Matematikte Dil ve Söylem

Yıl 2015, Cilt: 14 Sayı: 1, 1 - 13, 05.01.2015

Recai Akkus

Öz

Bu makalede matematikte dil ve söylem üzerinde durulacaktır. Bu makalenin amacı söylem analizinin nasıl yapılacağını tartışmak değildir. Daha çok, söylemin ve söylemsel dilin matematik öğrenmedeki rolünü tartışmaktır. Bunun için sınıf tartışmalarından örnekler verilerek matematikteki dil ve söylemin etkili iletişim oluşturmak için nasıl bir araya geldiği yapısal olarak şekillendirilecektir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

dil, söylem, matematik, etkili iletişim

Kaynakça

• Alro, H., & Skovsmose, O. (2002). Dialogue and learning in mathematics education. Intention, reflection, critique (Vol. 29). Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• Cobb, P., Boufi, A., McClain, K., & Whitenack, J. (1997). Reflective discourse and collective reflection. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(3), 258-277.
• Cobb, P., Yackel, E., & Wood, T. (1992). A constructivist alternative to the representational view of mind in mathematics education. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 23(1), 2- 33.
• Cobb, P., Yackel, E., & Wood, T. (1993). Theoretical orientation. In T. Wood, P. Cobb, E. Yackel & D. Dillon (Eds.), Rethinking elementary school mathematics: Insights and issues, Monograph #6. Reston, VA: NCTM.
• Ernest, P. (1998). Social constructivism as a philosophy of mathematics. Albany, NY: State of University of New York Press.
• Gee, J. P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
• Granados, R. (2000). Constructing intersubjectivity in representational design activities. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19, 503-530.
• Manouchehri, A. & John, D. (2006). From classroom discussions to group discourse. Mathematics Teacher, 99 (8), 544-551.
• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
• Pimm, D. (1987). Speaking mathematically: Communication in mathematics classrooms. London: Routledge.
• Pirie, S. E. B. (1998). Crossing the gulf between thought and symbol: Language as (slippery) stepping-stones. In H. Steinbring, M. G. B. Bussi & A. Sierpinska (Eds.), Language and communication in the mathematics classroom (pp. 7-29). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
• Rittenhouse, P. S. (1998). The teacher's role in mathematical conversation: Stepping in and stepping out. In M. Lampert & M. L. Blunk (Eds.), Talking mathematics in school: Studies of teaching and learning (Learning in doing). Port Chester, NY: Cambridge University Press.
• Sfard, A. (2000a). On reform movement and the limits of mathematical discourse. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 2(3), 157-189.
• Sfard, A. (2000b). Steering (dis)course between metaphors and rigor: Using focal analysis to investigate an emergence of mathematical objects. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(3), 296-327.
• Sierpinska, A. (1998). Three epistemologies, three views of classroom communication: Constructivism, sociocultural approaches, interactionism. In H. Steinbring, M. G. B. Bussi & A. Sierpinska (Eds.), Language and communication in the mathematics classroom (pp. 30-62). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
• Simon, M. A. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(2), 114-145.
• Steffe, L. P. & Thompson, P. W. (2000). Interaction or Intersubjectivity? A reply to Lerman. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(2), 191-209.
• Wood, T. (1998). Alternative patterns of communication in mathematics classes: Funneling or focusing? In H. Steinbring, M. G. B. Bussi & A. Sierpinska (Eds.), Language and communication in the mathematics classroom (pp. 167-178). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.