ABSTRACT

Linguistic Invention (LI) enables teachers and learners to use personal experiences in
solving math problems, in making it easy to be understood and appreciated by others. It allows
mathematical ideas to be expressed communicatively and more importantly, linguistic invention
can build warrants or convincing justifications for everyone’s understandings of mathematical
concepts and processes (Brown, 2001).

This study finds means on how to improve the mathematical communication of teachers
and the students through the use of linguistic invention and semantic warrant production.
The study is both quantitative and qualitative. In its quantitative nature, the researcher used
the pretest-posttest control group design. For the qualitative part of this research, conversational
analysis was used. The conversations made by the participants during the LI sessions were
transcribed, examined and analyzed to determine the quality of their linguistic invention and
semantic warrant production.

Logical, effective and appropriate communication skills in Mathematics can be developed

through multiple conducts of LI sessions. Linguistic invention session is an effective way for the
improvement and development of mathematical understanding of grade 10 students both in
procedural and conceptual knowledge. It also improved the production of semantic warrants that
support mathematical arguments, inferences and reasoning.
 INTRODUCTION

Mathematics is often conveyed in symbols and algorithms and communication about

mathematical ideas is not always recognized as an important part of mathematics education
(NCTM Communication standard, 2014). This is particularly in Philippine education where
despite the call to emphasize student-centered learning along with K-12 curriculum reform,
communication in mathematics classes remains one way-dominated by teachers. Mathematics
teaching is still mainly by exposition accomplished by providing definitions of terms, presenting
the procedures for solving and applying using several routine examples (Ulep, 2007). Students just
do not necessarily talk about mathematics naturally as teaching by exposition does not give them
the opportunity to do so and hinders their sense of responsibility to understand mathematics.
Communication is an essential process for learning because through communication,
students are provided the opportunity to reflect upon, clarify and expand their ideas and
understanding of mathematical relationships and mathematical arguments (Ontario Ministry of
Education, 2005). For math teachers to facilitate and generate mathematical communication in a
classroom they themselves must possess a good sense of mathematical understanding-both
conceptual and procedural, and knowledge of pedagogy that develop mathematical
communication. Studies have shown that the interaction of the procedural knowledge and language
facility in mathematics significantly contribute to conceptual development (Khalid & Tengah,
2007)
Linguistic invention is the practice of describing a mathematical situation in relation to
oneself (Brown, 2001 as cited by Palomar, 2015). In contrast to conventional language which
identifies abstract mathematical concepts, linguistic invention draws on personal experience to
provide those concepts with richer meaning. Linguistics invention enables teachers and learners to
use personal experiences in solving math problems, making it easy to be understood and
appreciated by others. It allows
mathematical ideas to be expressed communicatively and more importantly, linguistic invention
can build warrants or convincing justifications for everyone's understandings of mathematical
concepts and processes (Brown, 2001).
Thus, the reason behind the conduct of this research was to find means on how to improve
the mathematical communication of teachers and the students through the use of linguistic
invention and semantic warrant production.

Objectives of the Study

This study aimed to determine the linguistic invention and semantic warrant production on
students' mathematical understanding.
Specifically, this study aimed to

1. determine the mathematical understanding reflected in the linguistic invention of the

students before the Ll sessions.
 2. determine the mathematical understanding reflected in the linguistic invention of the
students after the Ll sessions.

3. compare the mathematical understanding of the participants and non-participants in LI

sessions.

4. document the progress of the students’ quality of linguistic invention and production of
semantic warrants for describing a mathematical situation.

Operational Definition of Terms

Linguistic invention - is the practice of describing a mathematical situation in relation to personal

experiences. It is interpreted into different codes: conventional, personal, visual,
numerical and unit reference language (Brown, 2001; Walter & Johnson, 2007).

Linguistic Invention (LI) sessions – refer to interactive sessions whish require the participants to
analyze and answer mathematical problems using their unique way of communicating,
particularly using first language and incorporating personal and real-life experiences.

Mathematical understanding - is the level of procedural and conceptual knowledge of the grade
10 students determined through the use of linguistic invention in describing and making
inferences for a mathematical situation.

Semantic warrant- is the purposeful choice to offer personally meaningful reasoning that
supports mathematical inferences (Walter & Johnson, 2007).
 THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMWORK

Theoretical Framework

The study is anchored on the constructivist view of learning that knowledge is created
internally through interaction with the environment. Since linguistic invention is a good example
of a mathematical classroom discourse, it contains the influence of the theory of constructivism,
which is based on experiential learning through real life experience to construct and conditionalize
knowledge
(http:/Renwikipedia orgwikiconstructivism (philosophy of education), 2014). lt posits that
learning is an active and constructive process, in which the learner is an information constructor.
Learners do that same role as information constructor every time there is an LI session.
The concept of LI session also fits in with socio-cultural views on learning where students
working together are able to reach new understanding that could not be achieved if they are
working alone. The theory of social constructivism, by Lev Vygotsky, applies the general
philosophical constructivism into social settings, wherein groups construct knowledge for one
another, collaboratively creating a small culture of shared artifacts with shared meanings. When
one is immersed within a culture of this sort, one is learning all the time about how to be a part of
that culture on many levels. It is emphasized that culture plays a large role in the cognitive
development of a person (http:llen wikipedia.org/wikisocial constructivism, 2014).

Conceptual Framework

This study was based within the context of the framework. The independent variable of
this study is the linguistic invention session while the dependent variable is the level of
mathematical understanding of the grade 10 students, in which its components are procedural and
conceptual knowledge. The study aimed to determine

The linguistic invention and semantic warrant production on students’

mathematical understanding. The schematic diagram of the study is shown in the figure.

INDEPENDENT VARIABLE DEPENDENT VARIABLE

LINGUISTIC LEVEL OF
MATHEMATICAL
INVENTION
UNDERSTANDINGS
SESSIONS
Components: Procedural
Knowledge and Conceptual
Knowledge
The schematic diagram of the conceptual framework of the study
Methodology
Research respondents
The respondents of the study were the grade 10 students of Kidapawan City National
High School – Lanao Extension SY 2015-2016
Experimental design
The research design of the study was both quantitative and qualitative. In its
quantitative nature, the researcher used the pretest-posttest control group design.
There were randomization in establishing the two group.
The experimental design used in this study is the illustrated by the following
figure:
Experimental group O1 x O2
_________________________________
Control group O1 O2
Where O1 = Pretest of the experimental and control group
O2 = Posttest of the experimental and control group
X = Treatment of the experimental group
For the qualitative part of this research, conversational analysis was used. The
conversation made by the participant during the LI sessions were transcribed,
examined and analyzed to determine the quality of their linguistic invention and
semantic warrant production.
Research instrument
A test questionnaire was used both for pre-test and post-test. In the test, three
different questions were given, particularly one problem each on algebra,
geometry ang graph interpretation.
Statistical Treatment of Data

The transcription of the responses/statements made by each respondent during the LI

sessions in performing the given mathematical tasks was transcribed, examined, identified and
coded based on a slightly modified language code which is similarly pattern in the study of Waiter
and Johnson (2007). The language codes are S for Conventional Language, U for the References
to units, N for the Numerical Values, P for the Personal Language and V for the Visual Features.

Each statement or interpretation which contains the presence of as of the language codes
during linguistic invention was considered as the effective, logical and, understandably, the best
way of producing semantic warrants. To evaluate the mathematical understanding of the
respondents, a rubric was specifically made to check the responses and statements of each
respondent written in the pre-test and post-test. Although some of the contents of the rubric were
derived from the rubrics created by Cotton (2008) and Sample (2009), majority of the contents in
the rubric were originally made by the researcher himself.

A scoring scale was used to rate the level of procedural (PK) and conceptual (CK)
knowledge or understanding the procedure of scoring was always based on the scoring scale used
in the rubric.

The T-test for independent and dependent samples was used to determine of compare the
significant difference in the mathematical understanding between the grade 10 students who were
the participants and non-participants in the LI sessions.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 1. Test of significant difference between the mathematical understanding of the

control and experimental group before the LI Sessions
Group n Mean Standard Mean t df p-value
Deviation Difference
Experimental 5 27.40 3.36 2.40 1.9 ns 8 0.270
Control 5 29.80 3.03
ns- not significant at 0.05

The control group had a higher mean score compared to the experimental group
in mathematical understanding, with a mean difference of 2.40 points. However the data
reveal that both the procedural and conceptual knowledge in the experimental group
manifested a rate of “fair” (PK=14.40, CK=13.00). It also reveals that before the LI session
was conducted, respondents in the both group had a prior knowledge in regards with the
topics to be discussed.
 No significant difference was found in the mathematical understanding between
the control and experimental group (t-value=1.19, p-value= o.270> .05). This indicates
that the two groups were comparable, making this particular study feasible.

Table 2. Test of significant difference between the mathematical understanding of the

` and experimental group after the LI Sessions
Components Group N Mean Level SD Mean t p-
Difference value
Procedural Experimental 5 21.00 Excellent 2.12 2.60 1.21ns 0.156
Control 5 18.40 Good 3.05
Conceptual Experimental 5 21.20 Excellent 1.92 5.00 3.11** 0.005
Control 5 16.20 Good 2.17
Total Experimental 5 42.20 Excellent 3.83 8.00 2.92* 0.016
Control 5 34.20 Good 4.44
** -highly significant at 0.01; ns-not significant at 0.05
Legend:
Procedural/Conceptual Knowledge Mathematical Understanding Level

21-24 40-48 Excellent

16-20 31-39 Good

11-15 22-10 Fair

6-10 12-21 Poor

The experimental group obtained a higher mean score than the control group both
the procedural and conceptual knowledge in mathematics with the mean difference of
2.60 and 5.00 respectively. The experimental group rated “excellent” in their level both
the two components while the group rated as “good”. This implies that the experimental
group outperformed students in the control group.
Though there was no significant difference in the procedural knowledge of both
groups in mathematics (t value = 1.21, p value = 0.156 > 0.05), the experimental group
had a better knowledge in the procedural mathematics since they obtained higher mean
score than the control group.
In terms of mathematical understanding, the experimental group obtained higher
mean score compared to the control group with the mean difference of 8. Clearly, the
experimental group had a better level of mathematical understanding compared t o the
control group after the LI sessions.
 A significant difference was found in the mathematical understanding between the
control and experimental group (t-value = 2.92, p-value = 0.016 < .05), which indicates
that the experimental group had outperformed the control group in terms of their
mathematical understanding after the LI sessions.

Table 3. Comparison of the mathematical understanding before and after the LI Sessions

Group Mean Scores Mean t p-value

Pretest Posttest Difference
Experimental 27.40 42.20 14.80 13. 861** 0.000
Control 29.80 34.20 4.40 2.24 ns 0.089

After three LI sessions, the mathematical understanding of the experimental group

had improved significantly based on the increase in their mean scores from pre-test to
post-test, with a mean difference of 14. 80 points.
LI sessions had a significant effect towards the mathematical understanding of the
grade 10 students (t value = 13.86, p value = 0.00 < .01). The result of this particular
study supported the claim of Sample (2009) as cited by Palomar (2015) that the
mathematical understanding of a student can increase due to an increase in oral
communication, which is the nature of any LI sessions.
 Linguistic Invention and Semantic Warrant Production of Grade 10 Students

The experimental group had participated in a one-hour LI session conducted on November

17 to 19, 2015, The researcher served as a facilitator during the discussion.

On the first LI session, the students were asked to make a story and explained what
happened on each part of the graph on the family's use of water with the water tank. At the very
end of each selected statement (which was also applied for the other two LI sessions) transcribed
during the discussion had been coded as S-conventional language, N-numerical values, U-
references, P- Personal
to units, language and v visual features of the problem since the conversation during the LI sessions
was recorded, transcribed and coded This is the example of conversation about the first problem.

At first, it was evident that the students were quite inexperienced in producing linguistic
invention as the discussion began with Ricalyn, explaining what happened in all parts of the graph,
in terms of personal language (P) and visual features (V) of the graph and dominated almost all of
her statements. Then it followed by her classmates but the same language was produced (P and
V), until the facilitator gave some guided questions to reach the goal of semantic warrant
production

