{"title":"Geometry in Mathematics Teaching in Undergraduate Courses at Brazilian Federal Universities","authors":"Person Gouveia Moreira, Thiago Pedro Pinto","doi":"10.17648/acta.scientiae.7133","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Geometry has been an essential point of reflection in Mathematics Education, especially in teaching. Objective: We conducted a numerical calculation to quantify the study load of Euclidean geometry concerning the total course load. From this data, we established different pathways to explore the Geometry subjects of these courses and their approaches. We aimed to outline an understanding of Geometry teaching in Mathematics teaching courses in the selected universities. Design: We consulted the CPPs through the official websites of the universities. We catalogued the total study load, the subjects of Geometry, and a comparison of the Geometry subjects and their occurrence. Finally, we analysed the syllabuses and bibliography of one subject listed. Context and participants: We surveyed 68 Brazilian Federal Universities, all institutions that offer the Mathematics Teaching course. Data collection and analysis: We treated the data through qualitative analysis and presented them in a large table subdivided into smaller tables to present the data. Results: After analysing the tabulated data, its result corroborated the research of Crescenti (2005), Lorenzato (1995), Lovis (2009, 2013), Pavanello (1989, 1993), Perez (1991, 2000), Serralheiro (2007) that Geometry is little taught in educational institutions, be them K-12 or higher education. Conclusions: We have identified a significant variation in each course's study load percentage dedicated to Geometry. Even among those that reached the highest values, it is still possible to question if those numbers are enough to solve the issues pointed out by K12 teachers. We have also identified divergencies in the approach suggested in the syllabuses and bibliographies of the subject Plane Geometry. Such numerical and approach deviations need to be deepened by other works.","PeriodicalId":36967,"journal":{"name":"Acta Scientiae","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Scientiae","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17648/acta.scientiae.7133","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Multidisciplinary","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Geometry has been an essential point of reflection in Mathematics Education, especially in teaching. Objective: We conducted a numerical calculation to quantify the study load of Euclidean geometry concerning the total course load. From this data, we established different pathways to explore the Geometry subjects of these courses and their approaches. We aimed to outline an understanding of Geometry teaching in Mathematics teaching courses in the selected universities. Design: We consulted the CPPs through the official websites of the universities. We catalogued the total study load, the subjects of Geometry, and a comparison of the Geometry subjects and their occurrence. Finally, we analysed the syllabuses and bibliography of one subject listed. Context and participants: We surveyed 68 Brazilian Federal Universities, all institutions that offer the Mathematics Teaching course. Data collection and analysis: We treated the data through qualitative analysis and presented them in a large table subdivided into smaller tables to present the data. Results: After analysing the tabulated data, its result corroborated the research of Crescenti (2005), Lorenzato (1995), Lovis (2009, 2013), Pavanello (1989, 1993), Perez (1991, 2000), Serralheiro (2007) that Geometry is little taught in educational institutions, be them K-12 or higher education. Conclusions: We have identified a significant variation in each course's study load percentage dedicated to Geometry. Even among those that reached the highest values, it is still possible to question if those numbers are enough to solve the issues pointed out by K12 teachers. We have also identified divergencies in the approach suggested in the syllabuses and bibliographies of the subject Plane Geometry. Such numerical and approach deviations need to be deepened by other works.