Advertisement

Mathematics Education Research Journal

, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 4–26 | Cite as

Cognition in the formal modes: Research mathematics and the SOLO taxonomy

  • Helen Chick
Articles

Abstract

Mathematics researchers put considerable cognitive effort into trying to expand the body of mathematical knowledge. In so doing, is their cognitive behaviour different from those who work on more standard mathematical problems? This paper attempts to examine some aspects of mathematical cognition at the highest level of formal functioning. It illustrates how the structure of a mathematician’s output—and, to a certain extent, its cognitive complexity—can be characterised by the SOLO taxonomy. A number of cognitive and philosophical issues concerning mathematical functioning at the research level will also be discussed.

Keywords

Formal Level Cognitive Complexity Semigroup Ring Finite Ring Algebraic Object 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aziz, A., & Zargar, B. A. (1998). On the critical points of a polynomial.Bulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society, 57, 173–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Biggs, J., & Collis, K. F. (1982).Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  3. Biggs, J., & Collis, K. F. (1989). Towards a model of school-based curriculum development and assessment using the SOLO taxonomy.Australian Journal of Education, 33, 151–163.Google Scholar
  4. Campbell, K. J., Watson, J. M., & Collis, K. F. (1992). Volume measurement and intellectual development.Journal of Structural Learning, 11, 279–298.Google Scholar
  5. Case, R. (1985).Intellectual development: Birth to adulthood. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  6. Chick, H. L. (1988). Student responses to a polynomial problem in the light of the SOLO taxonomy.Australian Senior Mathematics Journal, 2, 91–110.Google Scholar
  7. Chick, H. L. (1996a). Rings with isomorphic additive and circle composition groups. In B. J. Gardner, L. Shaoxue, & R. Wiegandt (Eds.),Rings and radicals (pp. 160–169). London: Longman.Google Scholar
  8. Chick, H. L. (1996b).Aspects of the circle composition operation in rings. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Tasmania.Google Scholar
  9. Chick, H. L., Watson, J. M., & Collis, K. F. (1988). Using the SOLO taxonomy for error analysis in mathematics.Research in Mathematics Education in Australia, May–June 1988, 34–47.Google Scholar
  10. Coady, C., & Pegg, J. (1994). Tertiary students’ understanding of second order relationships in function notation. In G. Bell, B. Wright, N. Leeson, & J. Geake (Eds.),Challenges in mathematics education: Constraints on construction (Proceedings of the 17th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Vol. 1, pp. 179–186). Lismore, NSW: MERGA.Google Scholar
  11. Coady, C., & Pegg, J. (1995). Students’ use of second-order relationships in algebra. In B. Atweh & S. Flavel (Eds.),Galtha (Proceedings of the 18th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, pp. 189–194). Darwin, NT: MERGA.Google Scholar
  12. Collis, K. F., & Biggs, J. B. (1983). Matriculation, degree requirements, and cognitive demands in universities and CAEs.Australian Journal of Education, 27, 151–163.Google Scholar
  13. Collis, K. F., & Watson, J. M. (1991). A mapping procedure for analysing the structure of mathematics responses.Journal of Structural Learning, 11, 65–87.Google Scholar
  14. Commons, M. L., Richards, F. A., & Armon, C. (Eds.). (1984).Beyond formal operations: Late adolescent and adult cognitive development. New York, NY: Praeger.Google Scholar
  15. Fischer, K. W., & Sylvern, L. (1985). Stages and individual differences in cognitive development.Annual Review of Psychology, 36, 613–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gleick, J. (1985, December 8). The man who reshaped geometry.The New York Times, Section 6, pp. 64,112–124.Google Scholar
  17. Hadamard, J. (1945).An essay on the psychology of invention in the mathematical field. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hungerford, T. W. (1990).Abstract algebra: An introduction. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders College Publishing.Google Scholar
  19. Piaget, J. (1950).The psychology of intelligence. London, England: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  20. Shalen, P. (Ed.). (1997). Editorial information.Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 349(10), back end papers.Google Scholar
  21. Stillman, G. (1996). Mathematical processing and cognitive demand in problem solving.Mathematics Education Research Journal, 8, 174–197.Google Scholar
  22. Taft, E. J. (Ed.). (1997). [Aims and Scope.]Communications in Algebra, 25(7), inside front cover.Google Scholar
  23. Taplin, M. (1994). Development of a model to enhance managerial strategies in problem solving.Mathematics Education Research Journal, 6, 79–93.Google Scholar
  24. Truesdell, C. (1951). Review of the paper “Equations of finite vibratory motions in isotropic elastic media. Surface force sufficient to maintain equilibrium” by G. Garcia.Mathematical Reviews, 12, 561.Google Scholar
  25. University of Tasmania. (1997).Research higher degrees handbook, 1998. Hobart, TA: Author.Google Scholar
  26. Watson, J. M. (1994). A diagrammatic representation for studying problem-solving behavior.Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 13, 305–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Watson, J. M., Chick, H. L., & Collis, K. F. (1988). Applying the SOLO taxonomy to errors on area problems. In J. Pegg (Ed.),Mathematical interfaces (Proceedings of the 12th biennial conference of the Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers, pp. 260–281). Armidale, NSW: AAMT.Google Scholar
  28. Watson, J. M., & Mulligan, J. (1990) Mapping solutions to an early multiplication word problem.Mathematics Education Research Journal, 2(2), 28–44.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia Inc. 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Helen Chick
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Early Childhood and Primary EducationUniversity of TasmaniaHobart

Personalised recommendations