This course attempts to show how robust theories of teaching can be, when they are constantly refined by recent developments of learning theories. While focusing on theories, the course conceives teaching as a practice. Hence, it will intertwine theoretical and practical discussions. Participants will read and present contemporary theories of teaching and the theories of learning that bolster them, focusing mainly on sciences and mathematics. The selection of theories will be made relevant to classroom problematics:  conceptual change and misconceptions  classroom norms and positioning  lesson design and engagement  politics (Big-D discourse) in education.

Temps présentiel : 17.5 heures

Charge de travail étudiant : 60 heures

Méthode(s) d'évaluation : Travaux pratiques contrôlés

Référence :
Adiredja, A. P., & Andrews-Larson, C. (2017). Taking the Sociopolitical Turn in Postsecondary Mathematics Education Research. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 3(3), 444–465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-017-0054-5 Boaler, J. (2002). Learning from teaching: Exploring the relationship between reform curriculum and equity. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 239–258. Boaler, Jo. (2000). Multiple Perspectives on Mathematics Teaching and Learning. Greenwood Publishing Group. Boaler, Jo, & Staples, M. (2008). Creating mathematical futures through an equitable teaching approach: The case of Railside School. The Teachers College Record, 110(3), 608–645. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Expanded Edition. The National Academies Press. diSessa, A. A., Gillespie, N. M., & Esterly, J. B. (2004). Coherence versus fragmentation in the development of the concept of force. Cognitive Science, 28(6), 843–900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsci.2004.05.003 Engle, R. A. (2012). The productive disciplinary engagement framework: Origins, key concepts and developments. In D. Y. Dai (Ed.), Design research on learning and thinking in educational settings: Enhancing intellectual growth and functioning (pp. 161–200). Routledge. Engle, Randi A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399–483. Gutiérrez, R. (2013). The sociopolitical turn in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44(1), 37–68. Harré, R., & Moghaddam, F. M. (2015). Positioning theory. The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction, 1–9. Illeris, K. (2009). Contemporary theories of learning. Routledge London. Lampert, M. (2010). Learning teaching in, from, and for practice: What do we mean? Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 21–34. Langenhove, L. van, & Harré, R. (1994). Cultural stereotypes and positioning theory. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 24(4), 359–372. Langer Osuna, J., & Esmonde, I. (In Press). Insights and advances on research on identity in mathematics education. In J. Cai, First Compendium for Research in Mathematics Education. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Langer-Osuna, J. (2011). How Brianna became bossy and Kofi came out smart: Understanding the trajectories of identity and engagement for two group leaders in a project-based mathematics classroom. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 11(3), 207–225. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press. Lawrence, A. M., & Crespo, S. (2016). IRE/F as a Cross-Curricular Collaborative Genre of Implicit Argumentation. Theory Into Practice, 55(4), 320–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2016.1209021 Mehan, H. (1979). “What Time Is It, Denise?”: Asking Known Information Questions in Classroom Discourse. Theory Into Practice, 18(4), 285–294. JSTOR. O’Connor, M. C., & Michaels, S. (1993). Aligning academic task and participation status through revoicing: Analysis of a classroom discourse strategy. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 24(4), 318–318. Schoenfeld, Alan H. (2011). How we think: A theory of goal-oriented decision making and its educational applications. Taylor & Francis. Schoenfeld, ALAN H. (2017). Teaching for robust understanding of essential mathematics. Essential Mathematics for the next Generation: What and How Students Should Learn, 104–129. Schoenfeld, Alan H. (2018). Video analyses for research and professional development: The teaching for robust understanding (TRU) framework. ZDM, 50(3), 491–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0908-y Sfard, A., & Prusak, A. (2005). Telling identities: In search of an analytic tool for investigating learning as a culturally shaped activity. Educational Researcher, 34(4), 14–22. Smith III, J. P., diSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1994). Misconceptions Reconceived: A Constructivist Analysis of Knowledge in Transition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115–163. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0302_1 Stein, M. K., Engle, R. A., Smith, M. S., & Hughes, E. K. (2008). Orchestrating Productive Mathematical Discussions: Five Practices for Helping Teachers Move Beyond Show and Tell. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(4), 313–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986060802229675 Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge university press. Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical Norms, Argumentation, and Autonomy in Mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458–477. https://doi.org/10.2307/749877