<p>Developing purposeful mathematical thinking: a curious tale of apple trees</p>

Janet Ainley

doi:10.30827/pna.v6i3.6140

Autores/as

Janet Ainley University of Leicester, Reino Unido

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30827/pna.v6i3.6140

Palabras clave:

Comprensión, Contexto, Diseño de tareas, Propósito

Resumen

In this paper I explore aspects of the ways in which school mathematics relates to the “real” world, and argue that this relationship is an uneasy one. Through exploring the causes of this unease, I aim to expose some problems in the ways in which context is used within mathematics education, and argue that the use of context does not ensure that the purposes of mathematics are made transparent. I present and discuss a framework for task design that adopts a different perspective on mathematical understanding, and on purposeful mathematical thinking.

Desarrollo de un pensamiento matemático intencionado: un relato curioso de manzanos

En este artículo exploro aspectos de las maneras en que las matemáticas escolares se relacionan con el mundo “real” y argumento que esta relación es preocupante. Al explorar las causas de esta preocupación, me propongo exponer algunos problemas que surgen de las formas en que se usa el contexto en Educación Matemática y argumento que el uso del contexto no asegura la transparencia de los propósitos de las matemáticas. Presento y discuto un esquema para el diseño de tareas que adopta una perspectiva diferente sobre la comprensión de las matemáticas y el pensamiento matemático intencionado.

Handle: http://hdl.handle.net/10481/19524

Descargas

Citas

Ainley, J. (1991). Is there any mathematics in measurement? In D. Pimm & E. Love (Eds.), Teaching and learning school mathematics (pp. 69-76). London, United Kingdom: Hodder and Stoughton.

Ainley, J. (1997). Constructing purpose in mathematical activity. In E. Pehkonen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 21th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 17-24). Lahti, Finland: PME.

Ainley, J. (2001). Transparency in graphs and graphing tasks: an iterative design process. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19(3), 365-384.

Ainley, J., Bills, L., & Wilson, K. (2005). Designing spreadsheet-based tasks for purposeful algebra. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 10(3), 191-215.

Ainley, J., Jarvis, T., & McKeon, F. (forthcoming). Designing pedagogic opportunities for statistical thinking within inquiry-based science. Proceedings of the Seventh Conference of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education. Rzeszów, Poland: ERME.

Ainley, J., Nardi, E., & Pratt, D. (1998). Graphing as a computer mediated tool. In A. Olivier & K. Newstead (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 243-258). Stellenbosch, South Africa: PME.

Ainley, J., Nardi, E., & Pratt, D. (2000). The construction of meanings for trend in active graphing. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 5(2), 85-114.

Ainley, J., & Pratt, D. (2002). Purpose and utility in pedagogic task design. In A. Cockburn & E. Nardi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 17-24). Norwich, United Kingdom: PME.

Ainley, J., & Pratt, D. (2010, July). It's not what you know, it's recognising the power of what you know: assessing understanding of utility. Paper presented at the 8th International Conference on the Teaching of Statistics. Ljubljana, Solvenia.

Ainley, J., Pratt, D., & Nardi, E. (2001). Normalising: children's activity to construct meanings for trend. Education Studies in Mathematics, 45(1), 131-146.

Ainley J., Pratt, D., & Hansen, A. (2006). Connecting engagement and focus in pedagogic task design. British Educational Research Journal, 32(1), 23-38.

Ben-Zvi, D., & Garfield, J. (Eds.). (2004). The challenge of developing statistical literacy, reasoning, and thinking. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Brenner, M. (1998). Meaning and money. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 36(2), 123-155.

Cooper, C., & Dunne, M. (2000). Assessing children's mathematical knowledge. Buckingham, United Kingdom: Open University Press.

Department of Education (2002). Revised national curriculum statement grades R-9 (schools) mathematics. Retrieved January 7, 2009, from http://www.education.gov.za.

Gerofsky, S. (1996). A linguistic and narrative view of word problems in mathematics education. For the Learning of Mathematics, 16(2), 36-45.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Ministry of Education (2006). Mathematics syllabus primary. Retrieved January 7, 2009, from http://is.gd/kdWZWu.

Ministry of Education (2008). The New Zealand curriculum. Retrieved January 7, 2009, from http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/Curriculum-documents/The-New-Zealand-Curriculum.

Meira, L. (1998). Making sense of instructional devices: the emergence of transparency in mathematical activity. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(2), 121-142.

Monteiro, C., & Ainley, J. (2004). Critical sense in interpretations of media graphs. In M. Johnsen Høines & A. B. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 361-368). Bergen, Norway: PME.

National Council for Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2003). The PISA 2003 assessment framework. Mathematics, reading, science and problem solving knowledge and skills. Paris, France: Author.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2006). PISA released items - mathematics. Paris, France: Author.

Pratt, D., & Ainley, J. (1997). The construction of meanings for geometric construction: two contrasting cases. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 1(3), 293-322.

Qualifications and Curriculum Agency (2008). The national curriculum. Retrieved January 7, 2009, from http://curriculum.qcda.gov.uk.

Schliemann, A. (1995). Some concerns about bringing everyday mathematics to mathematics education. In L. Meira & D. Carraher (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 45-60). Recife, Brazil: PME.

Sierpinska, A. (2011, February). Research into elementary mathematics methods courses in preservice teacher education. Plenary lecture in Seventh Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CERME 7), Rzeszów, Poland.

Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, 'translations' and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387-420.

Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2005). The role of contexts in assessment problems in mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 25(2), 2-9.

Verschaffel, L., Greer, B., & Torbeyns, J. (2006). Numerical thinking. In A. Gutiérrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education (pp. 51-82). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Wiliam, D. (1992, March). What makes an investigation difficult? Paper presented at the Secondary Mathematics Independent Learning Experience Conference, University of Nottingham.