Designing Innovative Learning Activities to Face Difficulties in Algebra of Dyscalculic Students: Exploiting the Functionalities of AlNuSet

Chapter
Part of the Mathematics Education in the Digital Era book series (MEDE, volume 8)

Abstract

In this chapter I discuss students’ difficulties in algebra, considering in particular those students affected by developmental dyscalculia (DD) (Butterworth in Handbook of Mathematical Cognition. Hove, UK: Psychology Press, 2005; Dehaene in The number sense: How the mind creates mathematics. New York, Oxford University Press, 1997). Focusing on algebraic notions such as unknown, variable, algebraic expression, equation and solution of an equation, I will describe possible processes of meaning making in students with low achievement in mathematics, or even diagnosed with DD including adult learners. This involves considering algebra not only in its syntactic aspects but also in its semantic ones. The assumption on which the work is based, is that some difficulties in learning algebra could be due to the lack of meaning attributed by the students to the algebraic notions. Basing the analyses on studies both in the domain of cognitive psychology and in the domain of mathematics education, I will show how students with DD can make sense of the algebraic notions considered above, thanks to tasks designed within AlNuSet exploiting its semiotic multi-representations based on visual, non-verbal and kinaesthetic-tactile systems. AlNuSet (Algebra of Numerical Sets) is a digital artifact for dynamic algebra, designed for students of lower and upper secondary school.

Keywords

Algebra Developmental dyscalculia AlNuSet Task Variable Solution of an equation Algebraic expression 

