Advertisement

ZDM

, Volume 49, Issue 6, pp 909–921 | Cite as

A methodology for instructional design in mathematics—with the generic and epistemic student at the centre

  • Heidi Strømskag
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

This theoretical paper presents a methodology for instructional design in mathematics. It is a theoretical analysis of a proposed model for instructional design, where tasks are embedded in situations that preserve meaning with respect to particular pieces of mathematical knowledge. The model is applicable when there is an intention of teaching someone some particular mathematical knowledge. It is structured into four phases: epistemological analysis; development of an epistemological model; implementation; and, institutionalisation. The methodology is rooted in the theory of didactical situations in mathematics, and is built on two epistemological principles: the target knowledge should be an optimal solution to a task embedded in a situation; and, the milieu of the situation should provide feedback to students, whether their responses are adequate with respect to the target knowledge. These principles place the generic and epistemic student at the centre of instructional design in such a way that the focal point is on the student’s opportunities to develop the knowledge aimed at—from an epistemological viewpoint. My research goal is to develop a model for instructional design where students will need some particular knowledge to solve a task and where the solution process is managed by features of the milieu with which the students interact. Through the concept of an epistemological model, the methodology enables a profound understanding of one of the phases of didactical engineering: conception and a priori analysis. Empirical data are provided to support the viability of the proposed model. The data are from an empirical investigation of student teachers’ engagement with a situation where the target knowledge is a theorem in elementary number theory.

Keywords

Mathematical task Methodology Epistemological model Adidactical situation Milieu Institutionalisation 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank two anonymous reviewers whose insightful comments resulted in significant improvements to this paper.

References

  1. Ainley, J., & Margolinas, C. (2015). Accounting for students’ perspective in task design. In A. Watson & M. Ohtani (Eds.), Task design in mathematics education: An ICMI study 22 (pp. 130–156). Cham: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-09629-2_4.Google Scholar
  2. Ainley, J., Pratt, D., & Hansen, A. (2006). Connecting engagement and focus in pedagogic task design. British Educational Research Journal, 32(1), 23–38. doi: 10.1080/01411920500401971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Artigue, M. (2014). Potentialities and limitations of the theory of didactic situations for addressing the teaching and learning at university level. Research in Mathematics Education, 16, 135–138. doi:  10.1080/14794802.2014.918348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Artigue, M. (2015). Perspectives on design research: The case of didactical engineering. In A. Bikner-Ahsbahs, C. Knipping & N. Presmeg (Eds.), Approaches to qualitative research in mathematics education (pp. 467–496). Dordrecht: Springer. doi:  10.1007/978-94-017-9181-6_17.Google Scholar
  5. Artigue, M., Haspekian, M., & Corblin-Lenfant, A. (2014). Introduction to the theory of didactical situations (TDS). In A. Bikner-Ahsbahs & S. Prediger (Eds.), Networking of theories as a research practice in mathematics education (pp. 47–65). Cham: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-05389-9_4.Google Scholar
  6. Bachelard, G. (2001). The formation of the scientific mind: A contribution to a psychoanalysis of objective knowledge (M. M. Jones, Trans.). Manchester: Clinamen Press. (Original work published 1938).Google Scholar
  7. Balacheff, N. (1988). Aspects of proof in pupil’s practice of school mathematics. In D. Pimm (Ed.), Mathematics, teachers and children (pp. 216–235). London: Hodder & Stoughton.Google Scholar
  8. Barbosa, A., & Vale, I. (2015). Visualization in pattern generalization: Potential and challenges. Journal of the European Teacher Education Network. 10, 57–70. Accessed March 10, 2017 from http://jeten-online.org/index.php/jeten/article/view/67.
  9. Bosch, M., Chevallard, Y., & Gascón, J. (2006). Science or magic? The use of models and theories in didactics of mathematics. In M. Bosch (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 1254–1263). Barcelona: Universitat Ramon Llull Editions.Google Scholar
  10. Brousseau, G. (1997). The theory of didactical situations in mathematics: Didactique des mathématiques, 1970–1990 (N. Balacheff, M. Cooper, R. Sutherland, & V. Warfield, Eds. & Trans.). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  11. Chevallard, Y. (1989). On didactic transposition theory: Some introductory notes. In H. G. Steiner & M. Hejny (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Symposium on Selected Domains of Research and Development in Mathematics Education (pp. 5162). University of Bielefeld, Germany, and University of Bratislava, Slovakia.Google Scholar
  12. Chevallard, Y. (1990). On mathematics education and culture: Critical afterthoughts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 21, 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Department for Education. (2014). National curriculum in England: Mathematics programmes of study. Accessed March 12, 2017 from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-mathematics-programmes-of-study.
  14. Directorate for Education and Training. (2013). Læreplan i matematikk fellesfag [Curriculum for the common core subject of mathematics]. Accessed March 12, 2017 from http://www.udir.no/kl06/MAT1-04/.
  15. González-Martín, A. S., Bloch, I., Durand-Guerrier, V., & Maschietto, M. (2014). Didactic situations and didactical engineering in university mathematics: Cases from the study of Calculus and proof. Research in Mathematics Education, 16, 117–134. doi:  10.1080/14794802.2014.918347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., Garnier, H., Givvin, K. B., Hollingsworth, H., Jacobs, J., … Stigler, J. W. (2003). Teaching mathematics in seven countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  17. Laborde, C., & Perrin-Glorian, M.-J. (2005). Introduction. Teaching situations as object of research: Empirical studies within theoretical perspectives. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 59, 1–12. doi: 10.1007/s10649-005-5761-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. MacGregor, M., & Stacey, K. (1993). Seeing a pattern and writing a rule. In J. Hirayabashi, N. Nohda, K. Shigematsu, & F.-L. Lin (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (vol. 1, pp. 181–188). Tsukuba: PME.Google Scholar
  19. Moss, J., & Beatty, R. (2006). Knowledge building in mathematics: Supporting collaborative learning in pattern problems. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 441–465. doi: 10.1007/s11412-006-9003-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston: Author.Google Scholar
  21. Noss, R., Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (1997). The construction of mathematical meanings: Connecting the visual with the symbolic. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 33, 203–233. doi: 10.1023/A:1002943821419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ontario Ministry of Education and Training. (2005). The Ontario curriculum, Grades 1–8: Mathematics, Rev. edn. Accessed March 12, 2017 from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/math18curr.pdf.
  23. Orton, A., & Orton, J. (1996). Making sense of children’s patterning. In L. Puig & A. Gutiérrez (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (vol. 4, pp. 83–90). València: PME.Google Scholar
  24. Reed, S. K. (1972). Pattern recognition and categorization. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 383–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schifter, D. (2009). Representation-based proof in the elementary grades. In D. A. Stylianou, M. L. Blanton, & E. J. Knuth (Eds.), Teaching and learning proofs across the grades (pp. 71–86). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Shimizu, Y., Kaur, B., Huang, R., & Clarke, D. (Eds.). (2010). Mathematical tasks in classrooms around the world. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  27. Steen, L. A. (1988). The science of patterns. Science, 29, 611–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Strømskag, H. (2015). A pattern-based approach to elementary algebra. In K. Krainer & N. Vondrová (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CERME9) (pp. 474–480). Prague: European Society for Research in Mathematics Education. Accessed May 18, 2017 from https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01286944/document.
  29. Strømskag Måsøval, H. (2011). Factors constraining students’ establishment of algebraic generality in shape patterns: A case study of didactical situations in mathematics at a university college. Doctoral dissertation. University of Agder, Kristiansand. Accessed May 18, 2017 from https://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/handle/11250/2394000.
  30. Strømskag Måsøval, H. (2013). Shortcomings in the milieu for algebraic generalisation arising from task design and vagueness in mathematical discourse. In C. Margolinas (Ed.), Task design in mathematics education. Proceedings of ICMI Study 22 (pp. 233–241). Oxford. Accessed March 14, 2017 from https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00834054v2/document.
  31. Warren, E., Cooper, T. J., & Lamb, J. T. (2006). Investigating functional thinking in the elementary classroom: Foundations for early algebraic thinking. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 25, 208–223. doi: 10.1016/j.jmathb.2006.09.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Weisstein, E. W. (Ed.). (2009). CRC encyclopedia of mathematics (3rd ed., vol. 3). Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematical SciencesNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options