Communications of Mathematical Education (한국수학교육학회지시리즈E:수학교육논문집)

Korean Society of Mathematical Education (한국수학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A discursive approach to analysis of definition of graph in first year middle school textbooks

담론적 관점(discursive approach)에서 중1 수학 교과서의 그래프 정의 분석

  • Received : 2018.08.13
  • Accepted : 2018.09.20
  • Published : 2018.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In order to analyze textbooks from a discursive approach, the purpose of this study is to structuralize an analytic framework based on previous literature review and apply it to analyzing the meanings and their syntheses developed by words and visual mediators appeared in the definition of graph in first-year middle school textbooks. The discursive approach consists of the communicational approach developed by Sfard(2008) and the systemic functional linguistics developed by Halliday(1985/2004). In this study, ideational meta-functions for ideational meanings and interpersonal meta-functions for interpersonal meanings were employed to analyze the meanings produced by words and visual mediators in textbooks, whereas textual meta-functions for textual meanings were used for analyzing the synthesized relationships between words and visual mediators. Results show that first, density in mathematical discourse was very high and subjects in mathematical activities were ambiguous in the ideational meanings of words, and behavior aspect was more emphasized than thinking aspect in the interpersonal meanings of words which request student participations. In the case of ideational meanings of visual mediators, there was a lack of narrative diagrams, whereas there were qualitative differences in the case of offer. Second, there was a need for promoting a wide range of diverse synthetic relationships between words and visual mediators for developing enriched mathematical meanings through the varying uses like specification, explanation, similarity, and complement. These results are so important that they provide a new analytic framework from a discursive approach to textbook analysis because not only words, but also visual mediators are analyzed as tools for producing meanings in mathematics textbooks and their synthetic relationships are also examined.

본 연구의 목적은 담론적 관점에서 수학 교과서를 분석하기 위해 선행 연구를 바탕으로 분석틀을 재구성하고, 중1수학 교과서의 '그래프 정의'에서 단어와 시각적 매개체가 생성하는 의미와 그 통합 관계를 분석하는데 적용하는 것이다. 담론적 관점은 Sfard(2008)의 의사소통학적 관점과 Halliday(1985/2004)의 체계기능언어학을 바탕으로 발전된 사회기호학적 관점이 통합된 것으로 이를 바탕으로 본 연구에서는 단어와 시각적 매개체가 생성하는 의미는 교과서에 구현된 수학을 관념적 메타기능이 실현하는 의미 측면과 학생의 수학적 활동의 참여 유도성을 대인관계적 메타기능이 실현하는 의미 측면으로 구분하여 분석하였고, 단어와 시각적 매개체의 통합 관계는 텍스트적 메타기능 측면에서 분석하였다. 그 결과 첫째, 단어의 관념적 의미는 수학 담론의 밀도가 높았을 뿐 아니라 수학적 활동의 주체가 모호하였고 학생 참여를 요구하는 단어의 대인관계적 의미는 사고보다는 주로 행동 측면이 강조되었다. 시각적 매개체가 구성하는 관념적 의미에서는 내러티브 다이어그램이 결여되었고 대인관계적 의미에서는 정보 제공에 질적 차이가 있었다. 둘째, 단어와 시각적 매개체의 통합 관계는 구체화, 설명, 유사, 보완처럼 다양한 방식을 통한 풍부한 수학 의미 형성을 위해 통합 관계의 다양성을 지향할 필요가 있었다. 이러한 결과는 수학 교과서를 분석하는데 의미를 생성하는 도구로서 단어와 함께 시각적 매개체의 사용을 분석하고 단어와 시각적 매개체의 통합 관계를 분석하였기 때문에 담론적 관점에서 교과서 분석의 새로운 분석틀을 제공한 의미가 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. The Ministry of Education (2015). Mathematics curriculum, Se Jong: The Ministry of Education.
  2. National Institute of Korean Language (2018). Standard Korean Language Dictionary(web version), National Institute of Korean Language. Retrieved from http://stdweb2.korean.go.kr/main.jsp#
  3. Kwon, S. & Park, K. S. (2011). A Critical Analysis on Usage and Defining Methods of Terms in Elememtary Mathematics Textbooks in Korea Centered on Some Examples, Journal of Elementary Mathematics Education in Korea, 15(2), 301-316.
  4. Kwon, Y. M. & An, B. G. (2005). The Analysis on Students' Understanding of Mathematics Terms Being Used in Elementary School Mathematics Textbooks, Journal of Elementary Mathematics Education in Korea, 9(2), 137-159.
  5. Kim, N. H. et al. (2016). Study of mathematics curriculum and teaching materials for pre-service teachers and in-service teachers, Seoul: Kyungmoonsa.