Facilitator: How was the family of Nadine used the water (2-4 PM)?
Ricalyn: Magbubo sa tanom ky farm man sir. (Watering the plants since it is a farm sir.)
PV
Jemmuelie: Unya 12 to 2 (PM) kay magpahulay mana sila. (Then they will take their rest
at 12 to 2 (PM.) NPV
Ricalyn and Jemmuelie: 4-6 (PM) kay magpainom na g kuwan (animals)...ug magluto
tapos ana sir (At 4 to 6 (PM), they will provide water to their animals to drink, and then
they will prepare their food.) NPV
Facilitator: How about the changes (volume) of water class?
Reynald: 300L sa 2.. (AM), ..(30OL for 2 to 4 (AM) UNPV
Facilitator: How about every hour?
Ricalyn: 300L divided by 2 so 150L SUN
Facilitator: ls that 150L per hour?
Ricalyn: 250 (L) man diay na oh! 250 (L) padulong sa 650 (L)… (It is 250 (L)! So from
250 (L) to 650 (L)..) SNV
Jemmuelle: 400 (L) N
Ricalyn: So 200 (L)... 400 (L) divided 2 SN
Ricalyn and Jemmuelie: So 200 Liters per hour SUNV

LI sessions can help develop the mathematical understanding of a student. The findings
conformed to what Walter and Johnson (2007) who stated that during linguistic invention, if
personal stories are accompanied by the identification of correct concepts through conventional
language, learners understanding of general mathematical concepts within a given context may
increase.
 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Based from the gathered data, the following are the major findings of the study:

1. The level of mathematical understanding reflected in the linguistic invention of grade 10

students before the LI sessions in procedural and conceptual knowledge were both “fair”.
2. The level of mathematical understanding reflected in the linguistic invention of grade 10
students after the LI sessions in procedural and conceptual knowledge were both
"excellent”.
3. The Ll sessions had a significant positive effect on the mathematical understanding of
grade 10 students both in the procedural and conceptual knowledge. The mathematical
understanding of the grade 10 students who participated in the Ll sessions significantly
improved compared to those who did not participate in the LI sessions.
4. The quality of the linguistic invention of grade 10 students gradually improved with LI
sessions and they were able to create effective linguistic inventions for the production of
semantic warrants that support mathematical inferences and reasoning.
 CONCLUSIONS

Logical, effective and appropriate communication skills in Mathematics can be developed

through multiple conducts of LI sessions. Linguistic invention session is an effective way for the
improvement and development of mathematical understanding of grade 10 students both in
procedural and conceptual knowledge. it also improves the production of semantic warrants that
support mathematical arguments, inferences and reasoning.

RECOMMENDATIONS

In view of findings and conclusions of the study, the following are the recommended:

1. Mathematics teachers should provide activities, like linguistic invention session, that
promote and develop the mathematical communication and understanding of the students.
2. Mathematics teachers should be able to keep a balance in teaching the subject content
procedurally and conceptually in order for the students to achieve a holistic learning of
Mathematics.
3. Mathematics teachers should develop students’ ability to produce semantic warrants
whenever they do their linguistic invention.
4. Mathematics teachers should share to his fellow teachers about Linguistic Invention and
Semantic Warrant production.
REFERENCES

Walter, Janet G. and Johnson, Christine. (2007) Elementary Teachers' Linguistic Inventions
and Semantic Warrants for Mathematical Inferences. Brigham Young University.

Ulep, Soledad A. (2007), Developing Mathematical Communication in Philippine Classrooms.

Sample, Lindsey. (2009), oral and written Communication in Classroom Mathematics. Lincoln,
Nebraska.

Palomar, Jerick Ivan A. (2015). Linguistic Invention, Mathematical Understanding and

Semantic Warrant Production of Math Pre-Service Teachers, University of Southern Mindanao.

(http:llen wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism (philosophy of education), 2014)

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wikilSocial constructivism, 2014)

NAME: ____________________________________ PK: ___+ CK: ___=TOTAL SCORE: ___

Question #1- “Journey to the Bus Stop” (PK: ___+ CK: ___=SCORE: ___)

Every morning Tom walks along a straight road from his home to a bus stop, a distance
of 160 meters. The graph shows his journey on one particular day.
Describe what may have happened to Tom during his walk.
Series 1
180 D
C
160

140

120 A
100

80

60

40

20
O B
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 120

Series 1

Question #1- Geometry (PK: ___+ CK: ___=SCORE: ___)

“Canned Goods Design”
The marketing department of a food-processing company will test their buyers’ reaction to
two new sizes of tuna cans.
The first can is half the radius and twice the height of the current can. The second can is
twice the radius and half the height of the current can.
If you are a buyer, which among the two cans is the better buy? Why?
Cans Current Size
Question #3 -Algebra - “Interpreting equations” (PK: ___+ CK: ___=SCORE: ___)

You are asked to write a real-life problem using the equation, y = 4x + 30, by logically
interpreting all its parts (constants and variables).

