Abstract
Mathematics education faces many challenges which Lesh and Sriraman clearly identify—in many countries mathematics teaching and mathematics education research have growth too far apart; in many countries most mathematics researchers and scholars do not embed their insights into usable, widely-disseminated curricular or instructional products; in many countries policy, curricular, and instructional development too rigid, presuming unrealistic images of school life; and, as a result, those polices, curricula, and instructional methods are not readily adaptable by teachers to their local contexts. Moreover, the solution that Lesh and Sriraman suggest to address these vexing problems—reconceptualizing the field as a design science—has considerable merit. Yet many of their assertions and arguments supporting this solution are either too broad or simply inaccurate. As a result, their justifications are off base and their conclusions too sweeping.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Berliner, D. C. (2002). Educational research: The hardest science of all. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 18–20.
Black, M. (1954). Models and Metaphors. Ithica, NY: Cornell.
Boote, D. N. (2004). De l’histoire et de l’avenir de la formation des maîtres au Canada Anglais: La tradition dans la practique des formateurs de maîtres. In M. Tardif & C. Lessard (Trans. & Eds.), La profession enseignante aujourd’hui: Evolutions, perspective at enjeux internationales. Sainte-Nicolas, Quebec: Presses de l’Universite Laval.
Boote, D. N. (2006). Teachers’ professional discretion and the curriculum. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 12(4), 461–478.
Boote, D. N. (2008). Notes toward a naturalistic study of education research methodology. Interchange: A Quarterly Review of Education, 39(3), 303–325.
Boote, D. N., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 3–15.
Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (n.d.). About CPED. Retrieved November 30, 2008 from http://cpedinitiative.org/about.
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.
Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42.
Design-based research collective (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.
Dobbin, F., & Boychuk, T. (1999). National employment systems and job autonomy: Why job autonomy is high in Nordic countries and low in the United States, Canada, and Australia. Organizational Studies, 20(2), 257–291.
Ford, M., & Forman, E. A. (2006). Research on instruction and learning: Elaborating the design approach. In C. F. Conrad & R. C. Serlin (Eds.), The Sage Handbook for Research in Education: Engaging Ideas and Enriching Inquiry (pp. 139–155). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fuller, S. (1988). Social Epistemology. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Fuller, S. (1998). From content to context: A social epistemology of the structure-agency craze. In A. Sica (Ed.), What is Social Theory? The Philsophical Debates. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hoadley, C. M. (2004). Methodological alignment in design-based research. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 203–212.
Janesick, V. J. (2000). The choreography of qualitative research design: Minuets, improvisation, and crystallization. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed., pp. 279–400). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Moore, G. E. (1903). Principia ethica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Norman, D. A. (2002). The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books.
Power, M. (1999). The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rabinow, P. (1996). Making PCR: A Story of Biotechnology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ryle, G. (1979). Improvisation. In G. Ryle (Ed.), On Thinking (pp. 121–130). London: Basil Blackwell.
Sandoval, W. A., & Bell, P. (2004). Design-based methods for studying learning in context: Introduction. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 199–201.
Scott, D., Brown, A., Lunt, I., & Thorn, L. (2004). Professional Doctorates. London: Open University Press.
Shulman, L. S., Golde, C. M., Bueschel, A. C., & Garabedian, K. J. (2006). Reclaiming education’s doctorates: A critique and a proposal. Educational Researcher, 35(3), 25–32.
Steffe, L. P., & Thompson, P. W. (2000). Teaching experiment methodology: Underlying principles and essential elements. In A. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Research Design in Mathematics and Science Education (pp. 267–306). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Weiner, G. (2002). Uniquely similar or similarly different? Education and development of teachers in Europe. Teaching Education, 13(3), 273–288.
Weick, K. (1998). Improvisation as a mindset for organizational analysis. Organization Science, 9, 543–555.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Boote, D.N. (2010). Commentary 3 on Re-conceptualizing Mathematics Education as a Design Science. In: Sriraman, B., English, L. (eds) Theories of Mathematics Education. Advances in Mathematics Education. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00742-2_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00742-2_17
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-00741-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-00742-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)