The Korea Society Of Educational Studies In Mathematics

Current Issue

Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics - Vol. 30 , No. 2

[ Article ]
Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics - Vol. 30, No. 1, pp.1-17
Abbreviation: JERM
ISSN: 2288-7733 (Print) 2288-8357 (Online)
Print publication date 28 Feb 2020
Received 31 Dec 2019 Revised 04 Feb 2020 Accepted 12 Feb 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.29275/jerm.2020.02.30.1.1

A Semiotic Analysis of the Characteristics of Communicational Thinking in Collaborative Problem Solving
Kim, Su Min* ; Kim, Sun Hee**,
*Lecturer, Kangwon National University, South Korea (tnt3030@hanmail.net)
**Professor, Kangwon National University, South Korea (mathsun@kangwon.ac.kr)

Correspondence to : Professor, Kangwon National University, South Korea, mathsun@kangwon.ac.kr


Abstract

The purpose of this study was to analyze the characteristics of communicational thinking in successful collaborative problem solving. In collaborative problem solving communication, the sender and receiver infer meaning to all mathematical objects and interpret them. From the semiotic perspective, this study reached the following results by analyzing the interpretants formed from the objects. First, in the early stages of problem solving, immediate interpretant were formed from the communicational thinking of students’ guesses, hypotheses, and perceptions, revealing the purpose-oriented characteristics of communicational thinking. Second, many dynamic interpretants were made in the communicational thinking, allowing the sign to perform practically. Third, the final interpretant obtained as a result of the students’ communicational thinking confirmed that the problem solving result has a universal character that can be recognized by anyone. Based on these findings, it is suggested that teachers must design tasks that allow them to use a variety of mathematical approaches on their own. And it is suggested that affective as well as cognitive domain should be achieved and that studies to examine students’ thinking process by applying semiotics should be activated.


Keywords: communicational thinking, oriented characteristics, interpretant, semiotics, collaborative problem solving

Acknowledgments

이 논문은 김수민의 박사학위논문의 일부를 요약, 정리한 것임.


References
1. Cho, C. Y. (2014). Communication between semiotics and brain recognition science. Communication Books.
2. De Waal, C. (2013). Peirce: A guide for the perplexed. Bloomsbury Academic.
3. Dubinsky, E. (1986). Reflective abstraction and computer experiences: A new approach to teaching theoretical mathematics, In G. Lappan, & R. Even (Eds.), Proceedings of the eighth annual meeting of PME-NA. Lansing, Michigan state university.
4. Font, V., Godino, J. D., & Gallardo, J. (2013). The emergence of objects from mathematical practices. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 82(1), 97-124.
5. Gray, E., & Tall, D. (1994). Duality, ambiguity and flexibility in successful mathematical thinking. In F. Furinghetti (Ed.), Proceedings of 15th international conference for the psychology of mathematics education (pp. 72-79). MN: University of Minnesota.
6. Kim, S. M., & Kim, S. H. (2018). The semiotic analysis on the communication of mathematical problem-solving process. School Mathematics, 20(1), 131-147.
7. Kim, S. D. (2006). A system of logic, considered as semiotic. Minumsa.
8. Kim, S. H. (2004). Semiotic consideration on the appropriation of the mathematical knowledge. (Unpublished PhD thesis). Ewha Womans University, Korea.
9. Kin, S. M. (2019). A semiotic analysis for the roles and characteristics of communicational thinking in mathematical modeling(Unpublished Ph.D thesis). Kangwon National University, Korea.
10. Kreyszig, E. (2010). KREYSZIG 공업수학(上). 김순자 외 12인 번역. 범한서적주식회사.
11. Lee, Y. K. (2016). Classroom discourse analysis in high school probability and statistics class (Unpublished PhD thesis). Yeungnam University, Korea.
12. Liszka, J. (2013). Peirce 기호학의 이해. 이윤희 역. 한국외국어대학교 출판부(영어 원작은 1996년 출판).
13. Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1987). Der baum der erkenntnis: die biologischen wurzeln des menschlichen erkennen. Bern: Muenchen.
14. Na, E. Y. (2002). Human communication and media. Hannarae.
15. Paik, S. Y. (2016). Teaching & learning of mathematical problem-solving. Kyungmoon.
16. Peirce, C. S. (1958). Collect papers of Charles Sanders Peirce Vols Ⅰ-Ⅵ. In C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss (Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
17. Peirce, C. S. (1980). Collect papers of Charles Sanders Peirce Vols Ⅶ-Ⅷ. In B. Arthur (Ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
18. Perry, P., Camargo, L., Samper, C., Molina, O., & Sáenz-Ludlow, A. (2016). Instead of the circle... what? In A. Sáenz-Ludlow & G. Kadunz (Eds.), Semiotics as a tool for learning mathematics (pp. 127-153). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
19. Presmeg, N. (2002). Transition on emergent modeling. In K. Gravemeijer, R. Lehrer, B. van Oers & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Symbolizing, modeling and tool use in mathematics education (pp. 131-137). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
20. Presmeg, N. (2006). Semiotics and the “connections” standard: Significance of semiotics for teachers of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61, 163-182.
21. Sáenz-Ludlow, A., & Kadunz, G. (2016). Constructing knowledge seen as a semiotic activity. In A. Sáenz-Ludlow & G. Kadunz (Eds.), Semiotics as a tool for learning mathematics (pp. 1-21). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
22. Sáenz-Ludlow, A., & Zellweger, S. (2016). Classroom mathematical activity when it is seen as an inter-intra double semiotic process of interpretation: a Peircean perspective. In A. Sáenz-Ludlow & G. Kadunz (Eds.), Semiotics as a tool for learning mathematics (pp. 43-66). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
23. Schramm, W., & Porter, W. E. (1990). 인간 커뮤니케이션. 최윤희 역. 나남(영어 원작은 1982년 출판)
24. Schreiber, C. (2016). Semiotic analysis of collective problem-solving processes using digital media. In A. Sáenz-Ludlow & G. Kadunz (Eds.), Semiotics as a tool for learning mathematics (pp. 183-208). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
25. 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, 1-36.
26. Sfard, A. (2001). There is more to discourse than meets the ears: Looking at thinking as communicating to learn more about mathematical learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 46, 13-57.
27. Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: Human development, the growth of discourses, and mathematizing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
28. Sfard, A. (2012). Introduction: Developing mathematical discourse - some insights from communicational research. International Journal of Educational Research, 51-52, 1-9.
29. Sfard, A. (2015). Learning, commognition and mathematics. In D. Scott & E. ​Hargreaves (Eds.), The sage handbook of learning (pp. 129-138). Sage Publications Ltd.
30. Takeda, S. (2005). 언어적 사고의 수수께끼. 윤성진 옮김. 서광사(일본어 원작은 2001년 출판).
31. Wager, A. A., & Stinson, D. W. (2012). Teaching mathematics for social justice: Conversations with mathematics educators. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
32. Yin, R. (2016). 사례연구방법. 신경식, 서아영, 송민채 역. 한경사(영어 원작은 2014년 출판).