Evolution of Non-Institutional Representations in a Modeling Process of Teaching (ACODESA)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35763/aiem29.6690Keywords:
Conceptual Imagery, Mathematical model, Teaching method, Social learning, Secondary educationAbstract
The purpose of the study is to analyze the process of mathematical knowledge co-construction from a sociocultural perspective. Using a qualitative methodology, we present the results of implementing five research situations and how these results relate to the covariation between variables, this as a prelude to the concept of function. Using a multiple case study design, we present the results for four high school students aged 14 to 15. The results focus on the production process of functional-spontaneous representations and their evolution towards Socially constructed representations. This evolution process is determined by the discussion of ideas across the five stages of the ACODESA method. We also discuss the concept of habitus in the mathematics classroom. The study concludes that Socially constructed representations in mathematics classrooms are both constructed and transformed through a process of communication and objectification of signs or concepts.
Downloads
References
Alsina, C. (2007). Less chalk, less words, less symbols… more objects, more context, more actions. In W. Blum, P. Galbraith, H.-W. Henn, & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education, The 14th ICMI Study (pp. 35–44). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-29822-1_2
Bourdieu, P. (1980). Le sens pratique. Éditions de Minuit.
Brousseau, G. (1983). Les obstacles épistémologiques et les problèmes en mathématiques. Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques, 4(2), 164-198.
Cerqueira, J. (2009). Mathematical modelling, the socio-critical perspective and the reflexive discussions. In M. Blomhøj & S. Carreira (Eds.), Mathematical applications and modelling in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 133–144). Roskilde Universitet.
Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology. A once and future discipline. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Creswell, J. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Sage.
D’Ambrosio, U. (2000). A historiographical proposal for non-western mathematics. In H. Selin (Ed.), Mathematics across cultures science across cultures: The history of non-western mathematics (pp. 79–92). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4301-1_6
diSessa, A., Hammer, D., Sherin, B., & Kolpakowski, T. (1991). Inventing graphing: MetaRepresentational expertise in children. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 10(2), 117–160.
Duval, R. (1995). Sémiosis et pensée humaine: Registres sémiotiques et apprentissages intellectuels. Peter Lang.
Eco, U. (1992). La production des signes. Livre de Poche. (Original published in 1975)
Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19–38). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812774.003
Fischbein, E. (1987). Intuition in science and mathematics: An educational approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers Group.
Hernández, R., Baptista, P., & Fernández, C. (2010). Metodología de la investigación. McGraw-Hill.
Hitt, F. (2013). Théorie de l’activité, interactionnisme et socioconstructivisme. Quel cadre théorique autour des représentations dans la construction des connaissances mathématiques ? Annales de Didactique et de Sciences Cognitives, 18(1), 9–27. https://doi.org/10.4000/12dwu
Hitt, F., & González-Martín, A. S. (2015). Covariation between variables in a modelling process: The ACODESA (Collaborative learning, Scientific debate and Self-reflexion) method. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 88(2), 201–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-014-9578-7
Hitt, F., & Quiroz, S. (2017). Aprendizaje de la modelación matemática en un medio sociocultural. Revista Colombiana de Educación, 73, 153–177. https://doi.org/10.17227/01203916.73rce151.175
Hitt, F., Quiroz, S., Saboya, M., & Lupiáñez, J. (2023). Une approche socioculturelle pour la construction d’habiletés de généralisation arithmético-algébriques dans les écoles québécoises et mexicaines. Educación Matemática, 35(3), 112–150. https://doi.org/10.24844/em3503.04
Ikeda, T. (2007). Possibilities for, and obstacles to teaching applications and modelling in the lower secondary levels. In W. Blum, P. L. Galbraith, H. Henn, & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education, The 14th ICMI Study (pp. 457–463). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-29822-1_51
Imm, K., & Lorber, M. (2013). The footprint problem: A pathway to modeling. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 19(1), 46–54. https://doi.org/10.5951/mathteacmiddscho.19.1.0046
Janvier, C. (1987). Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Karsenty, R. (2003). What adults remember from their high school mathematics? The case of linear functions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 51, 117–144. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022429504802
Koellner-Clark, K., & Lesh, R. (2003). Whodunit? Exploring proportional reasoning through the footprint problem. School Science and Mathematics, 103(2), 92–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2003.tb18224.x
Legrand, M. (2001). Scientific debate in mathematics courses. In D. Holton (Ed.), The teaching and learning of mathematics at university level: An ICMI Study (pp. 127–135). Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47231-7_12
Leontiev, A. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Prentice Hall.
Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. (2003). Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching. LEA publishers. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410607713
Lesh, R., & Yoon, C. (2007). What is distinctive in (our views about) models & modelling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, teaching? In W. Blum, P. L. Galbraith, H. Henn, & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education, The 14th ICMI Study (pp. 161–170). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-29822-1_15
Lombardo, D. H., & Jacobini, O. R. (2009). Mathematical modelling: From classroom to the real world. In M. Blomhøj & S. Carreira (Eds.), Mathematical applications and modelling in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 35–46). Roskilde University.
Perkins, D., & Simmons, R. (1988). Patterns of misunderstanding: An integrative model for science, math, and programming. Review of Educational Research, 58(3), 303–326. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430580033
Powell, A., Francisco, J., & Maher, C. (2003). An analytical model for studying the development of learners’ mathematical ideas and reasoning using videotape data. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 22(4), 405–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2003.09.002
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. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327833MTL0501_02
Soto, J., Hitt, F., & Quiroz, S. (2019). Distinción entre ejercicio, problema y situación problema en un medio tecnológico y ejemplos en diferentes niveles educativos. In S. Quiroz, E. Nuñez, M. Saboya, & J. Soto (Eds.), Investigaciones teórico prácticas sobre la modelación matemática en un mundo tecnológico (pp. 31–50). Editorial Amiutem.
Thompson, P. (2002). Some remarks on conventions and representations. In F. Hitt (Ed.), Mathematics visualisation and representations (pp. 199–206). Scientific Research.
Voloshinov, V. N. (1973). Marxism and the philosophy of language. Harvard University Press.
von Glasersfeld, E. (2001). Questions et réponses au sujet du constructivisme radical. In P. Jonnaert & D. Masciotra (Eds.), Constructivisme choix contemporains (pp. 291–323). Presses de l’Université du Québec.
Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language (E. Hanfmann & G. Vakar, Eds.). Boston Review. https://doi.org/10.1037/11193-000
Warren, E. (2006). Teachers actions that assist young students write generalizations in words and in symbols. In J. Novotná, H. Moraová, M. Krátká, & N. Stehlíková (Eds.), Proceedings 30th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 5, pp. 377–384). PME.
Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458–477. https://doi.org/10.2307/749877
Yin, R. (2014). Case study research design and methods. Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.30.1.10
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Fernando Hitt Espinoza, Samantha Quiroz Rivera
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The articles published in this journal are under a license Creative Commons: By 4.0 España from number 21 (2022).
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and keep the acknowledgement of authorship.
- The texts published in this journal are – unless indicated otherwise – covered by the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 international licence. You may copy, distribute, transmit and adapt the work, provided you attribute it (authorship, journal name, publisher) in the manner specified by the author(s) or licensor(s). The full text of the licence can be consulted here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
