1 / 32

Exercising Control: Didactical Influences

Exercising Control: Didactical Influences. Kathleen Pineau Maître d’enseignement en mathématiques École de technologie supérieure France Caron Professeure au département de didactique Université de Montréal. Context. École de technologie supérieure (ÉTS) : “Engineering for Industry”

mora
Download Presentation

Exercising Control: Didactical Influences

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Exercising Control: Didactical Influences Kathleen PineauMaître d’enseignement en mathématiquesÉcole de technologie supérieure France CaronProfesseure au département de didactiqueUniversité de Montréal

  2. Context • École de technologie supérieure (ÉTS) :“Engineering for Industry” • Our undergraduate students come from college technical programs • CAS-calculator mandatoryin Calculus since 1999

  3. Exploratory study • Elements of the didactical contract andtheir influences on student practices in their • use of the CAS • capacity to solve problems • communication of results • Ideas to • increase the tool’s contribution to the students’ mathematical practice • while minimizing risks associated with its use Linking teaching strategies in Calculus with students’ practices in problem solving where the CAS is allowed

  4. CAS as a tool for teaching and learning mathematics • Pragmatic considerations • Existence and portability of the tool • Engineering profession characterised by an increasing complexity of problems and a diversity of technological tools • Epistemic considerations • Heterogeneity of students’ backgrounds • Potentialities, limits and risks associated with the integration of such tools in understanding the mathematics being taught

  5. Context of Study • Introductory Calculus • Focused on 4 teachers and 212 of their students • All teachers and students had • the same calculator(TI-92 Plus/Voyage 200) • the same textbook (Hughes-Hallett et al., 1999)

  6. Analysed Data • Teachers modes of integration • Tasks (graded homework and exams): complexity, instructions, need or relevance of calculator, scale used in grading • Interviews: relationship to mathematics and to their teaching • Students competencies analysed through their writing on the 2nd part of the common final exam (where the calculator is allowed) • Characterisation of errors • Interestingphenomena

  7. Task Analysis:Competencies De Terssac (1996)

  8. Task Analysis:Competencies and Complexity Combining complementary models Adapting a method of resolution Establishing and justifying a property Choosing a method of resolution Identifying distinct cases Interpreting data or results Recognising an object Associating a property Applying a method De Terssac (1996); Caron (2001) Need or relevance of the calculator was also noted.

  9. Results - Teachers Little difference in the distribution of the complexity of tasks given by teachers

  10. Results - Teachers Little difference in the distribution of the complexity of tasks given by teachers in the need or relevance of the CAS to accomplish tasks

  11. Results - Teachers Little difference • in the distribution of the complexity of tasks given by teachers • in the need or relevance of the CAS to accomplish tasks • in the epistemic role the teachers give to the tool • focus on meaning through multiple representations (symbolic, graphic and numeric) Subtle differences • in what they like in mathematics, specifics in tasks given to students and targeted competencies

  12. Results - Teachers

  13. Results – Students, final exam Little difference in the comprehension of problems or concepts

  14. Results – Students, final exam Differences are a little more apparent in organisation and communication of results

  15. Results - Overall Reflect • the use of a common textbook • the common final exam • the common culture Little difference • in the distribution of the complexity of tasks given by teachers • in the need or relevance of the CAS to accomplish tasks • in the epistemic role the teachers give to the tool • focus on meaning through multiple representations (symbolic, graphic and numeric) • in theirs students’ performance in the final exam

  16. Expected resolution Find numerically the x values of the intersection of the two curves,i.e. the roots x1 and x2 of the equation : Then find, analytically, k such that (k≠0) A Revealing Question Part 2 – Question 2 Find the positive value k such that the area of the region between the graphs y = k cos x and y = k x2 is 2. Clearly specify the definite integral you use. In principle, the student is allowed to use the calculator without restriction

  17. Intervention Competencies:pragmatic vs epistemic - tensions • Variable reserve in using the tool • An attempt to demonstrate their capacity to determine the appropriate use of the tool. • Effect of teacher’s grading. • Expert (advanced) use of the tool • Valorization by the teacher of the pragmatic function of the tool in the symbolic register “I mark off points when there is an abusive use of the TI.” Alain Reflects the didactical contract specific to the teacher

  18. Evaluation Competencies:legitimacy of registers • Graphical exploration and empirical approach • Teacher granting status (value) to the graphical register • From empirical to deductive reasoning • Efforts to go beyond the graphical and numerical registers Reflects the didactical contract specific to the teacher

  19. Communication Competencies:variable practices • Incomplete documentation • Grading scale focused on the pragmatic function of tool • Difficulty inferring the solving process and the control exercised • Detailed documentation • Explicit instructions, consistent with assessment scale • Refusal of expressions specific to the tool • Students’ efforts in organizing their solution • Documentation that hides technical work • Refusal of expressions specific to the tool • Difficulty inferring the instrumentation process Reflects the didactical contract specific to the teacher

  20. Conclusions • Teachers used the CAS-calculator essentially as an epistemic tool • complex problems and applications were not as frequent as what could have been expected. • Differences in students practices attributable to teachers seem more the result of • requirements for recording solutions (reflecting the importance given to communication skills), • methods and registers recognized as admissible for solving problems.

  21. Ongoing debates • How do we integrate in our math courses specificities of the communication protocol with the tool? • What form should be given to the communication of actions and thought processes? • Math. languages and calculator expressions • Public vs. private writings • What should we specify as requirements? • Acceptable methods and registers • Expected communication : equations, etc.

  22. Ongoing debates • What role and what status should be given to heuristic exploration? • Exploit the possibilities offered by the different registers in problem solving • Support by appropriate questioning the emergence of rigour • How can we encourage validation? • Through contexts and meaning • Exploiting mathematical properties • …

  23. Intervention Competencies:variable reserve in using the tool

  24. Intervention Competencies:variable reserve in using the tool Restraint in using the tool disappears when outside of course content One of Alain’s students

  25. Intervention Competencies:expert use of the tool One of Alain’s students

  26. Intervention Competencies:expert use of the tool One of Alain’s students • Technical, numerical and structural control (variables and relations) • Communication, more technical than mathematical • Transparency of technical work • Algebraic control?

  27. Evaluation Competencies:exploration and empirical approach The parameter k caused problems for many students Some students got by through exploration One of Diane’s students • Rigour? Algebraic control? • Approach potentially transferable to more complex problems…

  28. Evaluation Competencies:from empirical to deductive Graphical exploration Numerical exploration Surprise « I always ask for answers in their exactform. Otherwise some students will use graphs. » Alain Algebraicvalidation One of Alain’s students

  29. Communication Competencies:“fill in the blanks…” Graph ? Equation? ? dx = ??? ? Private writings? One of Alain’s students • Worked in what register? • Difficult to infer the solving processand the control exercised

  30. Communication Competencies:detailed documentation “ I tell them -Present commented solutions. I want to see more than just your calculations. I want complete phrases that describe your solving process… Sometimes, I write: use mathematical syntax, not TI’s.” Diane Solving with TI Integration with TI Solving without TI One of Diane’s students

  31. Communication Competencies:What went wrong? Refusal of expressions specific to the tool. Conflict with what is accepted by the graphing calculator. Impact on intervention competencies. “I often tell them that I am not a TI.” Charlotte One of Charlotte’s students

More Related