Understanding the Process of Generalization in Mathematics through Activity Theory

Gabriela Dumitrascu

Abstract


The practice of generalization is a powerful process that should be present in mathematical learning from kindergarten to college. It is crucial for teachers at all school levels to have a deep understanding of the process down to knowing its genetic decomposition. Activity theory framework provides basic principles that allows us to define generalization as an activity that is socially and historically developed through tools and artifacts mediations, internalization of social knowledge, and that is transformed through learning and development I present the means of the generalization activity using Leontiev’s activity theory intertwined with Rubinshtein’s description of the generalization process. This theoretical framework may also support teacher educators and teachers while they use high-leverage teaching practices such as: eliciting and interpreting individual student’s thinking, diagnosing particular common patterns of student thinking and development, or leading a group discussion.

https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.16.12.4


Keywords


education; pre-service teachers; elemetary mathematics; high-leverage practices

Full Text:

PDF

References


Davydov, V. V. (2008). Problems of developmental instruction: a theoretical and experimental psychological study. Nova Science, NY.

Davydov, V. V. (1990). Types of generalization in instruction: Logical and psychological problems in the structuring of school curricula (Soviet Studies in Mathematics Education, Vol. 2). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Dougherty, B. & Slovin, H. (2004). Generalised diagrams as a tool for young children’s problem solving. In M. J. Høines & A. B. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th annual conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 295-302). Bergen, Norway: PME.

Dubinsky E. (1991) Constructive Aspects of Reflective Abstraction in Advanced Mathematics. In: Steffe L.P. (eds) Epistemological Foundations of Mathematical Experience. Recent Research in Psychology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3178-3_9

Engestrom, Y., (2001) Expansive Learning at Work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization, Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133-156. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080020028747

Gedera, D. S. P. & Williams, D. S. P. (Eds.). (2016). Activity Theory in Education: Research and Practice. SensePublishers, Rotterdam. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-387-2

Harry, D., (2008). Reflections on points of departure in the development of sociocultural and activity theory. In Bert van Oers, Wim Wardekker, Ed Elbers, René van der Veer (Eds.). The transformation of learning : advances in cultural-historical activity theory. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge ; New York. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511499937.006

Jooganah, K., Williams, J. S., (2016). Contradictions between and within school and university activity systems helping to explain students’ difficulty with advanced mathematics. Teaching Mathematics and its Applications: An International Journal of the IMA, 35(3),159–171. https://doi.org/10.1093/teamat/hrw014

Kaput, J. J., Carraher, D. W., & Blanton, M. L. (Eds.). (2008). Algebra in the Early Grades. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315097435

Krathwohl, D.R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: an overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212-218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2

Krutetskii,V . A. (1976). The psychology of mathematical abilities in schoolchildren, (translated from the Russian by J. Teller). Chicago,IL: University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/748528

Lee, L., (1996). An initiation into algebraic culture through generalization activities. In N. Bednarz, C. Kieran, and L. Lee, (Eds.). Approaches to Algebra: Perspectives for Research and Teaching, Kluwer, Dordrecht/Boston/London, pp. 87-106. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-1732-3_6

Leontiev, A. (1978). Activity, Consciousness, and Personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Mason, J. (1996). Expressing generality and roots of algebra. In N. Bednarz, C. Kieran, and L. Lee, (Eds.). Approaches to Algebra: Perspectives for Research and Teaching, Kluwer, Dordrecht/Boston/London, pp. 65-86. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-1732-3_5

Moxhay, P. (2008). Assessing the scientiï¬c concept of number in primary school children. Paper presented at ISCAR 2008, San Diego.

Piaget, J. (1964). Development and learning. In: R.E. Ripple and V.N. Rockcastle, Editors. Piaget rediscovered. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660020305

Rubinshtein, S. L. (1994). Thinking and ways of investigating it. Journal Of Russian and East European Psychology, 32 (5), 63-93. https://doi.org/10.2753/rpo1061-0405320563

Schmittau, J. (2003). Cultural-historical theory and mathematical education. In

Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context. NY: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511840975.013

Schmittau, J. (2004). Vygotskian theory and mathematics education: Resolving the conceptual-procedural dichotomy. European Journal of Psychology of Education, XIX, 19-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03173235

TeachingWorks (2017). TeachingWorks: High-leverage practices. University of Michigan. Retrieved from: http://www.teachingworks.org/work-of-teaching/high-leverage-practices.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological Processes. M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/1421493

Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. A. Kozulin (Ed). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100008172


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


e-ISSN: 1694-2116

p-ISSN: 1694-2493