International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education

Priorities of Teaching Mathematics in Universities
  • Article Type: Research Article
  • International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 2016 - Volume 11 Issue 9, pp. 3339-3350
  • Published Online: 19 Nov 2016
  • Article Views: 795 | Article Download: 1013
  • Open Access Full Text (PDF)
AMA 10th edition
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Maron AI. Priorities of Teaching Mathematics in Universities. Int Elect J Math Ed. 2016;11(9), 3339-3350.
APA 6th edition
In-text citation: (Maron, 2016)
Reference: Maron, A. I. (2016). Priorities of Teaching Mathematics in Universities. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 11(9), 3339-3350.
Chicago
In-text citation: (Maron, 2016)
Reference: Maron, Arkady I.. "Priorities of Teaching Mathematics in Universities". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education 2016 11 no. 9 (2016): 3339-3350.
Harvard
In-text citation: (Maron, 2016)
Reference: Maron, A. I. (2016). Priorities of Teaching Mathematics in Universities. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 11(9), pp. 3339-3350.
MLA
In-text citation: (Maron, 2016)
Reference: Maron, Arkady I. "Priorities of Teaching Mathematics in Universities". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, vol. 11, no. 9, 2016, pp. 3339-3350.
Vancouver
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Maron AI. Priorities of Teaching Mathematics in Universities. Int Elect J Math Ed. 2016;11(9):3339-50.

Abstract

The research urgency is caused by necessity to build a clear hierarchy of objectives of teaching mathematics for different groups of professions (technical, economic, humanitarian) in Universities. Defining priorities allows focusing on the most important goals of teaching mathematics. In this regard, this paper is focused on the calculation of numerical values of priorities of the following strategic objectives in teaching mathematics: the formation of mathematical competences for the solution of professional tasks; the formation of logical thinking; the education of mathematical culture in teaching mathematics. These are the very goals which determine the mission of teaching mathematics in high school. A leading approach to the study of such problems is a method of hierarchies’ analysis by Thomas Saaty which allows bringing the qualitative (linguistic) expert assessment of the objectives’ importance into the quantitative values of their priorities. The author has modernized this method, organized the process of peer-review assessment of the objectives’ importance in teaching mathematics and first got the numerical values of the priorities, showing the importance of each of the objectives to achieve the goal of teaching mathematics in high school. The materials of the article are of practical value for teachers of mathematics, heads of departments of mathematics and academic managers in higher education institutions, since the hierarchy of objectives allows highlighting of the most important ones in the development of curricula, programs of mathematical disciplines and teaching methods.

References

  • Alexandrova, P.S. (1976) Scientific-pedagogical legacy. Moscow: Nauka. 664p.
  • Bilici, S.C. (2016). An Examination of Science Teachers’ Knowledge Structures towards Technology. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11(5), 571-586. doi: 10.12973/ijese.2016.403a
  • Boran, G.H. & Bağ, H. (2016). The Influence of Argumentation on Understanding Nature of Science. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11(6), 1423-1431. doi: 10.12973/ijese.2016.410a
  • Buckley, J.J. (1985). Fuzzy hierarchycal analysis. Fuzzv Sets and Systems, 17(3), 233–247.
  • Demidovich, B. P. & Maron, I. A. (2006) Foundations of computational mathematics. St.Petersburg: Lan’. 672p.
  • Emelyanov, S.V. & Larichev, O.I. (1985) Multicriteria decision-making methods. Moscow: Znanie, 32 p.
  • Filonovich, S.R. (2009) Life-long learning: consequences for higher education. Education issues, 4, 55-67.
  • Gnedenko, B.V. & Gnedenko, D.B. (1988) About some questions of adjustment of mathematical education in universities. Modern higher education, 2(62), 115-123.
  • Gnedenko, B.V. & Maron, I.A. (1958) Sketch of the life, scientific work and pedagogical activities of M.V. Ostrogradsky. Leningrad: publishing house of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 380-457.
  • Jensen, R.E. (1984). An alternative scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 28(3), 317-332.
  • Kondrakova Yu.N. (2014) Optimization of the teaching process at universities, taking into account features of perception and learning of contemporary youth. Herald of Moscow University named after S.Yu. Witte, 3, 9-12.
  • Kornilova, T.V. & Tikhomirov O.K. (1990). The adoption of intelligent solutions in the dialogue with the computer. Moscow: publishing house of Moscow state University, 191 p.
  • Lobachevsky, N. I. (1956). Selected works on geometry, ed. Aleksandrov, P.S. Moscow: Publishing House of Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 596 p.
  • Maron, V. I. (2010). Information movement of matter. Post-biological civilization and the future of man. Moscow: MAX – PRESS. 90p.
  • Masalimova, A. R. & Sabirova, L. L. (2014) Multi-dimentional classification of types and forms of corporate education. American Journal of Applied Sciences, 11(7), 1054-1058.
  • Modzalevsky, L.B. (1948). Materials for the biography of Lobachevsky. Moscow: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 827 p.
  • Nagaeva, V.M. (1948). About the pedagogical heritage of N.I. Lobachevsky. Mathematics in School, 6, 22-26.
  • Pérez, M.d.C.B. & Furman, M. (2016). What is a Scientific Experiment? The Impact of a Professional Development Course on Teachers’ Ability to Design an Inquiry-Based Science Curriculum. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11(6), 1387-1401. doi: 10.12973/ijese.2016.353a
  • Radaev, V.V. (2008). Development strategies of Russian universities: responses to new challenges. Moscow: MAKS – PRESS. 668p.
  • Saaty, T.L. & Keris, K.P. (1991). Analytical planning. Organisation systems. Translation from English, edited by IA Ushakov. Moscow: Radio and Communications, 244 p.
  • Saaty, T.L. (1987). The analytic hierarchy process: what it as and how it is used. Mathematical .Modeling, 9, 3 –5.
  • Saaty, T.L. (2011). Decision making with dependence and feedback. Moscow: Librokom, 360 p.
  • Salmi, D. & Frumin, I.D. (2007). Russian universities in the competition of world-class universities. Education issues, 3, 5-45.
  • Shaidullina, A.R., Merzon, E.E. & Zakirova, V.G.  (2015) The peculiarities of perspective students selection mechanism by the future employers-enterprise. Review of European Studies, 7(1), 68-73.
  • Sindalovskii B.G. (1902). Essays on the Russian science. Moscow: Typography of K. Nesterenko, 239 p.
  • Van Laathoven (1983). A fuzzy extension of Saaty's priority theory. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 11(3), 229–241.
  • Vargas, L.G. (1982). Reciprocal matrices with random coefficients. Mathematical Modeling, 3(1), 69–81.
  • Vygodsky, L.S. (1984). Works. Moscow: Pedagogika, 432 p.
  • Yumuşak, A., Sargın, S.A., Baltacı, F. & Kelani, R.R. (2016). Science and Mathematics Teacher Candidates’ Environmental Knowledge, Awareness, Behavior and Attitudes. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11(6), 1337-1346. doi: 10.12973/ijese.2016.347a
  • Zimina, O.V. (2005). Didactic aspects of Informatization of education. Vestnik of Moscow state University, Series,  20(1), 17-66.

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.