Scaffolding Strategy In Mathematics Learning

Mathematics learning should be designed so that it is oriented to the goal which is focused on process. Learning orientation is focused on the development of ‘mathematical thinking’ and ‘mathematical disposition’. Then, the teaching-learning process is conditioned in order that student is actively to construct “meaning” through the process of self-experience, not just knowing. In such conditions the teacher's role shifted from mere "showing and telling" to be facilitators and guidance who can be responsive to students' development of thinking processes which proceed from the actual ability toward potential ability to construct mathematical knowledge. These efforts, among others, carried out by presenting a learning construction which is appropriate with the tradition of socio-constructivism. One of the most important tradition of socio-constructivism is the idea of scaffolding in practice learning. This study describe the role and strategy of scaffolding in mathematics learning. Key words: Scaffolding Strategy, Mathematics Learning

Sociohydrologic Systems Thinking: An Analysis of Undergraduate Students’ Operationalization and Modeling of Coupled Human-Water Systems

One of the keys to science and environmental literacy is systems thinking. Learning how to think about the interactions between systems, the far-reaching effects of a system, and the dynamic nature of systems are all critical outcomes of science learning. However, students need support to develop systems thinking skills in undergraduate geoscience classrooms. While systems thinking-focused instruction has the potential to benefit student learning, gaps exist in our understanding of students’ use of systems thinking to operationalize and model SHS, as well as their metacognitive evaluation of systems thinking. To address this need, we have designed, implemented, refined, and studied an introductory-level, interdisciplinary course focused on coupled human-water, or sociohydrologic, systems. Data for this study comes from three consecutive iterations of the course and involves student models and explanations for a socio-hydrologic issue (n = 163). To analyze this data, we counted themed features of the drawn models and applied an operationalization rubric to the written responses. Analyses of the written explanations reveal statistically-significant differences between underlying categories of systems thinking (F(5, 768) = 401.6, p \u3c 0.05). Students were best able to operationalize their systems thinking about problem identification (M = 2.22, SD = 0.73) as compared to unintended consequences (M = 1.43, SD = 1.11). Student-generated systems thinking models revealed statistically significant differences between system components, patterns, and mechanisms, F(2, 132) = 3.06, p \u3c 0.05. Students focused most strongly on system components (M = 13.54, SD = 7.15) as compared to related processes or mechanisms. Qualitative data demonstrated three types of model limitation including scope/scale, temporal, and specific components/mechanisms/patterns excluded. These findings have implications for supporting systems thinking in undergraduate geoscience classrooms, as well as insight into links between these two skills

The role of pedagogical tools in active learning: a case for sense-making

Evidence from the research literature indicates that both audience response systems (ARS) and guided inquiry worksheets (GIW) can lead to greater student engagement, learning, and equity in the STEM classroom. We compare the use of these two tools in large enrollment STEM courses delivered in different contexts, one in biology and one in engineering. The instructors studied utilized each of the active learning tools differently. In the biology course, ARS questions were used mainly to check in with students and assess if they were correctly interpreting and understanding worksheet questions. The engineering course presented ARS questions that afforded students the opportunity to apply learned concepts to new scenarios towards improving students conceptual understanding. In the biology course, the GIWs were primarily used in stand-alone activities, and most of the information necessary for students to answer the questions was contained within the worksheet in a context that aligned with a disciplinary model. In the engineering course, the instructor intended for students to reference their lecture notes and rely on their conceptual knowledge of fundamental principles from the previous ARS class session in order to successfully answer the GIW questions. However, while their specific implementation structures and practices differed, both instructors used these tools to build towards the same basic disciplinary thinking and sense-making processes of conceptual reasoning, quantitative reasoning, and metacognitive thinking.Comment: 20 pages, 5 figure

Systems thinking: critical thinking skills for the 1990s and beyond

This pdf article discusses the need for teaching systems thinking and critical thinking skills. Systems thinking and systems dynamics are important for developing effective strategies to close the gap between the interdependent nature of our problems and our ability to understand them. This article calls for a clearer view of the nature of systems thinking and the education system into which it must be transferred. Educational levels: Graduate or professional

Unpacking capabilities underlying design (thinking) process

Engineering graduates must know how to frame and solve non-routine problems. While design classes explicitly teach problem framing and solving, it is lacking throughout much of the rest of the engineering curriculum and is often relegated to capstone classes at the end of the students’ educational experience. This paper explores problem framing and solving through the lens of experiential learning theory. It captures core problem framing and solving approaches from critical, design and systems thinking and concludes with a table of learning outcomes that might be drawn upon in designing an engineering curriculum that more fully develops the problem framing and solving capabilities of its students

Developing The Attitude And Creativity In Mathematics Education

The structures in a traditionally-organized classroom of mathematics teaching can usually be linked readily with the routine classroom activities of teacher-exposition and teacher-supervised desk work, teacher’s initiation, teacher’s direction and strongly teacher’s expectations of the outcome of student learning. If the teacher wants to develop appropriate attitude and creativities in mathematics teaching learning it needs for him to develop innovation in mathematics teaching. The teacher may face challenge to develop various style of teaching i.e. various and flexible method of teaching, discussion method, problem-based method, various style of classroom interaction, contextual and or realistic mathematics approach. To develop mathematical attitude and creativity in mathematics teaching learning processes, the teacher may understand the nature and have the highly skill of implementing the aspects of the following: mathematics teaching materials, teacher’s preparation, student’s motivation and apperception, various interactions, small-group discussions, student’s works sheet development, students’ presentations, teacher’s facilitations, students’ conclusions, and the scheme of cognitive development.In the broader sense of developing attitude and creativity of mathematics learning, the teacher may needs to in-depth understanding of the nature of school mathematics, the nature of students learn mathematics and the nature of constructivism in learning mathematics. Key Word: mathematical attitude, creativity in mathematics, innovation of mathematics teaching,school mathematics

Learning to Imagine

For the purpose of this discussion, we posit that there are essentially four overarching reasons we educate. They are: preparing students for democratic participation, providing access to knowledge and critical thinking, enabling all students to take advantage of life's opportunities, and enabling students to lead rich and rewarding personal lives. None of these can be achieved fully without attention to the role of imagination. While we acknowledge that not all would agree with our definition of purposes, our comprehensive vision, we believe, can serve our children and our society well

Metacognition from the historical context of teaching reading Ross Kendall, Jana M. Mason

Includes bibliographical references (leaves 13-16)Supported in part by the National Institute of Education under contract no. US-NIE-C-400-76-011