O papel do feedback oral na coconstrução de significados num ambiente de geometria dinâmica

Júlio Paiva

doi:10.48489/quadrante.22569

Autores

Júlio Paiva Agrupamento de Escolas Dr. Francisco Fernandes Lopes, Portugal

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.48489/quadrante.22569

Palavras-chave:

feedback oral, geometria dinâmica, coconstrução de significados

Resumo

Este artigo tem por objetivo descrever e compreender o feedback oral que surge entre alunos e a sua ligação à coconstrução de significados, durante a resolução de tarefas, em trabalho colaborativo, recorrendo a um ambiente de geometria dinâmica (AGD). O quadro conceptual tem como eixos o feedback oral, o trabalho colaborativo e a coconstrução de significados em AGDs. Assumindo um posicionamento interpretativo, a investigação adota a metodologia qualitativa de estudo de caso com dois alunos. Recorreu-se a uma utilização regular do GeoGebra com uma turma, ao longo dos 7.º e 8.º anos de escolaridade, no estudo da Geometria. Apresentam-se e analisam-se dois episódios: um da fase inicial e outro da fase final do estudo. A análise dos episódios foca-se no feedback oral entre alunos e na coconstrução de significados. Como principais conclusões deste estudo salienta-se a possibilidade de compreender as potencialidades do feedback oral e a forma como mudam as suas ligações à coconstrução de significados, à medida que os alunos vão dominando o AGD. Empiricamente, foi possível detetar deslocações de intencionalidade no feedback oral dos alunos, nomeadamente através do surgimento de diferentes momentos de negociação, compreensão e partilha de significados.

Referências

Allal, L. (1986). Estratégias de avaliação formativa: Concepções psicopedagógicas e modalidades de aplicação. In L. Allal, J. Cardinet, & P. Perrenoud (Orgs.), A Avaliação num Sentido Diferenciado (pp. 175-209). Coimbra: Almedina.

Allal, I. (1988). Vers un élargissement de la pédagogie de maîtrise. In M. Huberman (Org.), Assurer la réussite des apprentissages scolaires? Les propositions de la pédagogie de maîtrise (pp. 87-126). Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestlé.

Alrø, H., & Skovsmose, O. (2004). Dialogue and learning in mathematics education: Intention, reflection, critique. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Andrade, H., & Brookhart, S. (2019). Classroom assessment as the co-regulation of learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2019.1571992

Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (Eds.). (2003). Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Askew, S., & Lodge, C. (2000). Gifts, ping-pong and loops – linking feedback and learning. In S. Askew (Ed.), Feedback for learning (pp. 1-18). London: Routledge Falmer.

Beatty, R., & Geiser, V. (2010). Technology, communication, and collaboration: re-thinking communities of inquiry, learning and practice. In C. Hoyles & J.-B. Lagrange (Eds), Mathematics Education and Technology – Rethinking the terrain – The 17th ICMI Study (pp. 251-286). London: Springer.

Black, P., & William, D. (2010). A pleasant surprise. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(1), 47-48.

Briten, E., Stevens, S., & Treby, N. (2012). Using talk for learning in science and mathematics. In D. Jones & P. Hodson (eds.), Unlocking Speaking and Listening (pp. 19-34). London & New York: Routledge.

Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics: Didactique des Mathématiques, 1970–1990. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Carnell, E. (2000). Dialogue, discussion and feedback – views of secondary school students on how others help their learning. In S. Askew (ed.), Feedback for learning (pp. 46-62). London: Routledge Falmer.

Chen, C. (2008). The effectiveness of computer supported collaborative learning on helping tasks in a Mathematics Course. Malacca, Malaysia: Proquest LLC.

Chi, M. (1996) Constructing self-explanations and scaffolded explanations in tutoring. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 10-49.

Claire, H., & Salmon, P. (2020). Classroom Collaboration. London: Routledge.

Coelho, M., & Saraiva, M. (2000). Tecnologias no ensino/aprendizagem da geometria. In Atas do Encontro Ensino e Aprendizagem da Geometria (pp. 35-60). Fundão: Secção de Educação Matemática - Sociedade Portuguesa de Ciências da Educação. http://spiem.pt/DOCS/ATAS_ENCONTROS/atas_EIEM_2000.pdf

Dillenbourg, P. & Evans, M. (2011). Interactive tabletops in education. International

Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 6, 491–514.

