Advertisement

Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik

, Volume 38, Issue 1, pp 52–57 | Cite as

Diversity of theories in mathematics education—How can we deal with it?

  • Angelika Bikner-Ahsbahs
  • Susanne Prediger
Analyses

Abstract

This article discusses the central question of how to deal with the diversity and the richness of existing theories in mathematics education research. To do this, we propose ways to structure building and discussing theories and we contrast the demand for integrating theories with the idea of networking theories.

ZDM-Classification

D20 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arnold, M., & Fischer, R. (2004) (eds.),Disziplinierungen Kulturen der Wissenschaft im Vergleich [Disciplines. Sciences as cultures in comparison]. Wien: Turia & Kant.Google Scholar
  2. Bikner-Ahsbahs, A. (2005).Mathematikinteresse zwischen Subjekt und Situation [Interest in Mathematics between Subject and Situation]. Hildesheim: Verlag Franzbecker.Google Scholar
  3. Bikner-Ahsbahs, A. (2006, in prep.). Crossing the Border—Integrating Different Paradigms and Perspectives—To appear in M. Bosch (ed.).Proceedings of CERME 4. February 2005. Sant Feliu, Spain.Google Scholar
  4. Bishop, A. J. (1992): International Perspectives on Research in Mathematics Education. In D. A. Grouws (ed.):Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning. (710–723). New York, Oxford: Macmillon Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  5. Dilthey, W. (1883):Einleitung in die Geisteswissenschaften. [Introduction to the human sciences] Original 1883, 9th edition. (1990). Stuttgart: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
  6. Dreyfus, T.; Artigue, M.; Bartolini B.; Gray, E. & Prediger, S. (2006 in prep.). Different theoretical perspectives and approaclies in research in mathematics education. Report from working group 11. To appear in M. Bosch (ed.).Proceedings of CERME 4, February 2005. Sant Felin, Spain.Google Scholar
  7. Sriraman, B. & English, L. (2005): Theories of Mathematics Education: A global survey of theoretical frameworks/trends in mathematics education research.Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik 37 (6), 450–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ernest, P., Prediger, S. & Viggiani-Bicudo, M. (in press for 2006): Philosophy of Mathematics Education—Strands and Issues. To appear in M. Blomhoj & E. Emborg (eds.).Proceedings of the 10th International Congress on Mathematics Education 2004, Kopenhagen.Google Scholar
  9. Even, R. & Schwarz, B. (2003) Implications of competing interpretations of practice for research and theory in mathematics education.Educational Studies in Mathematics Education 54, 283–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fischer, R. (1993). Wissenschaft, Argumentation und Widerspruch [Science, argumentation and contradiction]. In R. Fischer et al. (eds.)Argumentation und Eutscheidung. Zur Idee und Organisation von Wissenschaft. Wien-München: Profil, 29–43.Google Scholar
  11. Groeben, N. et al. (1988)Das Forschungsprogrann Subjektive Theorien. Eine Einfürung in die Psychologie des reflexiven Subjekts [The research program subjective theories. An introduction to the psychology of the reflexive subject]. Tübingen: Francke.Google Scholar
  12. Harel, G., & Lim, K. H. (2004). Mathematics Teacher's Knowledge Base: Prelimery results. In Johnsen Hoeines, Marit & Fuglstad, Anne Berit (eds.)Proceedings of the 28th Conference on the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematik Education (25–32). Bergen: University College.Google Scholar
  13. Heymann, H. W. (2003).Why Teach Mathematics: A Focus on General Education. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  14. Hoffmann, M. H. G. & Roth, W.-M. (2004). Learning by Developing Knowledge Networks.Zentralblatt der Didaktik der Mathematik 36 (6), 196–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Krummheuer, G. (1995). The Ethnography of Argumentation. In Cobb, Paul & Bauersfeld, Heinrich (eds.).The Emergence of Mathematical Meaning: Interaction in Classroom Cultures. (229–269). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
  16. Krummheuer, G. (2001). Paraphrase und Tradktion. Weinheim: Beltz Verlag.Google Scholar
  17. Lamnek, S. (1995).Qualitative Sozialforschung. Bd. 1. Methodologie [Qualitative social research. vol. 1, methodology]. Weinheim: Beltz.Google Scholar
  18. Mason, J. & Waywood, A. (1996). The role of theory in mathematics education and research. In A. J. Bishop et al. (eds.).International Handbook of Mathematics Education. (1055–1089). Kluwer: Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  19. Prediger, S. (2004): Intercultural Perspectives on Mathematics Learning—Developing a Theoretical Framework.International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 2 (2004) 3, 377–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Reid, D. (1996). Enactivism as a Methodology. In L. Puig & A Gutiérrez, (eds.).Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, vol. 4 (203~210). Valencia, Spain.Google Scholar
  21. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2002). Research methods in (mathematics) education In: L.D. English (ed.)Handbook of international research in mathematics education. (435–487). Mathwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  22. Steen, L. A. (1999). Review of Mathematics Education as research domain.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 30(2). 235–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Steinbring, H. (2004).The construction of New mathematical knowledge in Classroom Interaction. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  24. Ulich, D. (1976).Pädagogische Interaktion. Theorien erzieherischen Handelns und sozialen Lernens [Pedagogical Interactions. Theories of educational action and social learning]. Weinheim, Basel: Beltz.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ZDM 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Angelika Bikner-Ahsbahs
    • 1
  • Susanne Prediger
    • 2
  1. 1.Flensburg UniversityFlensburgGermany
  2. 2.Mathematics Education Research GroupUniversity of BremenBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations