Markku Hannula: What is specific in the Finnish mathematics teachers’ terminology? A comparative study of ten lexicons

Aika: Pe 1.11. 11.00-12.00

Paikka: F100 Futura

Esittäjän affiliaatio: Helsingin yliopisto

Muut tekijät: Michèle Artigue, Laboratoire de Didactique André Revuz
Université de Paris, France; Elisa Calcagni, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile; Yiming Cao,
Beijing Normal University, China;Tracy E. Dobie,
University of Utah, United States; Valesca Grau, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile; Hilary Hollingsworh, Australian Council for Educational Research; Alena Hošpesová,
University of South Bohemia in České
Budějovice, Czech Republic; Hee-jeong Kim, Korea University, Korea; Christine Knipping, University of Bremen, Germany; Carmel Mesiti, University of Melbourne, Australia; Jarmila Novotná,
Charles University, Czech Republic; Fritjof Sahlström, University of Helsinki; Miriam Sherin, Northwestern University, United States; Yoshinori Shimizu,
University of Tsukuba, Japan; Guowen Yu, Beijing Normal University, China

Abstrakti:

In an international Lexicon project researchers in Australia, Czechia, China, Chile, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, and USA created national lexicons to document the terminology used by mathematics teachers in each country to discuss mathematics teaching. In this presentation, we identify the characteristics of the Finnish lexicon by comparing this naming system with lexicons from other communities internationally.
A total of 103 terms have been included in the Finnish Lexicon. The items in the Finnish lexicon are organized in five larger categories: Assessment (19 terms), Upbringing (16 terms), Mathematics specific terms (13 terms), Organizing (13 terms), and Pedagogical Tools and Approaches (30 terms), and Interaction (9 terms).

We have earlier identified some characteristics of the Finnish lexicon that seem to make it distinctive among the nine countries participating in the international Lexicon project such as an emphasis on a general upbringing of the student and prioritizing lexical terms for structural features of the lesson rather than terms that describe action. In this presentation, we will continue to examine the differences more systematically.