Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xm8r8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-19T19:43:57.548Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

23 - Research in Mathematics Education

What Can It Teach Us about Human Learning?

from Part V - Learning Disciplinary Knowledge

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

R. Keith Sawyer
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Get access

Summary

This chapter begins by describing what is unique about mathematics that has made it a central topic in the learning sciences. This research has historically been interdisciplinary, drawing on psychology, mathematics research and theory, and mathematics educators. It then describes two distinct approaches – the acquisitionist and the participationist. The acquisitionist approach considers learning to be what happens when an individual learner acquires mathematical knowledge. This part of the chapter reviews research on misconceptions and conceptual change that has been based in Piaget’s constructivist theories. The participationist approach views learning as originating in social interactions in diverse settings such as classrooms, homes and playgrounds, museums, and workplaces. This approach views learning as a collective sociocultural phenomenon, and uses methodologies such as interaction analysis and design-based research. This chapter concludes with a discussion of how teachers learn to teach mathematics.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Battista, M. T. (2007). The development of geometric and spatial thinking. In Lester, F. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 843908). Charlotte, NC: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics & Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Borko, H., Jacobs, J., & Koellner, K. (2010). Contemporary approaches to teacher professional development. In International Encyclopedia of Education (Vol. 7, pp. 548556).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 3242.Google Scholar
Campbell, D., & Stanley, J. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago, IL: Rand-McNally.Google Scholar
Cobb, P. (2012). Research in mathematics education: Supporting improvements in the quality of mathematics teaching on a large scale. Paper presented at a meeting of the National Science Board Committee on Education and Human Resources, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A. A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in education research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 913.Google Scholar
Cobb, P., & Steffe, L. P. (1983). The constructivist researcher as teacher and model builder. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 14(2), 8394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobb, P., Stephen, M., McClain, K., & Gravemeijer, K. (2001). Participating in classroom mathematical practices. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(1&2), 113163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Darragh, L. (2016). Identity research in mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 93(1), 1933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, R. (1988). The interplay of algebra, geometry, and logic. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 7(1), 928.Google Scholar
Driver, R., & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: A review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science students. Studies in Science Education, 5(1), 6184.Google Scholar
Dubinsky, E. (1991). Reflective abstraction in advanced mathematical thinking. In Tall, D. (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 95125). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Erlwanger, S. H. (1973). Benny’s conception of rules and answers in IPI mathematics. Journal of Children’s Mathematical Behavior, 1(2), 726.Google Scholar
Filloy, E., & Rojano, T. (1989). Solving equations: The transition from arithmetic to algebra. For the Learning of Mathematics, 9(2), 1925.Google Scholar
Fischbein, E. (1989). Tactic models and mathematical reasoning. For the Learning of Mathematics, 9(2), 914.Google Scholar
Gelman, R., & Gallistel, C. R. (1978). The child’s understanding of number. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gray, E. M., & Tall, D. O. (1993). Duality, ambiguity, and flexibility: A “proceptual” view of simple arithmetic. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(2), 116140.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez, R. (2007). (Re)defining equity: The importance of a critical perspective. In Nasir, N. & Cobb, P. (Eds.), Diversity, equity, and access to mathematical ideas (pp. 3750). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Harel, G., Behr, M., Post, T., & Lesh, R. (1989). Fishbein’s theory: A further consideration. In Vergnaud, G., Rogalski, J., & Artigue, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Conference of the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 5259). Paris, France: University of Paris.Google Scholar
Heyd-Metzuyanim, E. (2015). Vicious cycles of identifying and mathematizing: A case study of the development of mathematical failure. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(1), 146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiebert, J., & Grouws, D. A. (2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students’ learning. In Lester, F. K. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (Vol. 1, pp. 371405). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Hill, H. C., Sleep, L., Lewis, J. M., & Ball, D. L. (2007). Assessing teachers’ mathematical knowledge: What knowledge matters and what evidence counts? In Lester, F. K. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (Vol. 1, pp. 111156). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Horn, I. S., Garner, B., Kane, B. D., & Brasel, J. (2017). A taxonomy of instructional learning opportunities in teachers’ workgroup conversations. Journal of Teacher Education, 68(1), 4154.Google Scholar
Jackson, K., Gibbons, L., & Sharpe, C. (2017). Teachers’ views of students’ mathematical capabilities: Challenges and possibilities for accomplishing ambitious reform. Teachers College Record, 119(7), 143.Google Scholar
