Advertisement

Emerging perspectives in mathematical cognition: contextualizing, complementizing, and complexifying

  • Thorsten ScheinerEmail author
  • Márcia M. F. Pinto
Article
  • 40 Downloads

Abstract

This article describes emerging perspectives on contextualizing, complementizing, and complexifying—three processes involved when individuals ascribe meaning to mathematical objects of their thinking. The article is oriented toward a dialectic between theory and empirical research and is structured in two parts. The first part focuses on an evolving theoretical framing that acknowledges the significance of these three processes in mathematical cognition. In the second part, the evolving theoretical framing is used to analyze one student’s knowing of the limit concept of a sequence. This analysis directs one’s attention to the emergence and function of this student’s knowledge resource, which was generic in usage and complex in structure, allowing the activation of productive ideas and contextual meaning-making as needed. Through this analysis, theoretical and interpretative possibilities were generated that inform research on mathematical cognition and elucidate the emerging theoretical perspectives of contextualizing, complementizing, and complexifying.

Keywords

Mathematical cognition Meaning-making Theory advancement Giving meaning Limit concept 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Annie Selden for her thoughtful comments and helpful suggestions given throughout the development of this paper. The first author wants to thank for support of this work both the Foundation of German Business through the Klaus Murmann Fellowship and Macquarie University through the Research Excellence Scholarship.

