## Elever på videregående skole lager egne matematikkoppgaver : En studie av hvordan elever i en 1P-klasse argumenterte for at en matematikkoppgave laget av elevene selv, var en god oppgave

##### Master thesis

##### Permanent lenke

http://hdl.handle.net/11250/2455746##### Utgivelsesdato

2017##### Metadata

Vis full innførsel##### Samlinger

##### Sammendrag

“Upper Secondary Students Pose Their Own Problems – A study of how students in a 1P class argued that a task posed by the students themselves, was a good task” is a qualitative study of a group of students in the subject 1P who was asked to pose problems related to the game Lotto. The theme of the study is “problem posing”, or more specifically students posing problems. The research question is: How do students argue that a problem posed by the students themselves, is a good problem? In order to answer this, I have focused on four areas: the students’ argumentation in the process of posing problems and considerations related to the context of the task, the task structure and a possible solution. Based on Wenger (1998), I use the theory of situated learning as a theoretical framework. In situated learning, students’ arguments are seen in context of the communities students are part of. To better understand the teaching context that the students operate within, I have made use of the terms exercise paradigm and inquiry. The exercise paradigm refers to traditional teaching including blackboards and tasks in textbooks, while inquiry refers to a more investigative way of teaching. The data in this study were collected in a group of students in the subject 1P over two days, including five lessons and a focus group. The first day, the students were working in pairs/groups, posing problems related to Lotto, followed by a presentation of three tasks for the rest of the class. A winner task was chosen by the class. In addition, each student answered a questionnaire. The coming week I conducted a focus group, including four of the students, one student from each of the groups A-D. I transcribed the voice recording from group A-D, the rating process and the focus group. I analyzed this data with respect to the research question and the four sub-questions (process, context, structure and a possible solution). From this, I found that “how” the students argued both can mean “argumentation related to posing problems” and “argumentation related to the problem posed”. Findings related to how the students argued in “the process”, are associated with the way the students argue. In some cases, the students argued with clear purposes and targets, while they in other cases argued based on intuitive preferences. In many cases, they argued implicitly, slightly targeted and with a vocabulary that seemed insufficient to formulate precise arguments for what counted as a good task. Secondly, the students argued supported by fellow students and the internet, not using the teacher and the textbook as authorities. Thirdly, it seems that the students appreciated the ownership and their personal relationship with their problems. These could be problems they had spent a lot of time with. “Argumentation related to the problems posed” includes both the context, structure and a potential solution. Related to the “context”, I found that the students argued mathematically by linking Lotto to probability, and they focused on showing their mathematical competence. They expressed that they wanted to see all the tasks as a whole, and they wanted a variety of topics in the problems posed. They also varied the themes within the same problem. The students’ tasks could be described as «semi realities». According to the students, the pure mathematical content was more important than a realistic and relevant context. The students expressed that the context should be as realistic as possible. If the students did not find the information they were looking for, they figured out themselves what could be suitable information, or they rejected the problem. In relation to “structure”, the students thought that the text should be clearly formulated and contain exact amount of information for the calculation. When it came to “a possible solution”, the students linked their problems to solution proposals and an answer. In that sense, to have control over the problem appeared to be more important than genuine interest and curiosity. The task should be not too easy and not too hard; at the same time challenging and within reach

##### Beskrivelse

Masteroppgave matematikkdidaktikk MA502 – Universitetet i Agder 2017