The distributed nature of pattern generalization
Tipo de documento
Autores
Lista de autores
Rivera, Ferdinand
Resumen
Drawing on a review of recent work conducted in the area of pattern generalization (PG), this paper makes a case for a distributed view of PG, which basically situates processing ability in terms of convergences among several different factors that influence PG. Consequently, the distributed nature leads to different types of PG that depend on the nature of a given PG task and a host of cognitive, sociocultural, classroom-related, and unexplored factors. Individual learners draw on a complex net of parallel choices, where every choice depends on the strength of ongoing training and connections among factors, with some factors appearing to be more predictable than others.
Fecha
2015
Tipo de fecha
Estado publicación
Términos clave
Enfoque
Nivel educativo
Idioma
Revisado por pares
Formato del archivo
Referencias
Ainley, J., Wilson, K., & Bills, L. (2003). Generalizing the context and generaliz-ing the calculation. In N. Pateman, B. Dougherty, & J. Zilliox (Eds.), Pro-ceedings of the 27th International Conference of the Psychology of Mathe-matics Education (PME) (Vol. 2, pp. 9-16). Honolulu, HI: PME. Bastable, V., & Schifter, D. (2008). Classroom stories: Examples of elementary students engaged in early algebra. In J. Kaput, D. Carraher, & M. Blanton (Eds.), Algebra in the early grades (pp. 165-184). New York, NY: Erlbaum. Britt, M., & Irwin, K. (2011). Algebraic thinking with and without algebraic rep-resentation: A pathway for learning. In J. Cai & E. Knuth (Eds.), Early alge-braization: A global dialogue from multiple perspectives (pp. 137-160). Dor-drecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Carraher, D., Martinez, M., & Schliemann, A. (2008). Early algebra and mathe-matical generalization. ZDM, 40(1), 3-22. Clements, D., & Sarama, J. (2009). Learning and teaching early math: The learning trajectories approach. New York, NY: Erlbaum. Cooper, T., & Warren, E. (2011). Years 2 to 6 students’ ability to generalize: Models, representations, and theory for teaching and learning. In J. Cai & E. Knuth (Eds.), Early algebraization: A global dialogue from multiple perspec-tives (pp. 187-214). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Ellis, A. (2007). Connections between generalizing and justifying: Students’ rea-soning with linear relationships. Journal for Research in Mathematics Educa-tion, 38(3), 194-229. Harel, G. (2001). The development of mathematical induction as a proof scheme: A model for DNR-based instruction. In S. Campbell & R. Zazkis (Eds.), Learning and teaching number theory: Research in cognition and instruction (pp. 184-212). Westport, CT: Greenwoood Press. Holland, J., Holyoak, K., Nisbett, R., & Thagard, P. (1986). Induction: Processes of inference, learning, and discovery. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Iwasaki, H., & Yamaguchi, T. (1997). The cognitive and symbolic analysis of the generalization process: The comparison of algebraic signs with geometric fig-ures. In E. Pehkonnen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference of the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 105-113). Lahti, Fin-land: PME. Küchemann, D. (2010). Using patterns generically to see structure. Pedagogies, 5(3), 233-250. Lee, L., & Freiman, V. (2004). Tracking primary students’ understanding of pat-terns. In D. McDougall & J. Ross (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PMENA) (Vol. 2, pp. 245-251). To-ronto, Canada: PMENA. MacGregor, M., & Stacey, K. (1992). A comparison of pattern-based and equa-tion-solving approaches to algebra. In B. Southwell, K. Owens, & B. Perry (Eds.), Proceedings of fifteenth Annual Conference of the Mathematics Edu-cation Research Group of Australasia (pp. 362-371). Brisbane, Australia: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia. Mason, J., Stephens, M., & Watson, A. (2009). Appreciating mathematical struc-tures for all. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 21(2), 10-32. Mulligan, J. T., Prescott, A., & Mitchelmore, M. C. (2004). Children’s develop-ment of structure in early mathematics. In M. Høines & A. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th annual conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 393-401). Bergen, Nor-way: Bergen University College. Nathan, M., & Kim, S. (2007). Pattern generalization with graphs and words: A cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis of middle school students’ represen-tational fluency. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 9(3), 193-219. National Research Council (2013). The mathematical sciences in 2025. Washing-ton, DC: The National Academies Press. Noss, R., Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (1997). The construction of mathematical meanings: Connecting the visual with the symbolic. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 33(2), 203-233. Papic, M., Mulligan, J. T., & Mitchelmore, M. (2009). The growth of mathemati-ca patterning strategies in preschool children. In M. Tzekaki, M. Kaldrimidou, & H. Sakonidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd conference of the Interna-tional Groupfor the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 329-336). Thessaloniki, Greece: PME. Papic, M., Mulligan, J. T., & Mitchelmore, M. (2011). Assessing the develop-ment of presechoolers’ mathematical patterning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 42(3), 237-268. Plaut, D., McClelland, J., Seindenberg, M., & Patterson, K. (1996). Understand-ing normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains. Psychological Review, 103(1), 56-115. Radford, L. (1999). The rhetoric of generalization: A cultural semiotic approach to students’ processes of symbolizing. In O. Zaslavsky (Ed.), Proceedings of the 23rd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Math-ematics Education (PME) (Vol. 4, pp. 89-96). Haifa, Israel: PME. Radford, L. (2000). Students’ processes of symbolizing in algebra: A semiotic analysis of the production of signs in generalizing tasks. In T. Nakahara and M. Koyama (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME) (Vol. 4, pp. 81-88). Hiroshima, Japan: PME. Radford, L. (2001a). Signs and meanings in students’ emergent algebraic think-ing: A semiotic analysis. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 42(3), 237-268. Radford, L. (2001b). Factual, contextual, and symbolic generalizations in alge-bra. In M. V. D. Hueuvel-Panhuizen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 25th Confer-ence of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME) (Vol. 4, pp. 81-88). Utrecht, The Netherlands: PME. Radford, L. (2003). Gestures, speech, and the sprouting of signs: A semiotic-cultural approach to students’ types of generalization. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 5(1), 37-70. Radford, L. (2006). Algebraic thinking and the generalization of patterns: A se-miotic perspective. In S. Alatorre, J. Cortina, M. Saiz, & A. Mendez (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME) (Vol. 1, pp. 2-21). Mexico, DF: PME. Rivera, F. (2010). Second grade students’ preinstructional competence in pattern-ing activity. In M. Pinto & T. Kawasaki (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th Con-ference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Educa-tion (PME) (Vol. 4, pp. 81-88). Belo Horizante, Brazil: PME. Rivera, F. (2013). Teaching and learning patterns in school mathematics: Psy-chological and pedagogical considerations. New York, NJ: Springer. Rivera, F., & Becker, J. (2011). Formation of pattern generalization involving linear figural patterns among middle school students: Results of a three-year study. In J. Cai & E. Knuth (Eds.), Early algebraization: A global dialogue from multiple perspectives (Advances in mathematics education Vol. 2) (pp. 323-366). New York, NY: Springer. Samson, D. (2011). Capitalizing on inherent ambiguities in symbolic expressions of generality. Australian Mathematics Teacher, 67(1), 28-32. Samson, D., & Schäfer, M. (2011). Enactivism, figural apprehension, and knowledge objectification: An exploration of figural pattern generalization. For the Learning of Mathematics, 31(1), 37-43. Stacey‚ K.‚ & MacGregor‚ M. (2001). Curriculum reform and approaches to al-gebra. In R. Sutherland‚ T. Rojano‚ A. Bell‚ & R. Lins. (Eds.)‚ Perspectives on school algebra (pp. 141-154). Dordrecht‚ The Netherlands: Kluwer Aca-demic. Steele, D., & Johanning, D. (2004). A schematic-theoretic view of problem solv-ing and development of algebraic thinking. Educational Studies in Mathemat-ics, 57(1), 65-90. Vale, I., & Pimentel, T. (2010). From figural growing patterns to generalization: A path to algebraic thinking. In M. Pinto & T. Kawasaki (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME) (Vol. 4, pp. 241-248). Belo Horizante, Brazil: PME. Watson, A. (2009). Thinking mathematically, disciplined noticing, and structures of attention. In S. Lerman & B. Davis (Eds.), Mathematical action & struc-tures of noticing (pp. 211-222). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publish-ers. Yerushalmy, M. (1993). Generalization in geometry. In J. Schwartz, M. Yerushalmy, & B. Wilson (Eds.), The geometric supposer: What is it a case of? (pp. 57-84). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Yevdokimov, O. (2008). Making generalizations in geometry: Students’ views on the process. In O. Figueras, J. L. Cortina, S. Alatorre, T. Rojano, & A. Sepulveda (Eds.), Proceedings of the Joint Meeting of PME 32 and PMENA XXX (Vol. 4, pp. 193-200). Morelia, Mexico: Cinvestav-UMSNH and PME. Zazkis, R., Liljedahl, P., & Chernoff, E. (2008). The role of examples in forming and refuting generalizations. ZDM, 40(1), 131-141.