Criticità e prospettive future

Considerato il limitato numero di interviste che è stato possibile svolgere (l’adesione era su base volontaria), ritengo che i risultati illustrati debbano essere visti come sole ipotesi che necessitano di ulteriori esplorazioni.

Dai colloqui è emerso che i quattro docenti sono entusiasti di partecipare a progetti di RA. Chiaramente questo aspetto influisce su quanto da loro affermato. Effettivamente, non aver potuto dialogare con insegnanti non felici della RA rappresenta un limite per questo studio.

Ciononostante ipotizzo che lo strumento analitico messo a punto possa aiutare a leggere anche il processo d’ingresso di insegnanti insoddisfatti o indifferenti alla RA. Questo per due motivi: innanzitutto perché ritengo che i fattori emersi rappresentino una discreta panoramica del problema e siano comuni alla maggioranza degli insegnanti, questo considerate anche le diverse analogie con i fattori menzionati in altri studi che hanno indagato il comportamento degli insegnanti (Goos e Geiger, 2010; Furinghetti e Morselli, 2011; Maass, 2011).

Secondariamente perché credo che l’eventuale insoddisfazione di un insegnante per la RA generalmente si possa spiegare attraverso i fattori emersi e le loro categorie.

La verifica di queste affermazioni e delle due ipotesi precedenti, credo possa rappresentare un buon punto di partenza per ulteriori ricerche su questa tema.

Concludo questa mia tesi con un estratto dell’intervista a Teresa, che credo renda conto dell’importanza di studi di questo tipo:

Teresa_​: Gli insegnanti hanno bisogno della teoria dei ricercatori, ma i ricercatori hanno bisogno della messa in opera, della messa in pratica, della sperimentazione, dell’attuazione, di tutta questa teoria. E quindi, secondo me i gruppi di Ricerca-Azione dovrebbero essere veramente, non so, quasi obbligatori in tutte le scuole. Non è possibile, però sarebbe bello.

Appendice

Esempio del foglio di lavoro

Estratto dell’intervista di Francesca (min 12:50) Breve riassunto Codici (fattori) Io vedo che le nuove generazioni di insegnanti,

almeno io ho incontrato degli insegnanti giovani formati sulla didattica e hanno già un'impostazione di partenza molto laboratoriale, molto attenta, molto inclusiva e innovativa. La mia generazione si è fatta lungo strada e tanti secondo me riproducono ancora un insegnamento che è quello che hanno ricevuto. Quindi una matematica ancora molto legata al programma, all’esercizio e alla ripetitività. C’è ancora tanto insegnamento frontale. Secondo me la didattica laboratoriale è ancora poco diffusa, perché comunque è impegnativa la preparazione, ci vuole creatività, comporta anche stravolgere un modo di lavorare. C’è ancora paura del fare il programma e quindi anche poco coraggio di sforbiciare qua e là. Sì, ci sono delle linee guida però poi uno si affida anche a un libro di testo. Quindi se è un libro di testo coraggioso, fa delle scelte, ma appunto è difficile che tutti gli insegnanti sono d’accordo a scegliere un libro coraggioso. Se è un libro molto tradizionale la tentazione è quella di considerare il libro come qualcosa di autorevole che ti dice quello che devi fare. Quindi se il libro ha tanti esercizi ‘oh mamma, allora devo farne tanti’. Ecco quindi, c’è ancora, secondo me, questa dipendenza dal libro e dal programma. Poi è vero che, certamente in uscita i ragazzi certe cose le devono sapere, certe abilità le devono avere, certe competenze le devono avere. Anche perché poi c’è una scuola superiore che magari, come dire, delle volte si fanno degli sforzi alla scuola media che non sono fatti altrettanto alle superiori. Per cui, alle superiori magari c’è ancora rigidità e magari richiedono, propongono.

Faccio un esempio, le espressioni, fare espressioni, l’importante è che uno conosca la procedura, poi non è che deve stare una vita sulle espressioni e fare delle espressioni chilometriche. Poi magari alle superiori ti propongono l’espressione chilometrica, il calcolo letterale chilometrico.

