Supervisors info:
Παναγιώτης Σπύρου, πρ. Αναπλ. Καθηγητής, Μαθηματικό, Εθνικό και Καποδιστριακό Πανεπιστήμιο Αθηνών
Summary:
In the present study, we explored the mathematical arguments developed by teachers in the classroom, both verbally and non-verbally, focusing on the latter with the aim of revealing unrecorded aspects of classroom teaching practices applied by teachers at the classroom at the level of affect.
It is primarily a methodological and theoretical perspective that combines both verbal and non-verbal aspects of the arguments developed in selected doctrinal episodes, based on Toulmin's simple form, given, assertion assertion. The purpose of the present research is to explore the advantages and especially the added value that mathematics teaching can offer in such a holistic approach to the analysis of the micro structure of arguments.
It is clarified that concrete arguments and doctrines were selected in this context to help highlight both the advantages and limitations of the proposed approach. Analyzing the micro structure of each argument we chose, through Toulmin's simple scheme, we examined whether teacher non-verbal communication within the argument is triggered as a given, as a guarantee or as a claim, and then investigated whether the non-verbal element of the argument reinforces, complements or operates competitively with regard to the verbal argument being developed. We claim that this allows the teacher to reconsider the mathematical argument legitimized during the teaching process, thus revealing further aspects of the complexity of mathematical knowledge formation
Keywords:
reasoning, verbal communication, non verbal communication, affect in mathematics
