Logo Revista Latinoamericana de Investigación en Matemática Educativa

Artículos

Vol. 24 No 2 (2021): Juillet

Mathematical modeling from the eyes of preservice teachers

DOI :
https://doi.org/10.12802/relime.21.2421
Publiée
juillet 31, 2021

Résumé

En se fondant sur les opinions des enseignants de pré-requis quant à sa base, cette étude vise à mettre en lumière le processus suivi par les enseignants de pré-requis dans l’enseignement de la modélisation mathématique aux élèves dusecondaire. Le groupe d’étude était composé de 18 enseignants du secondaire en mathématiques du secondaire, dont chacun a été sélectionné à l’aide d’un échantillonnage ciblé. Pendant la période de recherche, les participants se sont rendus en groupedans les écoles où ils devaient effectuer leur stage. Les leçons ont été enregistrées sur vidéo et les participants ont partagé ces enregistrements et leurs expériences en classe avec leurs pairs.À la suite de l’analyse, les résultats de l’étude ont été regroupésen quatre thèmes principaux: (i) les opinions concernant les activités, (ii) les opinions concernant les enseignants préposés à l’entretien, (iii) les opinions concernant les élèves et (iv) les opinions concernant les professeurs de mathématiques. La discussion de ces résultats a tourné autour de la formation des enseignants et de la modélisation mathématique, ce qui a conduit à plusieurs recommandations.

Références

  1. Asempapa, R. S. (2015). Mathematical modeling: Essential for elementary and middle school students. Journal of Mathematics Education, 8(1), 16-29.
  2. Biccard, P., & Wessels, D. C. (2011). Documenting the development of modelling competencies of Grade 7 mathematics students. In G. Kaiser, W. Blum, R. Borromeo Ferri ve G. Stillman (Eds.). Trends in Teaching And Learning of Mathematical Modelling (pp. 375-383). Springer Netherlands. http://doi.org/10.4102/pythagoras.v32i1.20
  3. Blum, W. (2015). Quality teaching of mathematical modelling: What do we know, what can we do?. In The proceedings of the 12th international congress on mathematical education(pp. 73-96). Springer, Cham.
  4. Blum, W. & Borromeo, R. (2009). Mathematical modelling: Can it be taught and learnt? Journal of Mathematical Modelling and Application, 1(1), 45-58. http://gorila.furb.br/ojs/index.php/modelling/article/view/1620
  5. Blum, W., & Leiβ, D. (2007). How do students and teachers deal with mathematical modelling problems? In C. Haines, P. Galbraith, W. Blum, S. Khan (Eds.), Mathematical Modelling (ICTMA 12): Education, Engineering and Economics, (pp. 222-231). http://doi.org/10.1533/9780857099419.5.221
  6. Borromeo, R. (2006). Theoretical and empirical differentiations of phases in the modelling process. ZDM – The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 38(2), 86-95. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02655883
  7. Borromeo, R. (2013). Mathematical Modeling - The Teacher’s Responsibility. Journal of MathematicsEducation at Teachers College.Borromeo, R. (2018). Key Competencies for Teaching Mathematical Modeling. In Learning How to Teach Mathematical Modeling in School and Teacher Education (pp. 1-12). Springer, Cham.
  8. Borromeo Ferri & Blum, W. (2013, February). Barriers and motivations of primary teachers for implementing modelling in mathematics lessons. In Eighth Congress of European Research in Mathematics Education (CERME 8), Antalya, Turkey.
  9. Blum, W. & Borromeo, R. (2009). Mathematical modelling: Can it be taught and learnt? Journal of Mathematical Modelling and Application, 1(1), 45-58. http://gorila.furb.br/ojs/index.php/modelling/article/view/1620
  10. Borromeo, R., & Blum, W. (2009). Mathematical modelling in teacher education–Experiences from a modelling seminar. Cerme 6–Working Group 11, 2046–2055. Retrieved from http://fractus.uson.mx/Papers/CERME6/wg11.pdf#page=7
  11. Burkhardt, H. (2006). Modelling in mathematics classrooms: reflections on past development and the future. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 38(2), 178–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02655888
  12. Chamberlin, M. (2004). Design Principles for Teacher Investigations of Student Work. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 6, 52-65. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ852386 sayfasýndan eriþilmiþtir.
  13. Chamberlin, S. A., & Moon, S. M. (2005). Model-Eliciting Activities as a Tool to Develop and Identify Creatively Gifted Mathematicians. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education,17(1), 37-47. http://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2005-393
  14. Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) (2010). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of ChiefState School Officers. http://www.corestandards.org/wp-content/uploads/Math_Standards.pdf
  15. Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to research methods. New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction.Doerr, H. M., & English, L. (2003). A modeling perspective on students’ mathematical reasoning about data. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(2), 110–136.
  16. English, L. (2003). Mathematical modelling with young learners. In Mathematical Modelling(pp. 3-17). Woodhead Publishing.English, L. D., & Watters, J. (2004). Mathematical modelling with young children. 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 2, 335–342.
  17. Ersoy, Y. (2006). Ýlköðretim matematik öðretim programýndaki yenilikler-I: Amaç, içerik ve kazanýmlar. Ýlköðretim online, 5(1), 30-44.
  18. Frejd, P. & Ärlebäck, J. (2011). First Results from a Study Investigating Swedish Upper Secondary Students’ Mathematical Modelling Competencies. In: Kaiser, G. et al. (Eds). Trends in Teaching and Learning of Mathematical Modelling (ICTMA 14). Dordrecht: Springer, 407-416.
  19. Galbraith, P., & Stillman, G. (2006). A framework for identifying student blockages during transitions in the modelling process. ZDM - International Journal onMathematics Education, 38(2), 143–162. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02655886
  20. Guba, E. L., & Lincoln, Y. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. Handbook of cualitative research. California: Sage, 105-117.
  21. Herget, W. (2000). ‘Pictorial Problems’- One question, but Many Ways, and Many Different Answers. Weigand H, Neville N, Peter-Koop A., Reiss K., Törner, G., Wollring, B. (ed). Developments in mathematics education in german speaking countries(76-87). Gesellschaft für Didaktik der Mathematik (GDM).
  22. Herget, W., Jahnke, T., & Kroll, W. (2001). Produktive Aufgaben für den Mathematikunterricht in der Sekundarstufe I. Cornelsen.Kunter, M. & Voss, T. (2013). The Model of Instructional Quality in COACTIV: A Multicriteria Analysis. In:
  23. Kunter, M., Baumert, J., Blum, W. et al. (Eds), Cognitive Activation in the Mathematics Classroom and Professional Competence of Teachers – Results from the COACTIVProject. New York: Springer, 97-124.
  24. Lesh, R., Carmona, G., & Post, T. (2002). Models and modeling. In D. Mewborn, P. Sztajn, D. White, H. Wiegel, R. Bryant, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 89–98). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse
  25. Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. M. (2003). Beyond Constructivism: Models and Modeling Perspectives on Mathematics Problem Solving, Learning and Teaching. Routletge.
  26. Lesh, R. & Sriraman, B. (2005a). John Dewey Revisited - Pragmatism and the models-modeling perspective on mathematical learning. In A. Beckmann et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Mathematics and its Connections to the Arts and Sciences (pp. 32-51).May 18-21, 2005, Pedagogical University of Schwaebisch Gmuend. Hildesheim: Franzbecker.
  27. Lesh, R., & Sriraman, B. (2005b). Mathematics education as a design science. ZDM, 37(6), 490-505.
  28. Lesh, R., Zawojewski J. S., & Carmona G. (2003). What Mathematical Abilities Are Needed for SuccessBeyond School in a Technology-Based Age of Information? In R. Lesh & H Doerr (Eds)., BeyondConstructivism Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning,and teaching Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  29. Maaß, K. (2006). What are modelling competencies? ZDM - International Journal on Mathematics Education, 38(2), 113–142. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02655885
  30. Maaß, K. (2007). Modelling taks for low achieving students. First results of an empirical study. In D. Pitta-Pantazi & G. Philippou (Eds.), CERME 5 – Proceedings of the Fifth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 2120–2129). Larnaca: University of Cyprus.
  31. Manouchehri, A. (2017). Implementing mathematical modelling: The challenge of teacher educating.In Mathematical Modelling and Applications (pp. 421-432). Springer, Cham.
  32. Merriam S. B. (2013). Nitel Araþtýrma Desen ve Uygulama Ýçin Bir Rehber (Selahattin Turan, Çev.). Ankara : Nobel.
  33. Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. (2013a). Middle School Mathematics Course (Grades 5-8). Curriculum. Ankara.
  34. Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. (2013b). Secondary School and Imam Hatip Secondary School Mathematics Applications Course (Grades 5, 6, 7 and 8) Teaching Program. Ankara.
  35. Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. (2018). Secondary Mathematics Course (Grades 9-12). Curriculum.
  36. Mousoulides, N. G., (2009). Mathematical modeling for elementary and secondary school teachers. InKontakos, A. (Ed), Research & Theories in Teacher Education. Greece: University of the Aegean.
  37. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
  38. Niss, M., Blum, W., & Galbraith, P. (2007). Introduction. In W. Blum, P. Galbraith, H-W. Henn & M. Niss. (Eds.) (2007), Modelling and Applications in Mathematics Education. The 14th ICMI Study (pp 3–32). New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media, LLC.
  39. OECD (2012). PISA 2012 Assessment and Analytical Framework Mathematics, Reading, Science, Problem Solving and Financial Literacy. OECD Publishing. http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/PISA%202012%20framework%20e-book_final.pdf sayfasýndan eriþilmiþtir.
  40. Paolucci, C., & Wessels, H. (2017). An examination of preservice teachers’ capacity to create mathematical modeling problems for children. Journal of Teacher Education, 68(3), 330-344.
  41. Patton, M. Q. (2014). Nitel araþtýrma ve deðerlendirme yöntemleri. (M. Bütün ve S. B. Demir, Çev.), Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  42. Pollak, H. O. (2003). A History of the Teaching of Modelling, in Stanic, G. M. A. and Kilpatrick, J. (Eds). A History of School Mathematics. (pp 647-672), National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, VA.
  43. Sriraman, B. (2005). Are giftedness and creativity synonyms in mathematics? Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17(1) , 20–36.
  44. Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M. A., & Silver, E. A. (2009). Implementing standards-based math instruction: A casebook for professional development. Teachers College Press.

Téléchargements

Les données de téléchargement ne sont pas encore disponibles.