When a University Mathematics Department Adopted Core Mathematics Courses of an Unintentionally Constructionist Nature: Really?
Tóm tắt
In a sequence of core mathematics courses instituted in 2001 at Brock University, students learn to design, program and use interactive computer environments, in order to investigate a self-stated mathematical conjecture, a concept, a theorem or a real-world situation. In this article, we provide documentation for the complete implementation process (design and adoption, actual implementation and student outcomes) of these technology-rich courses, underlining that their development occurred independent of ideas from the constructionism and microworld literature. However, we argue for their implicitly constructionist nature and explore the issue of a form of constructionist implementation acceptable to stakeholders in university mathematics education. Results of this exploratory case study propose three dominant elements for an adoptable description: i) students learning (to do) mathematics by programming and conducting their own mathematical explorations; ii) an explicit aim of empowering students articulated in pragmatic ways; iii) an implicit acknowledgement of constructionist student learning (e.g., through the explicit role of the instructor in fostering and valuing student creativity in mathematical work).
Tài liệu tham khảo
Abrahamson, D., Berland, M., Shapiro, B., Unterman, J., & Wilensky, U. (2006). Leveraging epistemological diversity through computer-based argumentation in the domain of probability. For the Learning of Mathematics, 26(3), 39–45.
Brock calendar. (2014). http://www.brocku.ca/webcal/.
Buteau, C., & Muller, E. (2010). Student development process of designing and implementing exploratory and learning objects (pp. 1111–1120). In V. Durand-Guerrier, S. Soury-Lavergne, & F. Arzarello (Eds.), Proceedings of CERME 6. Lyon: Institut National de Recherche Pédagogique.
Buteau, C., & Muller, E. (2014). Teaching roles in a technology intensive core undergraduate mathematics course. In A. Clark-Wilson, O. Robutti, & N. Sinclair (Eds.), The mathematics teacher in the digital era: An international perspective on technology focused professional development (pp. 163–185). Dordrecht: Springer.
Buteau, C., Jarvis, D., & Lavicza, Z. (2014a). On the integration of computer algebra systems (CAS) by Canadian mathematicians: Results of a national survey. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 14(1), 35–57.
Buteau, C., Marshall, N., & Muller, E. (2014b). Learning university mathematics by creating and using fourteen ‘microworlds’. In G. Futschek & C. Kynigos (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Constructionism Conference (pp. 401–406). Vienna: Österreichische Computer Gesellschaft.
Buteau, C., Marshall, N., & Muller, E. (2014c). Perception on the nature of core university mathematics microworld-based courses. In G. Futschek & C. Kynigos (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Constructionism Conference (pp. 379–389). Vienna: Österreichische Computer Gesellschaft.
Buteau, C., Muller, E., & Marshall, N. (2014d). Competencies developed by university students in microworld-type core mathematics courses. In C. Nicol, P. Liljedahl, S. Oesterle, & D. Allan (Eds.), Proceedings of PME 38/PME-NA 36 Conference (Vol. 2, pp. 209–216). Vancouver: PME.
Buteau, C., Muller, E., Marshall, N., Sacristán, A., Mgombelo, J. (forthcoming). Undergraduate mathematics students appropriating programming as a tool for modelling, simulation and visualization: A case study. Accepted pending revisions for publication in DEME.
EMS (2011). Position Paper of the European Mathematical Society on the European Commission’s Contributions to European Research [online]. Available: http://www.euro-math-soc.eu/files/EMSPosPaper13_03_2011_NP.pdf.
Fullan, M., & Pomfret, A. (1977). Research on curriculum and instruction implementation. Review of Educational Research, 47(2), 335–397.
Girvan, C. (2014). Constructionism, creativity and virtual worlds. In G. Futschek & C. Kynigos (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Constructionism Conference (pp. 367–377). Vienna: Österreichische Computer Gesellschaft.
Guilford, J.P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist 5, 444–454.
Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1991). Constructionism. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (1999). Visual and symbolic reasoning in mathematics: making connections with computers? Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 1(1), 59–84.
Healy, L., & Kynigos, C. (2010). Charting the microworld territory over time: design and construction in mathematics education. ZDM the International Journal of Mathematics Education, 42(1), 63–76. doi:10.1007/s11858-009-0193-5.
Hillel, J. (2002). Trends in curriculum. In D. Holton (Ed.), The teaching and learning of mathematics at university level: An ICMI study (pp. 59–69). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Hoyles, C. (1993). Microworlds/schoolworlds: The transformation of an innovation. In C. Keitel & K. Ruthven (Eds.), Learning from computers: Mathematics education and technology (pp. 1–17). Heidelburg: Springer.
Hoyles, C. (2014). Contribution to the panel discussion ‘Whatever happened to the powerful ideas?’. The 3rd International Constructionism Conference. Vienna, AT: Österreichische Computer Gesellschaft.
Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (1987). Seeing what matters: developing an understanding of the concept of parallelogram through a Logo microworld. In J. Bergeron, N. Herscovics, & C. Kieran (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 17–24). Montréal: PME.