  6. Kim, S. H. & Paik, H. S. (2016). An exploration of the direction of a graph in middle school mathematics education, Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 16(6), 445-468.
  7. Kim, S. H. et al. (2015). A study to reform the mathematics textbooks that enhance the understanding of terms and symbols, KOFAC BD16010002.
  8. Kim, W. K. et. al. (2018). Middle School Mathematics 1, Seoul: Vi sang Textbook Publishers.
  9. Kim, C. & Shin, J. (2018). A Case Study of Students' Constructions and Interpretations of Informal Graphs, School Mathematics, 20(1), 107-130. https://doi.org/10.29275/sm.2018.03.20.1.107
  10. Lew, H. C. et. al. (2018). Middle School Mathematics 1, Seoul: Chun Jae Textbook Publishers.
  11. Ma, M. & Shin, J. (2016). Gifted Middle School Students' Covariational Reasoning Emerging through the Process of Algebra Word Problem Solving, School Mathematics, 18(1), 43-59.
  12. Park, K. S. (2013). An Analysis on Real State of Using Terms in Grade 1-2 Math Textbook/Workbook in Korea: Centered on 'Product', 'Place Value', 'Multiplication Stairs', 'Numeral', School Mathematics, 15(4), 833-846.
  13. Park, K. S. & Yim, J. H. (2005). A Critical Examination of Undefined Mathematical Terms Used in Elementary School Mathematics Textbooks of Korea, The journal of educational research in mathematics, 15(2), 197-213.
  14. Park, S., Byun, H., & Ju, M. (2011). Study on the Mathematics and Learning Characteristics of Middle School Students, KOFAC RRI 2011-5.
  15. Park, J. H. (2007). A Study on Teaching-Learning for Linguistic Realization in Informative Speech, Journal of Speech Communication, 10, 143-166.
  16. Pang, J. S., Kwon, M., & Kim, J. W. (2017). Analysis of the Adequacy of Vocabulary in Elementary Mathematics Textbooks and Workbooks for Grades 5 and 6, The journal of educational research in mathematics, 27(3), 329-350.
  17. An, K. Y. & Kwon, O. N. (2002). Error analysis and treatment in function graph task, J. Korea Soc. Math. Ed. Ser. E: Communications of Mathematical Education, 13(1). 337-360.
  18. Yang, S. H. (2017). A View on the Diversity of the Word and Mathematical Notation Expression Used in High School Mathematics Textbooks, Journal of the Korean School Mathematics Society, 20(3), 211-237.
  19. Lee, J. A., Maeng, S. H., & Kim, C. J. (2007). The Socio-semiotic Analysis of Visual Images in Elementary Science Textbooks: Focused on Weather and Forecast, The Journal of The Korean Earth Science Society, 28(3), 277-847. https://doi.org/10.5467/JKESS.2007.28.3.277
  20. Lee, C. H. & Kim, B. M. (2003). Analysis of the Error-Remedial Effect and Change of the Students' Misconception on the Learning of Linear Function, School Mathematics, 5(1), 115-133.
  21. Lee, J. Y. et al. (2018). Middle School Mathematics 1, Seoul: Chun Jae Textbook Publishers.
  22. Chang, H. et al. (2017). A Comparative Analysis of Ratio and Rate in Elementary Mathematics Textbooks, Journal of Elementary Mathematics Education in Korea, 21(1), 135-160.
  23. Jeon, S. K. (2017). A Systemic Functional Linguistic Study on Analyzing the Structure of Teaching Practice of High School Mathematics Lessons from the Perspective of Mathematical Objects(PhD Thesis), Department of Mathematics Education, Graduate School Yeungnam University.
  24. Jeon, S. K. & Cho, C. S. (2015). A Study on the Written Texts of a High School Mathematics Textbook and Teacher's Classroom Discourse, Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics, 25(4), 525-547.
  25. Jeon, Y. O. (2006). A Study on Unit of Spoken Language, Korean Language Research, 19, 271-299.
  26. Choi, Y. S. (2014). Critical discourse analysis, Seoul: Hankookmunhwasa.
  27. Alshwaikh, J. (2011). Geometrical diagrams as representation and communication: A functional analytic framework (PhD Thesis). Institute of Education, University of London, London.
