This chapter is based on the premise that the utopian goal of education is to unify various strands of knowledge as opposed to dividing it. Ideally education should nurture talent in the classroom and create wellrounded individuals akin to the great thinkers of the Renaissance. That is, individuals who are able to pursue multiple fields of research and appreciate both the aesthetic and the structural/scientific connections between mathematics, arts, and the sciences. We will explore an under addressed aspect of giftedness, namely the role of interdisciplinary activities and problems to foster talent in and across the disciplines of mathematics, science and humanities, increasingly important for emerging professions in the twenty-first century. Examples from the history of mathematics, science and arts will be used to argue for the value of such activities to foster polymathic traits in gifted individuals, particularly the questioning of paradigms. Recent findings from classroom studies will be used to illustrate the value of such an approach to gifted education.
Responsartikel til Højgaard & Niss’ artikel:”Om formativ evaluering af matematiske kompetencer”. I denne responsartikel diskuteres nogle af ideerne, som fremsættes af Højgaard og Niss (2023), herunder hvad der karakteriserer kompetencer og forholdet mellem formativ og summativ evaluering. Der argumenteres for at se en formativ evaluering i sammenhæng med en summativ evaluering, da den formative evaluering afhænger af og indirekte er rettet mod den summative. Men primært er artiklen en analyse af de otte matematiske kompetencer (kompetenceblomsten) ud fra SOLO-taksonomien. Dette sker for derigennem at kvalificere kompetencebegrebet yderligere, primært ift. hvordan man kan forstå de verber, som bruges til at beskrive de otte kompetencer. Denne præcisering af kompetencebeskrivelserne er en hjælp i en evalueringssituation, da man ikke kan lede efter tegn på, om elever besidder en kompetence, hvis man ikke ved præcist, hvad man mener. Der er et eksempel fra stx-læreplanen på, hvordan man kan forstå det at ”læse”. Også verbet ”forstå” diskuteres, da dette bruges på vidt forskellige SOLO-niveauer.
At Aalborg University in Denmark, engineering, science, and mathematics students usually spend half the time each semester working in groups on projects within a problem-based learning (PBL) curriculum. These projects are assessed through group-based exams where students receive individual grades. A previous survey of all engineering, science, and mathematics students showed significant differences in how they, respectively, view various aspects of the group exam. However, students also differ when comparing engineering programmes. This paper focuses on potential gender differences in perception of the group exam. Studies of other exam types showed, e.g., that female students report higher levels of text anxiety, have different reactions to exam pressure, and are less overconfident than male students. The present survey was answered by 915 students (617 males, 298 females) from all semesters and study programmes in engineering, science, and mathematics. The analysis showed that on the majority of questions, there were no significant differences between males and females. However, female students are significantly more in favour of an individual exam, and significantly more often experience they need to speak before having finished thinking. Significantly more male students find that participating with their peers during the group-quizzing phase of the exam gives a sense of security, and they are significantly more tactical about when to speak. The paper discusses the areas of significant differences among males and females and the areas without such differences, and concludes that a group exam might be a more gender neutral type of exam for engineering students.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.