- I nuovi insegnanti hanno un’impostazione

laboratoriale, inclusiva e innovativa. Mentre la mia generazione riproduce l’insegnamento che ha ricevuto: una matematica legata al programma, all’esercizio

- Didattica laboratoriale poco diffusa perché molto impegnativa

- C’è la paura di fare il programma, poco coraggio di sforbiciare qua e là. Ci si affida al libro di testo. Se il libro è coraggioso

l'insegnante può fare scelte coraggiose. La tentazione è di considerare il libro come qualcosa di autorevole che ti dice cosa fare.

- In uscita i ragazzi certe cose le devono sapere perché poi c’è la scuola superiore. Alle superiori chiedono cose che alle medie non sono più richieste, tipo le espressioni chilometriche. - Insegnamento focalizzato sui processi di apprendimento - Tempo e impegno richiesti dalla RA - Programma scolastico e libro di testo - Coraggio - Scuole successive

Bibliografia

Allport, G.W. (1935). Attitudes. In C.A. Murchinson (Ed.) A handbook of social psychology. Worcester, Mass: Clark University Press.

Barbier, R. (2007), La ricerca azione. Armando, Roma.

Bishop, A. J. (1998). Research and practioners. In J. Kilpatrick & A. Sierpinska (Eds.), Mathematics education as a research domain: A search for identity (pp. 33–45). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Blum, W. (1996). Anwendungsbezüge im Mathematikunterricht-Trends und Perspektiven. Schriftenreihe Didaktik der Mathematik, 23, 15–38.

Boaler, J. (2008). Bridging the gap between research and practice: International examples of success. In M. Menghini, F. Furinghetti, L. Giacardi, & F. Arzarello (Eds.), The first century of the international commission on mathematical instruction (1908–2008) (pp. 91–112). Roma: Instituto della Enciclopedia Italiana.

Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of Meaning. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Chapman, O., & Heater, B. (2010). Understanding change through a high school mathematics teacher’s journey to inquiry-based teaching. J Math Teacher Educ 13, 445–458.

Charmaz, K. (2008). Constructionism and the Grounded Theory Method. In Holstein, J. A. & Gubrium, J. F. (Eds.) Handbook of Constructionist Research, pp. 397-412. New York: The Guiltord Press.

Cicognani, E. (2002). Psicologia sociale e ricerca qualitativa [Social psychology and qualitative research]. Roma: Carocci.

Cobb, P., Wood, T., & Yackel, E. (1990). Classrooms as learning environments for teachers and researchers. In R. B. Davis, C. A. Maher, & N. Noddings (Eds.), Journal for research in mathematics education: Constructivists views on the teaching and learning of mathematics (monograph) (Vol. 4, pp. 125–146). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Cusi, A., & Malara, N. A. (2011). Analysis of the teacher’s role in an approach to algebra as a tool

for thinking: problems pointed out during laboratorial activities with perspective teachers. In M. Pytlak, T. Rowland, & E. Swoboda (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 2619–2629). Rzeszow, Poland. Cusi, A., & Malara, N. A. (2012). Educational processes in early algebra to promote a linguistic approach: behavior and emerging awareness in teachers. In L. Coulange, J.P. Drouhard, J. L. Dorier, & A. Robert (Eds.), Recherches en didactique des mathématiques, Numéro spécial hors-série, Enseignement de l’algèbre élémentaire: bilan et perspectives (pp. 299–319). Grenoble: La Pensée Sauvage.

Cusi, A. & Malara, N.A. (2016). The Intertwining of Theory and Practice: Influences on Ways of Teaching and Teachers’ Education. In L. English, & D. Kirshner (Eds.), Handbook of International Research in Mathematics Education 3rd Edition (504-522). Taylor & Francis. Daskalogianni, K. & Simpson, A. (2000). Towards a definition of attitude: the relationship

between the affective and the cognitive in pre-university students. Proceedings of PME 24, vol.2, 217-224, Hiroshima, Japan.

de Geest, E., Back, J., Hirst, C., & Joubert, M. (2009). Final report: researching effective CPD in mathematics education. Sheffield: National Centre for Excellence in the Teaching of Mathematics.

Di Martino, P. (2007). L'atteggiamento verso la matematica - alcune riflessioni sul tema. In L'insegnamento della matematica e delle scienze integrate. Vol.30A-B, n.6, p.651-666.

