Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Persuasive Pedagogy: A New Paradigm for Mathematics Education

  • Review
  • Published:
Educational Psychology Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Mathematics teachers face a myriad of instructional obstacles. Since the early 1990s, mathematics education researchers have proposed the use of constructivist practices to counteract these ever-prevalent obstacles. While we do give credit to the choices of instructional activities the constructivist paradigm promotes, there are problems with its use as the foundation of mathematics pedagogy (e.g., Phillips, Educational Researcher 24: 5–12 1995; Simon, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 26: 114–145 1995). In this paper, we will analyze and review the literature pertaining to the conceptual tenets and operational practices of constructivism, and the viability of these practices for meeting the professional teaching standards proposed by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM; 2000). We will then review the literature pertaining to a paradigm of teaching that may be more applicable, that of persuasive pedagogical practices, and the ways in which these practices can differentially meet the goals of the mathematics standards. The differences between constructivism and persuasive pedagogy lead us to believe that the adoption of the theory of teaching as persuasion, or persuasive pedagogy, may be more appropriate for learning mathematics and the identification and correction of misconceptions. Further, these pedagogical practices correspond with suggestions for mathematical discourse provided by NCTM (2000).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrams, L. M., Pedulla, J. J., & Madaus, G. F. (2003). Views from the classroom: Teachers’ opinions of statewide testing programs. Theory into Practice, 42(1), 18–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, P. A., Murphy, P. K., Buehl, M. M., & Sperl, C. T. (1998). The influence of prior knowledge, beliefs, and interest in learning from persuasive text. In T. Shanahan & F. Rodriguez-Brown (Eds.), Forty-seventh yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 167–181). Chicago: National Reading Conference.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, P. A., Fives, H., Buehl, M. M., & Mulhern, J. (2002). Persuasive pedagogy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 795–813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. C., Chinn, C., Chang, J., Waggoner, J., & Yi, H. (1997). On the logical integrity of children’s arguments. Cognition and Instruction, 15(2), 135–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauersfeld, H. (1995). Development and function of mathematizing as a social practice. In L. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 137–158). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Billings, L., & Fitzgerald, J. (2002). Dialogic discussion and the Paideia seminar. American Educational Research Journal, 39(4), 907–941.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buehl, M. M., Manning, D. K., Cox, K., & Fives, H. (2005). Exploring pre-service teachers’ initial and informed reactions to teaching as persuasion. In H. Fives (Chair), Teaching as persuasion: Is the metaphor viable? Symposium presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.

  • Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 161–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A., & Anderson, R. C. (1998). The structure of discussions that promote reasoning. Teachers College Record, 100(2), 315–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 1–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A., & Samarapungavan, A. (2001). Distinguishing between understanding and belief. Theory into Practice, 40, 235–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A., Anderson, R. C., & Waggoner, M. A. (2001). Patterns of discourse in two kinds of literature discussion. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 378–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, M. M. (1996). Exploring the origins, uses and interactions of student intuitions: Comparing the lengths of paths. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 478–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, M. M. (1999). Teacher effects on student motivation during cooperative learning: Activity level, intervention level, and case study analysis. Educational Research Journal, 14(2), 229–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cizek, G. J. (2001). Conjectures on the rise and call of standard setting: An introduction to context and practice. In G. J. Cizek (Ed.), Setting performance standards: Concepts, methods, and perspectives (pp. 3–17). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development. Educational Researcher, 23, 13–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, P., & Yackel, E. (1996). Constructivist, emergent, and sociocultural perspectives in the context of developmental research. Educational Psychologist, 31, 175–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commeyras, M. (1993). Promoting critical thinking through dialogical-thinking reading lessons. The Reading Teacher, 46(6), 486–494.

    Google Scholar 

  • Confrey, J. (1990). What constructivism implies for teaching. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education Monograph, 4, 107–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, R. B., Maher, C. A., & Noddings, N. (1990). Chapter 12: Suggestions for the improvement of mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education Monograph, 4, 187–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dehaene, S. (1997). The number sense: How the mind creates mathematics. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dole, J. A., & Sinatra, G. M. (1998). Reconceptualizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 33, 109–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, M. N., Higley, K. H., Zeruth, J. A., & Murphy, P. K. (2007). Pedagogical practices: Examining preservice teachers’ perceptions of their abilities. Instructional Science, 35, 443–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fives, H., & Alexander, P. A. (2001). Persuasion as a metaphor for teaching: A case in point. Theory into Practice, 40, 242–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, M. (1959). Mathematical games column. Scientific American, 201, 180–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garner, R., & Hansis, R. (1994). Literacy practices outside of school: Adults’ beliefs and their responses to “street texts”. In R. Garner & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Beliefs about text and about instruction with text (pp. 57–74). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, J. (1997). An alternative to von Glasersfeld’s subjectivism in science education: Deweyan social constructivism. Science and Education, 6, 543–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldin, G. A. (1990). Epistemology, constructivism, and discovery learning in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education Monograph, 4, 31–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzzetti, B., & Hynd, C. (1998). Theoretical perspectives on conceptual change. Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardy, M. D., & Taylor, P. C. (1997). Von Glasersfeld’s radical constructivism: A critical review. Science and Education, 6, 135–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hiebert, J., Morris, A. K., & Glass, B. (2003). Learning to teach: An “experiment” model for teaching and teacher preparation in mathematics. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6, 201–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hynd, C. (2001). Persuasion and its role in meeting educational goals. Theory into Practice, 40(4), 270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keefer, M. W., Zeitz, C. M., & Resnick, L. B. (2000). Judging the quality of peer-led student dialogues. Cognition and Instruction, 18(1), 53–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerman, S. (1996). Intersubjectivity in mathematics learning: A challenge to the radical constructivist paradigm? Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 133–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipman, M. (1993). Promoting better classroom thinking. Educational Psychology, 13(3–4), 291–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loong, D. H. W. (1998). Epistemological change through peer apprenticeship learning: From rule-based to idea-based social constructivism. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 3, 45–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, L. (1998). Sharing cognition to construct scientific knowledge in school context: The role of oral and written discourse. Instructional Science, 26, 359–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, L. (2003). High school students’ beliefs about maths, mathematical problem solving, and their achievement in maths: A cross-sectional study. Educational Psychology, 23, 73–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeil, N. M., & Alibali, M. W. (2005). Why won’t you change your mind? Knowledge of operational patterns hinders learning and performance on equations. Child Development, 76, 883–899.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merenluoto, K., & Lehtinen, E. (2004). Number concept and conceptual change: Towards a systematic model of the processes of change. Learning and Instruction, 14, 519–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moschkovich, J. (1999). Students’ use of the x-intercept as an instance of a transitional conception. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 37, 169–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, P. K. (2001). Teaching as persuasion: A new metaphor for a new decade. Theory into Practice, 40, 224–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, P. K., & Alexander, P. A. (2004). Persuasion as a dynamic, multidimensional process: An investigation of individual and intraindividual differences. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 337–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, P. K., & Mason, L. (2006). Changing knowledge and beliefs. In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 305–324). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, P. K., Wilkinson, I. A. G., Soter, A. O., Hennessey, M. N., & Alexander, J. F. (2009). Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students' comprehension of text: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 740–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • No Child Left Behind Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq. (2001).

  • Noddings, N. (1990). Constructivism in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education Monograph, 4, 7–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24, 5–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1955). The language and thought of the child (M. Gabain, Trans.). New York, NY: Noonday Press.

  • Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gerzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, L. B. (1989). Developing mathematical knowledge. American Psychologist, 44, 162–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 33–58). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selvin, S. (1975a). A problem in probability. American Statistician, 29, 67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selvin, S. (1975b). On the Monty Hall problem. American Statistician, 29, 134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seymann, R. G. (1991). Comment on Let’s Make a Deal: the player’s dilemma. American Statistician, 45, 287–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, M. A. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26, 114–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinatra, G. M. (2005). The “warming trend” in conceptual change research: The legacy of Paul R. Pintrich. Educational Psychologist, 40(2), 107–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinatra, G. M., & Kardash, C. M. (2004). Teacher candidates’ epistemological beliefs, dispositions, and views on teaching as persuasion. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 483–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steffe, L. P. (1990). Chapter 11: On the knowledge of mathematics teachers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. Monograph, 4, 167–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steffe, L. P., & D’Ambrosio, B. S. (1995). Toward a working model of constructivist teaching: A reaction to Simon. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26, 146–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steffe, L. P., & Kieren, T. (1994). Radical constructivism and mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25, 711–733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, T., & Fives, H. (August 2005) Teaching as persuasion online? Transferring the pedagogy to online settings. In H. Fives (Chair), Teaching as persuasion: Is the metaphor viable? Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.

  • Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (2004). Improving mathematics teaching. Educational Leadership, 61, 12–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

  • von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Facts and the self from a constructivist point of view. Poetics, 18(4/5), 435–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Glasersfeld, E. (1990). An exposition of constructivism: Why some like it radical. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education Monograph, 4, 19–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Glasersfeld, E. (1996). Footnotes to The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher, 25, 19.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Glasersfeld, E. (2006). A constructivist approach to experiential foundations of mathematics concepts revisited. Constructivist Foundations, 1(2), 61–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S. (1992). Knowledge acquisition and conceptual change. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 41, 347–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4, 45–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S. (2003). Exploring the relationships between conceptual change and intentional learning. In G. M. Sinatra & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional conceptual change (pp. 377–406). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waggoner, M. A., Chinn, C., Yi, H., & Anderson, R. C. (1995). Collaborative reasoning about stories. Language Arts, 72, 582–588.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woods, B. S., & Demarath, P. (2001). A cross-domain explanation of the metaphor “teaching as persuasion”. Theory into Practice, 40, 228–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, H. (1999). Basic skills vs. conceptual understanding: A bogus dichotomy is mathematics education. American Educator, 23(3), 14–19. 50-52.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Oklahoma, 820 Van Vleet Oval, 310 Collings Hall, Norman, OK, 73019-2041, USA

    Maeghan N. Hennessey & Steven R. Chesnut

  2. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA

    Kelli Higley

Authors
  1. Maeghan N. Hennessey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kelli Higley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Steven R. Chesnut
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maeghan N. Hennessey.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hennessey, M.N., Higley, K. & Chesnut, S.R. Persuasive Pedagogy: A New Paradigm for Mathematics Education. Educ Psychol Rev 24, 187–204 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9190-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9190-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation