Saltar para menu de navegação principal Saltar para conteúdo principal Saltar para rodapé do site
Logo Revista Latinoamericana de Investigación en Matemática Educativa

Artículos

Vol. 20 N.º 1 (2017): Marzo

LA HIPÓTESIS DE LOS CUADROS DE SIGNIFICADO EN LA SOLUCIÓN DE PROBLEMAS MATEMÁTICOS

DOI
https://doi.org/10.12802/relime.17.2012
Enviado
junho 29, 2023
Publicado
2017-03-31

Resumo

Este artigo pretende descrever um fenômeno observado quando as crianças com idade entre 6 e 7 anos, que ainda não tinha recebido a divisão de instrução formal, tentou resolver um problema de distribuição por meio de desenhos. O fenômeno chamado  de “quadros de sentido” tentativas de explicar por que algumas crianças foram bem sucedidos na resolução de problemas e outros  não. Através de um estudo de caso ilustram essa hipótese empiricamente, que se apresenta como uma poderosa ferramenta  teórica e metodológica para a conceituação do problema de aritmética resolver e entender o pensamento matemático subjacente  de crianças desta idade. No entanto, é necessário continuar a expandir a nossa análise e da aplicação deste quadro. Isso levaria a  repensar as práticas educativas convencionais e avaliativas. Neste artigo vamos tentar apontar o caminho pelo qual essas mudanças poderiam ser feitas.