Duarte, M., & Rezende F. (2007). Construção compartilhada de significados na interação colaborativa de estudantes com um sistema hipermídia de biomecânica. In Atas do VI Encontro Nacional de Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências – VI ENPEC. Florianópolis: ABRAPEC.

Faggiano, E., & Ronchi (2011). GeoGebra as a methodological resource. In L. Bu & R. Schoen (Eds.), Model-centered Learning – pathways to mathematical understanding using GeoGebra (pp. 183-189). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Hodgen, J., & Webb M. (2008). Questioning and dialogue. In S. Swaffield (Ed.), Unlocking assessment – understanding for reflection and application (pp. 7389). London: Routledge.

Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (1992). A pedagogy for mathematical microworlds. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23(1), 31-57.

Jeong, H., Hmelo-Silver, C., & Jo, K. (2019). Ten years of computer-supported collaborative learning: A meta-analysis of CSCL in STEAM education during 2005-2014. Educational Research Review, 28, 100284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100284

Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Lima, J. P. (1989). Linguagem e acção – da filosofia analítica à linguística pragmática. Lisboa: Apáginastantas.

Pfister, H. R. (2005). How to support synchronous net-based learning discourses: Principles and perspectives. In R. Bromme, F. W. Hesse, & H. Spada (Eds.), Barriers and biases in computer mediated knowledge communication: And how they may be overcome (pp. 39–58). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.

Pimm, D. (1987). Speaking mathematically: Communication in mathematics classrooms. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Pollock, J. (2012). Feedback – The hinge that joins teaching & learning. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.

Ramaprasad, A. (1983). On the definition of feedback. Behavioral Science, 28(1), 4-13.

Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. O'Malley (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 69-197). Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag.

Rodrigues, M. M. T. (1997). A aprendizagem da matemática enquanto processo de construção de significado mediada pela utilização do computador (Tese de mestrado). Lisboa: APM.

Saha, R., Ayub, A., & Tarmizi, R. (2010). The effects of GeoGebra on mathematics achievement: En-lightening coordinate geometry learning. Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences, 8, 686-693.

Santos, L. (2002). Auto-avaliação regulada: porquê, o quê, e como? In P. Abrantes & F. Araújo (Coords.), Avaliação das aprendizagens (pp. 77-84). Lisboa: Ministério da Educação, DEB

Santos-Trigo, M. (2004). The role of technology in students’ conceptual constructions in a sample case of problem solving. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 26(2), 1-17.

Serrazina, M. L. (1995). Ensinar/aprender matemática. In Actas do ProfMat 95 (pp. 3341). Lisboa: APM.

Sim-Sim, I., Silva A. C., & Nunes, C. (2008). Linguagem e comunicação no jardim-de infância. Lisboa: Ministério da Educação - Direção Geral de Inovação e de Desenvolvimento Curricular.

Sinclair, M. P. (2005). Peer interactions in computer lab: Reflections on results of a case study involving web-based dynamic geometry sketches. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 24, 89-107.

Smith, I. (2007). Assessment & learning pocketbook. Alresford, Hampshire: Teacher’s Pocketbooks.

Smith, M., & Stein, M. (2011). Practices for orchestrating productive mathematics discussions. Thousand Oaks: Corwin and The National Council of Teachers of mathematics.

Stahl, G. (2016). Constructing dynamic triangles together: The development of mathematical group cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: an historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409–426). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

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, NJ: Erlbaum.

Swaffield, S. (2008). The central process in assessment for learning. In S. Swaffield (Ed.), Unlocking assessment – Understanding for reflection and application (pp. 57-72). New York: Routledge.

Tepper, A., & Flynn, P. (2020). Learner-focused feedback: 19 strategies to observe for impact. Thousand Oaks: Corwin - A Sage Company.

Topping, K. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology, 25(6), 631-645.

Voigt, J. (1994). Negotiation of mathematical meaning and learning mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26, 275-298.

Webb, M. E., & Jones, J. (2006). Assessment for learning transforming classroom practice?. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference. University of Warwick.

Wei, C., & Ismail, Z. (2010). Peer interactions in computer-supported collaborative learning using Dynamic Mathematics Software. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 8, 600–608.

Yin, R. (2017). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods (6th Edition). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Yu, P., Barrett, J., & Presmeg, N. (2009). Prototypes and categorical reasoning: A perspective to explain how children learn about Interactive Geometry Objects. In T. Crane & R. Rubenstein (Eds.), Understanding Geometry for a changing world - NCTM, 2009 Yearbook (pp. 109-125). Reston, VA: NCTM.