Advertisement

Educational Studies in Mathematics

, Volume 67, Issue 3, pp 255–276 | Cite as

A research framework for creative and imitative reasoning

  • Johan LithnerEmail author
Article

Abstract

This conceptual research framework addresses the problem of rote learning by characterising key aspects of the dominating imitative reasoning and the lack of creative mathematical reasoning found in empirical data. By relating reasoning to thinking processes, student competencies, and the learning milieu it explains origins and consequences of different reasoning types.

Keywords

Mathematical reasoning Creativity Rote learning 

References

  1. Asiala, M., Brown, A., DeVries, D., Dubinsky, E., Mathews, D., & Thomas, K. (1996). A framework for research and curriculum development in undergratduate mathematics education. In A. Schoenfeld, J. Kaput, & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), Research in collegiate mathematics education II, CBMS issues in mathematics education (pp. 1–32). American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
  2. Balacheff, N. (1988). Aspects of proof in pupils practice of school mathematics. In D. Pimm (Ed.), Mathematics, teachers and children (pp. 216–235). London: Hodder and Stoughton.Google Scholar
  3. Balacheff, N. (1990). Towards a problematique for research on mathematics teaching. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21(4), 258–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ball, D., & Bass, H. (2003). Making mathematics reasonable in school. In J. Kilpatrick, G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 27–44). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  5. Bergqvist, T., & Lithner, J. (2005). Simulating creative reasoning in mathematics teaching. Research Reports in Mathematics Education 2, Dept. of Mathematics, Umeå University.Google Scholar
  6. Bergqvist, T., Lithner, J., & Sumpter, L. (2007). Upper secondary students task reasoning. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology (in press).Google Scholar
  7. Bloom, B. S. (Ed.) (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Part 1: The Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay.Google Scholar
  8. Boesen, J., Lithner, J., & Palm, T. (2005). The mathematical reasoning required by national tests and the reasoning actually used by students. Research Reports in Mathematics Education 4, Dept. of Mathematics, Umeå University.Google Scholar
  9. Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  10. Churchman, C. W. (1971). The design of inquiring systems: Basic concepts of system and organization. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  11. Doyle, W. (1988). Work in mathematics classes: The context of students thinking during instruction. Educational Psychologist, 23, 167–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Duval, R. (2002). Proof understanding in mathematics: What ways for students? Proceedings of 2002 international conference on mathematics: Understanding proving and proving to understand (pp. 61–77).Google Scholar
  13. Ernest, P. (1999). Forms of knowledge in mathematics and mathematics education: Philosophical and rhetorical perspectives. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 38(1), 67–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fischbein, E. (1999). Intuitions and schemata in mathematical reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 38(1), 11–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harel, G. (2006). Mathematics education research, its nature and its purpose: A discussion of Lester’s paper. Zentralblatt fuer Didaktik der Mathematik, 38(1), 58–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haylock, D. (1997). Recognising mathematical creativity in schoolchildren. Zentralblatt fuer Didaktik der Mathematik, 29(3), 68–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hegarty, M., Mayer, R., & Monk, C. (1995). Comprehension of arithmetic word problems: A comparison of successful and unsuccessful problem solvers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(1), 18–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hiebert, J. (2003). What research says about the NCTM Standards. In J. Kilpatrick, G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A Research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 5–26). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  19. Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook for research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 65–97). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  20. Hiebert, J., & Lefevre, P. (1986). Conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics: An introductory analysis. In J. Hiebert (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge (pp. 1–27). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Huckstep, P., & Rowland, T. (2000). Creative mathematics – real or rhetoric? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 42(1), 81–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Krummheuer, G. (1995). The ethnography of argumentation. In P. Cobb & H. Bauersfeld (Eds.), The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom cultures (pp. 229–269). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Leron, U., & Hazzan, O. (1997). The world according to Johnny: A coping perspective in mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 32, 265–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lester, F. (2005). On the theoretical, conceptual, and philosophical foundations for research in mathematics education. Zentralblatt fuer Didaktik der Mathematik, 37(6), 457–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lithner, J. (2000a). Mathematical reasoning and familiar procedures. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 31, 83–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lithner, J. (2000b). Mathematical reasoning in task solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 41, 165–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lithner, J. (2002). Lusten att lära, Osby (The motivation to learn, Osby). Skolverkets nationella kvalitetsgranskningar (Quality inspections of the Swedish National Agency for Education), in Swedish.Google Scholar
  28. Lithner, J. (2003). Students mathematical reasoning in university textbook exercises. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 52, 29–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lithner, J. (2004). Mathematical reasoning in calculus textbook exercises. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 23, 405–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Långström, P., & Lithner, J. (2007). Students learning strategies and mathematical reasoning in textbook-related metacognitive processes (in press).Google Scholar
  31. McGinty, R., VanBeynen, J., & Zalewski, D. (1986). Do our mathematics textbooks reflect what we preach? School Science and Mathematics, 86, 591–596.Google Scholar
  32. Monaghan, J., & Ozmantar, M. (2006). Abstraction and consolidation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 62(3), 233–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: The Council.Google Scholar
  34. Niss, M. (2003). Mathematical competencies and the learning of mathematics: The Danish KOM project. Third Mediterranean conference on mathematics education (pp. 115–124).Google Scholar
  35. Palm, T., Boesen, J., & Lithner, J. (2005). The requirements of mathematical reasoning in upper secondary level assessments. Research Reports in Mathematics Education 5, Dept. of Mathematics, Umeå University.Google Scholar
  36. Pirie, S., & Kieren, T. (1994). Growth in mathematical understanding: How can we characterise it and how can we represent it? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26, 165–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pólya, G. (1954). Mathematics and plausible reasoning (Vols. I and II). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Schoenfeld, A. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Orlando, FL: Academic.Google Scholar
  39. Schoenfeld, A. (1991). On mathematics as sense-making: An informal attack on the unfortunate divorce of formal and informal mathematics. In J. Voss, D. Perkins, & J. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 311–344). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  40. Schoenfeld, A. (2007). Method. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 69–107). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  41. Selden, A., & Selden, J. (2003). Validations of proofs considered as texts: Can undergraduates tell whether an argument proves a theorem? Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(1), 4–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sfard, A. (1991). On the dual nature of mathematical conceptions: Reflections on processes and objects as different sides of the same coin. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sierpinska, A. (1996). Understanding in mathematics. Routledge: Falmer.Google Scholar
  44. Silver, E. (1997). Fostering creativity through instruction rich in mathematical problem solving and problem posing. Zentralblatt fuer Didaktik der Mathematik, 29(3), 75–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Skemp, R. (1978). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Arithmetic Teacher, 26(3), 9–15.Google Scholar
  46. Sriraman, B. (2004). The characteristics of mathematical creativity. The Mathematics Educator, 14(1), 19–34.Google Scholar
  47. Stacey, K., & MacGregor, M. (1999). Taking the algebraic thinking out of algebra. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 11, 24–38.Google Scholar
  48. Tall, D. (1991). Reflections. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 251–259). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  49. Tall, D. (1996). Functions and calculus. In A. Bishop, K. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & C. Laborde (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics education (pp. 289–325). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  50. Tall, D. (2004). Thinking through three worlds of mathematics. In M. J. Høines & A. B. Fuglestad (Eds.), 28th Conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education. vol. 4 (pp. 281–288). Bergen.Google Scholar
  51. van Hiele, P. (1986). Structure and insight. A theory of mathematics education. Orlando: Academic.Google Scholar
  52. Vinner, S. (1997). The pseudo-conceptual and the pseudo-analytical thought processes in mathematics learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 34, 97–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wedege, T., & Skott, J. (2006). Changing views and practices? A study of the Kapp-Abel mathematics competition. Trondheim: NTNU.Google Scholar
  54. Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Yackel, E., & Hanna, G. (2003). Reasoning and proof. In J. Kilpatrick, G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 227–236). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MathematicsUmeaa UniversityUmeaaSweden

Personalised recommendations