References

  1. Arnon, I., Cottrill, J., Dubinsky, E., Oktaç, A., Roa Fuentes, S., Trigueros, M., & Weller, K. (2014). APOS theory: A framework for research and curriculum development in mathematics education. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Arzarello, F., Bazzini, L., & Chiappini, G. (2001). A model for analysing algebraic processes of thinking. In R. Sutherland, T. Rojano, A. Bell, & R. Lins (Eds.), Perspectives on school algebra (pp. 61–81). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  3. Bass, H. (2017). Designing opportunities to learn mathematics theory-building practices. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 95(3), 229–244.Google Scholar
  4. Barnard, A., & Tall, D. (1997). Cognitive units, connections and mathematical proof. In E. Pehkonen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 21 st International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 41–48). Lahti, Finland: PME.Google Scholar
  5. Clement, J. (2000). Analysis of clinical interviews: foundations and model viability. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 547–590). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  6. Cornu, B. (1991). Limits. In D. O. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 153–166). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  7. Davis, R., & Vinner, S. (1986). The notion of limit: Some seemingly unavoidable misconception stages. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 5, 281–303.Google Scholar
  8. diSessa, A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10, 105–225.Google Scholar
  9. diSessa, A., & Cobb, P. (2004). Ontological innovation and the role of theory in design experiments. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 77–103.Google Scholar
  10. diSessa, A., Sherin, B., & Levin, M. (2016). Knowledge analysis: An introduction. In A. A. diSessa, M. Levin, & N. J. S. Brown (Eds.), Knowledge and interaction: A synthetic agenda for the learning sciences (pp. 30–71). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Dörfler, W. (2002). Formation of mathematical objects as decision making. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 4(4), 337–350.Google Scholar
  12. Dubinsky, E. (1991). Reflective abstraction in advanced mathematical thinking. In D. O. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 95–123). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  13. Duval, R. (2006). A cognitive analysis of problems of comprehension in a learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61(1–2), 103–131.Google Scholar
  14. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  15. Frege, G. (1892a). Über Begriff und Gegenstand (on concept and object). Vierteljahresschrift für wissenschaftliche Philosophie, 16, 192–205.Google Scholar
  16. Frege, G. (1892b). Über Sinn und Bedeutung (On sense and reference). Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik, 100, 25–50.Google Scholar
  17. Frege, G. (1918/1919). Der Gedanke: Eine logische Untersuchung. Beiträge zur Philosophie des deutschen Idealismus, 2, 58–77.Google Scholar
  18. Freudenthal, H. (1978). Weeding and sowing: Preface to a science of mathematical education. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Reidel.Google Scholar
  19. Gray, E., Pinto, M., Pitta, D., & Tall, D. (1999). Knowledge construction and diverging thinking in elementary & advanced mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 38(1–3), 111–133.Google Scholar
  20. Gray, E., & Tall, D. (1994). Duality, ambiguity and flexibility: A proceptual view of simple arithmetic. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(2), 115–141.Google Scholar
  21. Harel, G., & Tall, D. (1991). The general, the abstract, and the generic in advanced mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 11(1), 38–42.Google Scholar
  22. Mason, J. (1989). Mathematical abstraction as the result of a delicate shift of attention. For the Learning of Mathematics, 9(2), 2–8.Google Scholar
  23. Mason, J., & Pimm, D. (1984). Generic examples: Seeing the general in the particular. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 15(3), 277–289.Google Scholar
  24. Mole, C. (2011). Attention is cognitive unison: An essay in philosophical psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (1996). Windows on mathematical meanings: Learning cultures and computers. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  26. Peirce, C. (1931). The collected papers of Charles S. Peirce. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Piaget, J. [and collaborators] (1977/2001). Studies in reflecting abstraction (Recherches sur l’ abstraction réfléchissante) (translated by R. Campbell). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  28. Pinto, M. (1998). Students’ understanding of real analysis. Coventry, UK: University of Warwick.Google Scholar
  29. Pinto, M., & Tall, D. (2002). Building formal mathematics on visual imagery: A case study and a theory. For the Learning of Mathematics, 22(1), 2–10.Google Scholar
  30. Pirie, S., & Kieren, T. (1994). Growth in mathematical understanding: How can we characterise it and how can we represent it? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26(2–3), 165–190.Google Scholar
  31. Przenioslo, M. (2004). Images of the limit of function formed in the course of mathematical studies at the university. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 55(1–3), 103–132.Google Scholar
  32. Radford, L. (2002). The seen, the spoken and the written: A semiotic approach to the problem of objectification of mathematical knowledge. For the Learning of Mathematics, 22(2), 14–23.Google Scholar
  33. Radford, L. (2013). Three key concepts of the theory of objectification: Knowledge, knowing, and learning. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 2(1), 7–44.Google Scholar
  34. Scheiner, T. (2016). New light on old horizon: Constructing mathematical concepts, underlying abstraction processes, and sense making strategies. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 91(2), 165–183.Google Scholar
  35. Schoenfeld, A., Smith, J., & Arcavi, A. (1993). Learning: The microgenetic analysis of one student’s evolving understanding of a complex subject matter domain. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 55–175). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  36. Schwarz, B., Dreyfus, T., & Hershkowitz, R. (2009). The nested epistemic actions model for abstraction in context. In B. B. Schwarz, T. Dreyfus, & R. Hershkowitz (Eds.), Transformation of knowledge through classroom interaction (pp. 11–41). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Sfard, A. (1991). On the dual nature of mathematical conceptions: Reflections on processes and objects as different sides of the same coin. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22(1), 1–36.Google Scholar
  38. Skemp, R. (1986). The psychology of learning mathematics. (2nd ed., first published 1971). London, UK: Penguin Group.Google Scholar
  39. Smith, J., diSessa, A., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115–163.Google Scholar
  40. Tall, D. (2013). How humans learn to think mathematically. Exploring the three worlds of mathematics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Tall, D., Gray, E., Ali, M., Crowley, L., DeMarois, P., McGowen, M., … Yusof, Y. (2001). Symbols and the bifurcation between procedural and conceptual thinking. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 1(1), 81–104.Google Scholar
  42. Tall, D., & Schwarzenberger, R. (1978). Conflicts in the learning of real numbers and limits. Mathematics Teaching, 82, 44–49.Google Scholar
  43. Tall, D., & Vinner, S. (1981). Concept image and concept definition in mathematics with particular reference to limit and continuity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12(2), 151–169.Google Scholar
  44. van Oers, B. (1998). From context to contextualizing. Learning and Instruction, 8(6), 473–488.Google Scholar
  45. Williams, S. (1991). Models of limit held by college calculus students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(3), 219–236.Google Scholar
  46. Yopp, D., & Ely, R. (2016). When does an argument use a generic example? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 91(1), 37–53.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Learning Sciences & Teacher EducationAustralian Catholic UniversityBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.The University of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand
  3. 3.Federal University of Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations