Recommendations for Research on Language and Learning Mathematics

Chapter
Part of the ICME-13 Monographs book series (ICME13Mo)

Abstract

This paper describes recommendations for research on language and learning mathematics. I review several issues central to conducting research on this topic and make four recommendations: using interdisciplinary approaches, defining central constructs, building on existing methodologies, and recognizing central distinctions while avoiding dichotomies. I make four recommendations to address these issues.

Keywords

Language Learning mathematics Methodologies Theoretical frameworks 

References

  1. Barnes, D. (1992). From communication to curriculum. Porstmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  2. Barnes, D., & Todd, F. (1995). Communication and learning revisited. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  3. Barwell, R. (2005). Ambiguity in the mathematics classroom. Language and Education, 19(2), 117–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barwell, R., Leung, C., Morgan, C., & Street, B. (2005). Applied linguistics and mathematics education: More than words and numbers. Language and Education, 19(2), 141–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brenner, M. (1994). A communication framework for mathematics: Exemplary instruction for culturally and linguistically diverse students. In B. McLeod (Ed.), Language and learning: Educating linguistically diverse students (pp. 233–268). Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bunch, G. C. (2014). The language of ideas and the language of display: Reconceptualizing “academic language” in linguistically diverse classrooms. International Multilingual Research Journal, 8(1), 70–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  8. Cole, M., & Engestrom, Y. (1993). A cultural historical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 1–46). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Crowhurst, M. (1994). Language and learning across the curriculum. Scarborough, ON: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  10. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  11. Gee, J. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (3rd ed.). London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  12. Gutiérrez, K. D., Sengupta-Irving, T., & Dieckmann, J. (2010). Developing a mathematical vision. In J. N. Moschkovich (Ed.), Language and mathematics education: Multiple perspectives and directions for research (pp. 29–71). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Hall, R. (2000). Video recording as theory. In R. Lesh & A. Kelly (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 647–664). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
  14. Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Sociolinguistics aspects of mathematical education. In M. Halliday (Ed.), The social interpretation of language and meaning (pp. 194–204). London: University Park Press.Google Scholar
  15. Herbel-Eisenmann, B. A., Steele, M. D., & Cirillo, M. (2013). (Developing) teacher discourse moves: A framework for professional development. Mathematics Teacher Educator, 1(2), 181–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hymes, D. (1964). Introduction: Toward ethnographies of communication. American Anthropologist, 66(6_PART2), 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kazemi, E., & Stipek, D. (2001). Promoting conceptual thinking in four upper-elementary mathematics classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 59–80.Google Scholar
  18. Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  19. McDermott, R. P., Gospodinoff, K., & Aron, J. (1978). Criteria for an ethnographically adequate description of concerted activities and their contexts. Semiotica, 24(3–4), 245–276.Google Scholar
  20. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Morgan, C. (2004). Word, definitions and concepts in discourses of mathematics, teaching and learning. Language and Education, 18, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moschkovich, J. N. (2007). Examining mathematical discourse practices. For the Learning of Mathematics, 27(1), 24–30.Google Scholar
  23. Moschkovich, J. N. (2010). Language(s) and learning mathematics: Resources, challenges, and issues for research. In J. N. Moschkovich (Ed.), Language and mathematics education: Multiple perspectives and directions for research (pp. 1–28). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  24. Ochs, E. (1979). Transcription as theory. In E. Ochs & B. Schieffelin (Eds.), Developmental pragmatics (pp. 41–72). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  25. O’Connor, M. C. (1999). Language socialization in the mathematics classroom. Discourse practices and mathematical thinking. In M. Lampert & M. Blunk (Eds.), Talking mathematics (pp. 17–55). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. O’Halloran, K. L. (2000). Classroom discourse in mathematics: A multisemiotic analysis. Linguistics and Education, 10(3), 359–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pimm, D. (1987). Speaking mathematically: Communication in mathematics classrooms. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Poland, B. (2002). Transcription quality. In J. Gubrium & J. Hosltein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research context and method (pp. 629–649). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Rowland, T. (1999). The pragmatics of mathematics education: Vagueness in mathematical discourse. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  30. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2010). Language in mathematics teaching and learning. In J. N. Moschkovich (Ed.), Language and mathematics education: Multiple perspectives and directions for research (pp. 73–112). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  31. Schleppegrell, M. (2012). Linguistic tools for exploring issues of equity. In B. Herbel-Eisenmann, J. Choppin, D. Wagner, & D. Pimm (Eds.), Equity in discourse for mathematics education: Theories, practices, and policies (pp. 109–124). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Siebert, D., & Hendrickson, S. (2010). Imagining literacies for mathematics classrooms. In R. J. Draper, P. Broomhead, A. P. Jensen, J. D. Nokes, & D. Siebert (Eds.), Imagining content-area literacy instruction (pp. 40–53). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  33. Warren, B., Ogonowski, M., & Pothier, S. (2005). “Everyday” and “scientific:” Rethinking dichotomies in modes of thinking in science learning. In R. Nemirovsky, A. Rosebery, J. Solomon, & B. Warren (Eds.), Everyday matters in science and mathematics: Studies of complex classroom events (pp. 119–148). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  34. Zahner, W., Velazquez, G., Moschkovich, J. N., Vahey, P., & Lara-Meloy, T. (2012). Mathematics teaching practices with technology that support conceptual understanding for Latino/a students. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31, 431–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CaliforniaSanta CruzUSA

Personalised recommendations