Kafai, Y. B. (2006). Constructionism. In Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (1st ed., pp. 3546). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kazemi, E., Franke, M., & Lampert, M. (2009). Developing pedagogies in teacher education to support novice teachers’ ability to enact ambitious instruction. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Wellington, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Kazemi, E., & Hubbard, A. (2008). New directions for the design and study of professional development: Attending to the coevolution of teachers’ participation across contexts. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 428441.Google Scholar
Kieran, C. (2007). Learning and teaching algebra at the middle school through college levels: Building meaning for symbols and their manipulation. In Lester, F. K. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 707762). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Kieran, C., Forman, E. A., & Sfard, A. (Eds.). (2003). Learning discourse: Discursive approaches to research in mathematics education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. [Also published as a special issue of Educational Studies in Mathematics, 46(1–3)]Google Scholar
Kieren, T. E. (1992). Rational numbers and fractional numbers as mathematical and personal knowledge; Implications for curriculum and instruction. In Leinhardt, G. & Putnam, R. T. (Eds.), Analysis of arithmetic for mathematics teaching (pp. 323371). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Kochmanski, N. (2020). Aspects of high-quality mathematics coaching: What coaches need to know and be able to do to support individual teachers’ learning [Doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt University].Google Scholar
Langer-Osuna, J. M., & Esmonde, I. (2017). Identity in research on mathematics education. In Cai, J. (Ed.), Compendium for research in mathematics education (pp. 637648). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2011). Designing to support long-term growth and development. In Koschmann, T. (Ed.), Theories of learning and studies of instructional practice (pp. 1938). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Lerman, S. (2001). Cultural, discursive psychology: A sociocultural approach to studying the teaching and learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 46(1), 87113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyotard, J.-F. (1993). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Malik, M. A. (1980). Historical and pedagogical aspects of definition of function. International Journal of Math Science and Technology, 1(4), 489492.Google Scholar
Moschkovich, J. N. (Ed.). (2010). Language and mathematics education: Multiple perspectives and directions for research. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Munter, C. (2014). Developing visions of high-quality mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 45(5), 584635.Google Scholar
Nunes, T., Schliemann, A., & Carraher, D. (1993). Street mathematics and school mathematics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1962). Comments on Vygotsky’s critical remarks concerning The Language and Thought of the Child, and Judgment and Reasoning in the Child. Boston, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pirie, S., & Kieren, T. (1994). Growth in mathematical understanding: How can we characterize it and how can we represent it? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26(2–3), 165190.Google Scholar
Poincaré, H. (1952). Science and method. New York, NY: Dover Publications. (Original work published 1929)Google Scholar
Rees, M. (2009). Mathematics: The only true universal language New Scientist, 2695. Retrieved from http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126951.800-mathematics-the-only-true-universal-language.htmlGoogle Scholar
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, J. L., Stein, M. K., Correnti, R., Bill, V., Booker, L., & Schwartz, N. (2017). Tennessee scales up improvement in math instruction through coaching. The State Educational Standard, 17(2), 2227.Google Scholar
Saxe, G. B. (1982). Developing forms of arithmetic operations among the Oksapmin of Papua New Guinea. Developmental Psychology, 18(4), 583594.Google Scholar
Sfard, A. (1991). On the dual nature of mathematical conceptions: Reflections on processes and objects as different sides of the same coin. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22(1), 136.Google Scholar
Sfard, A. (1998). Two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: Human development, the growth of discourses, and mathematizing. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Skemp, R. R. (1971). The psychology of learning mathematics. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.Google Scholar
Smith, J. P., diSessa, A. A., & Rochelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115163.Google Scholar
Steffe, L. P., Thompson, P. W., & von Glassersfeld, E. (2000). Teaching experiment methodology: Underlying principles and essential elements. In Kelly, E. A. & Lesh, R. A. (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 267306). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Stein, M. K., Engle, R., Smith, M., & Hughes, E. (2008). Orchestrating powerful mathematical discussions: Five practices for helping teachers move beyond show and tell. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(4), 313340.Google Scholar
Tall, D., & Vinner, S. (1981). Concept image and concept definition in mathematics with particular reference to limits and continuity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12(2), 151169.Google Scholar
van Hiele, P. M. (2004). A child’s thought and geometry. In Carpenter, T. P., Dossey, J. A., & Koelher, J. L. (Eds.), Classics in mathematics education research (pp. 6067). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (Original work published 1959)Google Scholar
Vergnaud, G., Booker, G., Confrey, J., et al. (1990). Epistemology and psychology of mathematics education. In Nesher, P. & Kilpatrick, J. (Eds.), Mathematics and cognition: A research study of the International Group of the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 1430). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vinner, S., & Dreyfus, T. (1989). Images and definitions for the concept of function. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(4), 356366.Google Scholar
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Constructivism in education. In Husen, T. & Postlethwaite, T. N. (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education (Vol. 1, pp. 162163). Oxford, England; New York, NY: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458477.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×