Advertisement

Investigating the Relationship Between the Problem and the Solver: Who Decides What Math Gets Used?

  • Guadalupe Carmona
  • Steven Greenstein
Chapter
Part of the International Perspectives on the Teaching and Learning of Mathematical Modelling book series (IPTL)

Abstract

Tasks that are descriptive of a goal state and not prescriptive of the paths students must take to reach it inevitably generate spaces of possible interpretations of givens and goals, as well as possible paths from givens to goals, each featuring elements of a bounded space of mathematical concepts. When a sample comprised of students at elementary and post-baccalaureate levels of schooling was given one of these tasks, the solutions expressed rich and deep understandings of mathematical concepts that were common among groups at both levels of schooling. These findings are less supportive of the foundational metaphor of curriculum in which understandings serve to support the acquisition of more formal mathematics, and more supportive of the notion of a curriculum that “spirals” around central ideas that are revisited at multiple levels of schooling in order to provide learners with greater access to powerful ways of understanding mathematics.

Keywords

Mathematical Concept Problem Solver Equilateral Triangle Mathematical Idea Conceptual System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Black, P., and Wiliam, D. (2004, September). Working inside the black box: Raising Standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 9–21.Google Scholar
  2. English, L. D., and Lesh, R. (2003). Ends-in-view problems. In R. A. Lesh, and H. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond Constructivism: Models and Modeling Perspectives on Mathematics Problem Solving, Learning and Teaching (pp. 297–316). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  3. Lesh, R. A, and Doerr, H. M. (2003). Foundations of a models and modeling perspective on mathematics teaching and learning. In R. Lesh, and H. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond Constructivism: Models and Modeling Perspectives on Mathematics Problem Solving, Learning and Teaching (pp. 3–34). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  4. Lesh, R., Hoover, M., Hole, B., Kelly, E., and Post, T. (2000). Principles for developing thought-revealing activities for students and teachers. In A. E. Kelly, and R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of Research Design in Mathematics and Science Education (pp. 591–645). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  5. Lesh, R., and Lehrer, R. (2003). Models and modeling perspectives on the development of students and teachers. Mathematical Thinking & Learning, 5(2/3), 109.Google Scholar
  6. Miles, M. B., and Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  7. Strauss, A., and Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  8. Stroup, W. M., Ares, N., Lesh, R., and Hurford, A. (2007). Diversity by design: Generativity in next-generation classroom networks. In R. Lesh, E. Hamilton, and J. J. Kaput (Eds.), Models & Modeling as Foundations for the Future in Mathematics Education. Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of TexasAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations