Comparative analysis between three theoretical approaches through empirical experiences at university level

ZDM Pub Date : 2024-09-10 DOI:10.1007/s11858-024-01632-5
Ignasi Florensa, Marta Barbero, Rafael Martínez-Planel
{"title":"Comparative analysis between three theoretical approaches through empirical experiences at university level","authors":"Ignasi Florensa, Marta Barbero, Rafael Martínez-Planel","doi":"10.1007/s11858-024-01632-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Research into mathematics education at university level includes a wide range of theoretical approaches. This poses considerable challenges to researchers in terms of understanding and harmonizing the compatibility and commensurability of those approaches. The research community has already problematised and studied these challenges using networking theories. The networking theories framework is taken as a starting point in this study to contrast different approaches and to broaden the comparison of different frameworks. In particular, three case studies framed in the Action, Process, Object, Schema Theory, in the Problem-Solving approach, and in the Anthropological Theory of the Didactic are analysed. The differences and possible similarities between the three with regard to the research questions addressed, their objects of study, their empirical bases, as well as their research ends are considered. The analysis offers an insight into the potential for collaboration and the networking of theories in the field of university mathematics education.</p>","PeriodicalId":501335,"journal":{"name":"ZDM","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ZDM","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-024-01632-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Research into mathematics education at university level includes a wide range of theoretical approaches. This poses considerable challenges to researchers in terms of understanding and harmonizing the compatibility and commensurability of those approaches. The research community has already problematised and studied these challenges using networking theories. The networking theories framework is taken as a starting point in this study to contrast different approaches and to broaden the comparison of different frameworks. In particular, three case studies framed in the Action, Process, Object, Schema Theory, in the Problem-Solving approach, and in the Anthropological Theory of the Didactic are analysed. The differences and possible similarities between the three with regard to the research questions addressed, their objects of study, their empirical bases, as well as their research ends are considered. The analysis offers an insight into the potential for collaboration and the networking of theories in the field of university mathematics education.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
通过大学层面的经验对三种理论方法进行比较分析
对大学数学教育的研究包括多种理论方法。这给研究人员在理解和协调这些方法的兼容性和可比性方面带来了相当大的挑战。研究界已经利用网络理论对这些挑战进行了分析和研究。本研究以网络理论框架为起点,对比不同的方法,扩大不同框架的比较范围。本研究特别分析了以 "行动、过程、对象、模式理论"、"问题解决方法 "和 "说教人类学理论 "为框架的三个案例研究。考虑了三者在研究问题、研究对象、经验基础以及研究目的方面的异同。分析有助于深入了解大学数学教育领域的合作潜力和理论网络。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
ZDM
ZDM
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Comparative analysis between three theoretical approaches through empirical experiences at university level Measurement invariance between subjects: what can we learn about subject-related differences in teaching quality? Mathematics teachers’ multiple perspectives on adaptive tasks: task evaluation and selection as core practices for teaching quality What do university mathematics students value in advanced mathematics courses? The PRIUM qualitative framework for assessment of proof comprehension: a result of collaboration among mathematicians and mathematics educators
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1