Referências

  1. Adams, R. (2005). PISA 2003 Technical Report: Programme for International Student Assessment: OECD Publishing.
  2. Andrade Londoño, E., Andrade Lotero, L. A., y Lotero Botero, L. A. (en elaboración). Beyond the Times-Tables: Making Sense of Multiplication.
  3. Bell, P. (2001). Content analysis of visual images. En T. V. Leeuwen y C. Jewitt (Eds.), Handbook of visual analysis (pp. 10-34). Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.
  4. Bello, S. (2004). Ideas previas y cambio conceptual. Educación química, 15(3), 210-217. Obtenido de http://depa.fquim.unam.mx/sie/Documentos/153-bel.pdf.
  5. Bermejo, V. (2005). Microgénesis y cambio cognitivo: adquisición del cardinal numérico. Psicothema, 17(4), 559-562. Obtenido de http://www.psicothema.com/psicothema.asp?id=3145.
  6. Bodner, G. M., y Domin, D. S. (2000). Mental models: The role of representations in problem solving in chemistry. University Chemistry Education, 4(1), 24-30. Obtenido de http://1393- chemed.chem.purdue.edu/chemed/bodnergroup/PDF_2008/70%20Mental%20Models%20UCEd.pdf.
  7. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., y Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32. doi:10.3102/0013189x018001032
  8. Camacho, M., y Good, R. (1989). Problem solving and chemical equilibrium: Successful versus unsuccessful performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(3), 251-272. doi:10.1002/tea.3660260306.
  9. Carolan, J., Prain, V., y Waldrip, B. (2008). Using representations for teaching and learning in science. The Journal of the Australian Science Teachers Association, 54(1), 18-23.
  10. Carraher, T. N., Carraher, D. W., y Schliemann, A. D. (1985). Mathematics in the streets and in schools. British journal of developmental psychology. doi:10.1111/j.2044-835x.1985.tb00951.x.
  11. Castillo Ballén, M., Triana, N., Duarte-Agudelo, P., Pérez-Abril, M., y Lemus-Espinosa, E. (2007). Sobre las pruebas saber y de Estado: una mirada a su fundamentación y orientación de los instrumentos en lenguaje. Bogotá: Instituto Colombiano para el Fomento de la Educación Superior, ICFES.
  12. Chi, M. T., Feltovich, P. J., y Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5(2), 121-152. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0502_2.
  13. Clement, J. (2000). Analysis of clinical interviews: Foundations and model viability. En R. Lesh y A. Kelly (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 547-589). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  14. Cobb, P., y McClain, K. (2002). Supporting students’ learning of significant mathematical ideas. En G. Wells y G. Claxton (Eds.), Learning for life in the 21st century: Sociocultural perspectives on the future of education (pp. 154-166). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  15. Conlin, L. D., Gupta, A., y Hammer, D. (2010). Framing and Resource Activation: Bridging the Cognitive-Situative Divide Using a Dynamic Unit of Cognitive Analysis. Paper presentado en CogSci, Portland, USA. http://dhammer.phy.tufts.edu/home/publications_files/conlin%20gupt
  16. a%20hammer%20cog%20sci%202010.pdf
  17. diSessa, A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2-3), 105-225. doi:10.1080/07370008.1985.9649008.
  18. diSessa, A. (2002). Why “conceptual ecology” is a good idea. Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice, 28-60. doi:10.1007/0-306-47637-1_2.
  19. diSessa, A. (2007). An interactional analysis of clinical interviewing. Cognition and Instruction, 25(4), 523-565. doi:10.1080/07370000701632413.
  20. diSessa, A., y Sherin, B. L. (2000). Meta-representation: An introduction. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19(4), 385-398. doi:10.1016/s0732-3123(01)00051-7.
  21. Domin, D., y Bodner, G. (2012). Using students’ representations constructed during problem solving to infer conceptual understanding. Journal of Chemical Education, 89(7), 837-843. doi:10.1021/ed1006037.
  22. Flores, F. (2004). El cambio conceptual: interpretaciones, transformaciones y perspectivas. Educación química, 15(3), 256-269. Obtenido de https://eva.fing.edu.uy/pluginfile.php/68483/mod_resource/content/4/Flores_cambioconceptual_EdQuimica15%283%292004.pdf.
  23. Garcia-Mila, M., Gilabert, S., y Rojo, N. (2011). Strategy change in knowledge acquisition: The microgenetic methodology. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 34(2), 169-180. doi:10.1174/021037011795377566 Obtenido de http://dx.doi.org/10.1174/021037011795377566.
  24. Gobbo, C., y Chi, M. (1986). How knowledge is structured and used by expert and novice children. Cognitive development, 1(3), 221-237. doi:10.1016/s0885-2014(86)80002-8.
  25. Goodwin, C. (2003). The semiotic body in its environment. Discourses of the body, 19-42. Obtenido de https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228901991_The_semiotic_body_in_its_environment.
  26. Greeno, J. G., y Hall, R. P. (1997). Practicing representation: Learning with and about representational forms. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 361-367. Obtenido de https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 238695196_Practicing_Representation_Learning_with_and_about_Representational_Forms.
  27. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action, Vol. I. Bostonm, Massachusetts: Beacon Press.
  28. Hackenberg, A. J. (2010). Students’ reasoning with reversible multiplicative relationships. Cognition and Instruction, 28(4), 383-432. doi:10.1080/07370008.2010.511565.
  29. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., y Pfeffer, M. G. (2004). Comparing expert and novice understanding of a complex system from the perspective of structures, behaviors, and functions. Cognitive Science, 28(1), 127-138. doi:10.1016/s0364-0213(03)00065-x.
  30. Hull, G. A., y Nelson, M. E. (2005). Locating the semiotic power of multimodality. Written Communication, 22(2), 224-261. doi:10.1177/0741088304274170.
  31. Kaltenbacher, M. (2007). Perspectivas en el análisis de la multimodalidad: desde los inicios al estado del arte. Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios del Discurso, 7(1), 31-57. Obtenido de http://www.comunidadaled.org/descarga/7-1.pdf#page=33.
  32. Koedinger, K. R., y Nathan, M. J. (2004). The real story behind story problems: Effects of representations on quantitative reasoning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(2), 129-164. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1302_1.
