Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik

, Volume 32, Issue 4, pp 95–100 | Cite as

Research in mathematics education— Who benefits?

  • Heinrich Bauersfeld
Information

Abstract

For a long time mathematics education tries hard to win recognition as an academic discipline. In related classroom research and curriculum development one can find not rarely theories and methods in use that are adapted from other (and well established) disciplines. However, in many cases these adaptations do not serve the researcher's goals, yet more, their effects can contradict the stated purposes. The article discusses a few fundamental problems related to empirical research in mathematics education (e.g. the role of the teachers in experimental/control groups), using as concretization a printed research report that is chosen deliberately (and made nameless, therefore).

ZDM-Classification

C80 D20 

Mathematikdidaktische Forschung—wer profitiert davon?

Kurzreferat

Die Mathematikdidaktik bemüht sich seit langem um die Anerkennung als eine wissenschaftliche Disziplin. In ihrer speziellen Unterrichtsforschung und Lehrgagnsentwicklung führt dies nicht selten zur Übernahme von Theorien und Methoden aus anderen, anerkannten Disziplinen, die dem vorgegebenen Zweck nicht dienlich sind, ja ihm sogar entgegenwirken können. An einem beliebig gewählten (und daher anonymisierten) veröffentlichten Report zu einem Entwicklungsprojekt werden dazu einige Grundprobleme empirischen Arbeitens (z.B. die Rolle der Lehrer in den Experimental-/ Kontrollgruppen) konkretisiert und diskutiert.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bauersfeld, H. (1972): Einige Bemerkungen zum “Frankfurter Projekt” und zum “alef”-Programm.—In: E. Schwartz (Ed.), Materialien zum Mathematikunterricht in der Grundschule, Frankfurt/M.: Arbeitskreis Grundschule e.V., p. 237–246.Google Scholar
  2. Brown, A. L.; Ellery, S.; Campione, J. C. (1998): Creating zones of proximal development electronically.—In: J. G. Greeno; S. V. Goldman (Eds.), Thinking Practices in Mathematics and Science Learning. Mahwah/NJ: Erlbaum, p. 341–367Google Scholar
  3. Cobb, P.; Bowers, J. (1999): Cognitive and situated learning perspectives in theory and practice.—In: Educational Researcher 28(No. 3), p. 4–15Google Scholar
  4. Delandshere, G.; Petrosky, A. R. (1998): Assessment of complex performances: Limitations of key measurement assumptions. —In: Educational Researcher 27(No. 2), p. 14–24Google Scholar
  5. Deutscher Bildungsrat (1973): Zur Förderung schulnaher Curriculum-Entwicklung. Empfehlungen der Bildungskommission.— Bonn: Deutscher BildungsratGoogle Scholar
  6. Deutscher Bildungsrat (1976): Curriculumentwicklung. Gutachten und Studien Band 59.—Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Verlag (particularly “Teil II: Innovationsstrategien”)Google Scholar
  7. Koriat, A. (1998); Lllusions of knowing—The link between knowledge and metaknowledge.—In: V. Y. Yzerbyt; G. Lories; B. Dardenne (Eds.), Metacognition—Cognitive and Social Dimensions, London; Sage, p. 17–34Google Scholar
  8. Lampert, M. (1998): Studying thinking, as a teaching practice. —In: J. G. Greeno; S. V. Goldman (Eds.) Thinking Practices in Mathematics and Science Learning, Mahwah/NJ: Erlbaum, p. 53–78.Google Scholar
  9. Mazzoni, G. (1988): Metaknowledge and cognitivé neuropsychology —monitoring and control.—Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
  10. Pogrow, S. (1998): What is an examplary program, and why should anyone care? A reaction to Slavin and Klein.—In: Educational Researcher 27/(No. 7), p. 22–29Google Scholar
  11. Resnick, L. B. (1987): Education and learning to think.—Washington, D.C.: National Academy PressGoogle Scholar
  12. Sierpinska, A.; Kilpatrick, J. (1998): Mathematical Education as a Research Domain: A Search for Identity.—Dordrecht: KluwerGoogle Scholar
  13. Slvain, R. E. (1997): Design competitions: A proposal for a new federal role in educational research and development.—In: Educational Researcher 26(No. 1), p. 22–28Google Scholar
  14. Slavin, R. E. (1999): Rejoinder: Yes, control groups are essential in program evaluation. A response to Pogrow.—In: Educational Researcher 28(No. 3), p. 36–38Google Scholar
  15. Sroufe, G. E. (1997): Improving the “awful reputation” of educational research.—In: Educational Researcher 26(No. 7), p. 26–28.Google Scholar
  16. Steen, L. A. (1999): Theories that gyre and gimble in the wabe.— In: Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 30(No. 2), p. 235–241Google Scholar
  17. Stevenson, H. W. (1998): A study of three cultures: Germany, Japan, and the United States—An overview of the TIMSS Case Study Project.—In: Phi Delta Kappan 79(No. 7), p. 524–529Google Scholar
  18. Stigler, J. W.; J. Hiebert (1997): Understanding and improving classroom mathematics instruction—An overview of the TIMSS Video Study.—In: Phi Delta Kappan 79(No. 1), p. 14–21Google Scholar
  19. Weinert, F. E. (1998): Psychologische Theoriebildung auf dem pädagogischen Prüfstand (Psychological theories under pedagogical scrutiny).—In: Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie 12(No. 4), p. 205–209Google Scholar
  20. Weinert, F. E.; Kluwe, R. T. (1986): Metacognition, Motivation, and Understanding.—Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ZDM 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heinrich Bauersfeld
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für Didaktik der MathematikUniversität BielefeldBielefeld

Personalised recommendations