Posing inverse modeling problems for task enrichment in a Secondary Mathematics teachers training program
Metadatos
Mostrar el registro completo del ítemAutor
Martínez Luaces, VíctorEditorial
Universidad de Granada
Departamento
Universidad de Granada. Programa de Doctorado en Ciencias de la EducaciónMateria
Mathematics Secondary education Teacher training
Fecha
2021Fecha lectura
2021-04-26Referencia bibliográfica
Martínez Luaces, Víctor. Posing inverse modeling problems for task enrichment in a Secondary Mathematics teachers training program. Granada: Universidad de Granada, 2021. [http://hdl.handle.net/10481/68580]
Patrocinador
Tesis Univ. Granada.Resumen
In this presentation the structure of the thesis is briefly explained. The
thesis fieldwork was carried out with prospective teachers, focusing on
the reformulation of given problems in an inverse way, in order to
enrich tasks for secondary school students. As a consequence, in the
first chapter, important mathematics education topics, such as tasks,
problems, modeling, problem posing, problem solving and task
enrichment –among other less frequent ones, like inverse problems– are
introduced. Thus, the introduction finishes with the research questions
and objectives.
Taking into account the above considerations, the different sections of
the thesis theoretical framework, were chosen. The theoretical
framework –which constitutes the second chapter of the thesis–,
includes problem posing, inverse problems, mathematical modeling
and task enrichment. Besides, it should be pointed out that all the results
obtained in the fieldwork are analyzed using the Didactic Analysis,
developed by Rico and collaborators (Rico & Fernández-Cano, 2013;
Rico, Lupiáñez, & Molina, 2013; Rico & Ruiz-Hidalgo, 2018). In
particular, our work focuses on three of the dimensions of Didactic
Analysis: analysis of meanings, cognitive analysis, and instructional
analysis. For this reason, Didactic Analysis is a fundamental part of the
theoretical framework of the thesis, developed in the second chapter.
The third chapter is devoted to the methodological framework and it
describes the characteristics of the sample and the instruments utilized to analyze the results. It is important to mention that these instruments
used to analyze the productions of the subjects (i.e., the prospective
teachers), have been transformed during the research, and these
modifications are also described in this chapter.
Additionally, it is worth mentioning that the fieldwork was carried out
in two well-differentiated parts: a pilot study that took place in 2017
and a definitive study, done in 2019. Between both experiments, there
was a research design in which modifications were proposed, in order
to correct or at least attenuate the difficulties observed during the pilot
study; this is also part of the third chapter.
The fourth chapter is devoted to the description and analysis of the
results obtained during the first part of the fieldwork, that is, the pilot
study, done in 2017. In that opportunity, two direct problems were
provided to the prospective teachers and they were asked to reformulate
in an inverse form the second one. Furthermore, the participants were
requested to design the tasks associated with their own reformulated
problem and their responses are the inputs for the corresponding
cognitive and instruction analysis.
In the fifth chapter, the results of the second fieldwork, designed
throughout 2018 and carried out in 2019, are described and analyzed.
In this second experience, the direct problems provided to the
participants were the same as in the pilot study and the prospective
teachers were asked to reformulate both in an inverse form. Once again,
the participants were asked to propose the corresponding tasks,
associated with their reformulation, so the productions included the
cognitive and instructional analysis.
Finally, the sixth and last chapter is devoted to expound the conclusions
of the research and the limitations of this work as well as the possible
continuations of the research line.