Saltar para menu de navegação principal Saltar para conteúdo principal Saltar para rodapé do site
Logo Revista Latinoamericana de Investigación en Matemática Educativa

Artículos

Vol. 26 N.º 3 (2023): Noviembre

INTERAÇÃO NÃO-VERBAL E O ENVOLVIMENTO VISUAL DOS ESTUDANTES NAS AULAS DE MATEMÁTICA: UM ESTUDO DA ORGANIZAÇÃO DO ESPAÇO NA COMUNICAÇÃO LINGUÍSTICA

DOI
https://doi.org/10.12802/relime.23.2631
Enviado
outubro 7, 2024
Publicado
2023-11-30

Resumo

Este estudo objetiva examinar com que distância específica os alunos estão visualmente mais ou menos envolvidos com o professor nas aulas de matemática. Também busca analizar em que medida, as instruções feitas pelo professor, através de gestos de apontar, afetam o envolvimento visual dos alunos nas aulas dessa disciplina. Para isso foram selecionados, aleatoriamente, 50 alunos, 25 alunos do sexo masculino e 25 do sexo feminino, os quais, usavam uma minicâmara acoplada em óculos de lente que gravou 75 horas de videoaula. Os resultados mostram que os alunos estão mais envueltos visualmente com as instruções do professor a uma proxêmica de 1,20 a 3,70 metros. Além disso, relata-se diferenças entre meninos e meninas e como eles estão visualmente envolvidos nas aulas de matemática. Por fim, conclui-se que os gestos de apontar realizados pelos professores podem servir como uma ferramenta para recuperar a atenção visual dos alunos.

Referências

  1. Aiello, J. R. e Jones, S. E. (1971). Field study of the proxemic behavior of young children in three subcultural groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 19, 351–356. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0031433
  2. Andersen, P. A. (1999). Nonverbal communication: Forms and functions. Mayfield Pub. Arzarello, F., Paola, D., Robutti, O., e Sabena, C. (2009). Gestures as semiotic resources in the mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70, 97–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-008-9163-z
  3. Azaoui, B. (2015). Polyfocal classroom interactions and teaching gestures. An analysis of nonverbal orchestration. Proceedings “Gestures and speech in interaction (GESPIN)”, Nantes, 2–4 september 2015.
  4. Brey, E., e Shutts, K. (2015). Children use nonverbal cues to make inferences about social power. Child Development, 86(1), 276–286. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12334
  5. Brown, C. E. (1981). Shared space invasion and race. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 103–108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014616728171016
  6. Burgess, W. J. (1983). Developmental trends in proxemic spacing behavior between surrounding companions and strangers in casual groups. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 7, 158–169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00986946
  7. Calbris, G. (1990). Semiotics of French Gesture. Indiana University Press. Collier, J. (1995). Photography and visual anthropology. In P. Hockings (ed.), Principles of Visual Anthropology, second edition (pp. 235–254). Mouton.
  8. Collier, M. (1983). Nonverbal Factors in the Education of Chinese American Children: A Film Study. Asian American Studies, SFSU. Collier, M. (2001) Approaches to analysis in visual anthropology. In T. van Leeuwen, e C. Jewitt, (Eds.), Handbook of visual analysis, (pp. 35–60). Sage publications London. Thousands Oaks. New Delhi.
  9. Darwin, C. (1872). The expression of the emotions in man and animals. John Murray.
  10. Enfield, N. J. (2001). Lip-pointing: A discussion of form and function with reference to data from Laos. Gesture, 1, 185–211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/gest.1.2.06enf
  11. Espinoza-Vásquez, G., Zakaryan, D., e Carrillo Yáñez, J. (2018). El conocimiento especializado del profesor de matemáticas en el uso de la analogía en la enseñanza del concepto de función. Revista latinoamericana de investigación en matemática educativa, 21(3), 301–324. http://dx.doi.org/10.12802/relime.18.2133
  12. Falsetti, M. C., e Rodríguez, M. A. (2005). Interacciones y aprendizaje en matemática preuniversitaria: ¿Qué perciben los alumnos? Revista Latinoamericana de Investigación en Matemática Educativa, 8(3), 319–338. Available at: https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=33508305
  13. Farsani, D. (2015a). Deictic gestures as amplifiers in conveying aspects of mathematics register. In Proceedings of the 9 th Conference of European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 1382–1384). Prague, Czech.
  14. Farsani, D. (2015b). Making Multi-Modal Mathematical Meaning in Multilingual Classrooms. [Unpublished PhD thesis]. University of Birmingham.
  15. Farsani, D., Breda, A., e Sala-Sebastià, G. (2020). ¿Cómo los gestos de los maestros afectan a la atención visual de las estudiantes durante el discurso matemático? REDIMAT, 9(3), 220–242. https://doi.org/10.17583/redimat.2020.5185
  16. Farsani, D., Breda, A., e Sala-Sebastià, G. (2022). Non-verbal interaction and students’ visual engagement in Mathematics and English classes. Acta Scientiae, 24(5), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.17648/acta.scientiae.6721
  17. Farsani, D., e Mendes., J. (2021). Proxêmica e comunicação não verbal na interação em sala de aula. Psicologia Escolar e Educacional, 25, e229866. https://doi.org/10.1590/2175-35392021229866
  18. Farsani, D., Radmehr, F., Alizadeh, M., e Zakariya, Y. F. (2021) Unpacking the black-box of students’ visual attention in mathematics and English classrooms: Empirical evidence using mini-video recording gadgets. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(3), 773–781. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12522
  19. Font, V., e Nanclares, J. I. A. (2003). Fenómenos relacionados con el uso de metáforas en el discurso del profesor. El caso de las gráficas de funciones. Enseñanza de las Ciencias. Revista de investigación y experiencias didácticas, 21(3), 405–418. Available at: https://raco.cat/index.php/Ensenanza/article/view/21947
  20. Givens, D. B. (2016). Reading palm-up signs: neurosemiotic overview of a common hand gesture. Semiotica, 235–250. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2016-0053
  21. Godino, J. D., Batanero, C., e Font, V. (2019). The onto-semiotic approach: implications for the prescriptive character of didactics. For the learning of mathematics, 39(1), 38–43. Available at: https://flm-journal.org/Articles/7BF8C2BCB810897D52601E7BD7A1A7.pdf
  22. Goodwin, C. (2001). Practices of seeing: Visual analysis: An ethnomethodological approach. In T. van Leeuwen, e C. Jewitt (Eds.), Handbook of visual analysis, (pp. 157–182). Sage Publications London. Thousands Oaks. New Delhi.
  23. Good, C., Aronson, J., e Harder, J. A. (2008). Problems in the pipeline: Stereotype threat and women’s achievement in high-level math courses. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29(1), 17–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2007.10.004
  24. Hall, E. T. (1963). A system for notation of proxemic behavior. American Anthropologist, 65, 1003–1026. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/aa.1963.65.5.02a00020
  25. Hall, E. T. (1966). The Hidden Dimension. Doubleday.
  26. Hall, E. T. (1973). Handbook for Proxemic Research. Society for the Anthropology of Visual Communication.
  27. Hockings, P. (ed.) (1995). Principles of visual anthropology [2nd edition]. Mouton.
  28. Holsanova J. (2012). New methods for studying visual communication and multimodal integration. Visual Communication, 11(3), 251–257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1470412912446558
  29. Holsanova, J., Rahm, H., e Holmqvist, K. (2006). Entry Points and Reading Paths on Newspaper Spreads: Comparing a Semiotic Analysis with Eye-Tracking Measurements. Visual Communication, 5(1), 65–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1470357206061005
  30. Inagaki, K., Shimizu, T., e Sakairi, Y. (2018). Effects of posture regulation on mood states, heart rate and test performance in children. Educational Psychology, 38(9), 1129–1146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2018.1504003
  31. Jewitt, C. (1999). A social semiotic analysis of male heterosexuality in sexual health resources: The case of images. International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory and Practice, 1(4), 263–280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13645579.1998.10846880
  32. Kaya, N. e Erkíp, F. (1999). Invasion of personal space under the condition of short-term crowding: A case study on an automatic teller machine. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 183–189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1999.0125
  33. Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge University Press. Kendon, A., e Versante, L. (2003). Pointing by hand in Neapolitan. In S. Kita (ed.), Pointing: Where Language Culture and Cognition Meet (pp. 109–138). Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