Dionne, J. (1984). The perception of mathematics among elementary school teachers. In J. Moser (Ed.), Proceedings PME-NA 6 (p. 223–228). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.

Elbaz, F. (1983). Teacher thinking: A study of practical knowledge. London: Croom Helm. Elliot, J., Giordan, A., & Scurati, C. (1993). La ricerca-azione. Metodiche, strumenti e casi. Bollati

Boringhieri.

Ernest, P. (1989). The impact of beliefs on the teaching of mathematics. In A. Bishop, P. Damerow, C. Keitel, & P. Gerdes F. Furinghetti, F. Morselli (Eds.), Mathematics, education and society (pp. 99–101). Paris: Unesco, Documents series 3.

Even, M. (2003). What can teachers learn from research in mathematics education?. For the Learning of Mathematics 23, 3 (November, 2003). FLM Publishing Association, Kingston, Ontario, Canada

Even, R. (2003). What Can Teachers Learn from Research in Mathematics Education?. Source: For the Learning of Mathematics, Vol. 23, No. 3 (Nov., 2003), p. 38-42. Published by: FLM Publishing Association.

Freudenthal, H. (1983). Major problems of mathematics education. In M. Zweng, T. Green, J. Kilpatrick, H. Pollack, & M. Suydam (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress on Mathematical Education (pp. 1–7). Boston: Birkhäuser.

Furinghetti, F., & Morselli, F. (2009). Leading beliefs in the teaching of proof. In W. Shloeglmann & J. Maasz (Eds.), Beliefs and attitudes in mathematics education. New research results (pp. 59–74). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Furinghetti, F., & Morselli, F. (2011). Beliefs and beyond: Hows and whys in the teaching of proof. ZDM - The International Journal of Mathematics Education, 43, 587–599.

Furinghetti, F., & Pehkonen, E. (2002). Rethinking characterizations of beliefs. In G. C. Leder, E. Pehkonen, & G. Törner (Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education? (p. 39–57). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Strategies for qualitative research, Chicago: Aldine.

Goldin, G. A., Hannula, M. S., Heyd-Metzuyanim, E., Jansen, A., Kaasila, R., Lutovac, S., Di Martino, P., Morselli, F., Middleton, J. A., Pantziara, M., & Zhang, Q. (2016). Attitudes, Beliefs, Motivation and Identity in Mathematics Education - An Overview of the Field and Future Directions. ICME-13 Topical Surveys. Springer Open.

Goodchild, S. (2008). A quest for ‘good’ research: The mathematics teacher educator as practitioner researcher in a community of inquiry. In B. Jaworski & T. Wood (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics teachers education: Volume 4. Mathematics teacher educator as a developing professional (pp. 201–220). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Goodchild, S. (2013). Imagination and teaching development. In Proceedings of the 37th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 2, p. 369–376). Kiel, Germany: PME.

Goos, M. (2013). Sociocultural perspectives in research on and with mathematics teachers: a zone theory approach. ZDM: The International Journal of Mathematics Education, 45, 521–533. Goos, M. (2014). Researcher–teacher relationships and models for teaching development in

mathematics education. ZDM, 46(2), 189–200. doi:10.1007/s11858-013-0556-9.

Goos, M., & Geiger, V. (2010). Theoretical perspectives on mathematics teacher change. J Math Teacher Educ. Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010.

Haladyna, T., Shaughnessy, J., Shaughnessy, M. (1983). A causal analysis of attitude toward Mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 14 (1), 19-29.

Hart, L. (1989). Describing the Affective Domain: Saying What We Mean. In Mc Leod & Adams (Eds.) Affect and Mathematical Problem Solving (pp.37-45). New York: Springer Verlag. Hospesovà, A., Machàckovà, J., & Tichà, M. (2006). Joint reflection as a way to cooperation

between researchers and teachers. In Proceedings of the 30th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 1, p. 99–103). Prague, Czech Republic: PME.

Hoyles, C. (1992). Mathematics teaching and mathematics teachers: A meta-case study. For the Learning of Mathematics, 12(3), 32–44.

Jaworski, B. (1998). Mathematics teacher research: Process, practice and the development of teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 1, 3–31.

Jaworski, B. (2004). Grappling with complexity: Co-learning in inquiry communities in mathematics teaching development. In M. J. Hoines & A. B. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1n pp. 17–36). Bergen, Norway.

Jaworski, B. (2006). Theory and practice in mathematics teaching development: Critical inquiry as a mode of learning in teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher, 9, 187–211.

Jaworski, B. (2008). Building and sustaining inquiry communities in mathematics teaching development: Teachers and didacticians in collaboration. In K. Krainer & T. Wood (Eds.), Participants in mathematics teacher education: Individuals, teams, communities and networks. Volume 3 of the International Handbook of Mathematics Teacher Education (pp. 335-361). The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Jaworski, B. (2012). Mathematics teaching development as a human practice: Identifying and drawing the threads. ZDM. The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 44, 613–625. Joubert, M., & Sutherland, R. (2008). A perspective on the literature: CPC for teachers of

mathematics. National Centre for Excellence in the Teaching of Mathematics.

Kennedy, M. (1997). The connection between research and practice', Educational Researcher 26(7), 4-12.

Kilpatrick, J. (1981). The reasonable ineffectiveness of research in mathematics education. For the Learning of Mathematics, 2(2), 22–29.

Krainer, K., & Llinares, S. (2010). Mathematics teacher education. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B. McGraw (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (Vol. 7, pp. 702–705). Oxford: Elsevier.

Kuhs, T. M., & Ball, D. L. (1986). Approaches to teaching mathematics: Mapping the domains of knowledge, skills, and dispositions (Research Memo). East Lansing: Michigan State University, Center on Teacher Education.

Kulm, G. (1980). Research on Mathematics Attitude. In R.J. Shumway (Ed.), Research in mathematics education (pp.356-387). Reston, VA: NCTM.

Lampert, M. (1990) 'When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: mathematical knowing and teaching', American Educational Research Journal 27(1), 29-63. Leatham, K. (2006). Viewing mathematics teachers’ beliefs as sensible systems. Journal of

Mathematics Teacher Education, 9, 91–102.

Leder, G. (1985). Measurement of attitude to mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 34 (5), 18-21.

Lerman, S. (2000). Research perspectives on mathematics teacher education. In F.-L. Lin & T. Cooney (Eds.), Making sense of mathematics teacher education (pp. 33–52). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Lerman, S. (2013). Theories in practices: Mathematics teaching and mathematics teachers education. ZDM: The International Journal of Mathematics Education, 45, 623–631.

Lester, F., & Wiliam, D. (2002). On the purpose of mathematics education research: Making productive contributions to policy and practice. In L. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 489–506). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Tr. It. in L. Licausi (a cura di) (1972), I conflitti sociali. Franco Angeli, Milano.

Maass, K. (2009). What are German Teachers’ beliefs about effective mathematics teaching? In J. Cai, G. Kaiser, B. Perry, & N. Y. Wong (Eds.), Effective mathematics teaching from teachers’ perspectives: National and cross-national studies. New York: Sense Publisher.

Maass, K. (2011). How can teachers’ beliefs affect their professional development?. ZDM Mathematics Education (2011) 43:573–586. FIZ Karlsruhe 2011.

Madill, A., Jordan, A., & Shirley, C. (2000). Objectivity and reliability in qualitative analysis: Realist, contextualist, and radical constructionist epistemologies. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 1-20., 2000.

Manouchehri, A., & Goodman, T. (2000). Implementing mathematics reform: The challenge within. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 42, 1–34.

Mason, J. (1990). Reflection on dialogue between theory and practice, reconciled by awareness. In F. Seeger & H. Steinbring (Eds.), The dialogue between theory and practice in mathematics education: Overcoming the broadcast metaphor. Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on Systematic Cooperation Between Theory and Practice in Mathematics Education. Matherialen und Studien, band 38 (p. 177–192). Bielefeld: Institut für Didaktik der Mathematik.

Mason, J. (1998). Enabling teachers to be real teachers: Necessary levels of awareness and structure of attention. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 1, 243–267.

Mason, J. (2002). Researching your own practice: The discipline of noticing. London: Falmer Press.

Mason, J. (2008). Being mathematical with and in front of learners. In B. Jaworski & T. Wood (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics teachers education: Volume 4. Mathematics teacher educator as a developing professional (p. 31–55). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

McLeod, D. (1992). Research on affect in mathematics education: a reconceptualization. In D.Grows (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp.575-596). New York: McMillan Publishing Company.

