Publication: Hidden Connections and Double Meanings: A Mathematical Viewpoint of Affective and Cognitive Interactions in Learning
Loading...
Official URL
Full text at PDC
Publication Date
2018
Authors
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Springer
Citations
Exportar
Abstract
This paper poses methodological questions concerning the evaluation of emotion in the process of mathematical learning where the interaction between emotion and cognition occurs. These methodological aspects are considered not only from the perspective of educational psychology but from that of mathematics education. Some epistemological and ontological aspects, which are considered central to the cognition-affect interplay, are noted. Special attention is given to the notion of cognitive-affective structure as a dynamic system. The interplay between cognition and affect in mathematics is viewed through the concepts of local and global affect and using a mathematical working space model. A model of this interplay is illustrated with research examples, enabling us to move from descriptions of cognition-affect at an individual level to the explanation of the tendency of a group. The non-linear modelling of emotion is reflected in the affect-cognition local structure.
Description
UCM subjects
Unesco subjects
Keywords
Citation
Bastide, R. (Ed.). (1962). Senses et usages du terme “structure”. Hague: Mouton.
Brun, G., Doğuoğlu, U., & Kuenzle, D. (2008). Epistemology and emotions. Hampshire, UK:Ashgate Publishing.
DeBellis, V. A., & Goldin, G. A. (2006). Affect and meta-affect in mathematical problem solving: A representational perspective. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63(2), 131–147.
Duval, R. (2005). Les conditions cognitives de l’apprentissage de la géométrie: développement de la visualisation, différenciation des raisonnements et coordination de leur fonctionnements. Annales de Didactique et de Sciences Cognitives, 10, 5–53.
Goldin, G. A. (2000). Affective pathways and representation in mathematical problem solving. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 2(3), 209–219.
Goldin, G. A. (2004). Problem solving heuristics, affect and discrete mathematics. ZDM-Mathematics Education, 36(2), 56–60.
Goldin, G. A. (2014). Perspectives on emotion in mathematical engagement, learning, and problem solving. In R. Pekrun & L. Linnenbrink-Garcia (Eds.), Handbook of emotions and education (pp. 391–414). New York: Routledge.
Gómez-Chacón, I. Mª. (2000a). Matemática emocional. Los afectos en el aprendizaje matemático. (Emotional mathematics. Affects in mathematics learning). Madrid: Narcea.
Gómez-Chacón, I. Mª. (2000b). Affective influences in the knowledge of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 43, 149–168.
Gómez-Chacón, I. Mª. (2012). Affective pathways and interactive visualization in the context of technological and professional mathematical knowledge. Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education, 17(3–4), 57–74.
Gómez-Chacón, I. M. (2015). Meta-emotion and mathematical modeling processes in computerized environments. In B. Pepin & B. Rösken-Winter (Eds.), From beliefs and affect to
dynamic systems in mathematics education. Exploring a mosaic of relationships and interactions (pp. 201–226). Switzerland: Springer.
Gómez-Chacón, I. Mª. (2017). Emotions and heuristics: The state of perplexity in mathematics. ZDM-Mathematics Education, 49, 323–338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0854-8.
Gómez-Chacón, I. Mª., & Figueral, L. (2007). Identité et facteur affectifs dans l´apprentissage des mathématiques. In Annales de Didactique et de Sciences Cognitives (Vol. 12. pp. 117–146). Strasbourg: IREM.
Gómez-Chacón, I. M., & Kuzniak, A. (2013). Geometric work spaces: Figural, instrumental and discursive geneses of reasoning in a technological environment. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(1), 201–226.
Gómez-Chacón, I. Mª., Romero, I. Mª., & Garcia, Mª. M. (2016). Zig-zagging in geometrical reasoning in technological collaborative environments: A mathematical working space-framed study concerning cognition and affect. ZDM-Mathematics Education, 48(6), 909–924.
Gras, R., Peter, P., Briand, H., & Philippé, J. (1997). Implicative statistical analysis. In H. N. Ohsumi, N. Yajima, Y. Tanaka, H. Bock, & Y. Baba (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th Conference of the International Federation of Classification Societies (Vol. 2, pp. 412–419). New York: Springer.
Harre, R. (2009). Emotions as cognitive-affective-somatic hybrids. Emotion Review, 1(4), 294–301.
Immordino-Yang, M. H., & Damasio, A. (2007). We feel, therefore we learn: The relevance of affective and social neuroscience to education. Mind, Brain and Education, 1(1), 3–10.
Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and refutations: The logic of mathematical discovery. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lazarus, R. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Malmivuori, M. L. (2006). Affect and self-regulation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63, 149–164.
Mandler, G. (1984). Mind and body. New York: Norton.
Pepin, B., & Rösken-Winter, B. (Eds.). (2015). From beliefs and affect to dynamic systems in mathematics education. Exploring a mosaic of relationships and interactions. Switzerland: Springer.
Pekrun, R., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2012). Academic emotions and student engagement. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student
engagement (pp. 259–282). New York, NY: Springer.
Piaget, J. (1981). Intelligence and affectivity: Their relationship during child development. Palo Alto: Annual Reviews.
Schlöglmann, W. (2005). Affect and cognition—Two poles of a learning process. In C. Bergsten & B. Grevholm (Eds.), Conceptions of mathematics. Proceedings of Norma 01 (pp. 215–222). Linköping: Svensk Förening för Matematikdidaktisk Forskning.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1994). Mathematical thinking and problem solving. Lawrence Erlbaum. Hillsdale, NJ: Associates Inc.
Singer, F. M., & Voica, C. (2010). In search of structures: How does the mind explore infinity? Mind, Brain and Education, 4(2), 81–93.
Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35, 151–175.