  34. Khatin-Zadeh, O., Farsani, D., e Breda, A. (2023). How can transforming representation of mathematical entities help us employ more cognitive resources?. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1091678. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1091678
  35. Kita, S. (ed.) (2003). Pointing: Where language, culture, and cognition meet. Erlbaum Associates.
  36. Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., e Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning: The Rhetorics of Science Classroom. Continuum.
  37. Kress, G., e van Leeuwen T. (1996). Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. Routledge.
  38. Kress, G., e van Leeuwen T. (2002). Colour as a semiotic mode: notes for a grammar of colours. Visual Communication, 1(3), 343–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/147035720200100306
  39. LaCrosse, M. B. (1975). Nonverbal behaviour and perceived counselor attractiveness and persuasiveness. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 22, 563–566. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.22.6.563
  40. Leibman, M. (1970). The effects of sex and race norms on personal space. Environment and Behavior, 2, 208–246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001391657000200205
  41. Llobera, J., Spanlang, B., Ruffini, G., e Mel Slater, I. (2010). Proxemics with multiple dynamic characters in an immersive virtual environment. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception 8(1), article 3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1857893.1857896
  42. Madden, S. J. (1999). Proxemics and gender: Where’s the spatial gap? North Dakota Journal of Speech and Theater, 12, 1–8.
  43. Manghi Haquin, D. (2010). Recursos semióticos del profesor de matemática: funciones complementarias del habla y los gestos para la alfabetización científica escolar. Estudios pedagógicos, 36(2), 99-115. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-07052010000200006
  44. McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. The University of Chicago Press.
  45. Mehrabian, A. (1972) Nonverbal communication. Aldine-Atherton.
  46. Merritt, P., Hirshman, E., Wharton, W., Stangl, B., Devlin, J., e Lenz, A. (2007). Evidence for gender differences in visual selective attention. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(3), 597–609. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.01.016
  47. Mumm, J. e Mutlu, B. (2011). Human-Robot Proxemics: Physical and Psychological Distancing in Human-Robot Interaction. In: Proceedings of the 6th ACM/IEEE Conference on Human- Robot Interaction. Lausanne, Switzerland.
  48. Noesjirwan, J. (1977). Contrasting cultural patterns on interpersonal closeness in doctors: Waiting rooms in Sydney and Jakarta. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 8, 357–368. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002202217783008
  49. Norris, S. (2011). Three hierarchical positions of deictic gesture in relation to spoken language: a multimodal interaction analysis. Visual Communication, 10(2),129–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357211398439
  50. O’Halloran, K. L. (2005) Mathematical Discourse: Language, Symbolism and Visual Images. Continuum.
  51. Planas, N., e Iranzo, N. (2009). Consideraciones metodológicas para la interpretación de procesos de interacción en el aula de matemáticas. Revista Latinoamericana de Investigación en Matemática Educativa, 12(2), 179–213.
  52. Radford, L. (2003). Gestures, speech, and the sprouting of signs: A semiotic-cultural approach to students’ types of generalization. Mathematical thinking and learning, 5(1), 37–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327833MTL0501_02
  53. Radford, L. (2006a). Elementos de una teoría cultural de la objetivación. Revista Latinoamericana de Investigación en Matemática Educativa, 9(Extraordinario 1), 103–129.
  54. Radford, L. (2006b). Semiótica y educación matemática. Revista Latinoamericana de Investigación en Matemática Educativa, 1(Extraordinario 1), 7–21.
  55. Radford, L. (2009). Why do gestures matter? Sensuous cognition and the palpability of mathematical meanings. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70, 111–126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10649-008-9127-3
  56. Radford, L., Edwards, L., e Arzarello, F. (2009). Introduction: beyond words. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(2), 91–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10649-008-9172-y
  57. Remland, M. S., Jones, T. S., e Brinkman, H. (1995). Interpersonal distance, body orientation and touch: Effects of culture, gender, and age. The Journal of Social Psychology, 135, 281–297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1995.9713958
  58. Salinas-Hernández, U., e Miranda, I. (2020). La teoría de la objetivación en el análisis de los modos de enseñanza: el caso de un profesor novato. RECME - Revista Colombiana De Matemática Educativa, 5(2), 83–91. Recuperado a partir de http://www.ojs.asocolme.org/index.php/RECME/article/view/361
  59. Sandoval-Troncoso, L., e Ledezma, C. (2021). Los gestos, una manera de comunicar matemática: el caso particular de las funciones. Educación matemática, 33(2), 205–226. http://dx.doi.org/10.24844/EM3302.08
  60. Scheiner, T., Godino, J. D., Montes, M. A., Pino-Fan, L. R., e Climent, N. (2022). On metaphors in thinking about preparing mathematics for teaching: In memory of José (“Pepe”) Carrillo Yáñez (1959–2021). Educational Studies in Mathematics, 111(2), 253–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-022-10154-4
  61. Scherer, S. E. (1974). Proxemic behavior of primary school children as a function of their socioeconomic class and subculture. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26,800– 805. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0036190
  62. Sinclair, A. (2005). Mathematics and imitation from age one to three. Journal for the Study of Education and Development, 28(4), 377–392. https://doi.org10.1174/021037005774518983
  63. Smith-Hanen, S. S. (1977). Effects of nonverbal behaviors on judged levels of counselor warmth and empathy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 24(2), 87–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.24.2.87
  64. Sobel, R. S. e Lillith, N. (1975). Determinants of non-stationary personal space invasion. Journal of Social Psychology, 97, 39–45. https://doi-org.sire.ub.edu/10.1080/00224545.1975.9923310
  65. Sommer, R. (1959). Studies in personal space. Sociometry, 22, 247–260.
  66. Sommer, R. (1961). Leadership and group geography. Sociometry, 24, 99–110.
  67. Soto-Andrade, J. (2007). La cognición hecha cuerpo f lorece en metáforas. En A. Ibáñez e D. Cosmelli (Eds.), Nuevos enfoques de la cognición. Redescubriendo la dinámica, la intención y la intersubjetividad (pp. 71–90). Universidad Diego Portales.
  68. Webber, S. (2008). Visual images in research. In L. G. Knowles, e A. Cole (Eds.), Handbook of Arts in Qualitative Research (pp. 41–53). Sage.
  69. Wilkins, D. (1999). What’s ‘The Point’? The significance of gestures of orientation in Arrernte. Presented to the Central Australian Linguistics Circle, Alice Springs. Nijmegen.
  70. Zahry, N. R., e Besley, J. C. (2019). Warmth Portrayals to Recruit Students into Science Majors. Visual Communication, 20(4), 470–500. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357219871696

Downloads

Não há dados estatísticos.

Artigos Similares

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >> 

Também poderá iniciar uma pesquisa avançada de similaridade para este artigo.