Aika: Pe 1.11. 11.00-12.00<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Paikka: F100 Futura<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Esitt\u00e4j\u00e4n affiliaatio: Helsingin yliopisto<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Muut tekij\u00e4t: Mich\u00e8le Artigue, Laboratoire de Didactique Andr\u00e9 Revuz
Universit\u00e9 de Paris, France; Elisa Calcagni, Pontificia Universidad Cat\u00f3lica de Chile; Yiming Cao,
Beijing Normal University, China;Tracy E. Dobie,
University of Utah, United States; Valesca Grau, Pontificia Universidad Cat\u00f3lica de Chile; Hilary Hollingsworh, Australian Council for Educational Research; Alena Ho\u0161pesov\u00e1,
University of South Bohemia in \u010cesk\u00e9
Bud\u011bjovice, Czech Republic; Hee-jeong Kim, Korea University, Korea; Christine Knipping, University of Bremen, Germany; Carmel Mesiti, University of Melbourne, Australia; Jarmila Novotn\u00e1,
Charles University, Czech Republic; Fritjof Sahlstr\u00f6m, University of Helsinki; Miriam Sherin, Northwestern University, United States; Yoshinori Shimizu,
University of Tsukuba, Japan; Guowen Yu, Beijing Normal University, China<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Abstrakti:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In an international Lexicon project researchers in Australia, Czechia, China, Chile, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, and USA created national lexicons to document the terminology used by mathematics teachers in each country to discuss mathematics teaching. In this presentation, we identify the characteristics of the Finnish lexicon by comparing this naming system with lexicons from other communities internationally.
A total of 103 terms have been included in the Finnish Lexicon. The items in the Finnish lexicon are organized in five larger categories: Assessment (19 terms), Upbringing (16 terms), Mathematics specific terms (13 terms), Organizing (13 terms), and Pedagogical Tools and Approaches (30 terms), and Interaction (9 terms).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We have earlier identified some characteristics of the Finnish lexicon that seem to make it distinctive among the nine countries participating in the international Lexicon project such as an emphasis on a general upbringing of the student and prioritizing lexical terms for structural features of the lesson rather than terms that describe action. In this presentation, we will continue to examine the differences more systematically.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Aika: Pe 1.11. 11.00-12.00 Paikka: F100 Futura Esitt\u00e4j\u00e4n affiliaatio: Helsingin yliopisto Muut tekij\u00e4t: Mich\u00e8le Artigue, Laboratoire de Didactique Andr\u00e9 RevuzUniversit\u00e9 de Paris, France; Elisa Calcagni, Pontificia Universidad Cat\u00f3lica de Chile; Yiming Cao,Beijing Normal University, China;Tracy E. Dobie,University of Utah, United States; Valesca Grau, Pontificia Universidad Cat\u00f3lica de Chile; Hilary Hollingsworh, Australian Council for Educational Research; […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1183,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-563","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n