Engagement with Interactive Diagrams: The Role Played by Resources and Constraints

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

Abstract

Interactive textbooks appear to be the tools of choice in mathematics instruction in the foreseeable future. It is important, therefore, to establish the theoretical foundations of design that define student-textbook-teacher interactions. In our long-term research, we suggested, tested, and refined a semiotic framework that offers a set of terms helpful in analyzing how the designed features of interactive diagrams (IDs) function in these interactions. The present chapter summarizes key design decisions about resources and constraints of interactive texts according to various semiotic functions, and discusses the role of designed resources and constraints of the IDs in student engagement with interactive texts.

Keywords

Task design Interactive textbooks Semiotic Interactive diagrams Examples Representations 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the I-CORE Program of the Planning and Budgeting Committee and The Israel Science Foundation (1716/12).

References

  1. Borasi, R., Siegel, M., Fonzi, J., & Smith, C. F. (1998). Using transactional reading strategies to support sense-making and discussion in mathematics classrooms: An exploratory study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(3), 275–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Davydov, V. (1972/1990). Types of generalization in instruction. Soviet Studies in Mathematics Education, 2. Google Scholar
  3. Goldenberg, P., & Mason, J. (2008). Shedding light on and with example spaces. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 69(2), 183–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images the grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Love, E. (1995). The functions of visualisation in learning geometry. In R. Sutherland & J. Mason (Eds.), Exploiting mental imagery with computers in mathematics education (pp. 125–141). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Margolinas, C. (2013). Task design in mathematics education. In Proceedings of ICMI Study 22. ICMI Study 22.Google Scholar
  7. Mason, J., & Pimm, D. (1984). Generic examples: Seeing the general in the particular. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 15(3), 227–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Murata, A. (2008). Mathematics teaching and learning as a mediating process: The case of tape diagrams. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(4), 374–406.Google Scholar
  9. Naftaliev, E. (2012). Interactive diagrams: Mathematical engagements with interactive text. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Haifa, Faculty of Education, Haifa.Google Scholar
  10. Naftaliev, E. & Yerushalmy, M. (2009). Interactive diagrams: Alternative practices for the design of algebra inquiry. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, 185–192). Greece: ThessalonikiGoogle Scholar
  11. Naftaliev, E., & Yerushalmy, M. (2011). Solving algebra problems with interactive diagrams: Demonstration and construction of examples. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 30(1), 48–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Naftaliev, E., & Yerushalmy, M. (2013). Guiding explorations: Design principles and functions of interactive diagrams. Computers in the Schools, 30(1–2), 61–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Nemirovsky, R., & Tierney, C. (2001). Children creating ways to represent changing situations: On the development of homogeneous spaces. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 45(1–3), 67–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Remillard, J. T., & Bryans, M. (2004). Teachers’ orientations toward mathematics curriculum materials: Implications for teacher learning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(5), 352–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Schwartz, J. L. (1995). The right size byte: Reflections on educational software designer. In D. Persinks, J. Schwartz, M. West, & S. Wiske (Eds.), Software goes to school (pp. 172–182). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Schwartz, J. L. (1999). Can technology help us make the mathematics curriculum intellectually stimulating and socially responsible? International Journal of Computers in the Mathematical Learning, 4(2/3), 99–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Siegel, M. (1995). More than words: The generative power of transmediation for learning. Canadian Journal of Education, 20(4), 455–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Yerushalmy, M. (1993). Generalizations in geometry. In J. Schwartz, M. Yerushalmy, & B. Wilson (Eds.), The geometric supposer: What it is a case of? (pp. 57–84). NJ: Erlbaum Inc.Google Scholar
  21. Yerushalmy, M. (2005). Functions of interactive visual representations in interactive mathematical textbooks. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 10(3), 217–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Yerushalmy, M., & Naftaliev, E. (2011). Design of interactive diagrams structured upon generic animations. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 16(3), 221–245.Google Scholar
  23. Yerushalmy, M., Katriel, H., & Shternberg, B. (2002/2014). The VisualMath functions and algebra e-textbook. Israel: CET—The Centre of Educational Technology. http://www.cet.ac.il/math/function/english. New version http://visualmath.haifa.ac.il/. Accessed 12 Oct 2014.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Achva Academic CollegeArugotIsrael
  2. 2.University of HaifaHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations