La Situación Argumentativa: un modelo para analizar la argumentación en educación matemática infantil
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30827/pna.v15i3.16048Keywords:
Argumentation, Argumentative Situation, Early Childhood Education, Classroom Observation, Instrument, Mathematics EducacionAbstract
A model to analyze argumentation in Early Childhood Mathematics Education is presented, called Argumentative Situation (AS), to characterize argumentation in Childhood mathematics classroom. From an integrative approach that considers contextual and functional aspects of argumentation, AS considers five components: argument (what is argued? and why?); interaction (who argues?); functions of argumentation (what is it argued for?); character of the argument (how is it argued?); and Mathematics (what is argued about?). We present analyses of three class episodes in order to exemplify the use of AS and to account for its scope and limitations. We finish by discussing projections of the model.
Downloads
References
Alsina, Á. (2015). Matemáticas intuitivas e informales de 0 a 3 años. Elementos para empezar bien. Narcea.
Alsina, Á. (2020a). Revisando la educación matemática infantil: una contribución al Libro Blanco de las Matemáticas. Edma 0-6: Educación Matemática en la Infancia, 9(2), 1-20.
Alsina, Á. (2020b). El Enfoque de los Itinerarios de Enseñanza de las Matemáticas: ¿por qué?, ¿para qué? y ¿cómo aplicarlo en el aula? TANGRAM – Revista de Educação Matemática, 3(2), 127-159. https://doi.org/10.30612/tangram.v3i2.12018
Andriessen, J. (2006). Arguing to learn. En K. Sawyer (Ed.), Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 443-459). Cambridge, Reino Unido: Cambridge University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139519526.027
Andriessen, J. (2006). Arguing to learn. En K. Sawyer (Ed.), Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 443-459). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139519526.027
Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (2003). Argumentation, computer support, and the educational context of confronting cognitions. En J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 1–25). Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0781-7_1
Balacheff, N. (1999). Is argumentation an obstacle? Invitation to a debate. International Newsletter on the Teaching and Learning of Mathematical Proof Mai/Juin 1999. Recuperado de http://www.lettredelapreuve.org/OldPreuve/Newsletter/990506Theme/990506ThemeUK.html
Boero, P. (2011). Argumentation and proof: Discussing a “successful” classroom discussion. En M. Pytlak, T. Rowland & E. Swoboda (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 120-130). Rszéskow, Polonia: ERME. Disponible en: http://lettredelapreuve.org/pdf/CERME7/CERME7_WG1_BOERO.pdf
Boero, P., Douek, N., Morselli, F. y Pedemonte, B. (2010). Argumentation and proof: A contribution to theoretical perspectives and their classroom implementation. En Proceedings of 34th International Conference of the Psychology of Mathematics Education vol. 1, (pp. 179-205). Belo Horizonte, Brasil: PME. Disponible en: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/069a/dc8b566019214ac2554eab71f3f3315e1021.pdf
Brown, R. A. J., & Renshaw, P. D. (2000). Collective argumentation: a sociocultural approach to reframing classroom teaching and learning. En H. Cowie & G. van der Aalsvoort (Eds.), Social interaction in learning and instruction: the meaning of discourse for the construction of knowledge (pp. 52–66). Amsterdam, Países Bajos: Pergamon Press.
Cornejo-Morales, C. & Goizueta, M. (2019) El tránsito entre argumentos diagramáticos y narrativos en preescolar. Orientaciones y propuestas. Revista UNO, 85, 28-31.
De Villiers, M. (1993). El papel y la función de la demostración en matemáticas. Epsilon, 26, 15-30. Recuperado de: http://mzone.mweb.co.za/residents/profmd/proofb.pdf
Douek, N. (2007). Some remarks about argumentation and proof. En P. Boero (Ed.), Theorems in school: From history, epistemology and cognition to classroom practice,163-181, Rotterdam, Países Bajos: Sense Publishers. doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789087901691_010
Duval, R. (1999). Argumentar, demostrar, explicar: ¿Continuidad o ruptura cognitiva? Ciudad de México, México: Grupo Editorial Iberoamérica.
Geist, E. (2014). Children are born mathematicians: supporting mathematical development, birth to age 8. Pearson. http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/er.v0.1104
Hanna, G., & de Villiers, M. (2008). ICMI Study 19: Proof and proving in mathematics education. ZDM, 40(2), 329–336.
Inglis, M., Mejía-Ramos J. P. & Simpson, A. (2007). Modeling mathematical argumentation: The importance of qualification. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66, 3-21. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-9059-8
Knipping, C. (2008). A method for revealing structures of argumentation in classroom proving processes. ZDM, 40, 427-441. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-008-0095-y
Krummheuer, G. (1995). The ethnography of argumentation. En P. Cobb y H. Bauersfeld (Eds.), The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom cultures, 229-269. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. doi: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203053140
Krummheuer, G. (2007). Argumentation and participation in the primary mathematics classroom: Two episodes and related theoretical abductions. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 26(1), 60-82. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2007.02.001
Krummheuer, G. (2013). The relationship between diagrammatic argumentation and narrative argumentation in the context of the development of mathematical thinking in the early years. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 84, 249-265. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-013-9471-9
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, Reino Unido: Cambridge University Press.
Miller, M. (1987). Argumentation and cognition. En M. Hickmann (Ed.), Social and functional approaches to language and thought (pp. 225–249). Londres, Reino Unido: Academic Press.
National Council of Teachers of Mahematics [NCTM] (2003). Principios y estándares para la educación matemática. Sociedad Andaluza de Educación Matemática Thales.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2004). Learning for tomorrow's world: First results from PISA 2003. París, Francia: OECD.
Perry, B., & Dockett, S. (2007). Early childhood mathematics education research: What is needed now?. En Watson, J. & Beswick, K. (Eds.), Mathematics: Essential research, essential practice (Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia) vol. 2, 870-874. Adelaide: MERGA. Disponible en: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED503746.pdf#page=871
Schwarz, B. B. (2009). Argumentation and learning. En Muller Mirza & A. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education (pp. 91-126). Nueva York, Estados Unidos: Springer.
Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., Gil, J., & Ilya, M. (2003). Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentative activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 219-256. doi: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1202_3
Solar, H., & Deulofeu, J. (2016). Condiciones para promover el desarrollo de la competencia de argumentación en el aula de matemáticas. Bolema, 30(56), p. 1092-1112. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-4415v30n56a13
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, Reino Unido: Cambridge University Press.
Van Dijk, T. (2001). Algunos principios de una teoría del contexto. Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios del Discurso, 1(1), 69-82. Recuperado de http://discursos.org/oldarticles/Algunos%20principios%20de%20una%20teor%EDa%20del%20contexto.pdf
Wells, G., & Arauz, R. M. (2005). Hacia el diálogo en el salón de clases: enseñanza y aprendizaje por medio de la indagación. Sinéctica, Revista Electrónica de Educación, (26), 1-19.
Yackel, E. (2002). What we can learn from analyzing the teacher’s role in collective argumentation. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21(4), 423-440. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0732-3123(02)00143-8