The Development of (Non-)Mathematical Practices through Paths of Activities and Students’ Positioning: The Case of Real Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research has found that within elementary university courses in single variable and multivariable Calculus, the activities proposed to students may enable and encourage the development of non-mathematical practices. More specifically, the research has shown that students can obtain good passing grades by learning highly routinized techniques for a restricted set of task types, with little to no understanding of the mathematical theories that justify the choice and validity of the techniques. We were interested in knowing what happens as students progress to more advanced courses in Analysis. The study presented in this thesis focussed on a first Real Analysis course at a large urban North American university. To frame our study, we turned to the Anthropological Theory of the Didactic, which offers theoretical tools for modelling practices as they exist within and across institutions. We analyzed various course materials to develop models of practices students may have been expected to learn in the course. These were then used to inform our construction of a task-based interview that would allow us to elicit and model practices students had actually learned. Interviews were conducted with fifteen students shortly after they passed the course. In our qualitative analyses of the resulting data, we found that students’ practices were (non-)mathematical in different ways and to varying degrees. Moreover, this seemed to be linked not only to the kinds of activities students had been offered in the course, but also to the characteristically different ways in which students may have interacted with those activities. As theoretical tools for thinking about these links, we introduce the notion of a path to a practice and a framework of five positions that students may adopt in a university mathematics course institution: the Student, the Skeptic, the Mathematician in Training, the Enthusiast, and the Learner. We discuss the possibility of designing paths of activities that might perturb students’ positioning and encourage the development of practices that are more mathematical in nature.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".