  33. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
  34. Kulm, G. (1990). New directions for mathematics assessment. En G. Kulm (Ed.), Assessing higher order thinking in mathematics (pp. 71-80). USA: AAAS.
  35. Lave, J., y Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  36. Lesh, R., y Carmona, G. (2003). Piagetian Conceptual Systems and Models for Mathematizing Everyday Experiences. En R. Lesh y H. M. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and Modeling Perspectives on Mathematics Problem Solving, Learning, and Teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  37. Lesh, R., y Doerr, H. (2000). Symbolizing, communicating, and mathematizing: Key components of models and modeling. En P. Cobb, E. Yackel, y K. McClain (Eds.), Symbolizing and communicating in mathematics classrooms (pp. 361-384). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  38. Lesh, R., y Lehrer, R. (2003). Models and modeling perspectives on the development of students and teachers. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 5(2-3), 109-129. doi:10.1080/10986065.2003.9679996.
  39. Lotero Botero, L. A., Andrade Londoño, E. A., y Andrade Lotero, L. A. (2011). La crisis de la multiplicación: una propuesta para la estructuración conceptual. Voces y Silencios: Revista Latinoamericana de Educación, 2(Número Especial), 27. Obtenido de dialnet.unirioja.es.prox
  40. yiub.uits.iu.edu/descarga/articulo/4058881.pdf.
  41. Lotero Botero, L. A., Andrade Londoño, E. A., y Andrade Lotero, L. A. (2012). Tangibles, Construction of Meaning and Math Problem Solving. Paper presentado en The Future of Education 2nd Edition, Florence, Italy. http://www.pixel-online.net/edu_future2012/common/download/Paper_pdf/548-ITL75-FP-Botero-FOE2012.pdf
  42. MEN. (2003). Estándares Básicos de Competencias en Matemáticas. http://www.eduteka.org/pdfdir/MENEstandaresMatematicas2003.pdf.
  43. Mulligan, J. T. (1992). Children’s solutions to multiplication and division word problems: a longitudinal study. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 4(1), 24-41. doi:10.1007/bf03217230.
  44. Mulligan, J. T., y Mitchelmore, M. C. (1997). Young children’s intuitive models of multiplication and division. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 309-330. doi:10.2307/749783.
  45. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Gonzalez, E. J., y Chrostowski, S. J. (2004). TIMSS 2003 International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA’s Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study at the Fourth and Eighth Grades: ERIC.
  46. Nehm, R. H., y Ridgway, J. (2011). What do experts and novices “see” in evolutionary problems? Evolution: Education and Outreach, 4(4), 666-679. doi:10.1007/s12052-011-0369-7.
  47. Nunes, T., y Bryant, P. (2005). Las Matemáticas y su Aplicación: La Perspectiva del Niño. Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI Editores.
  48. Penn, G. (2000). Semiotic analysis of still images. En M. W. Bauer y G. Gaskell (Eds.), Qualitative research with text, image and sound: A practical handbook (pp. 227-245). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications Ltd.
  49. Piaget, J., y García, R. (1997). Hacia una lógica de significaciones. Barcelona: Gedisa.
  50. Piaget, J., y Inhelder, B. (2007). Psicología del niño. Madrid: Ediciones Morata.
  51. Resnick, L. B., Bill, V., y Lesgold, S. (1992). Developing thinking abilities in arithmetic class. En A. Demetriou y A. Efklides (Eds.), Neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development: Implications and applications for education (pp. 210-230). New York: Routledge.
  52. Romberg, T. A., Zarinnia, E. A., y Collis, K. F. (1990). A new world view of assessment in mathematics. Assessing higher order thinking in mathematics, 89, 21. doi:10.5860/choice.28-2839.
  53. Roth, W. M., y Bowen, G. M. (1994). Mathematization of experience in a grade 8 open-inquiry environment: An introduction to the representational practices of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(3), 293-318. doi:10.1002/tea.3660310308.
  54. Sarama, J., y Clements, D. H. (2004). Building Blocks for early childhood mathematics. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19(1), 181-189. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2004.01.014.
  55. Scherr, R. E., y Hammer, D. (2009). Student behavior and epistemological framing: Examples from collaborative active-learning activities in physics. Cognition and Instruction, 27(2), 147-174. doi:10.1080/07370000902797379.
  56. Silver, W. S., Mitchell, T. R., y Gist, M. E. (1995). Responses to successful and unsuccessful performance: The moderating effect of self-efficacy on the relationship between performance and attributions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62(3), 286-299. doi:10.1006/obhd.1995.1051.
  57. Smith, J. P., diSessa, A., y Roschelle, J. (1994). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115-163. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0302_1.
  58. Verschaffel, L., De Corte, E., y Lasure, S. (1994). Realistic considerations in mathematical modeling of school arithmetic word problems. Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 273-294. doi:10.1016/0959-4752(94)90002-7.
  59. Verschaffel, L., Greer, B., y de Corte, E. (2000). Making Sense of Word Problems (Vol. 42). Lisse, Netherlands.
  60. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1997). Anticipation in the constructivist theory of cognition. Paper presentado en CASYS’97 - International Conference on Computing Anticipatory Systems, Liege.
  61. Xin, Y. P., Wiles, B., y Lin, Y.-Y. (2008). Teaching conceptual Model–Based word problem story Grammar to Enhance Mathematics problem solving. The Journal of Special Education. doi:10.1177/0022466907312895.
  62. Yañez, C. J., y Chávez, R. M. (2009). Semiótica del dibujo infantil: una aproximación latinoamericana sobre la influencia de la televisión en los niños: casos de estudios en ciudades de Chile, El Salvador y México. Arte, individuo y sociedad, 21, 151-164. Obtenido de revistas.ucm.es.proxyiub.uits.iu.edu/index.php/ARIS/article/download/ARIS0909110151A/5765.

Downloads

Não há dados estatísticos.

Artigos Similares

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >> 

Também poderá iniciar uma pesquisa avançada de similaridade para este artigo.