Identifying routines in the discourse of undergraduate students when defining

Differences between how Undergraduate Students Define Geometric Solids and what their Lecturers Expect from them through the Lens of the Theory of Commognition

“…Thus, our research offers a better insight into students' engagement with activities such as the identification of properties and the construction of definitions for solids. Moreover, this study complements the article by Fernández-León et al (2019), where the authors show some commognitive conflicts that occur because of differences among students' discursive activities. While in the previous article the focus was on students' engagement with describing and defining activities, in this study there is also a comparison between that engagement and what their lecturers expect from them.…”

“…The aim of the worksheet was to characterise how undergraduate students construct definitions that fit given solids (3D geometric objects with certain properties). This worksheet has been validated as a data collection instrument in previous publications (Fernández-León et al, 2019;Gavilán-Izquierdo et al, 2019).…”

“…This framework has shown its relevance to research at university level (for instance, Heyd-Metzuyanim et al, 2015;Ioannou, 2018;Nardi et al, 2014;Toscano et al, 2019) and has been used to compare students' and lecturers' engagement in discursive activities (Güçler, 2013;Stadler, 2011;Thoma & Nardi, 2016, 2018. There have also been several studies that focus on the practice of defining among undergraduate students (Fernández-León et al, 2019;Gavilán-Izquierdo et al, 2019;Sánchez & García, 2014). It is less common to study the differences between undergraduate students' discursive activity when defining and what their lectures expect to see in their students' responses.…”

Analyzing Pedagogical Routines in the Upper Secondary School Teacher’s Discourse Using the Commognitive Aproach

“…Specifically, Güçler (2013) analyzes the mathematical discourse of the teacher and that of undergraduate students about the concept of limit and points out that "the discrepancies among participants' discourses signal communicational breakages" (p. 439). Among the works that focus on students' discourses, Fernández-León et al (2021) identify routines in the mathematical discourse of undergraduate students when defining 3D solids, and Toscano et al (2019) study the discourse of pre-service primary teachers when solving didactic-mathematical tasks. In the latter the authors distinguish two types of discourse: The discourse as students and a discourse closer to their future role as teachers.…”

“…The above properties were introduced by Sfard (2008) for mathematical discourse analysis. Some researchers used them for analyzing students' mathematical discourse (Fernández-León et al, 2021;Heyd-Metzuyanim et al, 2016;Schüler-Meyer, 2020) and other authors used them to characterize teachers' mathematical discourse (Gavilán-Izquierdo & Gallego-Sánchez, 2021;Güçler, 2013;Viirman, 2014). Viirman (2015) considered these properties in the teacher's pedagogical discourse, establishing analogies and differences with the properties of mathematical discourse.…”