Abstract
We report a study of repairs in communication between workers and visiting outsiders (students, researchers or teachers). We show how cultural models such as metaphors and mathematical models facilitated explanations and repair work in inquiry and pedagogical dialogues. We extend previous theorisations of metaphor by Black; Lakoff and Johnson; Lakoff & Nunes; and Schon, to formulate a perspective on mathematical models and modelling and show how dialogues can manifest (i) application of ‘dead’ models to new contexts, and (ii) generative modelling. In particular, we draw in some depth on one case study of the use of a double number line model of the ‘gas day’ and its mediation of communication within two dialogues, characterised by inquiry and pedagogical discourse genres respectively. In addition to spatial and gestural affordances due to its blend of grounding metaphors, the model translates between workplace objects on the one side and spreadsheet-mathematical symbols on the other. The model is found to afford generative constructions that mediate the emergence of new understandings in the dialogues. Finally we discuss the significance of this metaphorical perspective on modelling for mathematics education.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Bakhtin, M., Emerson, C. and Holquist, M.: 1986, Speech genres and other late essays (Transl. C. Emerson and M. Holquist), University of Texas Press, Austin.
Black, M.: 1962, Models and metaphors: studies in language and philosophy, Cornell UP, Ithaka, NY.
Black, M. (ed.): 1993, More about metaphor, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Blum, W. and Niss, M.: 1991, ’Applied mathematical problem solving, modelling applications and links to other subjects – state, trends and issues in mathematics instruction’, Educational Studies in Mathematics 22, 37–68.
Cobb, P., Yackel, E. and McClain, K. (eds.): 2000, Symbolizing and communicating in mathematics classrooms: perspectives on discourse, tools, and instructional design, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, N.J.
English, L.D.: 1997, Mathematical reasoning: analogies, metaphors and images, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London.
Freudenthal, H.: 1983, Didactical phenomenology of mathematical structures, D. Reidel, Dordrect.
Gee, J.P.: 1996, Social linguistics and literacies: ideology in discourses, Taylor & Francis, London.
Gee, J.P. and Green, J.L.: 1998, ’Discourse Analysis, Learning, and Social Practice: A methodological study’, Review of Research in Education 23, 119–169.
Goldin, G.: 2001, ’Countinng on the metaphorical. Where mathematics comes from: how the embodied mind brings mathematics into being’, Nature, 413(6851), 18–19, 413(6851), 18–19.
Gravemeijer, K., McClain, K. and Stephan, M.: 1999, ’Supporting students’ construction of increasingly sophisticated ways of reasoning through problem solving’, in A. Olivier and K. Newstead (eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-second annual meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 1, Stellenbosch, South Africa, pp. 194–209.
Halliday, M.A.K.: 1978, Language as social semiotic: the social interpretation of language and meaning, Edward Arnold, London.
Halliday, M.A.K. and Hasan, R.: 1985, Language, concept and text: aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective, Deakin University Press, Victoria, Australia.
Holland, D. and Quinn, N. (Eds.): 1987, Cultural Models in Language and Thought, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hutchins, E.: 1995, Cognition in the wild, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Lakoff, G.: 1987, Women, fire, and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M.: 1980, Metaphors we live by, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Lakoff, K. and Johnson, M.: 1999, Philosophy in the Flesh, Basic Books, NY.
Lakoff, G. and Nunez, R.E.: 2000, Where mathematics comes from: how the embodied mind brings mathematics into being, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Lamon, S.J., Parker, W.A. and Houston, S.K. (eds.): 2003, Mathematical Modelling: A Way of Life ( ICTMA 11), Horwood, Chichester.
McNeill, D.: 1992, Hand and mind: what gestures reveal about thought, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Niss, M.: 1996, ’Goals of Mathematics Teaching’, in A.J. Bishop (ed.), International handbook of mathematics education, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, London, pp. 11–47.
Nunez, R.E.: 2000, ’Mathematical idea analysis: What embodied cognitive science can say about the human nature of mathematics’, Proceedings of 24th Conference of International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME), Hiroshima University, Nishiki Print Co. Hiroshima, Japan 1, pp. 3–22.
Pimm, D.: 1987, Speaking mathematically, Routledge & Kegan, NY.
Pozzi, S., Noss, R. and Hoyles, C.: 1998, ’Tools in Practice, Mathematics in Use’, Educational Studies in Mathematics 36, 105–122.
Reddy, M. (ed.): 1993, The conduit metaphor, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Roth, W-M.: 2001, ’Gestures: their role in teaching and learning’, Review of Educational Research 71(3), 365–392.
Schiralli, M. and Sinclair, N.: 2003, A constructive response to ’Where Mathematics Comes From’, Educational Studies in Mathematics 52, 79–91.
Schon, D.A.: 1995, ’Generative metaphor: A perspective on problem-setting in social policy’, in A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought: 2nd Edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 137–163.
Sfard, A.: 1994, ’Reification as the birth of metaphor’, For the Learnng of Mathematics 14(1), 44–55.
Sinclair, J. and Coulthard, M.: 1975, Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The english used by Teachers and Pupils. Oxford University Press, London.
Spiro, R.J., Feltovich, P.J., Coulson, R.L. and Anderson, D.K.: 1989, ’Multiple analogies for complex concepts: antidotes for analogy-induced misconception in advanced knowledge acquisition’, in S. Vosniadou and A. Ortony (eds.), Similarity and Analogical Reasoning, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 498–531.
Streefland, L.: 1991, Fractions in realistic mathematics education: a paradigm of developmental research, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Treffers, A.: 1987, Three dimensions: a model of goal and theory description in mathematics instruction–the Wiskobas Project, D. Reidel, Dordrecht.
van Oers, B.: 1998, ’From context to contextualising’, Learning and Instruction 8(6), 473–488.
Wake, G.D. and Williams, J.S.: 2001, Using College Mathematics in Understanding Workplace practice: Summative Report of the Research Project Funded by the Leverhulme Trust, Manchester, University of Manchester, http://www.education.man.ac.uk\lta\publications\leverhulme\_summary.htm
Wartofsky, M.W.: 1979, Models: representation and the scientific understanding, Reidel, Dordrecht.
Wells, C.G.: 1999, Dialogic inquiry: towards a socio-cultural practice and theory of education, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Werner, H. and Kaplan, B.: 1963, Symbol formation: an organismic-developmental approach to language and the expression of thought, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Wertsch, J.V.: 1991, Voices of the mind: a sociocultural approach to mediated action, Harvester, London.
Williams, J.S. and Wake, G.D.: this issue, ’Black boxes in workplace mathematics’, Educational Studies in Mathematics.
Williams, J.S., Wake, G.D. and Boreham, N.C.: 2001, ’College mathematics and workplace practice: an activity theory perspective’, Research in Mathematics Education 3, 69–84.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
williams, j., wake, g. Metaphors and Models in Translation Between College and Workplace Mathematics. Educ Stud Math 64, 345–371 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-9040-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-9040-6