数学教育中通过解决问题来学习

Pieter G. Human
{"title":"数学教育中通过解决问题来学习","authors":"Pieter G. Human","doi":"10.4102/SATNT.V28I4.68","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Three forms of mathematics education at school level are distinguished: direct expository teaching with an emphasis on procedures, with the expectation that learners will at some\n later stage make logical and functional sense of what they have learnt and practised (the prevalent form), mathematically rigorous teaching in terms of fundamental mathematical concepts, as in the so-called “modern\n mathematics” programmes of the sixties, teaching and learning in the context of engaging with meaningful problems and focused both on learning to become good problem solvers (teaching for problem solving) andutilising\n problems as vehicles for the development of mathematical knowledge andproficiency by learners (problem-centred learning), in conjunction with substantialteacher-led social interaction and mathematical discourse in\n classrooms. Direct expository teaching of mathematical procedures dominated in school systems after World War II, and was augmented by the “modern mathematics” movement in the period 1960-1970. The latter was\n experienced as a major failure, and was soon abandoned. Persistent poor outcomes of direct expository procedural teaching of mathematics for the majority of learners, as are still being experienced in South Africa, triggered a world-wide movement\n promoting teaching mathematics for and via problem solving in the seventies and eighties of the previous century. This movement took the form of a variety of curriculum experiments in which problem solving was the dominant classroom activity,\n mainly in the USA, Netherlands, France and South Africa. While initially focusing on basic arithmetic (computation with whole numbers) and elementary calculus, the problem-solving movement started to address other mathematical topics (for\n example, elementary statistics, algebra, differential equations) around the turn of the century. The movement also spread rapidly to other countries, including Japan, Singapore and Australia. Parallel with the problem-solving movement, over the\n last twenty years, mathematics educators around the world started increasingly to appreciate the role of social interaction and mathematical discourse in classrooms, and to take into consideration the infl uence of the social, socio-mathematical\n and mathematical norms established in classrooms. This shift away from an emphasis on individualised instruction towards classroom practices characterised by rich and focused social interaction orchestrated by the teacher, became the second\n element, next to problem-solving, of what is now known as the “reform agenda”. Learning and teaching by means of problem-solving in a socially-interactive classroom, with a strong demand for conceptual understanding, is radically different from\n traditional expository teaching. However, contrary to commonly-held misunderstandings, it requires substantial teacher involvement. It also requires teachers to assume a much higher level of responsibility for the extent and quality of learning\n than that which teachers tended to assume traditionally. Over the last 10 years, teaching for and via problem solving has become entrenched in the national mathematics curriculum statements of many countries, and programs have been launched to\n induce and support teachers to implement it. Actual implementation of the “reform agenda” in classrooms is, however, still limited. The limited implementation is ascribed to a number of factors, including the failure of assessment practices to\n accommodate problem solving and higher levels of understanding that may be facilitated by teaching via problem solving, lack of clarity about what teaching for and via problem solving may actually mean in practice, and limited mathematical\n expertise of teachers. Some leading mathematics educators (for example, Schoenfeld, Stigler and Hiebert) believe that the reform agenda specifi es classroom practices that are fundamentally foreign to culturally embedded pedagogical traditions,\n and hence that adoption of the reform agenda will of necessity be slow and will require more substantial professional development and support programs than those currently provided to teachers in most countries.Notwithstanding the challenges\n posed by implementation, the movement towards infusing mathematics education with a pronounced emphasis on problem solving both as an outcome and as a vehicle for learning seems to be unabated. Substantial work on the development of more\n effective means for professional development and support of teachers is currently being done.","PeriodicalId":30428,"journal":{"name":"South African Journal of Science and Technology","volume":"28 1","pages":"303-318"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Learning via problem solving in mathematics education\",\"authors\":\"Pieter G. Human\",\"doi\":\"10.4102/SATNT.V28I4.68\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Three forms of mathematics education at school level are distinguished: direct expository teaching with an emphasis on procedures, with the expectation that learners will at some\\n later stage make logical and functional sense of what they have learnt and practised (the prevalent form), mathematically rigorous teaching in terms of fundamental mathematical concepts, as in the so-called “modern\\n mathematics” programmes of the sixties, teaching and learning in the context of engaging with meaningful problems and focused both on learning to become good problem solvers (teaching for problem solving) andutilising\\n problems as vehicles for the development of mathematical knowledge andproficiency by learners (problem-centred learning), in conjunction with substantialteacher-led social interaction and mathematical discourse in\\n classrooms. Direct expository teaching of mathematical procedures dominated in school systems after World War II, and was augmented by the “modern mathematics” movement in the period 1960-1970. The latter was\\n experienced as a major failure, and was soon abandoned. Persistent poor outcomes of direct expository procedural teaching of mathematics for the majority of learners, as are still being experienced in South Africa, triggered a world-wide movement\\n promoting teaching mathematics for and via problem solving in the seventies and eighties of the previous century. This movement took the form of a variety of curriculum experiments in which problem solving was the dominant classroom activity,\\n mainly in the USA, Netherlands, France and South Africa. While initially focusing on basic arithmetic (computation with whole numbers) and elementary calculus, the problem-solving movement started to address other mathematical topics (for\\n example, elementary statistics, algebra, differential equations) around the turn of the century. The movement also spread rapidly to other countries, including Japan, Singapore and Australia. Parallel with the problem-solving movement, over the\\n last twenty years, mathematics educators around the world started increasingly to appreciate the role of social interaction and mathematical discourse in classrooms, and to take into consideration the infl uence of the social, socio-mathematical\\n and mathematical norms established in classrooms. This shift away from an emphasis on individualised instruction towards classroom practices characterised by rich and focused social interaction orchestrated by the teacher, became the second\\n element, next to problem-solving, of what is now known as the “reform agenda”. Learning and teaching by means of problem-solving in a socially-interactive classroom, with a strong demand for conceptual understanding, is radically different from\\n traditional expository teaching. However, contrary to commonly-held misunderstandings, it requires substantial teacher involvement. It also requires teachers to assume a much higher level of responsibility for the extent and quality of learning\\n than that which teachers tended to assume traditionally. Over the last 10 years, teaching for and via problem solving has become entrenched in the national mathematics curriculum statements of many countries, and programs have been launched to\\n induce and support teachers to implement it. Actual implementation of the “reform agenda” in classrooms is, however, still limited. The limited implementation is ascribed to a number of factors, including the failure of assessment practices to\\n accommodate problem solving and higher levels of understanding that may be facilitated by teaching via problem solving, lack of clarity about what teaching for and via problem solving may actually mean in practice, and limited mathematical\\n expertise of teachers. Some leading mathematics educators (for example, Schoenfeld, Stigler and Hiebert) believe that the reform agenda specifi es classroom practices that are fundamentally foreign to culturally embedded pedagogical traditions,\\n and hence that adoption of the reform agenda will of necessity be slow and will require more substantial professional development and support programs than those currently provided to teachers in most countries.Notwithstanding the challenges\\n posed by implementation, the movement towards infusing mathematics education with a pronounced emphasis on problem solving both as an outcome and as a vehicle for learning seems to be unabated. Substantial work on the development of more\\n effective means for professional development and support of teachers is currently being done.\",\"PeriodicalId\":30428,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"South African Journal of Science and Technology\",\"volume\":\"28 1\",\"pages\":\"303-318\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2009-09-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"South African Journal of Science and Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4102/SATNT.V28I4.68\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African Journal of Science and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4102/SATNT.V28I4.68","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

学校数学教育分为三种形式:强调程序的直接说明文式教学,期望学习者在以后的某个阶段对他们所学和实践的东西有逻辑和功能意义(普遍形式),就基本数学概念而言,数学上严格的教学,就像60年代所谓的“现代数学”课程一样,在参与有意义的问题的背景下的教学和学习,既注重学习成为好的问题解决者(解决问题的教学),又注重利用问题作为学习者发展数学知识和熟练程度的工具(以问题为中心的学习),结合教师主导的社会互动和课堂上的数学话语。第二次世界大战后,数学程序的直接说明性教学在学校系统中占主导地位,并在1960-1970年期间被“现代数学”运动所加强。后者经历了重大失败,很快就被放弃了。对于大多数学习者来说,直接说明性程序数学教学的持续不良结果,正如南非仍然经历的那样,在上世纪七八十年代引发了一场全球性的运动,促进了通过解决问题来教授数学。这场运动采取了各种课程实验的形式,其中解决问题是主要的课堂活动,主要在美国,荷兰,法国和南非。虽然最初专注于基本算术(整数计算)和初等微积分,但在世纪之交,问题解决运动开始涉及其他数学主题(例如,初等统计、代数、微分方程)。这一运动也迅速蔓延到其他国家,包括日本、新加坡和澳大利亚。与解决问题运动并行的是,在过去的二十年里,世界各地的数学教育者开始越来越重视社会互动和数学话语在课堂中的作用,并考虑到课堂上建立的社会、社会数学和数学规范的影响。这种从强调个性化教学转向以教师精心安排的丰富而集中的社会互动为特征的课堂实践的转变,成为现在被称为“改革议程”的第二个要素,仅次于解决问题。在社会互动的课堂中,通过解决问题的方式进行学习和教学,强烈要求对概念的理解,这与传统的说明文教学有根本的不同。然而,与普遍的误解相反,它需要教师的大量参与。它还要求教师对学习的范围和质量承担比传统教师倾向于承担的更高水平的责任。在过去的10年里,解决问题的教学已经在许多国家的国家数学课程中根深蒂固,并且已经启动了一些项目来引导和支持教师实施它。然而,“改革议程”在课堂上的实际实施仍然有限。有限的实施归因于许多因素,包括评估实践未能适应问题解决和更高水平的理解,这可能通过解决问题的教学来促进,缺乏明确的教学目的和通过解决问题在实践中可能实际意味着什么,以及教师的数学专业知识有限。一些领先的数学教育家(例如,Schoenfeld, Stigler和Hiebert)认为,改革议程规定的课堂实践从根本上与文化嵌入的教学传统不同,因此,改革议程的采用必然是缓慢的,并且需要比大多数国家目前提供给教师的更实质性的专业发展和支持计划。尽管实施过程中存在挑战,但将解决问题作为学习结果和工具的数学教育的趋势似乎有增无减。目前正在进行大量工作,以发展更有效的专业发展和支持教师的手段。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Learning via problem solving in mathematics education
Three forms of mathematics education at school level are distinguished: direct expository teaching with an emphasis on procedures, with the expectation that learners will at some later stage make logical and functional sense of what they have learnt and practised (the prevalent form), mathematically rigorous teaching in terms of fundamental mathematical concepts, as in the so-called “modern mathematics” programmes of the sixties, teaching and learning in the context of engaging with meaningful problems and focused both on learning to become good problem solvers (teaching for problem solving) andutilising problems as vehicles for the development of mathematical knowledge andproficiency by learners (problem-centred learning), in conjunction with substantialteacher-led social interaction and mathematical discourse in classrooms. Direct expository teaching of mathematical procedures dominated in school systems after World War II, and was augmented by the “modern mathematics” movement in the period 1960-1970. The latter was experienced as a major failure, and was soon abandoned. Persistent poor outcomes of direct expository procedural teaching of mathematics for the majority of learners, as are still being experienced in South Africa, triggered a world-wide movement promoting teaching mathematics for and via problem solving in the seventies and eighties of the previous century. This movement took the form of a variety of curriculum experiments in which problem solving was the dominant classroom activity, mainly in the USA, Netherlands, France and South Africa. While initially focusing on basic arithmetic (computation with whole numbers) and elementary calculus, the problem-solving movement started to address other mathematical topics (for example, elementary statistics, algebra, differential equations) around the turn of the century. The movement also spread rapidly to other countries, including Japan, Singapore and Australia. Parallel with the problem-solving movement, over the last twenty years, mathematics educators around the world started increasingly to appreciate the role of social interaction and mathematical discourse in classrooms, and to take into consideration the infl uence of the social, socio-mathematical and mathematical norms established in classrooms. This shift away from an emphasis on individualised instruction towards classroom practices characterised by rich and focused social interaction orchestrated by the teacher, became the second element, next to problem-solving, of what is now known as the “reform agenda”. Learning and teaching by means of problem-solving in a socially-interactive classroom, with a strong demand for conceptual understanding, is radically different from traditional expository teaching. However, contrary to commonly-held misunderstandings, it requires substantial teacher involvement. It also requires teachers to assume a much higher level of responsibility for the extent and quality of learning than that which teachers tended to assume traditionally. Over the last 10 years, teaching for and via problem solving has become entrenched in the national mathematics curriculum statements of many countries, and programs have been launched to induce and support teachers to implement it. Actual implementation of the “reform agenda” in classrooms is, however, still limited. The limited implementation is ascribed to a number of factors, including the failure of assessment practices to accommodate problem solving and higher levels of understanding that may be facilitated by teaching via problem solving, lack of clarity about what teaching for and via problem solving may actually mean in practice, and limited mathematical expertise of teachers. Some leading mathematics educators (for example, Schoenfeld, Stigler and Hiebert) believe that the reform agenda specifi es classroom practices that are fundamentally foreign to culturally embedded pedagogical traditions, and hence that adoption of the reform agenda will of necessity be slow and will require more substantial professional development and support programs than those currently provided to teachers in most countries.Notwithstanding the challenges posed by implementation, the movement towards infusing mathematics education with a pronounced emphasis on problem solving both as an outcome and as a vehicle for learning seems to be unabated. Substantial work on the development of more effective means for professional development and support of teachers is currently being done.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
58
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Ondersoek na energiekoste van die inkorporering van ’n latentehitte-termiese-energieopbergstelsel in ’n Suid-Afrikaanse koelkamer Zircon as feedstock for zirconium chemicals, ceramics, the metal and alloys: A review Gesondheidsevaluasie van stedelike eike ( Quercus robur L.) met behulp van fisiologiese parameters: ’n Suid-Afrikaanse gevallestudie Investigation of energy costs for incorporating a latent heat thermal energy storage system into a South African cold room Structural equations model to analyse the critical variables related to smart card technology adoption in South African public healthcare
×
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