Mellone, M. (2011). The influence of theoretical tools on teachers’ orientation to notice and classroom practice: A case study. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14, 269–284. Morris, J. C., & Miller-Stevens, K. (2016). Advancing collaboration theory: models, typologies,

and evidence. London: Routledge Publishing.

Neale, D. (1969). The role of attitudes in learning mathematics. The Arithmetic teacher, Dec. 1969, 631-641.

Niss, M. (2007). Reflections on the state and trends in research on mathematics teaching and learning. From here to utopia. In F. K. Lester, Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 1293–1312). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Philipp, R. A. (2007). Mathematics teachers’ beliefs and affect. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 257–315). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.

Ponte, J. P., Segurado, I., & Oliveira, H. (2003). A collaborative project using narratives: what happens when pupils work on mathematical investigations? In A. Peter-Koop, V. Santos-Wagner, C. Breen, & A. Begg (Eds.), Collaboration in teacher education: examples from the context of mathematics education (p. 85–97). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Potari, D. (2013). The relationship of theory and practice in mathematics teacher professional development: An activity theory perspective. ZDM: The International Journal of Mathematics Education, 45, 507–519.

Robutti, O., Cusi, A., Clark_{-Wilson, A., Jaworski, B., Chapman, O., Esteley, C., Goos, M., Isoda,} M., & Joubert, M. (2016). ICME international survey on teachers working and learning. ZDM Mathematics Education (2016), Springerlink.com.

Ruffell, M., Mason, J., Allen, B. (1998). Studying attitude to mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 35, 1-18.

Ruthven, K. (1987). Ability stereotyping in mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 18, 243–253.

Schoenfeld, A. (2011). How we think—a theory of goal-oriented decision making and its educational applications. New York: Routledge.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 3–36). New York: Macmillan.

Signorini, G. (2017). Grounded theory. Una panoramica tra teorie e pratica.

Silver, E. A., & Herbst, P. G. (2007). Theory in Mathematics Education Scholarship. In F. K. Lester, Jr. (Ed.), Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning: A project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 39–67). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Simon, M. (2008). The challenge of mathematics teacher education in an era of mathematics education reform. In B. Jaworski & T. Wood (Eds.), The international handbook of mathematics teacher education: The mathematics teacher educator as a developing professional (Vol. 4, pp. 17–30). Dordrecht: Sense Publishers.

Simon, M. (2013). Promoting fundamental change in mathematics teaching: A theoretical, methodological, and empirical approach to the problem. ZDM: The International Journal of Mathematics Education, 45, 573–582.

Skemp, R. (1976). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Mathematics Teaching, 77.

Skott, J. (2001). The emerging practices of a novice teachers: the roles of his school mathematics images. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 4(1), 3–28.

Sowder, J. T. (2007). The mathematical education and development of teachers. In F. K. Lester, Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 157–223). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Speer, N. (2005). Issues of methods and theory in the study of mathematics teachers’ professed and attributed beliefs. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 58, 361–381.

Toerner, G. (1998). Self-estimating teachers’ views on mathematics teaching - modifying Dionne’s approach. In J. A. Dossey, 599 J. O. Swafford, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings PME-NA (Vol. 2, pp. 627-634). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics and Environmental Education.

Thompson, A. (1992). Teacher’s beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 127–146). New York: MacMillan.

Weiner, B. (1974). Achievement motivation and attribution theory. Morristown, N.J.: General Learning Press.

Wilson, M. S., & Cooney, T. J. (2002). Mathematics teacher change and development. In G. C. Leder, E. Pehkonen, & G. Toerner (Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education? (p. 127–147). The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Wittmann, E. C. (2001). Developing mathematics education in a systematic process. Educational Studies in mathematics, 48, 1–20.

Zan, R. (2006) Difficoltà in matematica. Osservare, interpretare, intervenire. Milano: Springer. Zan, R., & Di Martino, P. (2007). Attitude toward mathematics: overcoming the positive/negative

dichotomy. The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, ISSN 1551-3440, Monograph 3, pp.157-168. The Montana Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Sitografia

Progetto PerContare:

https://www.percontare.it/

Progetto Didattica Matematica Inclusiva: