La fuerza de la aserción y el poder persuasivo en la argumentación en matemáticas

El análisis de la construcción y evaluación de argumentos en matemáticas se ha convertido en una parte importante de la investigación en Educación Matemática a nivel universitario. En este artículo notamos que hasta el momento este análisis se ha hecho desde una perspectiva restringida que se concentra en argumentos construidos para eliminar toda duda en torno a una conjetura. Discutimos una perspectiva más amplia de la argumentación en matemáticas, que toma en consideración las distintas maneras por medio de las cuales tanto estudiantes como matemáticos califican sus conclusiones y se sienten persuadidos por argumentos en matemáticas. Esta perspectiva esta basada en el esquema de argumentación propuesto por Toulmin (1958) y permite analizar argumentos construidos par areducir el nivel de incertidumbre asociado a una conjetura, al mismo tiempo que permite el análisis de distintos tipos de persuasión en la evaluación de argumentos en matemáticas

Using corpus linguistics to investigate mathematical explanation

In this chapter we use methods of corpus linguistics to investigate the ways in which mathematicians describe their work as explanatory in their research papers. We analyse use of the words explain/explanation (and various related words and expressions) in a large corpus of texts containing research papers in mathematics and in physical sciences, comparing this with their use in corpora of general, day-to-day English. We find that although mathematicians do use this family of words, such use is considerably less prevalent in mathematics papers than in physics papers or in general English. Furthermore, we find that the proportion with which mathematicians use expressions related to ‘explaining why’ and ‘explaining how’ is significantly different to the equivalent proportion in physics and in general English. We discuss possible accounts for these differences

Colombian consensus recommendations for diagnosis, management and treatment of the infection by SARS-COV-2/ COVID-19 in health care facilities - Recommendations from expert´s group based and informed on evidence

La Asociación Colombiana de Infectología (ACIN) y el Instituto de Evaluación de Nuevas Tecnologías de la Salud (IETS) conformó un grupo de trabajo para desarrollar recomendaciones informadas y basadas en evidencia, por consenso de expertos para la atención, diagnóstico y manejo de casos de Covid 19. Estas guías son dirigidas al personal de salud y buscar dar recomendaciones en los ámbitos de la atención en salud de los casos de Covid-19, en el contexto nacional de Colombia

EDUCACIÓN AMBIENTAL Y SOCIEDAD. SABERES LOCALES PARA EL DESARROLLO Y LA SUSTENTABILIDAD

Este texto contribuye al análisis científico de varias áreas del conocimiento como la filosofía social, la patología, la educación para el cuidado del medio ambiente y la sustentabilidad que inciden en diversas unidades de aprendizaje de la Licenciatura en Educación para la Salud y de la Maestría en Sociología de la SaludLas comunidades indígenas de la sierra norte de Oaxaca México, habitan un territorio extenso de biodiversidad. Sin que sea una área protegida y sustentable, la propia naturaleza de la región ofrece a sus visitantes la riqueza de la vegetación caracterizada por sus especies endémicas que componen un paisaje de suma belleza

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Do mathematicians and undergraduates agree about explanation quality?

Offering explanations is a central part of teaching mathematics, and understanding those explanations is a vital activity for learners. Given this, it is natural to ask what makes a good mathematical explanation. This question has received surprisingly little attention in the mathematics education literature, perhaps because the field has no agreed method by which explanation quality can be reliably assessed. In this paper, we explore this issue by asking whether mathematicians and undergraduates agree with each other about explanation quality. A corpus of 10 explanations produced by 10 mathematicians was used. Using a comparative judgement method, we analysed 320 paired comparisons from 16 mathematicians and 320 from 32 undergraduate students. We found that both mathematicians and undergraduates were able to reliably assess the quality of a set of mathematical explanations. Furthermore, the assessments were largely consistent across the two groups. Implications for theories of mathematical explanation are discussed. We conclude by arguing that comparative judgement is a promising technique for exploring explanation quality