Abstract
In this paper we introduce a link between the Theory of Didactical Situations and the Documentational Approach to Didactics, in order to study teaching/learning phenomena at the beginning of university mathematics studies. Specifically, we investigate the didactic contract at three levels: institutional, mathematical subject, and specific mathematical content level, and link it to the use of resources by students. Using this link, we analyse data stemming from two complementary case studies: one in the UK, and one in France. We identify didactic contract rules at the three levels for the students, and for the teachers. Moreover, we find discrepancies between students’ and teachers’ rules, and also between those and the explicit rules of the institution/s. These gaps may cause misunderstandings and prevent students from learning mathematics effectively at university level; we claim that these gaps can be reduced. Teachers could make their expectations more explicit in terms of resource use and support an appropriate use by students. The university institution could also contribute to a better alignment of the resources offered with actual student practices.
Résumé
Dans cet article nous introduisons une articulation théorique, entre théorie des situations didactiques et approche documentaire du didactique, pour étudier des phénomènes d’enseignement/apprentissage en mathématiques au début de l’université. Nous relions plus précisément le contrat didactique à trois niveaux: institution, discipline, contenu et l’usage de ressources par les étudiants. En utilisant cette articulation théorique, nous analysons des données issues de deux études de cas complémentaires, l’une menée au Royaume-Uni et l’autre en France. Nous mettons au jour de cette manière des règles de contrat didactique à chacun des trois niveaux, et identifions des écarts entre les règles pour les étudiants, celles pour les enseignants, et parfois également les règles explicites de l’institution. Ces écarts sont liés à des difficultés rencontrées par les étudiants; nous soutenons qu’il est possible de les réduire. Les enseignants pourraient mieux expliciter leurs attentes en termes d’usages de ressources et accompagner les usages des étudiants, l’institution université pourrait également contribuer à une offre de ressources mieux adaptées aux pratiques effectives des étudiants.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Diploma at the end of secondary school
For privacy reasons, we do not mention here the name of this website.
References
Adler, J. (2000). Conceptualising resources as a theme for teacher education. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 3, 205–224.
Anastasakis, M., Robinson, C. L., & Lerman, S. (2017). Links between students’ goals and their choice of educational resources in undergraduate mathematics. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications, 36, 67–80.
Battie, V. (2010). Number theory in the national compulsory examination at the end of the French secondary level between organizing and operative dimensions. In V. Durand-Guerrier, S. Soury-Lavergne, & F. Arzarello (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th conference of European research in mathematics education (pp. 2316–2325). France: Lyon.
Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics 1970–1990. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Brousseau, G., & Warfield, G. (2003). Glossary of terms used in Didactique. Retrieved on http://faculty.washington.edu/warfield/guy-brousseau.com/biographie/glossaires/.
De Vleeschouwer, M. (2010). Enseignement à l’Université, perspective institutionnelle et contrat didactique. Le cas de la dualité en algèbre linéaire. Thèse de doctorat de l’Université de Namur, Belgique.
De Vleeschouwer, M., & Gueudet, G. (2011). Secondary-tertiary transition and evolution of didactic contract: The example of duality in linear algebra. In M. Pytlak, T. Rowland, & E. Swoboda (Eds.), Proceedings of the seventh congress of the European mathematical Society for Research in mathematics education (pp. 2013–2022). Rzesów: University of Rzeszów and ERME.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
González-Martín, A. S., Nardi, E., & Biza, I. (2011). Conceptually-driven and visually-rich tasks in texts and teaching practice: The case of infinite series. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 42(5), 565–589.
Gueudet, G. (2017). University teachers’ resources systems and documents. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 3(1), 198–224.
Gueudet, G., & Lebaud, M.-P. (2008). Quelle évaluation dans le supérieur en mathématiques ? In A. Thépaut & D. Lemaître (Eds.), Actes Du Colloque Questions De Pédagogies Dans l’enseignement Supérieur (pp. 289–299). Brest: Telecom Brest.
Gueudet, G., Pepin, B., & Trouche, L. (Eds.). (2012). From text to ‘lived’ resources: Mathematics curriculum materials and teacher development. New York: Springer.
Liret, F., & Martinais, D. (2003). Algèbre 1ère année. Paris: Dunod.
Mesa, V., & Griffiths, B. (2012). Textbook mediation of teaching: An example from tertiary mathematics instructors. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79, 85–107.
Nardi, E., Biza, I., González-Martín, A. S., Gueudet, G., & Winsløw, C. (2014). Institutional, sociocultural and discursive approaches to research in university mathematics education. Research in Mathematics Education, 16(2), 91–94.
Pepin, B. (2014). Using the construct of the didactic contract to understand students transition into university mathematics education. Policy Futures in Education, 12(5), 646–657.
Stadler, E., Bengmark, S., Thunberg, H., & Winberg, M. (2013). Approaches to learning mathematics - differences between beginning and experienced university students. In B. Ubuz, C. Haser, M. A. Mariotti, Proceedings of the eighth congress of the European Mathematical Society for research in mathematics education (pp. 2435–2445). Ankara: Middle East Technical University and ERME.
Vergnaud, G. (1998). Toward a cognitive theory of practice. In A. Sierpinska & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), Mathematics education as a research domain: A search for identity (pp. 227–241). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Zazkis, R., & Campbell, S. R. (Eds.). (2006). Number theory in mathematics education: Perspectives and prospects. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Acknowledgements
The second author of this paper recognizes the contribution made by the TransMaths team in the collection of data, the design of instruments and the project, and discussions involving analyses and interpretations of the results. She would also like to acknowledge the support of the ESRC-TLRP award RES-139-25-0241, and continuing support from ESRC-TransMaths award(s) RES-139-25-0241 and RES-000-22-2890.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gueudet, G., Pepin, B. Didactic Contract at the Beginning of University: a Focus on Resources and their Use. Int. J. Res. Undergrad. Math. Ed. 4, 56–73 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-018-0069-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-018-0069-6