The onto-semiotic approach to research in mathematics education

By J. Godino, Carmen Batanero, Vicenç Font. 2007

668 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Education, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6ce11e79e0dff52720dc35ef64ddb0eb85a5b625

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Education

1. Vicenç Font
2. J. Godino
3. Miguel R. Wilhelmi
4. Orlando Lurduy
5. J. I. Acevedo
6. Janete Bolite
7. B. Mainali
8. L. Trouche

In Sociology and Political Science

1. Vicenç Font
2. J. I. Acevedo
3. Janete Bolite
4. J. Godino

Citations in the corpus

• Representation in Teaching and Learning Mathematics (2020, background): “Similarly, Goldin and Shteingold (2001) contend that teachers need to understand the effects of representation on students’ learning in order to teach mathematics most effectively.”
• The problem of the particular and its relation to the general in mathematics education (2008, background): “In Fig. 1 we represent some of the different theoretical notions of the onto-semiotic approach for mathematical knowledge (Godino and Batanero 1998; Godino 2002; Godino et al. 2005; 2007; Godino, Contreras and Font 2006a; Godino, Font and Wilhelmi 2006b).”
• One episode, two lenses (2013, background): “The content of the semiotic functions, and hence the meaning, can be personal or institutional, unitary or systemic, ostensive or non-ostensive object (Godino et al., 2007); it can be a definition, problem, procedure, argument, or a linguistic”
• The emergence of objects from mathematical practices (2013, background): “Primary objects are related to one another and form configurations, which can be defined as networks of objects that are involved in, and emerge from, systems of practices (Godino et al., 2007).”
• Why is the learning of elementary arithmetic concepts difficult? Semiotic tools for understanding the nature of mathematical objects (2011, background): “Therefore, the understanding of the nature and meaning of numbers requires adopting an anthropological–sociocultural vision of mathematics, like the proposal, among other approaches (Chevallard, 1992; Radford, 2006), from the “onto-semiotic approach to mathematical knowledge and instruction” (Godino”
• Metaphors in mathematics classrooms: analyzing the dynamic process of teaching and learning of graph functions (2010, positive): “…actually thought about it, but I don’t think… no, I’ve never found that this confuses students, no I don’t think so line with the onto-semiotic approach (Godino et al. 2007), we consider that the process through which mathematical objects emerge from mathematical practices is highly complex and…”