Skip to main content

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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  • Aziz, A., & Zargar, B. A. (1998). On the critical points of a polynomial.Bulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society, 57, 173–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Campbell, K. J., Watson, J. M., & Collis, K. F. (1992). Volume measurement and intellectual development.Journal of Structural Learning, 11, 279–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Case, R. (1985).Intellectual development: Birth to adulthood. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Chick, H. L. (1996b).Aspects of the circle composition operation in rings. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Tasmania.

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Fischer, K. W., & Sylvern, L. (1985). Stages and individual differences in cognitive development.Annual Review of Psychology, 36, 613–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gleick, J. (1985, December 8). The man who reshaped geometry.The New York Times, Section 6, pp. 64,112–124.

  • Hadamard, J. (1945).An essay on the psychology of invention in the mathematical field. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hungerford, T. W. (1990).Abstract algebra: An introduction. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders College Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1950).The psychology of intelligence. London, England: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shalen, P. (Ed.). (1997). Editorial information.Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 349(10), back end papers.

  • Stillman, G. (1996). Mathematical processing and cognitive demand in problem solving.Mathematics Education Research Journal, 8, 174–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taft, E. J. (Ed.). (1997). [Aims and Scope.]Communications in Algebra, 25(7), inside front cover.

  • Taplin, M. (1994). Development of a model to enhance managerial strategies in problem solving.Mathematics Education Research Journal, 6, 79–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • University of Tasmania. (1997).Research higher degrees handbook, 1998. Hobart, TA: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, J. M. (1994). A diagrammatic representation for studying problem-solving behavior.Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 13, 305–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Watson, J. M., & Mulligan, J. (1990) Mapping solutions to an early multiplication word problem.Mathematics Education Research Journal, 2(2), 28–44.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chick, H. Cognition in the formal modes: Research mathematics and the SOLO taxonomy. Math Ed Res J 10, 4–26 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217340

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217340

Keywords

  • Formal Level
  • Cognitive Complexity
  • Semigroup Ring
  • Finite Ring
  • Algebraic Object