Search

Mathematics can be used as a tool to question and critique society and, in doing so, give us more information about the world around us and how it operates. This however, is not a common perspective that is conveyed to students during their undergraduate mathematics coursework. This paper contributes to the understanding of how undergraduate mathematics students question and critique society via mathematical modeling tasks. In two courses at two universities, 27 mathematics majors and secondary preservice teachers engaged in the modeling process situated in authentic contexts to learn specific concepts and make mathematical connections across domains and disciplines. Both courses culminated in a final project in which students created and investigated solutions to their own modeling tasks. In this paper, we describe how our courses (1) centered justice as pedagogy, (2) were environments for student agency and exploration, and (3) explicitly demonstrated how mathematics and social justice are intertwined. Drawing on frameworks of mathematical modeling for social justice, we present and analyze student-created tasks to showcase how they utilized mathematics as a tool to question and critique the world around them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we, a group of graduate students in mathematics education, discuss some of the metacognitive benefits of the non-traditional teaching methods we observed employed by one of our professors. This professor's methods challenge the common belief that well-managed class time is key for positive learning outcomes. Instead, he orients his teaching to share the exploration and sense-making phases of doing mathematics. The goal of his teaching is to share the idea that learning mathematics is a process of "refining our mathematical thinking". We argue that this approach to teaching helps students see that mathematics is a human endeavor, appreciate the cycles of learning mathematics and the importance of struggle throughout the process, and gain some insight on what it means to be an expert in mathematics. We encourage teachers and professors to move away from obsessing about structured, well-organized class time, and to instead move towards having flexible and risk-oriented class time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mathematics has often been referred to as an art. For some it is “the purest of the arts”, where the mathematicians’ art is “asking simple and elegant questions about our imaginary creations, and crafting satisfying and beautiful explanations”. Yet with classroom time given primarily to “covering the curriculum”, testing, and practicing problem-solving procedures, students’ opportunities to appreciate the aesthetic dimension of mathematics are often limited. To promote a responsive environment in an effort to enable students to become artists of their own mathematics experience, I consider in this paper two facets of the mathematics classroom. Content-wise I make the argument that students need to see problem-clarifying strategies in conjunction with problem-solving techniques, as the former are essential for making progress when engaging a mathematics problem where an explicit solution is not apparent. The other facet aiming to promote student agency is providing them opportunities to work with their own practical/professional concerns as students so as to become more creative and productive artists of their mathematics experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Good mathematics stands the test of time. As culture changes, we often ask different questions, bringing new perspectives, but modern mathematics stands on ancient discoveries. Isaac Newton’s discovery of calculus (along with Leibniz) may seem old but is predated by Archimedes’ findings. Current mathematics students should be familiar with parabolas and simple curves; in our introductory calculus courses, we teach them to compute the areas under such curves. Our modern approach derives its roots from Newton’s work; however, we have filled in many of the gaps in the pursuit of mathematical rigor. What many students may not know is that Archimedes solved the area problem for parabolas long before the use of algebraic expressions became mainstream. Archimedes used the geometry of the ancient Greeks, which gave him a vastly different perspective. In this paper, we provide both Archimedes’ and Newton’s proofs involving the quadrature of the parabola, trying to remain true to their original texts as much as feasible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mathematics employs a formal language where symbols, verbs, and nouns serve to express terms, concepts, and rules that concatenate to definitions, problem-solving procedures, and proofs. Taken together these constitute the expository language of mathematics found in journals, textbooks, and demonstrations. As the object of these mathematical communications is to inform and perhaps inspire, there are epistemological and ethical considerations that deserve examination. For in keeping with the commitment to an aesthetic of concision promulgated by tradition, the formal presentation language and style of mathematics, while valuable in furthering the body of knowledge, provides only the conclusion of an inquiry, completely excluding the language of investigation that informed the many steps of decision making involved in the process, so that little if any insight into the creative process is made available. Here we explore this problem of communication in the context of mathematics presented to students early in their education as well as at university level. The argument is made that the language of investigation -- the heuristic actions instrumental for their formulation -- ought to accompany the language of formal demonstration so as to provide a communication that is in the best interests of all students and members of the mathematics profession. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper recounts an experiment by a mathematics professor who primarily teaches mathematics majors. The main question explored is whether the ordering of the questions makes a difference as to how students perform in a test. More specifically we focus here on the following research questions: (1) Does arranging a math test with easy-to-hard items versus hard-to-easy items impact student performance? and (2) If so, does item order impact male and female mathematics majors and non-majors in unique ways? We examine data collected over multiple semesters with several di erent classes. We find that for most of the mathematics students who were examined, the ordering of the questions on a test did not impact performance. However, female majors performed better on classroom exams when the test was arranged with the more difficult questions presented first. Readers who are interested in teaching mathematics, educational psychology, or gender issues in the classroom may find our results intriguing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]