El MOOC, un entorno virtual para la resolución de problemas matemáticos

Referencias

Aldon, G., Arzarello, F., Panero, M., Robutti, O., Taranto, E., y Trgalová, J. (2017, julio 3-6). MOOC for mathematics teacher training: design principles and assessment. En G. Aldon y J. Trgalova (Eds.), The 13th International Conference on Technology in Mathe- matics Teaching–ICTMT 13, Lyon, France. https://ictmt13.sciencesconf.org/data/pages/ proceedings_compressed_1.pdf Alagic, G., y Alagic, M. (2013). Collaborative mathematics learning in online environments. En D. Martinovic, V. Freiman, y Z. Karadag (Eds.), Visual mathematics and cyberlear- ning (pp. 23–48). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2321-4_2 Arzarello, F., Olivero, F., Paola, D., y Robutti, O. (2002). A cognitive analysis of dragging practices in Cabri environments. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 34(3), 66–72. https:// doi.org/10.1007/BF02655708 Baccaglini-Frank, A., y Mariotti, M. A. (2010). Generating conjectures in dynamic geome- try: The maintaining dragging model. International Journal of Computers for Mathe- matical Learning, 15(3), 225–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-010-9169-3 Borba, M., Askar, P., Engelbrecht, J., Gadanidis, G., Llinares, S., y Aguilar, M. (2016). Blended learning, e-learning and mobile learning in mathematics education. ZDM – Mathe- matics Education, 48(5), 589–610. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-016-0798-4 Bras, I. I. (2016). Los MOOC en números: un análisis para comenzar la reflexión. Revista Digital Universitaria 17(1), 1–16. http://www.revista.unam.mx/vol.17/num1/art01/art01.pdf Breslow, L., Pritchard, D., DeBoer, J., Stump, G., Ho, A., y Seaton, D. (2013). Studying learning in the worldwide classroom: Research into edX’s first MOOC. Research & Practice in Assessment, 8, 13–25. Donitsa-Schmidt, S., y Topaz, B. (2018). Massive open online courses as a knowledge base for teachers. Journal of Education for Teaching, 44(5), 608–620. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/02607476.2018.1516350 Ernest, P. (2016). The unit of analysis in mathematics education: Bridging the political- technical divide? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 92(1), 37–58. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10649-016-9689-4 Flotts, M. P., Manzi, J., Barrios, C., Saldaña, V., Mejías, N., y Abarzúa, A. (2016). El tercer studio regional comparativo y explicativo. Aportes para la enseñanza de la matemá- tica (pp. 11–16). Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000244855 Fahlgren, M., y Brunström, M. (2014). A model for task design with focus on exploration, explanation, and generalization in a dynamic geometry environment. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 19(3), 287–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-014-9213-9 García, I., y López, C. (2011). Los recursos de aprendizaje. En B. Gros (Ed.), Evolución y retos de la educación virtual: construyendo el e-learning del siglo XXI (pp. 93–144). Universitat Oberta de Catalunya. Geeraerts, L., Venant, F., y Tanguay, D. (2014). Subterranean structures of technological tools and teaching issues in geometry. En L. Gómez-Chova, A. López-Martínez y I. Candel-To- rres (Eds), Proceedings of EDULEARN 14 conference (pp. 257–264). IATED Academy. Ji, Z., y Cao, Y. (2016). A prospective study on the application of MOOC in teacher profes- sional development in China. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4(9), 2061– 2067. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2016.040917 Jyothi, S., McAvinia, C., y Keating, J. (2012). A visualization tool to aid exploration of stu- dents’ interactions in asynchronous online communication. Computers & Education, 58(1), 30–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.026 Leung, A. (2015). Discernment and reasoning in dynamic geometry environments. En S. J. Cho (Ed.), Selected regular lectures from the 12th International Congress on Mathe- matical Education (pp. 451–469). Springer. Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Williams, S., y Adams, A. (2013). The impact and reach of MOOCs: a developing countries’ perspective. eLearning Papers, 33, 1–8. Llinares, S., y Valls, J. (2009). The building of pre-service primary teachers’ knowledge of mathematics teaching: Interaction and online video case studies. Instructional Scien- ce, 37(3), 247–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-007-9043-4 McAuley, A., Stewart, B., Cormier, D., y Siemens, G. (2010). The MOOC model for digital practice. https://www.oerknowledgecloud.org/archive/MOOC_Final.pdf Miles, B. M., y Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Sage. Moreno-Armella, L., y Santos-Trigo, M. (2016). The use of digital technologies in mathe- matical practices: Reconciling traditional and emerging approaches. En L. D. English y D. Kirshner (Eds.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 595–616). Taylor & Francis. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. National Governors Association. (2020). Standards for Mathematical Practice. Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them. Common Core State Standards Initiative. http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Practice/MP1/ Poveda, W. E. (2020). Resolución de problemas matemáticos en GeoGebra. Revista do Instituto GeoGebra Internacional de São Paulo, 9(1), 26–42. https://doi. org/10.23925/2237-9657.2020.v9i1p26-42 Quinton, S., y Allen, M. (2014). The social processes of web 2.0 collaboration: Towards a new model for virtual learning. En M. Gosper y D. Ifenthaler (Eds.), Curriculum models for the 21st century (pp. 35-53). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7366-4_3 Rabbany, R., Takaffoli, M., y Zaïane, O. (2011). Analyzing participation of students in online courses using social network analysis techniques. En M. Pechenizkiy, T. Cal- ders, C. Conati, S. Ventura, C. Romero y J. Stamper (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth international conference on educational data mining (pp. 21-30). Eindhoven Univer- sity of Technology. Ramírez, J. A. J., Chamoso, J. M., y González, M. T. (2020). Interacción en foros virtuales al integrar modelización matemática para formar ingenieros. Enseñanza de las Cien- cias, 38(3), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/ensciencias.3041 Rau, P., Gao, Q., y Wu, L. (2008). Using mobile communication technology in high school education: Motivation, pressure, and learning performance. Computers & Education, 50(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.03.008 Ruiz, M. R., y Aguirre, G. (2015). Etnografía virtual, un acercamiento al método y a sus aplicaciones. Estudios sobre las Culturas Contemporáneas, 41(XXI), 67–96. Santos-Trigo, L. M. (2014). La resolución de problemas matemáticos: fundamentos cog- nitivos (2da ed.). Trillas; Asociación Nacional de Profesores de Matemáticas. Santos-Trigo, M., y Camacho-Machín, M. (2011). Framing a problem-solving approach based on the use of computational tools to develop mathematical thinking. En M. Pytlak, T. Rowland, y E. Swoboda (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh Conference of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 2258–2277). Univer- sidad de Rzeszów. Schoenfeld A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Academic Press. Schoenfeld A. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. En D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334–371). Macmillan. Sergis, S., Sampson, D., y Pelliccione, L. (2017). Educational design for MOOCs: Design considerations for technology-supported learning at large scale. En M. Jemni, Kinshuk, y M. K. Khribi (Eds.), Open education: From OERs to MOOCs (pp. 39–71). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-52925-6_3 Shah, D. (2021, diciembre 3). By the numbers: MOOCs in 2021. Class Central. https://www. classcentral.com/report/mooc-stats-2021/ United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2015). Education 2030: Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action. Towards inclusive and equitable quality education and lifelong learning for all. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/ pf0000245656 Velasco, C., y Gómez, P. (2019). Calidad y dificultad de los cuestionarios de un MOOC. Uni-pluriversidad, 19(2), 124–143. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.unipluri.19.2.06