Detalhes bibliográficos
| Ano de defesa: |
2017 |
| Autor(a) principal: |
BARBOSA, Edelweis José Tavares
 |
| Orientador(a): |
LIMA, Anna Paula de Avelar Brito |
| Banca de defesa: |
BELLEMAIN, Paula Moreira Baltar,
ARAÚJO, Abraão Juvêncio de,
SANTOS, Marcelo Câmara dos,
ANDRADE, Vlademir Lira Veras Xavier de |
| Tipo de documento: |
Tese
|
| Tipo de acesso: |
Acesso aberto |
| Idioma: |
por |
| Instituição de defesa: |
Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco
|
| Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ensino das Ciências
|
| Departamento: |
Departamento de Educação
|
| País: |
Brasil
|
| Palavras-chave em Português: |
|
| Área do conhecimento CNPq: |
|
| Link de acesso: |
http://www.tede2.ufrpe.br:8080/tede2/handle/tede2/7055
|
Resumo: |
The aim of this thesis was to analyze, comparatively, the praxeologies, in official documents, the didactic book and the teacher, referring to the teaching of polynomial equations of the first degree, investigating the relations of conformity between them. This study is based on the view of the Didactic Anthropological Theory (TAD), proposed by Yves Chevallard and his collaborators (1999, 2002, 2009, 2010). The methodology was based on a qualitative ethnographic approach, in which the mathematical and didactic organizations of three teachers were analyzed in comparison with their reference books and the dominant epistemological model. The results indicate that there is a conformity between the praxeologies to be taught, proposed by the authors of the textbooks, and the praxeologies effectively taught by the teachers in the classroom. The personal and institutional relations related to the object polynomial equations of the first degree of the teachers were constituted by their praxeological equipments (EP (x) (CHEVALLARD, 2007), for which teachers were the organizers of the tasks, techniques and technology of increasing complexity. The task T1 was the common point among the three teachers, although the teachers two and three had worked with more tasks. In relation to the dominant model of the three textbooks, we identified: Equations that cannot be solved by procedures that rely on exclusively arithmetical reasoning (books Mathematical and Mathematical Time), and equations that can be solved by arithmetic procedures in the book "Practicing Mathematics." The dominant model between the three teachers is the equations that can be solved by arithmetic procedures. For only one teacher the dominant model of the reference book coincided with the dominant model implemented in the classroom. Regarding the interviews, we emphasize that the teachers justified that they did not work with the book "Mathematics" because of what they called "student level", that is, something like their potentiality and cognitive capacity. The teacher two chose "Mathematics" collection because the book always returns, at the beginning of each chapter, to the content previously taught, promoting revisions and a spiral work. The teacher one said that the book "Time of Mathematics" has many exercises, is "summarized" (in the synthetic sense) and explains the content well; the teacher three stated that the didactic proposal of the book "Practicing Mathematics" is better for working in the classroom. The teachers were also asked which benchmarks they take as a basis for class preparation and everyone said that the textbook is central to this planning. First-degree polynomial equations are justified in textbooks and official documents (PCN and PC/PE), as a tool to solve problems. |
