Palavras-chave
Construcionismo
Resolução de problemas
Como Citar
Resumo
Neste artigo, investigamos o pensamento computacional de alunos em educação matemática. Especificamente, pela análise de experimentos de ensino conduzidos como estudos de caso qualitativos, exploramos aspectos do construcionismo e da resolução de problemas. Em diferentes cenários de aprendizagem, duplas de alunos do ensino fundamental e de graduação exploraram problemas de codificação para concluir uma tarefa matemático-computacional. Do ponto de vista construcionista, os resultados indicam que a experiência de aprendizagem envolveu uma espiral de descrição, execução, reflexão e depuração de problemas. No caso da experiência dos estudantes de graduação, também identificamos características específicas do pensamento computacional relacionadas a processos heurísticos, como exploração, planejamento, análise e verificação.
Referências
Artigue, M., & Mariotti, M. A. (2014). Networking theoretical frames: the ReMath enterprise. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 85(3), 329-355.
Bikner-Ahsbahs, A. (2010). Networking of theories: why and how? In V. Durand-Guerrier, S. Soury-Lavergne, & F. Arzarello (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 6-15). Institut National de Recherche Pédagogique, Paris.
Bikner-Ahsbahs, A., Prediger, S. (2010). Networking of theories: an approach for exploiting the diversity of theoretical approaches. In B. Sriraman, & L. English (Eds.), Theories of mathematics education: seeking new frontiers (pp. 483-506). Berlin: Springer.
Borba, M. C., & Villarreal, M. E. (2005). Humans-with-media and the reorganization of mathematical thinking: information and communication technologies, modeling, visualization and experimentation. New York: Springer.
Denning, P. J. (2017) Remaining trouble spots with computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 60(6), 33-39.
Gadanidis, G. (2015). Young children, mathematics, and coding: a low floor, high ceiling, wide walls environment. In D. Polly (Ed.), Cases on technology integration in mathematics education (pp. 308-329). Hershey: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-6497-5.ch015
Gadanidis, G., & Yiu, C. (2017). Repeating patterns + code + art. Math surprise: conceptual, emotional, engaging. Retrieved from http://researchideas.ca/patterns/
Idem, R. C. (2017). Construcionismo, conhecimentos docentes e GeoGebra: uma experiência envolvendo licenciandos em matemática e professores. Masters’ Thesis, Universidade Estadual Paulista, Rio Claro.
Lu, J. J., & Fletcher, G. H. L. (2009). Thinking about computational thinking. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 41(1), 260-264.
Maltempi, M. V. (2005). Novas tecnologias e construção de conhecimento: reflexões e perspectivas. In Anais do V Congresso Ibero-americano de Educação Matemática. Associação de Professores de Matemática de Portugal, Porto.
Marshall, M. N. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family Practice, 13(6), 522-526. Ontario Ministry of Education. (2005). The Ontario curriculum grades 1-8: mathematics. Retrieved from www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/math18curr.pdf
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books. Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York: Basic Books.
Polya, G. (1957). How to solve it: a new aspect of mathematical method (2a ed.). Garden City: Doubleday Anchor.
Powell, A. B., Francisco, J. M., & Maher, C. A. (2003). An analytical model for studying the development of learners’ mathematical ideas and reasoning using videotape data. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 22(4), 405–435.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. New York: Academic Press.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: problem solving, metacognition, and sense-making in mathematics. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook for research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334-370). New York: MacMillan.
Stake, R. E. (2000). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2a ed., pp. 435-453). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Steffe, L. P., & Thompson, P. W. (2000). Teaching experiment methodology: underlying principles and essential elements. In R. Lesh, & A. E. Kelly (Eds.), Research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 267-307). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Tall, D. (1991). The psychology of advanced mathematical thinking. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 3-21). Dordrecht: Springer.
Valente J. A. (2003). In service teacher development using ICT: first step in lifelong learning. In C. Dowling, & K.-W. Lai (Eds.), Information and communication technology and the teacher of the future (pp. 97-108). Boston: Springer.
Wilkerson, M. H., Andrews, C., Shaban, Y., Laina, V., & Gravel, B. E. (2016). What’s the technology for? Teacher attention and pedagogical goals in a modeling-focused professional development workshop. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27(1), 11-33.
Wing, J. M. (2006) Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35.
Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366(1881), 3717-3725
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2020 Pró-Posições