Submitted by Automa??o e Estat?stica (sst@bczm.ufrn.br) on 2016-02-01T21:49:12Z
No. of bitstreams: 1
DisnahBarrosoRodrigues_TESE.pdf: 952584 bytes, checksum: 2ccb174aa8d59513ccdb0b1a8d89e3b6 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Elisangela Moura (lilaalves@gmail.com) on 2016-03-01T20:07:22Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1
DisnahBarrosoRodrigues_TESE.pdf: 952584 bytes, checksum: 2ccb174aa8d59513ccdb0b1a8d89e3b6 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2016-03-01T20:07:22Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1
DisnahBarrosoRodrigues_TESE.pdf: 952584 bytes, checksum: 2ccb174aa8d59513ccdb0b1a8d89e3b6 (MD5)
Previous issue date: 2015-02-19 / A presente tese, orientada por uma carta enviada por Ernst von Glasersfeld a John Fossa, ? produto de uma investiga??o te?rica sobre o construtivismo. Na carta, von Glasersfeld tece tr?s considera??es sobre a compreens?o de Fossa acerca do construtivismo radical. Entretanto, limitamos o nosso estudo ? segunda considera??o, uma vez que ela lida com algumas das quest?es centrais do construtivismo. Consequentemente, investigamos quais quest?es s?o levantadas pela considera??o tecida por von Glasersfeld ? compreens?o do construtivismo radical de John Fossa e se essas quest?es s?o pertinentes para uma melhor compreens?o do construtivismo. Para concretizar a investiga??o, foi necess?rio caracterizar a abordagem epistemol?gica do construtivismo de von Glasersfeld; identificar quais quest?es acerca do construtivismo radical s?o tecidas pela considera??o de von Glasersfeld; investigar se as quest?es levantadas s?o pertinentes para uma melhor compreens?o do construtivismo e analisar as implica??es das quest?es levantadas para a sala de aula de matem?tica. Ao fazer um estudo hermen?utico do construtivismo radical, descobrimos que o que ? central para ele ? sua radicalidade, no sentido que rompe com a tradi??o por sua aus?ncia de uma ontologia. Assim, defendemos a tese de que a aus?ncia de uma ontologia, embora apresente vantagens para o construtivismo radical, incorre em s?rios problemas n?o somente para a pr?pria teoria, mas tamb?m para suas implica??es para a sala de aula de matem?tica. As vantagens que fomos capazes de identificar incluem mudan?a dos caminhos habituais da filosofia para uma vis?o racional muito diferente do mundo; supera??o de uma forma ing?nua de pensar; compreens?o do sujeito como ativo na constru??o da sua realidade experiencial; interpreta??o da cogni??o como instrumento de adapta??o; novo conceito de conhecimento e vis?o fal?vel (ou provis?ria) do conhecimento. Os problemas est?o relacionados com a impossibilidade de o construtivismo radical explicar adequadamente por que a realidade que constru?mos ? regular, est?vel, n?o arbitr?ria e publicamente compartilhada. Em rela??o as implica??es educacionais do construtivismo radical, a aus?ncia de uma ontologia traz, para a sala de aula de matem?tica, n?o apenas certos aspectos relevantes (ou pontos fortes), que fazem do ensino um processo de investiga??o sobre a aprendizagem do aluno, potencializa ou empowers o aluno para a aprendizagem e muda o design de sala de aula, mas tamb?m algumas fraquezas ou limita??es. As fraquezas ou limita??es do construtivismo na sala de aula s?o devido ? natureza eminentemente subjetiva do conhecimento. Isso requer trabalhar com situa??es de ensino um-a-um e, do mesmo modo, faz o sucesso do ensino ficar dependente das habilidades individuais do professor. Talvez a mais importante fraqueza ou limita??o, nesse sentido, seja a que torna o ensino orientado por princ?pios construtivistas incapaz de alcan?ar a forma??o de uma comunidade. Conclu?mos que as quest?es levantadas a partir da considera??o de von Glasersfeld s?o absolutamente relevantes para o contexto de uma melhor compreens?o do construtivismo radical e de suas implica??es para a educa??o, em especial, para a educa??o matem?tica. / The present thesis, orientated by a letter sent by Ernst von Glasersfeld to John Fossa, is the
product of a theoretical investigation of radical constructivism. In this letter, von Glasersfeld
made three observations about Fossa?s understanding of radical constructivism. However, we
limited our study to the second of these considerations since it de
als with some of the core
issues of constructivism. Consequently, we investigated what issues are raised by von
Glasersfeld?s observation and whether these issues are relevant to a better understanding of
constructivism
and its
implications for the mathema
tics classroom
.