  28. Alshwaikh, J. (2016). Investigating the geometry curriculum in Palestinian textbooks: towards multimodal analysis of Arabic mathematics discourse. Research in Mathematics Education, 18(2), 165-181. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2016.1177580
  29. Bezemer, J. & Kress, G. (2008). Writing in multimodal texts: A social semiotic account of designs for learning. Written Communication, 25(2), 166-195. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088307313177
  30. Department for Education. (2013). National curriculum in England: Mathematics programmes of study - key stage 3. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/239058/SECONDARY_national_curriculum_-_Mathematics.pdf
  31. Dimopoulos, K., Koulaidis, V., & Sklaveniti, S. (2003). Towards an Analysis of Visual Images in School Science Textbooks and Press Articles about Science and Technology. Research in Science Education, 33, 189-216. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025006310503
  32. Halliday, M. A. K. (1961). Categories of the theory of grammar. Word, 17(3), 242-292.
  33. Halliday, M. A. K. (1975). Language as social semiotic: towards a general sociolinguistic theory. Columbia: Hornbeam Press.
  34. Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arn.
  35. Halliday, M. A. K. (1985/2004). An introduction to functional grammar, 3rd edition. Revised by Matthiessen, M. I. M., London : Hodder Education.
  36. Halliday, M.A.K. & Martin, J. R.(1993). Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. London: the Falmer Press.
  37. Halliday, M. A. K. & Matthiessen, C. M. (1999) Construing Experience through Meaning: A Language Based Approach to Cognition. London: Cassell.
  38. Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government. (2015). Mathematics curriculum and assessment guide (Secondary 4-6). Hong Kong: HKSARG. Retrieved from http://www.edb.gov.hk/ attachment/en/curriculum-development/kla/ma/curr/Math_CAGuide_e_2015.pdf
  39. Hersh, R. (1997). What is mathematics, really? New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  40. Kress, G. & Van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual images. London: Routledge.
  41. Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., & Stein, M. K. (1990). Functions, graphs, and graphing : tasks, learning, and teaching, Review of Educational Research, 60(1), 1-64. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543060001001
  42. Lemke, J. L. (2003). Mathematics in the middle: Measure, picture, gesture, sign, and word. In A. Saenz-Ludlow, S. Sellweher, & V. Scifarelli(Eds.), Educational perspectives on mathematics as semiosis: From thinking to interpreting to knowing (pp. 215-234). Ottowa: Legas Publishing.
  43. McKenzie, D. L. & Padilla, M. J. (1986). The construction and validation of the test of graphing in science(TOGS). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(17), 571-579. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660230702
  44. Morgan, C. (1996). Writing mathematically: The discourse of investigation. London: Falmer Press.
  45. Morgan, C. (2016). Studying the role of human agency in school mathematics. Research in Mathematics Education, 18(2), 120-141. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2016.1176595
  46. Morgan, C. & Sfard, A. (2016). Investigating changes in high-stakes mathematics examinations: a discursive approach. Research in Mathematics Education, 18(2), 92-119. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2016.1176596
  47. Morgan, C. & Tang, S. (2016). To what extent are students expected to participate in specialised mathematical discourse? Change over time in school mathematics in England. Research in Mathematics Education, 18(2), 142-164. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2016.1174145
  48. O'Halloran, K. L. (2005). Mathematical Discourse: Language, Symbolism and Visual Images. London: Continuum.
  49. O'Halloran, K. L. (2015). The language of learning mathematics: A multimodal perspective. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 40, 63-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2014.09.002
  50. Park, J. (2016). Communicational approach to study textbook discourse on the derivative. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 91(3), 395-421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-015-9655-6
  51. Queensland Studies Authority. (2013). Year 7 mathematics - Australian curriculum in Queensland. Brisbane: Queensland Studies Authority.
  52. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2007). The linguistic challenges of mathematics teaching and learning: A research review. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23(2), 139-159. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560601158461
  53. Sfard, A. (2000). On reform movement and the limits of mathematical discourse. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 2(3), 157-189. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327833MTL0203_1
  54. Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: Human development, the growth of discourses, and mathematizing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  55. Solomon, Y. & O'Neill, J. (1998). Mathematics and narrative. Language and Education, 12(3), 210-221. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500789808666749
  56. Van Leeuwen, T. (2005). Introducing social semiotics. London: Routledge.
  57. Vygotsky, L. S. (2011). 생각과 말, (배희철, 김용호 역). 서울: 살림터. (러시아어초판은 1934년, 영어초판은 1986년 출판).
  58. Wagner, D. (2004). Silence and Voice in the Secondary Mathematics Classroom. unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
  59. Wagner, D. (2007). Students' critical awareness of voice and agency in mathematics classroom discourse. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 9(1), 31-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986060709336604
  60. Wittgenstein, L. (1953/2003). Philosophical investigations: The German text, with a revised English translation(3rd ed., G. E. M. Anscombe, Trans.). Malden, MA: Blackwell.