Lene Rodkjær Nielsen

Critical Mathematics Education

Critical Mathematics education is described in terms of ‘concerns’ which cover the following issues: a) Citizenship identifies schooling as including the preparation of students to be an active part of political life. b) Mathematics may serve as a tool for identifying and analysing critical features of society, which may be global as well as having to do with the local environment of students. c) The students’ interest emphasises that the main focus of education cannot be the transformation of (pure) knowledge; instead educational practice must be understood in terms of acting persons. d) Culture and conflicts raise basic questions about discrimination. Does mathematics education reproduce inequalities which might be established by factors outside education but, nevertheless, are reinforced by educational practice? e) Mathematics itself might be problematic because of the function of mathematics as part of modem technology, which no longer can be reviewed with optimism. Mathematics is not only a tool for critique but also an object of critique. f) Critical mathematics education concentrates on life in the classroom to the extent that the communication between teacher and students can reflect power relations.

Short and long-term effects of supervised versus unsupervised exercise training on health-related quality of life and functional outcomes following lung cancer surgery – A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE Surgical resection enhances long-term survival after lung cancer, but survivors face functional deficits and report on poor quality of life long time after surgery. This study evaluated short and long-term effects of supervised group exercise training on health-related quality of life and physical performance in patients, who were radically operated for lung cancer. METHODS A randomized, assessor-blinded, controlled trial was performed on 78 patients undergoing lung cancer surgery. The intervention group (IG, n=41) participated in supervised out-patient exercise training sessions, one hour once a week for ten weeks. The sessions were based on aerobic exercises with target intensity of 60-80% of work capacity, resistance training and dyspnoea management. The control group (CG, n=37) received one individual instruction in exercise training. Measurements consisted of: health-related quality of life (SF36), six minute walk test (6MWT) and lung function (spirometry), assessed three weeks after surgery and after four and twelve months. RESULTS Both groups were comparable at baseline on demographic characteristic and outcome values. We found a statistically significant effect after four months in the bodily pain domain of SF36, with an estimated mean difference (EMD) of 15.3 (95% CI:4 to 26.6, p=0.01) and a trend in favour of the intervention for role physical functioning (EMD 12.04, 95% CI: -1 to 25.1, p=0.07) and physical component summary (EMD 3.76, 95% CI:-0.1 to 7.6, p=0.06). At 12 months, the tendency was reversed, with the CG presenting overall slightly better measures. We found no effect of the intervention on 6MWT or lung volumes at any time-point. CONCLUSION Supervised compared to unsupervised exercise training resulted in no improvement in health-related quality of life, except for the bodily pain domain, four months after lung cancer surgery. No effects of the intervention were found for any outcome after one year.