In order to realize the
investigation, it was necessary to characterize von Glasersfeld?s epistemological approach to
constructivism, to identify which questions about radical constructivism are raised by von
Glasersfeld?s observation, to i
nvestigate whether these issues are relevant to a better
understanding of constructivism and to analyze the implications of these issues for the
mathematics classroom. Upon making a hermeneutic study of radical constructivism, we
found that what is central
to it is its radicalism, in the sense that it breaks with tradition by its
absence of an ontology. Thus, we defend the thesis that the absence of an ontology, although
it has advantages for radical constructivism, incurs serious problems not only for the
theory
itself, but also for its implications for the mathematics classroom. The advantages that we
were able to identify include a change from the usual philosophical paths to a very different
rational view of the world, an overcoming of a naive way of thi
nking, an understanding of the
subject as active in the construction of his/her experiential reality, an interpretation of
cognition as an instrument of adaptation, a new concept of knowledge and a vision of
knowledge as fallible (or provisional). The prob
lems are associated with the impossibility of
radical constructivism to explain adequately why the reality that we build up is regular, stable,
non
-
arbitrary and publicly shared. With regard to the educational implications of radical
constructivism, the ab
sence of an ontology brings to the mathematics classroom not only
certain relevant aspects (or favorable points) that make teaching a process of researching
student learning, empowering the student to learn and changing the classroom design, but also
certa
in weaknesses or limitations.
These weaknesses or limitations of constructivism in the
classroom are due to its conception of knowledge as being essentially subjective. This
requires it to work with one
-
on
-
one situations and, likewise, makes the success of
teaching
dependent on the teacher?s individual skills. Perhaps the most important weakness or
limitation, in this sense, is that it makes teaching orientated by constructivist principles unable
to reach the goal of the formation of a community. We
conclud
e that issues raised by von
Glasersfeld?s observation are absolutely relevant to the context of a better understanding of
radical constructivism and its implications for education, especially for Mathematics
Education.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:IBICT/oai:repositorio.ufrn.br:123456789/19893 |
| Date | 19 February 2015 |
| Creators | Rodrigues, Disnah Barroso |
| Contributors | 13056476453, http://lattes.cnpq.br/2466525106349625, Morey, Bernadete Barbosa, 59616571834, http://lattes.cnpq.br/7554818862651491, Mendes, Iran Abreu, 12432962249, http://lattes.cnpq.br/4490674057492872, Lucena, Izabel Cristina Rodrigues de, 38149877215, Mendes Sobrinho, Jose Augusto de Carvalho, 12584037300, http://lattes.cnpq.br/7676120264847077, R?go, R?mulo Marinho do, 05962986415, http://lattes.cnpq.br/7603835797321850, Fossa, John Andrew |
| Publisher | Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, PROGRAMA DE P?S-GRADUA??O EM EDUCA??O, UFRN, Brasil |
| Source Sets | IBICT Brazilian ETDs |
| Language | Portuguese |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion, info:eu-repo/semantics/doctoralThesis |
| Source | reponame:Repositório Institucional da UFRN, instname:Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, instacron:UFRN |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.0034 seconds