Advertisement

Interchange

, Volume 35, Issue 4, pp 407–422 | Cite as

The pedagogical value and the interdisciplinary nature of inductive processes in forming generalizations: Reflections from the classroom

  • Bharath Sriraman
  • Harry Adrian
Articles

Abstract

The tendency to generalize from specific experiences leading to new, more abstract concepts is a natural aspect of human thought. Generalizations are the end result of an inductive process that begins with the identification of similarities in seemingly disparate situations. It is the existence of such generalizations that makes it possible for us to understand each other and the world around us. It is pedagogically weak to present generalizations to students and expect them to know how and when to apply them. On the other hand if students experience the inductive process in classrooms and discover generalizations, they are likely to remember and use this process when tackling other problems. The authors illustrate the pedagogical value of such an approach and the interdisciplinary nature of the inductive process by reflecting on teaching practices in English literature and mathematics in a high school classroom. In particular the authors reflect on how the inductive process was applied to four short stories and four problem-solving situations, which resulted in high school students arriving at generalizations that characterized the stories and the problems. A conceptual model that illustrates how inductive processes facilitate generalizations in the classroom is presented.

Keywords

Classroom practice deduction educational theory generalization induction pedagogy reflection teacher education 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Frost, R. (1920).Mountain interval. New York: Henry Holt and Company.Google Scholar
  2. Gardner, M. (1997).The last recreations. New York: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  3. Hamers, J., de Koning, M., Sijtsma, K. (1998). Inductive reasoning in third grade: Intervention, promises and constraints.Contemporary Educational Psychology,23(2), 132–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hardy, G.H. (1992).A mathematicians’s apology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Harste, J.C. (1999).Re-imagining the possibilities of NCTE. Speech given at NCTE Affiliate Roundtable Breakfast. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/issues/coreintro.html.Google Scholar
  6. Lacey, A.R. (1996).A dictionary of philosophy (3rd ed.). London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching.American Educational Research Journal,27, 29–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lakatos, I. (1976).Proofs and refutations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000).Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  10. Poincaré, H. (1948).Science and method. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
  11. Polya, G. (1954).Mathematics and plausible reasoning: Induction and analogy in mathematics (Vol. II). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Sriraman, B. (In press). Gifted ninth graders’ notions of proof. Investigating parallels in approaches of mathematically gifted students and professional mathematicians.Journal for the Education of the Gifted,27(4).Google Scholar
  13. Sriraman, B. (2004). Discovering Steiner Triple Systems via problem solving.The Mathematics Teacher,97(5), 320–326.Google Scholar
  14. Titus, H. (1994).Living issues in philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Tolstoy, L. (1864–1869).War and peace. Retrieved from www.onlineliterature.com/tolstoy/war_and_peace/ (Originally published as a book series)Google Scholar
  16. Vijver, V. (1991). Inductive thinking across cultures.Dissertation Abstracts International,52(4), Section C, 0674.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bharath Sriraman
    • 1
  • Harry Adrian
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Mathematical SciencesThe University of MontanaMissoulaU.S.A.
  2. 2.Ottawa Township High SchoolOttawa
  3. 3.c/o Bharath Sriraman Dept. of Mathematical SciencesThe University of MontanaMissoulaU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations