interaction and one-directional interaction. Four student pairs illuminate how different roles in their collaboration are connected to shared agency or individual agency for merging knowledge together in shared understanding. In one-directional interactions, students engaged with different agencies as a primary agent, leading the conversation, making suggestions and explanations sometimes anchored in mathematical properties, or, as a secondary agent, listening and attempting to understand ideas are expressed by a peer. A secondary agent rarely reasoned mathematically. Both students attempted to collaborate, but rarely or never disagreed. The interactional pattern in bi-directional interactions highlights a mutual attempt to collaborate where both students were the driving forces of the problem-solving process. Students acted with similar roles where both were exercising a shared agency, building the final argument together by suggesting, accepting, listening, and negotiating mathematical properties. A critical variable for such a successful interaction was the collaborative process of repairing their shared understanding and reasoning anchored in mathematical properties of linear functions.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Alrø, H., & Skovsmose, O. (2004). Dialogic learning in collaborative investigation. Nordisk Matematikkdidaktikk, 9(2), 39–62.
Baker, M. J. (2015). Collaboration in collaborative learning. Interaction Studies, 16(3), 451–473. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.16.3.05bak
Best, M., & Bikner-Ahsbahs, A. (2017). The function concept at the transition to upper secondary school level: tasks for a situation of change. ZDM, 49(6), 865–880. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0880-6
Boesen, J., Helenius, O., Bergqvist, E., Bergqvist, T., Lithner, J., Palm, T., & Palmberg, B. (2014). Developing mathematical competence: from the intended to the enacted curriculum. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 33, 72–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2013.10.001
Carlsen, M., Erfjord, I., Hundeland, P. S., & Monaghan, J. (2016). Kindergarten teachers’ orchestration of mathematical activities afforded by technology: agency and mediation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 93(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-016-9692-9
Child, S., & Shaw, S. (2016). Collaboration in the 21st century: implications for assessment. Research Matters: A Cambridge Assessment publication, 22, 17–22.
Child, S., & Shaw, S. (2018). Towards an operational framework for establishing and assessing collaborative interactions. Research Papers in Education, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2018.1424928
Cobb, P., Gresalfi, M., & Hodge, L. L. (2009). An interpretive scheme for analyzing the identities that students develop in mathematics classrooms. Journal for research in mathematics education, 40(1), 40–68.
Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative-learning: cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Oxford: Elsevier.
Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M. J., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In E. Spada & P. Reiman (Eds.), Learning in humans and machine: towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189–211). Oxford: Elsevier.
Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399–483. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI2004_1
Freudenthal, H. (1991). Revisiting mathematics: China lectures. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Granberg, C., & Olsson, J. (2015). ICT-supported problem solving and collaborative creative reasoning: exploring linear functions using dynamic mathematics software. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 37, 48–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2014.11.001
Gresalfi, M., Martin, T., Hand, V., & Greeno, J. (2009). Constructing competence: an analysis of student participation in the activity systems of mathematics classrooms. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(1), 49–70.
Hiebert, J., & Grouws, D. A. (2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students’ learning. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 371–404). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Kuhn, D. (2015). Thinking together and alone. Educational researcher, 44(1), 46–53. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x15569530
Langer-Osuna, J. (2018). Exploring the central role of student authority relations in collaborative mathematics., 50(6), 1077–1087. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0965-x
Lithner, J. (2008). A research framework for creative and imitative reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67(3), 255–276.
Lithner, J. (2017). Principles for designing mathematical tasks that enhance imitative and creative reasoning. ZDM, 49(6), 937–949. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0867-3
Martin, L., & Towers, J. (2015). Growing mathematical understanding through collective image making, collective image having, and collective property noticing. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 88(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-014-9552-4
Michelsen, C. (2006). Functions: a modelling tool in mathematics and science. ZDM, 38(3), 269–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02652810
Mueller, M., Yankelewitz, D., & Maher, C. (2012). A framework for analyzing the collaborative construction of arguments and its interplay with agency. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 80(3), 369–387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-011-9354-x
Olsson, J. (2018). The contribution of reasoning to the utilization of feedback from software when solving mathematical problems. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(4), 715–735. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9795-x
Olsson, J. (2019). Relations between task design and students’ utilization of GeoGebra. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 5, 223–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-019-00051-6
Pijls, M., & Dekker, R. (2011). Students discussing their mathematical ideas: the role of the teacher. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 23(4), 379–396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-011-0022-3
Powell, A., Francisco, J., & Maher, C. (2003). An analytical model for studying the development of learners’ mathematical ideas and reasoning using videotape data. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 22(4), 405–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2003.09.002
Preiner, J. (2008). Introducing dynamic mathematics software to mathematics teachers: the case of GeoGebra. (PhD thesis), University of Salzburg, Austria. Retrieved from http://www.pucrs.br/ciencias/viali/tic_literatura/teses/Preiner_Judith.pdf
Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. O'Malley (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning (Vol. 128, pp. 69–97). NATO ASI Series (Series F: Computer and Systems Sciences): Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Sarmiento, J. W., & Stahl, G. (2008). Extending the joint problem space: time and sequences as essential features of knowledge building. In G. Kanselaar, Jonker, V., Kirschner, P. A., & Prins, F. J. (Ed.), International perspectives in the learning sciences: creating a learning world. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference for the Learning Sciences – ICLS 2008 (Vol. 2, pp. 295–302). Utrecht, The Netherlands: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Schoenfeld, A. (2013). Classroom observations in theory and practice. ZDM, 45(4), 607–621. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-012-0483-1
Seidouvy, A., & Schindler, M. (2019). An inferentialist account of students’ collaboration in mathematics education. Mathematics Education Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-019-00267-0
Sengupta-Irving, T. (2016). Doing things: organizing for agency in mathematical learning. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 41, 210–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2015.10.001
Sidenvall, J. (2019). Literature review of mathematics teaching design for problem solving and reasoning. Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education, 24(1), 51–74.
Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: an introduction. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Stake, R. E. (2003). Case Studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed., pp. 134–164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Staples, M. (2007). Supporting whole-class collaborative inquiry in a secondary mathematics classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 25(2–3), 161–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000701301125
Stein, M. K., Engle, R. A., Smith, M. S., & Hughes, E. K. (2008). Orchestrating productive mathematical discussions: five practices for helping teachers move beyond show and tell. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(4), 313–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986060802229675
Stockero, S. L., Leatham, K. R., Ochieng, M. A., Van Zoest, L. R., & Peterson, B. E. (2019). Teachers’ orientations toward using student mathematical thinking as a resource during whole-class discussion. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-018-09421-0
Thompson, P. W. (1994). Students, functions, and the undergraduate curriculum. Research in collegiate mathematics education, 1, 21–44. https://doi.org/10.1090/cbmath/004/02
van de Pol, J., Mercer, N., & Volman, M. (2018). Scaffolding student understanding in small-group work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28(2), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2018.1522258
Varhol, A., Drageset, O. G., & Hansen, M. N. (2020). Discovering key interactions. How student interactions relate to progress in mathematical generalization. Mathematics Education Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-020-00308-z
Yackel, E. (2001). Explanation, justification and argumentation in mathematics classrooms. In M. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 25th International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 9–24). Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for research in mathematics education, 27(4), 458–477. https://doi.org/10.2307/749877