References

  1. Artigue, M., & Perrin-Glorian, M. J. (1991). Didactic engineering, research and development tool: some theoretical problems linked to this duality. For the learning of Mathematics, 11(1), 13–17.Google Scholar
  2. Arzarello, F. (2006). Semiosis as a multimodal process. Relime, Revista latinoamericana de investigación en matemática educativa, 9(1), 267–299.Google Scholar
  3. Arzarello, F., & Edwards, L. (2005). Gesture and the construction of mathematical meaning (research forum 2). In Proceedings of 29th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 122–145). Melbourne, AU: PME.Google Scholar
  4. Arzarello, F., & Robutti, O. (2001). From body motion to algebra through graphing. In H. Chick, K. Stacey, J. Vincent, & J. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th ICMI Study Conference (Vol. 1, pp. 33–40). Australia: The University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
  5. Arzarello, F., Bazzini, L., & Chiappini, G. P. (1994). Intensional semantics as a tool to analyse algebraic thinking. Rendiconti del Seminario Matematico dell’Università di Torino, 52(1), 105–125.Google Scholar
  6. Baccaglini-Frank, A., & Robotti, E. (2013). Gestire gli studenti con DSA in classe: alcuni elementi di un quadro commune. In Convegno Grimed 18 “Per piacere voglio contare-difficoltà, disturbi di apprendimento e didattica della matematica”, Padova, (pp. 75–86).Google Scholar
  7. Butterworth, B. (2003). Dyscalculia screening. London, Uk: nferNelson Publishing Company Limited. (ISBN: 0 7087 0366 6).Google Scholar
  8. Butterworth, B. (2005). Developmental Dyscalculia. In Handbook of mathematical cognition (pp. 455–467). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  9. Chiappini, G., Robotti, E., & Trgalova, J. (2010). Role of an artifact of dynamic algebra in the conceptualization of the algebraic equality. In Proceedings of CERME 6, Lyon, France (pp. 619–628). www.inrp.fr/editions/cerme6.
  10. Chaachoua, H., Chiappini, G., Croset, M. C., Pedemonte, B., & Robotti, E., (2012). Introduction de nouvelles rerpésentations dans deux environnements pour l’apprentissage de l’algèbre. Recherche en Didactique des mathématiques, 253–281.Google Scholar
  11. Dehaene, S. (1997). The number sense: How the mind creates mathematics. New York, Oxford Unicersity Press.Google Scholar
  12. DeThorne, L. S., & Schaefer, B. A. (2004). A guide to child nonverbal IQ measures. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 13(4), 275–290.Google Scholar
  13. Fandiño Pinilla, M. I. (2005). Le frazioni, aspetti concettuali e didattici. Bologna: Pitagora Editrice.Google Scholar
  14. Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G. (2005). The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22(3/4), 455–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hittmair-Delazer, M., Sailer, U., & Benke, T. (1995). Impaired Arithmetic Facts But Intact Conceptual Knowledge a Single—Case Study of Dyscalculia. Cortex, 31(1), 139–147.Google Scholar
  16. Kieran, C. (2006). Research on the learning and teaching of algebra. In G. Gutierrez, & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of Research on the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Past, Present and Future (pp. 11–49). Rotterdam, Taipei: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  17. Landy, D., & Goldstone, R. L. (2010). Proximity and precedence in arithmetic. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (Colchester), 63, 1953–1968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Leung, A., & Bolite-Frant, J. (2015). Designing mathematics tasks: The role of tools. In A. Watson & M. Ohtani (Eds.), Task design in mathematics education: The 22nd ICMI study (new ICMI study series) (pp. 191–225). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mammarella, I. C., Giofrè, D., Ferrara, R., & Cornoldi, C. (2013). Intuitive geometry and visuospatial working memory in children showing symptoms of nonverbal learning disabilities. Child Neuropsychology, 19(3), 235–249.Google Scholar
  20. Mammarella, I. C., Lucangeli, D., & Carnoldi, C. (2010). Spatial working memory and arithmetic deficits in children with non verbal learning difficulties. Journal of Learning Disability, 43, 455–468.Google Scholar
  21. Mariani, L. (1996). Investigating learning styles, perspectives. Journal of TESOL-Italy, XXI, 2/XXII, 1, (pp. 35–49). Spring.Google Scholar
  22. Mason, J., & Johnston-Wilder, S. (2006). Designing and using mathematical tasks. Tarquin.Google Scholar
  23. Nemirovsky, R. (2003). Three conjectures concerning the relationship between body activity and understanding mathematics. In N. A. Pateman, B. J. Dougherty, & J. T. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings 27th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 103–135). Honolulu, Hawaii: PME. C. K. Ogden, & I. A. Richards (1923).Google Scholar
  24. Núñez, R. (2000). Mathematical idea analysis: What embodied cognitive science can say about the human nature of mathematics. In XXX (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24 PME Conference (Vol. 1, pp. 3–22). Japan: Hiroshima University.Google Scholar
  25. Radford, L. (2005). Body, tool, and symbol: semiotic reflections on cognition. In E. Simmt, & B. Davis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2004 Annual Meeting of the Canadian Mathematics Education Study Group (pp. 111–117). Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
  26. Raghubar, K. P., Barnes, M. A., & Hecht, S. A. (2010). Working memory and mathematics: A review of developmental, individual difference, and cognitive approaches. Learning and individual differences, 20(2), 110–122.Google Scholar
  27. Robotti, E. (2013). Dynamic representations for algebraic objects available in AlNuSet: How develop meanings of the notions involved in the equation solution. In C. Margolinas (Ed.), Task design in mathematics education: Proceedings of ICMI study 22 (pp. 99–108). UK: Oxford.Google Scholar
  28. Robotti, E., & Baccaglini-Frank, A. (2016). Using digital environments to address students’ mathematical learning difficulties. In E. Faggiano, F. Ferrara, & A. Montone (Eds.), Innovation and technology enhancing mathematics education. Perspectives in the digital era. Springer Publisher (accepted).Google Scholar
  29. Robotti, E., & Ferrando, E. (2013). Difficulties in algebra: new educational approach by AlNuSet. In E. Faggiano, & A. Montone (Eds.), Proceedings of ICTMT11, 250–25. Italy: ICTMT.Google Scholar
  30. Robutti, O. (2005). Hearing gestures in modelling activities with the use of technology. In F. Olivero, & R. Sutherland (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th international conference on technology in mathematics teaching (pp. 252–261). University of Bristol.Google Scholar
  31. Rourke, B. P., & Conway, J. A. (1997). Disabilities of arithmetic and mathematical reasoning perspectives from neurology and neuropsychology. Journal of Learning disabilities, 30(1), 34–46.Google Scholar
  32. Sfard, A., & Linchevsky, L. (1992). Equations and inequalities: Processes without objects? In W. Goeslin, K. Graham (Ed.), Proceedings PME XVI, Durham, NH (Vol. 3, p. 136).Google Scholar
  33. Stella, G., & Grandi, L. (2011). Conoscere la dislessia e i DSA. Giunti Editore.Google Scholar
  34. Szucs, D., Devine, A., Soltesz, F., Nobes, A., & Gabriel, F. (2013). Developmental dyscalculia is related to visuo-spatial memory and inhibition impairment. Cortex, 49(10), 2674–2688.Google Scholar
  35. Temple, C. M. (1991). Procedural dyscalculia and number fact dyscalculia: Double dissociation in developmental dyscalculia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 8, 155–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Thomas, M. O. J., & Tall, D. O. (2001). The long-term cognitive development of symbolic algebra. In H. Chick, K. Stacey, J. Vincent & J. T. Zilliox (Ed.), International Congress of Mathematical Instruction (ICMI) Working Group Proceedings—the future of the teaching and learning of algebra, Melbourne (Vol. 2, pp. 590–597).Google Scholar
  37. Vergnaud, G. (1982). A classification of cognitive tasks and operations of thought involved in addition and subtraction problems. Addition and subtraction: A cognitive perspective, 39–59.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Università della Valle d’AostaAostaItaly

Personalised recommendations