Unpacking interactions using Brousseau’s didactical milieu
Palavras-chave:
Didactic, Interaction, CognitionResumo
In this work we used Brousseau’s Theory of Didactical Situation to examine ways in which interactions with a researcher/teacher influenced athematical practices of a child. The findings suggest an extension of teaching actions associated with TDS to include the process of stabilizing mathematical understanding of children as they interact with and engage in task-milieu.
Downloads
Referências
Arsac, G., Balacheff, N., & Mante, M. (1992). Teacher’s role and reproducibility of didactic situations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23(1), 5–29.
Arzarello, F, Bosch, M., Gascon, J. & Sabena, C. (2008). The ostensive dimension through the lenses of two didactic approaches. ZDM Mathematics Education, 40,179-188.
Balacheff, N. (1991). Treatment of refutations: Aspects of the complexity of a constructivist approach of mathematics learning. In von Glasersfeld, E. (Ed.), Radical Constructivism in Mathematics Education (pp. 89-110). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Bloome, D., Beierle, M., Grigorenko, M., & Goldman, S. (2009). Learning over time: uses of intercontextuality, collective memories, and classroom chronotopes in the construction of learning opportunities in a ninth-grade language arts classroom.Language and Education,23(4), 313-334.
Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics. Kluwer: Dordrecht.
Brousseau, G. (2003). Glossaire de quelques concepts de la théorie des situations didactiques en mathémat iques. Retrieved on November 4.
Brousseau, G., & Balacheff, N. (1997).Theory of didactical situations in mathematics: Didactique des mathématiques, 1970-1990. M. Cooper, R. Sutherland, & V. Warfield (Eds.). Dordrecht: Kluwer academic publishers.
Cobb, P., & Steffe, L. P. (1983). The constructivist researcher as teacher and model builder. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 14(2), 83-94.
Cobb, Paul (1988). The Tension between Theories of Learning and Instruction in Mathematics Education. Educational Psychologist, 23, 87-103.
Cobb, Paul, Boufi, Ada, McClain, Kay, Whitenack, Joy (1997). Reflective discourse and collective reflection. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28 (3), 258–277.
Goldin, G. (1997). Observing Mathematical Problem Solving through Task-Based Interviews. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education Monograph (Vol 9) - Qualitative Research Methods in Mathematics Education, 40-62 & 164-177.
Goldin, G. A. (1992). Meta-analysis of problem-solving studies: A critical response. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23(3), 274-283.
Goldin, G. A. (2000). A scientific perspective on structured, task-based interviews in mathematics education research. In Kelly, A. E. & Lesh, R. A. (Eds.), Handbook of Research Design in Mathematics and Science Education (517-546). Mahwah, New Jersey, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Kahveci, M., & Imamoglu, Y. (2007). Interactive learning in mathematics education: Review of recent literature.Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching,26(2), 137-153.
Kovalainen, M., & Kumpulainen, K. (2009). Discourse-Enriched Instruction in the Mathematics Classroom: Analyzing Collective-Problem Solving. In K. Kumpulainen and C. Hmelo-Silver’s (Eds.) Investigating Classroom Interaction: Methodologies in Action, pp. 43-72.
Macbeth, D. (2000). Classrooms as installations. In S. Hestor & J. Hughes (Eds.), The local education order: Ethnomethodological studies of knowledge in action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mason, J. (1996). Expressing generality and roots of algebra. In N. Bednarz, C. Kieran & L. Lee (Eds), Approaches to algebra: Perspectives for research and teaching (pp. 65-86). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Mason, J. (1999). Learning and doing mathematics (2ndedition). York, United Kingdom: QED.
Mercer, N. (2000).Words and minds: How we use language to think together. Routledge.
Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007).Dialogue and the development of children's thinking: A sociocultural approach. Routledge.
Radford, L. (2002). The seen the spoken and the written: a semiotic approach to the problem of objectification of mathematical knowledge. For the Learning of Mathematics, 22(2), 14-23.
Radford, L. (2008) Connecting theories in mathematics education: challenges and possibilities.ZDM -The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 40, 317-327.
Radford, L. (2008). Iconicity and contraction: A semiotic investigation of forms of algebraic generalizations of patterns in different contexts. ZDM: International Journal in Mathematics Education, 40, 83-96.
Radford, L., Boero, P. & Vasco, C. (2000). Epistemological assumptions framing interpretations of students understanding of mathematics, Fauvel, J. & van Maanen, J. (Eds.), History in Mathematics Education, 162-167, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Steffe, L. (2013). Research Commentary: Establishing Mathematics Education as an Academic Field: A Constructive Odyssey. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44(2), 353- 371.
Steffe, L. P., &Thompson, P. W. (2000). Teaching experiment methodology: Underlying principles and essential elements. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 267-306). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wagner, E. D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction.American Journal of Distance Education,8(2), 6-29.
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Este trabalho está licensiado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