Legend: PK=Procedural Knowledge; CK=Conceptual Knowledge

Rubric
PROCEDURAL KNOWLEDGE (PK) CONCEPTUAL KNOWLEDGE (CK)

COMP.
4- 3-GOOD 2-FAIR 1-POOR 4- 3-GOOD 2-FAIR 1-POOR
COMP.

EXCELLENT EXCELLENT

The response The response The The The response The The response The response
contains a contains a response response contains a response contains a lacks one or
multitude of number of contains a lacks one or multitude of contains a few number two of the
various various few number two of the various number of of various language

LANGUAGE CODES
language language of various language language various language codes which
codes which codes which language codes codes which language codes which refers to
refers to refers to codes which refers to codes refers to conceptual
procedural procedural which refers to conceptual which conceptual knowledge in
LANGGUAGE CODES

knowledge in knowledge in refers to procedural knowledge in refers to knowledge in math (P, V).
math math (S, N, procedural knowledge math (P, V). conceptual math (P, V). The entire
(S, N, U). The U). Majority knowledge in math (S, The entire knowledge Few portions response is
entire of the response in math (S, N, U). response is in math (P, of the neither
response is is logical and N, U). Few The entire highly logical V). response are logical nor
highly logical quite portions of response is and Majority of logical but convincing.
and convincing. the neither convincing. the not
convincing. response logical nor response is convincing
are logical convincing logical and enough.
but not quite
convincing convincing.
enough.
All The majority Few of the The Reasoning is Reasoning Reasoning is No evidence
computation/s of the computatio computa- logically is logically flawed is of reasoning
are presented computation/s n/s are tion/s are connected to connected logic or that is
correctly an are presented presented incorrect, mathematical to completeness logically

REASONING
are logically correctly, with correctly, and has no knowledge, in mathematic , has a little connected to
COMPUTATIONS

related to the errors only and but with a connection depth and al connection to mathema-
given I logically lot of errors logically to sophisticate d, knowledge, mathematical tical
problem. related to the and is the give and a great and knowledge knowledge
given somehow problem. understanding complete and a little and no
problem. logically of the and a good understandin understand-
related to mathematical understand- g of the ing of the
the given content is ing of the mathematical mathema-
problem. expressed. mathematic content is tical content
al content is expressed. is expressed.
expressed.

Language Codes and Example

Code Name and Description Examples
S Conventional Language: A collection of Rate/Rate of Change; Volume;
abstract terms used by the participants that are Increasing; Decreasing; Slope; Constant
found in standard mathematical literature.
U Reference to Units Gallons per minute; miles per hour
N Numerical Values One-half; Negative one
P Personal Language: References to personal The cows have had a drink and it’s gonna’
experience that extend beyond the context of the stay…; I want to fill up the bathtub
given math problems in the questionnaire/task
V Visual Features: References to specific points What’s happening here? [Point F]; Why
or physical features associated to the given math does it have to go below?// self-made
problems in the questionnaire/task. illustrations, figures
Scores for level of producing/conceptual understanding

SCORING SYSTEM FOR THE TEST SCORING SCALE

EXCELLENT 21-
24

POSSIBLE SCORE
Rubric Rubric Score Total GOOD 16-
Score (1-4) + (1-4) in = Score in 20
in PK/CK PK/CK PK/CK
(Component (Component for FAIR 11-
1) for 3 2) for 3 Problems 15
problems problems
POOR 6-10

EXAMPLE LEVEL OF PK/CK

3+4+2=9 + 2+1+3=6 = 15 FAIR

Scores for mathematical understanding.

LEVEL OF MATHEMATICAL SCORES OF MATHEMATICAL

UNDERSTANDING UNDERSTANDING
Excellent 40-48
Good 31-39
Fair 22-30
Poor 12-21