Hoyles, C. & Noss, R. (2014). Why should we teach children to program, really? Invited keynote presentation at the Third International Constructionism Conference [video file]. Vienna, AT: Österreichische Computer Gesellschaft. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVwtcI4bBCU&list=UUldl-JvVdukFpWdImz3NDCA.
Jarvis, D., Lavicza, Z., & Buteau, C. (2014). Systemic shifts in instructional technology: findings of a comparative case study of two university mathematics departments. The International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 21(4), 117–142.
Kafai, Y., & Resnick, M. (Eds.). (1996). Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kynigos, C. (2007). Using half-baked microworlds to challenge teacher educators’ knowing. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 12(2), 87–111. doi:10.1007/s10758-007-9114-2.
Kynigos, C. (2012). Constructionism: Theory of learning or theory of design? Paper presented at the 12th International Congress on Mathematical Education: Seoul, KR.
Kynigos, C. (2015). Constructionism: Theory of learning or theory of design? In J. Sung (Ed.), The Proceedings of the 12th International Congress on Mathematical Education: Intellectual and Attitudinal Challenges (p. 361). Cham: Springer.
Leron, U., & Dubinsky, E. (1995). An abstract algebra story. The American Mathematical Monthly, 102(3), 227–242.
Marshall, N., & Buteau, C. (2014). Learning by designing and experimenting with interactive, dynamic mathematics exploratory objects. The International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 21(2), 49–64.
Marshall, N., Buteau, C., & Muller, E. (2014). Exploratory objects and microworlds in university mathematics. Teaching Mathematics and its Applications, 33(1), 27–38.
Mascaró, M., Sacristán, A., & Rufino, M. (2014). Teaching and learning statistics and experimental analysis for environmental science students, through programming activities in R. In G. Futschek & C. Kynigos (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Constructionism Conference (pp. 407–416). Vienna: Österreichische Computer Gesellschaft.
Mavrikis, M., Geraniou, E., Noss, R., Hoyles, C. (2008). Revisiting pedagogic strategies for supporting students’ learning in mathematical microworlds. In S., Gutierrez-Santos and M. Mavrikis, Proceedings of the International Workshop on Intelligent Support for Exploratory Environments at EC-TEL (pp. 41-50). Maastricht, NL: CEUR-WS.org, online CEUR-WS.org/Vol-381.
Mesterton-Gibbons, M. (1995). A concrete approach to mathematical modelling (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
MICA (n.d.). Exploratory and learning objects created by Brock students in mathematics courses [Online]. Available: www.brocku.ca/mathematics/studentprojects.
Misfeldt, M. & Ejsing-Duun, S. (2015). Learning mathematics through programming: An instrumental approach to potentials and pitfalls. Paper presented at CERME 9. Prague, CZ.
Mooney, D., & Swift, R. (1999). A course in mathematical modeling. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
Muller, E., Buteau, C., Ralph, W., & Mgombelo, J. (2009). Learning mathematics through the design and implementation of exploratory and learning objects. The International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 16(2), 63–74.
Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (1996). Windows on mathematical meanings: Learning cultures and computers. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Papert, S. (1980a). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.
Papert, S. (1980b). Computer-based microworlds as incubators for powerful ideas. In R. Taylor (Ed.), The computer in the school: Tutor, tool, tutee (pp. 203–210). New York: Teacher’s College Press.
Papert, S. (1990). A critique of technocentrism in thinking about the school of the future. Epistemology and Learning Group Memo No. 2 (September 1990), MIT Media Laboratory. Retrieved from: http://www.papert.org/articles/ACritiqueofTechnocentrism.html.
Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 1–11). Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Papert, S. (1996). An exploration in the space of mathematics educations. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 1(1), 95–123.
Pesonen, M., & Malvela, T. (2000). A reform in undergraduate mathematics curriculum: more emphasis on social and pedagogical skills. The International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 31(1), 113–124.
Ralph, W. (1999). Journey through calculus. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole/Thomson Learning (CD-ROM).
Ralph, W. (2001). Mathematics takes an exciting new direction with MICA program. Brock Teaching, 1(1), 1. Available: http://www.brocku.ca/webfm_send/18483.
Ralph, W. (2014). Are we teaching Roman numerals in a digital age? In S. Oesterle & D. Allan (Eds.), Proceeding of the Canadian Mathematics Education Study Group 37th Annual Meeting (pp. 19–24). St Catharines: CMESG/GCEDM.
SIAM (2012). Mathematics in industry report. Retrieved from: http://www.siam.org/reports/mii/2012/report.pdf.
Steen, L. (1992). 20 questions that deans should ask their mathematics department. Bulletin of the American Association of Higher Education, 44(9), 3–6.
Sutherland, R. (1987). A study of the use and understanding of algebra-related concepts within a Logo environment. In J. Bergeron, N. Herscovics, & C. Kieran (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th PME International Conference (Vol. 1, pp. 241–247). Montréal: PME.
Wilensky, U. (1995). Paradox, programming and learning probability. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 14(2), 231–280.
Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
Zvoch, K. (2012). How does fidelity of implementation matter? Using multilevel models to detect relationships between participant outcomes and the delivery and receipt of treatment. American Journal of Evaluation, 33(4), 547–565.