Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What is so special about mathematical texts? Analyses of common claims in research literature and of properties of textbooks

  • Original Article
  • Published:
ZDM Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study surveys claims in research articles regarding linguistic properties of mathematical texts, focusing on claims supported by empirical or logical arguments. It also performs a linguistic analysis to determine whether some of these claims are valid for school textbooks in mathematics and history. The result of the survey shows many and varying claims that mainly describe mathematical texts as highly compact, precise, complex, and containing technical vocabulary. However, very few studies present empirical support for their claims, and the few empirical studies that do exist contradict the most common, and unsupported, claims, since no empirical study has shown mathematical texts to be more complex than texts from other subjects, and any significant differences rather indicate the opposite. The linguistic analysis in this study is in line with previous empirical studies and stands in contrast to the more common opinion in the unsupported claims. For example, the mathematics textbooks have significantly shorter sentences than the history textbooks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Consists of three levels: highest international level (2), ordinary level (1), and others (–); see http://dbh.nsd.uib.no/kanaler.

References

  • Anstrom, K., DiCerbo, P., Butler, F., Katz, A., Millet, J., & Rivera, C. (2010). A review of the literature on academic English: Implications for K-12 English language learners. Arlington, VA, USA: The George Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Artley, A. S. (1943). A study of certain relationships existing between general reading comprehension and reading comprehension in a specific subject matter area. Journal of Educational Research, 37, 464–473.

    Google Scholar 

  • Behrman, E. H., & Street, C. (2005). The validity of using a content-specific reading comprehension test for college placement. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 35(2), 5–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergqvist, E., Bergqvist, T., Boesen, J., Helenius, O., Lithner, J., Palm, T., et al. (2009). Matematikutbildningens mål och undervisningens ändamålsenlighet. Grundskolan våren 2009. Gothenburg, Sweden: National Center for Mathematics Education.

  • Brunner, R. B. (1976). Reading mathematical exposition. Educational Research, 18, 208–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton, L., & Morgan, C. (2000). Mathematicians writing. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31, 429–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, F. A., Bailey, A. L., Stevens, R., Huang, B., & Lord, C. (2004). Academic English in fifth-grade mathematics, science, and social studies textbooks. Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).

  • Dowling, P. (1996). A sociological analysis of school mathematics texts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 31, 389–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Einarsson, J. (1978). Talad och skriven svenska: Sociolingvistiska studier [Spoken and written Swedish: Sociolinguistic studies]. Lund, Sweden: Ekstrand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fan, L., Chen, J. A., Qiu, X. L., & Hu, J. Z. (2004). Textbook use within and beyond Chinese Mathematics Classrooms: A study of 12 secondary schools in Kunming and Fuzhou of China. In L. Fan, N. Y. Wong, J. Cai, & S. Li (Eds.), How Chinese learn mathematics: Perspectives from insiders (pp. 186–212). Singapore: World Scientific Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, G. G. (1980). Reliability of the Fry sampling procedure. Reading Research Quarterly, 15(4), 489–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuentes, P. (1998). Reading comprehension in mathematics. Clearing House, 72(2), 81–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haggarty, L., & Pepin, B. (2002). An investigation of mathematics textbooks and their use in English, French and German classrooms: Who gets an opportunity to learn what? British Educational Research Journal, 28(4), 567–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herbel-Eisenmann, B., & Wagner, D. (2007). A framework for uncovering the way a textbook may position the mathematics learner. For the Learning of Mathematics, 27(2), 8–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lithner, J. (2004). Mathematical reasoning in calculus textbook exercises. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 23, 405–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Love, E., & Pimm, D. (1996). ‘This is so’: A text on texts. In A. J. Bishop, K. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & C. Laborde (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics education (Part 1) (pp. 371–409). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • McBride, M. (1994). The theme of individualism in mathematics education: An examination of mathematics textbooks. For the Learning of Mathematics, 14(3), 36–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKenna, M. C., & Robinson, R. D. (1990). Content literacy: A definition and implications. Journal of Reading, 34, 184–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, C. (1998). Writing mathematically: The discourse of investigation. London: Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., & Foy, P. (2008). TIMSS 2007 International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA’s Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study at the Fourth and Eighth Grades. Chestnut Hill, MA, USA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nesher, P., & Katriel, T. (1986). Learning numbers: A linguistic perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 17, 100–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oakland, T., & Lane, H. B. (2004). Language, reading, and readability formulas: Implications for developing and adapting tests. International Journal of Testing, 4(3), 239–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Österholm, M. (2006). Characterizing reading comprehension of mathematical texts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63, 325–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pimm, D. (1989). Speaking mathematically: Communication in mathematics classrooms (paperback edition). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Remmers, H. H., & Grant, A. (1928). The vocabulary load of certain secondary school mathematics textbooks. The Journal of Educational Research, 18(3), 203–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, J. (1991). Mathematical discussions. In E. von Glasersfeld (Ed.), Radical constructivism in mathematics education (pp. 13–51). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryve, A. (2011). Discourse research in mathematics education: A critical evaluation of 108 journal articles. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 42, 167–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, F. (1969). The readability of junior high school mathematics textbooks. The Mathematics Teacher, 62(4), 289–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, Y., & O’Neill, J. (1998). Mathematics and narratives. Language and Education, 12(3), 210–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tesitelová, M. (1992). Quantitative linguistics. Philadelphia, USA: Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiegand, R. B. (1967). Pittsburgh looks at the readability of mathematics textbooks. Journal of Reading, 11(3), 201–204.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Science and Mathematics Education, Umeå University, 901 87, Umeå, Sweden

    Magnus Österholm & Ewa Bergqvist

  2. Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

    Magnus Österholm

Authors
  1. Magnus Österholm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ewa Bergqvist
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Magnus Österholm.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Österholm, M., Bergqvist, E. What is so special about mathematical texts? Analyses of common claims in research literature and of properties of textbooks. ZDM Mathematics Education 45, 751–763 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0522-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0522-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation