Abstract
Mathematics education is a complex, multi-disciplinary field of study which treats a wide range of diverse but interrelated areas. These include the nature of mathematics, the learning of mathematics, its teaching, and the social context surrounding both the discipline and applications of mathematics itself, as well as its teaching and learning. But research and researchers in mathematics education fall loosely into two camps: On the one hand there is technical research, drawing on mathematics, psychology and pedagogy, concerned with narrow questions about the teaching and learning of mathematics. On the other hand there is political and social research drawing on sociology and philosophy, addressing large scale problems of social consequence. These two camps tend to draw on different theoretical underpinnings as well as having different interests. Is it possible to find a shared theoretical element, a single unit of analysis for mathematics education which provides a unified approach to both analysing and explaining all of these diverse aspects? Can such a unit provide a bridge across the technical-political divide? Methodological and ontological senses of the term ‘unit of analysis’ are distinguished. Units of analysis in the ontological sense are proposed for each of the four listed subdomains of mathematics education. Drawing on Blunden’s (2009, 2010) interdisciplinary version of cultural historical activity theory a single over-arching unit of analysis, the collaborative project, is proposed for the whole field of mathematics education. This is applied to the case study of a single learner, illustrating the practical utility of this approach, as well as the way the technical-political divide might be bridged in our field.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Mathematics has a long tradition of calculation aids and technologies (abacus, Napier’s bones, logarithm tables, ready reckoners, slide rules, mechanical calculators, electronic calculators, computers) that have been influential in teaching mathematics. Mathematical apparatus such as the compasses, divider and ruler (or straight edge) have been in use since ancient times. For over a century specially designed mathematics teaching apparatus and manipulatives of all sorts have been developed, including Montessori’s golden beads, Cuisenaire rods, Dienes’ blocks, etc. One of the major mathematics teaching organisations in the United Kingdom, the Association of Teachers of Mathematics was originally called the Association for Teaching Aids in Mathematics when formed in 1955. The list of aids indicates the powerful impact of various technologies used in mathematics and its teaching, without mentioning symbolic technologies such as Hindu-Arabic numerals, decimal place value notation, algebraic notation, geometric figures, logical and proof notations, statistical tables and tests, computer software, etc. This illustrates the technological, tool-based roots of much of mathematical pedagogy.
J. Evans (personal communication, 2011) argues that the methodological/ontological distinction is not as clear cut as I claim, and that what I have termed methodological uses of the term unit of analysis have deeper ontological implications than just statistical convenience. In some ways this parallels Quine’s (1969) argument that the range of the variables involved in any theory or language usage defines or enlarges the boundaries of its ontological commitments.
The molecule is an irreducible unit—not because it does not have parts—but because further analysis into elements or particles results in the loss of its characteristics, its chemical properties.
A possible alternative representation is a tetrahedron connecting two Participants, Project and Mediating Artefact, to indicate the important roles of both Project and Mediating Artefact in the unit of analysis.
References
Althusser, L. (1971). Lenin and philosophy and other essays. London: New Left Books.
Alvarez, A., & Del Rio, P. (1999). Cultural mind and cultural identity: Projects for life in body and spirit. In S. Chaiklin, M. Hedegaard, & U. J. Jensen (Eds.), Activity theory and social practice: Cultural historical approaches (pp. 302–324). Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
Aristotle (1995). Politics (E. Barker, Trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bartolini Bussi, M. G. (2005). When classroom situation is the unit of analysis: The potential impact on research in mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 59(1/3), 299–311.
Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory. London: Taylor and Francis.
Black, L., Williams, J., Hernandez-Martinez, P., Davis, P., Pampaka, M., & Wake, G. (2010). Developing a ‘leading identity’: The relationship between students’ mathematical identities and their career and higher education aspirations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 73(1), 55–72.
Blunden, A. (2009). An interdisciplinary concept of activity. Outlines, 1(1–29). Retrieved from http://ojs.statsbiblioteket.dk/index.php/outlines/article/viewFile/2119/1877
Blunden, A. (2010). An interdisciplinary theory of activity. Leiden and Boston: Brill.
Boaler, J. (2000). Introduction: Intricacies of knowledge, practice and theory. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 1–17). New York: Praeger.
Boaler, J., & Greeno, J. G. (2000). Identity, agency, and knowing in mathematics worlds. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 171–200). Westport, CT: Ablex.
Boero, P. (2013). Mathematics education today: Scientific advancements and societal needs [Abstract]. Plenary Talks presented at CERME-8 conference, Antalya, Turkey. Retrieved from http://cerme8.metu.edu.tr/plenary_talks.html
Bottino, R. M., & Chiappini, G. (2002). Advanced technology and learning environment. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 757–786). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. London: Routledge.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1977). Reproduction in education, society and culture. London: Sage.
Boylan (2007). Teacher questioning in communities of political practice. Philosophy of Mathematics Education Journal, 20. Retrieved from http://people.exeter.ac.uk/PErnest/pome20/index.htm
Brousseau, G. (1997). The theory of didactical situations in mathematics: Didactique des mathématiques, 1970–1990. (N. Balacheff, M. Cooper, R. Sutherland, and V. Warfield, Eds. and Trans.). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2001). Knowledge and organization: A social-practice perspective. Organization Science, 12(2), 198–213.
Cobb, P. (2000). The importance of a situated view of learning to the design of research and instruction. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 45–82). New York: Praeger.
Collingwood, R. G. (1939/1944). An Autobiography. London: Penguin Books.
Côte, J. E., & Levine, C. G. (2002). Identity formation, agency and culture: A social psychological synthesis. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Demorest, A. P. (1995). The personal script as a unit of analysis for the study of personality. Journal of Personality, 63, 569–592.
Eckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (2003). Language and gender. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. L. Punamaki-Gitai, & R. Miettinen (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19–38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156.
Engeström, Y., & Miettinen, R. (1999). Activity theory: A well-kept secret. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. L. Punamäki-Gitai (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 1–16). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ernest, P. (1991). The philosophy of mathematics education. London: The Falmer Press.
Ernest, P. (1994a). Conversation as a metaphor for mathematics and learning. In Proceedings of British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics day Conference held at Manchester University (pp. 58–63). Manchester: BSRLM.
Ernest, P. (1994b). The dialogical nature of mathematics. In P. Ernest (Ed.), Mathematics, education and philosophy: An international perspective (pp. 33–48). London: The Falmer Press.
Ernest, P. (1998). Social constructivism as a philosophy of mathematics. Albany, New York: SUNY Press.
Ernest, P. (2007). Why Social Justice? The Philosophy of Mathematics Education Journal, 21. Retrieved from http://people.exeter.ac.uk/PErnest/pome21/index.htm
Ernest, P. (2008). Towards a semiotics of mathematical text (part 1). For the Learning of Mathematics, 28(1), 2–8.
Foucault, M. (1970). The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences. London: Routledge.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge (C. Gordon, Ed.). New York: Pantheon Books.
Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. London: Penguin.
Gadamer, H. G. (1965). Truth and Method (W. Glen-Doepler, Trans.). London: Sheed and Ward, 1979.
Gee, J. P. (2001). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research in Education, 25, 99–125.
Gerofsky, S. (1996). A linguistic and narrative view of word problems in mathematics education. For The Learning of Mathematics, 16(2), 36–45.
Godino, J. D., Batanero, C., & Vicenc, F. (2007). The onto-semiotic approach to research in mathematics. Zentralblatt fur Didaktik der Mathematik, 39, 127–135.
Goethe, J. W. V. (1996). Goethe on science. An anthology of Goethe’s scientific writings (J. Naydler, Ed.). Edinburgh, UK: Floris.
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. New York: Lawrence and Wishart.
Graven, M., & Lerman, S. (2003). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6(2), 185–194.
Grootenboer, P., Smith, T., & Lowrie, T. (2006). Researching identity in mathematics education: The lay of the land. Symposium presented at the 29th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Canberra, Australia. Retrieved from http://www.merga.net.au/documents/symp12006.pdf
Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and human interests. London: Heinemann.
Harré, R. (1990). Explanation in psychology. In D. N. Robinson & L. P. Mos (Eds.), Annals of theoretical psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 105–124). New York: Plenum Press.
Hegel, G. W. F. (1822/1952). The philosophy of right. (T. M. Knox, Trans.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Hersh, R. (1997). What is mathematics, really? London: Jonathon Cape.
Hiebert, J. (1988). Conceptual and procedural understanding. London: Academic.
Hopkins, K. D. (1982). The unit of analysis: Group means versus individual observations. American Educational Research Journal, 19(1), 5–18.
Hossain, S., Mendick, H., & Adler, J. (2013). Troubling “understanding mathematics in-depth”: Its role in the identity work of student-teachers in England. Educational Studies in Mathematics. doi:10.1007/s10649-013-9474-6
Johansson, M. (2007). Mathematical meaning making and textbook tasks. For the Learning of Mathematics, 27(1), 45–51.
John Steiner, V. (2000). Creative collaboration. Oxford UK: Oxford University Press.
Knapp, T. R. (1977). The unit-of-analysis problem in applications of simple correlation analysis to educational research. Journal of Educational Statistics, 2(3), 171–186.
Lakatos, I. (1976). In J. Worrall & E. Zahar (Eds.), Proofs and refutations: The logic of mathematical discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leontyev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Lerman, S. (2000). The social turn in mathematics education research. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 19–44). Westport: Alex.
Lerman, S., GuoRong, X., & Tsatsaroni, A. (2003). A sociological description of changes in the intellectual field of mathematics education research: Implications for the identities of academics. In J. Williams (Ed.), Proceedings of the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics, Vol. 23, No. 2: 43–48.
Llewellyn, A. (2012). Unpacking understanding: The (re)search for the Holy Grail of mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 81(3), 385–399.
Marx, K. (1867/1996). Capital. Marx’s English complete works (Vol. 35). London, UK: Lawrence and Wishart.
Mead, G. H. (1964). In A. J. Reck (Ed.), Selected writings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mellin-Olsen, S. (1981). Instrumentalism as an educational concept. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12, 351–367.
Minick, N. J. (1987). In L. S. Vygotsky (Ed.), Collected works of L. S. Vygotsky (Vol. 1, pp. 17–36). New York: Plenum.
Núñez, I. (2009). Activity Theory and the Utilisation of the Activity System according to the Mathematics Educational Community [Special issue]. Educate, 7(3)7–20. Retrieved from http://www.educatejournal.org/index.php?journal=educate&page=article&op=viewPDFInterstitial&path%5B%5D=217&path%5B%5D=201
Pavlov, I. P. (1928). Lectures on conditioned reflexes. New York: Liveright.
Quine, W. V. O. (1969). Ontological relativity and other essays. New York: Columbia University Press.
Radzikhovskii, L. A. (1991). Dialogue as a unit of analysis of consciousness. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 29(3), 8–21.
Rogers, J. (2007). Identity as a mediator of student praxis: Ethnographic musings. Paper presented at the 2nd Socio-cultural Theory in Educational Research and Practice Conference, Manchester, UK. Retrieved from http://www.education.manchester.ac.uk/research/centres/lta/LTAResearch/SocioculturalTheoryInterestGroupScTiG/SocioculturalTheoryinEducationConference2007/Conferencepapers/GroupThreePapers/_Files/Fileuploadmax10Mb,135208,en.pdf
Rogoff, B. (1998). Cognition as a collaborative process. In D. Kuhn & R. S. Siegler (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology: Cognition, perception and language (5th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 679–744). New York: Wiley.
Schwab, J. (1978). In I. Westbury & N. Wilkof (Eds.), Science, curriculum, and liberal education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.
Sierpinska, A. (1994). On understanding in mathematics. London: Falmer.
Skemp, R. R. (1976). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Mathematics Teaching, 77(20–26).
Skemp, R. R. (1982). Communicating mathematics: Surface structures and deep structures. Visible Language, 16(3), 281–288.
Sriraman, B., & English, L. D. (Eds.). (2010). Theories of mathematics education: Seeking new frontiers. Heidelberg: Springer.
Steffe, L. P., & Gale, J. (Eds.). (1995). Constructivism in education. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Trochim, W., & Donnelly, J. P. (2007). The research methods knowledge base (3rd ed.). Cincinnati: Atomic Dog Publishing.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1934/1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987) Thinking and speech. In N. Minick (Ed. and Trans.), Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky. Vol. 1. Problems of General Psychology (pp. 39–243). New York: Plenum.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wikipedia. (2010). The unit of analysis. Retrieved April 29, 2011 from Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_of_analysis
Williams, J. (2012). Use and exchange value in mathematics education: Contemporary CHAT meets Bourdieu’s sociology. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 80(1–2), 57–72.
Williams, J. (n. d.) Learning and using signs at the boundary between activities: Socio-cultural and activity perspectives. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved from http://orgs.man.ac.uk/projects/include/experiment/julian_williams.pdf
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations (G. E. M. Anscombe, Trans.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Zinchenko, V. P. (1985). Vygotsky’s ideas about units of analysis for the analysis of mind. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 94–118). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Acknowledgements
This is a revised and extended version of the paper presented at the First Mathematics Education and Contemporary Theory conference, 17-19 July 2011, Manchester, UK.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ernest, P. The unit of analysis in mathematics education: bridging the political-technical divide?. Educ Stud Math 92, 37–58 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-016-9689-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-016-9689-4