Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışma bir devlet lisesinde öğrenim gören üç 11. sınıf öğrencisinin tek değişkenli doğrusal denklemlere dair kullandıkları söylemsel rutinleri inceleyen bir durum çalışmasıdır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, Commognitive bakış açısıyla söylemsel rutinlerin yapısını ortaya koyarak öğrencilerin doğrusal denklemlere ilişkin cebirsel anlayışlarını araştırmaktır. Yöntem: Bu bağlamda araştırmanın verileri 40 ila 60 dakika süren yarı-yapılandırılmış bireysel görüşmeler aracılığıyla toplanmış ve öğrencilerin matematiksel iletişimlerini detaylı bir şekilde yakalamak amacıyla iki kamerayla kayıt altına alınmıştır.  Bu araştırmada öğrencilerin doğrusal denklemlere ilişkin matematiksel söylemlerinde ortaya koydukları rutinler; ritüel ve keşif türleri bağlamında sınıflandırılmış ve bu rutinleri nasıl kullandıkları incelenerek veriler analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular: Araştırmanın bulguları, öğrencilerin tek değişkenli doğrusal denklemlere ilişkin rutinlerinin çoğunlukla ritüel olduğunu ortaya koymuş ve öğrencilerin matematiksel anlatılar üretmekten ziyade katı prosedürleri uygulamaya odaklandıklarını göstermiştir.  Nitekim, öğrenciler çoğunlukla uyguladıkları prosedürler üzerine söylemlerde bulunmuş; bu söylemler de onların denklemleri birer matematiksel nesne olarak değil, manipüle edilebilir sembol dizileri olarak ele aldıklarını göstermiştir. Bununla birlikte, katılımcıların bir denklemin çözüm kümesi ve bu kümenin elemanları hakkında konuştukları bazı söylemlerde, sınırlı da olsa keşif rutinlerine başvurdukları gözlemlenmiştir.  Bu rutinler bulgularda, öğrencilerin denklemleri birer matematiksel nesne olarak ele aldıkları ve denklemler hakkında matematiksel anlatılar ürettikleri söylemsel rutinler olarak öne çıkmıştır. Sonuç: Araştırmanın bulgularından yola çıkarak değişken ve eşitlik kavramları ile görev durumunun içeriğinin cebirsel anlayışın oluşmasında önemli bir rol oynadığını sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Bu nedenle, doğrusal denklemler bağlamında, öğrencilerin değişken, eşitlik, denklem ve bir denklemin çözümü gibi kavramları matematiksel nesneler olarak nasıl işlev gördüklerine dair geliştirecekleri anlayışın, onları keşif rutinlerini kullanmaya teşvik edeceği düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Söylemsel rutinler
• Ritüel rutinler
• Keşif rutinleri
• Doğrusal denklemler
• Lise öğrencileri

High School Students’ Discursive Routines in the Context of Linear Equations

Öz

Purpose: This case study explores the discursive routines of three 11th-grade students from a public high school as they engaged with single-variable linear equations. Specifically, it aims to reveal the nature and structure of their participation in mathematical discourse and to examine how their algebraic understanding of linear equations is constructed from a commognitive perspective.  Method: A qualitative case study design was employed. Data were collected via semi-structured individual interviews, lasting between 40 and 60 minutes, and recorded using two cameras to capture the students’ mathematical communication in detail. The analysis focused on how students participated in mathematical discourse, particularly using ritual and exploration routines.  Findings: The findings reveal that students mainly relied on ritual routines, concentrating on performing rigid procedures rather than producing mathematical narratives. Their discourse centered on calculations, treating equations as sequences of symbols to manipulate rather than as mathematical objects. Exploration routines—which involve making sense of mathematical discourses—were infrequent but emerged primarily during discussions about the solution set and its elements.  Conclusion: The findings emphasize the significance of the variable, equal sign, and task situation in constructing algebraic understanding.    Therefore, in the context of linear equations, these findings suggest that students’ developing understanding of how concepts such as variables, equality, equations, and solution sets function as mathematical objects may encourage them to engage in exploration routines.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Discursive routines
• Ritual routines
• Exploration routines
• Linear equations
• High school students

Kaynakça

1. Alibali, M. W., Knuth, E. J., Hattikudur, S., McNeil, N. M., & Stephens, A. C. (2007). A longitudinal examination of middle school students' understanding of the equal sign and equivalent equations. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 9(3), 221–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986060701360902
2. Argün, Z., Arıkan, A., Bulut, S., & Halıcıoğlu, S. (2020). Tags of basic mathematical concepts (Expanded 2nd ed.). Palme Publications.
3. Ben-Zvi, D. & Sfard, A. (2007). Ariadne’s thread, daedalus’ wings and the learners autonomy. Education et Didactique, 1(3), 117-134. https://doi.org/10.4000/educationdidactique.241
4. Capraro, M. M., & Joffrion, H. (2006). Algebraic equations: Can middle school students meaningfully translate from words to mathematical symbols? Reading Psychology, 27(2–3), 147–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710600642467
5. Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., & Levi, L. (2003). Thinking mathematically. Heinemann.
6. Caspi, S., & Sfard, A. (2012). Spontaneous meta-arithmetic as the first step toward school algebra. International Journal of Educational Research, 51, 45-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2011.12.006
7. Dede, Y., & Argün, Z. (2003). Why is algebra difficult for students? Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 24, 180–185.
8. de Lima, R. N., & Tall, D. (2008). Evolving a three world framework for solving algebraic equations in the light of what a student has met before. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 34(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2013.12.003

