Article: Ferrara, Francesca. "How Multimodality Works in Mathematical Activity: Young Children Graphing Motion." International Journal of Science & Mathematics Education 12.4 (2014).
This article is based on the theory of embodiment; that we
do not just use our brains to think but rather use our whole bodies. Ferrera
defines multimodality in two ways. First, from the bio-psychological
perspective, there are multi-modal
neurons that are active during both seeing and performing an action;
furthermore, the same neurons are active when we imagine seeing or performing
an action. Second, by looking at interaction and communication in a classroom
multimodality is the multiple means we use for making meanings. Mathematical
imagination is “entertaining the possibilities for action; entertaining (in the
sense of holding or keeping) a state of readiness for enactment of possible
actions (Nemirovskey & Ferrara, 2009, p.159 qtd. in Ferrera). It has been
established that multimodality plays a role in mathematics learning, in this
paper Ferrera focuses on how this
takes place. The research question is ‘how does multimodality work in
mathematical activity?’ and particularly, ‘what is the role of imagination in
multimodality?’
In order to explore this question, microgenetic analysis was
used in order to study the genesis of ideas by a subject; in this case, analyze
two episodes with one student named Benny. Technology was used in the classroom
such that a student could move on one side of the room and a graph (on a Cartesian
plane) of their motion would be generated on a screen. Benny’s actions and
words were analyzed in order to explore the ways that perceptual, motor and
imaginary activities generate ways of understanding and communicating in
mathematics. In both cases, Benny was able to connect his movement with the
graph modelling it. In the first example, Benny’s thinking process and
communication were multimodal as he used words, movement and hand gestures as he
developed an explanation about how the graph and his movement were connected. He
used the word ‘pretend’ to show an imaginary situation and in doing so, invited
others (interlocutor) to engage in his act of imagination. In this way
imagination formed a place for inter-subjectivity. Other students who observed
Benny move also moved back and forth between the graphical space and physical
space of the movement showing that imagining can also help meaning making in
mathematics. Also, when Benny wrote about his experience it was as though he
was interacting with an ‘imaginary interlocutor’-he was explaining his thinking
to a reader.
Multimodality is made of a percepto-motor imaginary that involves
a sense of immersion in the
experience of doing mathematics in which one forgets there is a passive learner
and becomes a unique learner who actively knows, understands and interacts with
others in the social classroom. Understanding multimodality has two pedagogical
implications. First, it shows that researchers recognize and grasp the
complexity and intensity of mathematics learning in the classroom as an
inventive act. Secondly, it makes space for creativity in teaching-as
imagination is an essential part of multimodality, approaches that provoke
experiences with bodily engagement may be effective in mathematics.
STOP:
To me, one very interesting aspect of multimodality was the
way that the same neurons (neural pathways) are active when we both perceive
(sense) and act (motion) something, and when we imagine sense or acting with
that thing. The example cited in this article was picking a rose and smelling
it. This runs contrary to mind-body dualism. It also is contrary to the
simplistic diagram of the brain cortex where there is a somatosensory region
and motor region. The connection between multimodal neurons with multimodality
in mathematics learning, made me wonder about the role of psychological
research in mathematics education.
My question is how has brain research, or even just new ways
of understanding the brain, resulted in (major) shifts in mathematics education
research?