9. Ehrenfeld, N. & Heyd-Metzuyanim, E. (2018). Rituals, explorations, and cultural resources in the mathematics classroom: when arguing does not help learning. International Society of the Learning Sciences, 1627-1628. https://doi.org/10.22318/cscl2018.1627
10. Emre-Akdoğan, E. (2023). The genesis of routines: Mathematical discourses on the equal sign and variable. The Electronic Journal for Research in Science & Mathematics Education, 27(1), 77-94.
11. Falkner, K. P., Levi, L., & Carpenter, T. P. (1999). Children’s understanding of equality: A foundation for algebra. Teaching Children Mathematics, 6(4), 232–236. https://doi.org/10.5951/TCM.6.4.0232
12. Filloy, E., & Rojano, T. (1989). Solving equations: The transition from arithmetic to algebra. For the Learning of Mathematics, 9(2), 19-25. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40247950
13. Heyd Metzuyanim, E., & Graven, M. (2019). Rituals and explorations in mathematical teaching and learning: Introduction to the special issue. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 101(2), 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-019-09890-x
14. Heyd-Metzuyanim, E., Elbaum-Cohen, A., & Tabach, M. (2022). The arithmetic discourse profile as a tool for evaluating students’ discourse according to the ritual-to-exploration continuum. Proceedings of the Twelfth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CERME 12), 384–391.
15. Jayakody, G. (2015). Commognitive conflicts in the discourse of continuous functions. Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 611–619.
16. Kieran, C. (1981). Concepts associated with the equality symbol. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12(3), 317–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00312006
17. Kieran, C. (2007). Learning and teaching algebra at the middle school through college levels: Building meaning for symbols and their manipulation. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 707–762). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
18. Kieran, C., & Sfard, A. (1999). Seeing through symbols: The case of equivalent expressions. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 21(1), 1-17.
19. Knuth, E. J., Alibali, M. W., McNeil, N. M., Weinberg, A., & Stephens, A. C. (2005). Middle school students’ understanding of core algebraic concepts: Equivalence & variable. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 37(1), 68-76. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02655899
20. Knuth, E. J., Stephens, A. C., McNeil, N. M., & Alibali, M. W. (2006). Does understanding the equal sign matter? Evidence from solving equations. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37(4), 297-312. https://doi.org/10.2307/30034852
21. Lavie, I. & Sfard, A. (2019). How children individualize numerical routines: Elements of a discursive theory in making. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28(4-5), 419-461. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2019.1646650
22. Lavie, I., Steiner, A. & Sfard, A. (2019). Routines we live by: From ritual to exploration. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 101(2), 153-176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-018-9817-4
23. Lisarelli, G., Macchioni, E. & Miragliotta, E. (2022). A developing discourse on transitions between different realizations of the same function. Proceedings of the 45th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 147-154
24. MacGregor, M., & Stacey, K. (1997). Students’ understanding of algebraic notation: 11–15. Educational Studies in Mathematics 33, 1–19 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1002970913563
25. McNeil, N. M., & Alibali, M. W. (2005). Why won’t you change your mind? Knowledge of operational patterns hinders learning and performance on equations. Child Development, 76(4), 883-899. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00884.x
26. MoNE [Ministry of National Education]. (2018). Mathematics curriculum for secondary education. Ankara: Ministry of National Education.
27. Nachlieli, T. & Tabach, M. (2012). Growing mathematical objects in the classroom–The case of function. International Journal of Educational Research, 51-52, 10–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2011.12.007
28. Nachlieli, T. & Tabach, M. (2019). Ritual-enabling opportunities-to-learn in mathematics classrooms. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 101(2), 253-271. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10649-018-9848-X
29. Nachlieli, T., & Tabach, M. (2022). Classroom learning as a deritualization process: The case of prospective teachers learning to solve arithmetic questions. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 65, Article 100930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2021.100930
30. Nisa, Z., Lukito, A., & Masriyah. (2021). Students’ mathematical discourse analysis by commognition theory in solving absolute value equations. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1808(1), 012065. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1808/1/012065
31. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: integrating theory and practice. Sage.
32. Roberts, A., & le Roux, K. (2019). A commognitive perspective on Grade 8 and Grade 9 learner thinking about linear equations. Pythagoras, 40(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.4102/pythagoras.v40i1.438
33. Sfard, A. (2007). When the rules of discourse change, but nobody tells you: Making sense of mathematics learning from a commognitive standpoint. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(4), 565–613. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400701525296
34. Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: Human development, the growth of discourses, and mathematizing. New York: Cambridge University.
35. Sfard, A. (2015). Learning, commognition and mathematics. The Sage Handbook of Learning, 129-138.
36. Sfard, A. (2017). Ritual for ritual, exploration for exploration or what the learners get is what you get from them in return. In J. Adler & A. Sfard (Eds.), Research for educational change: Transforming researchers’ insights into improvement in mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 39–63). Routledge.
37. Sfard, A. (2020). Commognition. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Mathematics Education (2nd ed., pp. 95–101). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15789-0
38. Sfard, A., & Lavie, I. (2005). Why cannot children see as the same what grown-ups cannot see as different? —Early numerical thinking revisited. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 237-309. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2302_3
39. Stephens, M. (2007). Students’ emerging algebraic thinking in the middle school years. Mathematics: Essential Research, Essential Practice, 2, 678-687.
40. Tabach, M. (2006). Research and teaching—Can one person do both? A case study. Proceedings of the 30th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education 5, 233–240.
41. Tsamir, P., & Tirosh, D. (2023). What is a solution of an algebraic equation?. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 21(8), 2303-2323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-022-10342-x
42. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected works of LS Vygotsky: The fundamentals of defectology (Vol. 2). Springer.
43. Warren, E. (2003). The role of arithmetic structure in the transition from arithmetic to algebra. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 15(2), 122-137. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217374
44. Vyncke, M. (2012). The concept and practice of critical thinking in academic writing: An investigation of international students’ perceptions and writing experiences. Doctoral Dissertation, King’s College, London.
45. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2013). Qualitative research methods in social sciences (9th Edition). Seçkin Publishing.
46. Yin, R.K. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications. London UK: Sage.