Advertisement

Educational Studies in Mathematics

, Volume 40, Issue 1, pp 1–24 | Cite as

Aspects of the Nature and State of Research in Mathematics Education

  • Mogens Niss
Article

Abstract

This paper offers an outline and a characterisation of the didactics of mathematics, alias the science of mathematics education, as a scientific and scholarly discipline, and discusses why its endeavours should be of interest to research mathematicians (and other mathematics professionals). It further presents and discusses a number of major, rather aggregate findings in the discipline, including the astonishing complexity of mathematical learning, the key role of domain specificity, obstacles produced by the process-object duality, students' alienation from proof and proving, and the marvels and pitfalls of information technology in mathematics education.

Keywords

Information Technology Mathematics Education Domain Specificity Mathematical Learning Research Mathematician 
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. Alibert, D. and Thomas, M.: 1991, ‘Research on mathematical proof’, in D. Tall (ed.), Chapter 13, pp. 215–230.Google Scholar
  2. Artigue, M.: 1987, ‘Ingénierie didactique à propos d'équations differentielles’, in Proceedings of PME 11, Montréal, pp. 236–242.Google Scholar
  3. Balacheff, N. and Kaput, J.: 1996, ‘Computer-based learning environments in mathematics’, in Clements, K., Keitel, C., Kilpatrick, J. and Laborde, C. (eds.): International Handbook of Mathematics Education, Vols. 1–2, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands A. Bishop et al. (eds.), 1996, Chapter 13, pp. 469–501.Google Scholar
  4. Biehler, R., Scholz, R.W., Strässer, R. and Winkelmann, B. (eds.): 1994, Didactics of Mathematics as a Scientific Discipline, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  5. Bishop, A.: 1988, Mathematical Enculturation. A Cultural Perspective on Mathematics Education, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  6. Bishop, A., Mellin-Olsen, S. and Van Dormolen, J. (eds.): 1991, Mathematical Knowledge: Its Growth Through Teaching, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  7. Bishop, A., Clements, K., Keitel, C., Kilpatrick, J. and Laborde, C. (eds.): 1996, International Handbook of Mathematics Education, Vols. 1–2, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  8. Bodin, A.: 1993, ‘What does to assess mean? The case of assessing mathematical knowledge’, in M. Niss (ed.), 1993a, pp. 113–141.Google Scholar
  9. Cobb, P. and Bauersfeld, H.: 1995, The Emergence of Mathematical Meaning: Interaction in Classroom Cultures, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  10. Douady, R.: 1991, ‘Tool, object, setting, window’, in Mellin-Olsen, S. and Van Dormolen, J. (eds.): Mathematical Knowledge: Its Growth Through Teaching, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands A. Bishop et al. (eds.), 1991, pp. 109–130.Google Scholar
  11. Ellerton, N. and Clarkson, P.: 1996, ‘Language factors in mathematics teaching and learning’, in Clements, K., Keitel, C., Kilpatrick, J. and Laborde, C. (eds.): International Handbook of Mathematics Education, Vols. 1–2, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands A. Bishop et al. (eds.), 1996, Chapter 26, pp. 987–1033.Google Scholar
  12. Ernest, P.: 1991, The Philosophy of Mathematics Education, London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  13. Fischbein, E.: 1989, ‘Tacit models and mathematics reasoning’, For the Learning of Mathematics 9(2), 9–14.Google Scholar
  14. Grouws, D. (ed.): 1992, Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  15. Hanna, G. and Jahnke, H.N., 1996, ‘Proof and proving’, in Clements, K., Keitel, C., Kilpatrick, J. and Laborde, C. (eds.): International Handbook of Mathematics Education, Vols. 1–2, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands A. Bishop et al. (eds.), 1996, Chapter 23, pp. 877–908.Google Scholar
  16. Heid, K.: 1997, ‘The technological revolution and the reform of school mathematics’, American Journal of Education 106(1), 5–61.Google Scholar
  17. Hiebert, J. and Carpenter, T.: 1992, ‘Learning and teaching with understanding’, in D. Grouws (ed.), pp. 65–97.Google Scholar
  18. Janvier, C. (ed.): 1985, Problems of Representations in the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  19. Leder, G. (ed.): 1992, Assessment and Learning of Mathematics, Australian Council for Educational Research, Hawthorn, VIC.Google Scholar
  20. Leron, U.: 1983, ‘Structuring mathematical proofs’, The American Mathematical Monthly 90(3), 174–184.Google Scholar
  21. Leron, U.: 1985, ‘Heuristic presentations: the role of structuring’, For the Learning of Mathematics 5(3), 7–13.Google Scholar
  22. Niss, M. (ed.): 1993a, Investigations into Assessment in Mathematics Education — An ICMI Study, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  23. Niss, M. (ed.): 1993b, Cases of Assessment in Mathematics Education — An ICMI Study, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  24. Niss, M.: 1994, ‘Mathematics and society’, in Scholz, R.W., Strässer, R. and Winkelmann, B. (eds.): Didactics of Mathematics as a Scientific Discipline, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. R. Biehler et al. (eds.), pp. 367–387.Google Scholar
  25. Niss, M.: 1996, ‘Goals of mathematics teaching’, in Clements, K., Keitel, C., Kilpatrick, J. and Laborde, C. (eds.): International Handbook of Mathematics Education, Vols. 1–2, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands A. Bishop et al. (eds.), 1996, Chapter 1, 11–47.Google Scholar
  26. Nunes, T., Schliemann, A.D., and Carraher, D.W.: 1993, Street Mathematics and School Mathematics, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  27. Pehkonen, E. and Törner, G.: 1996: ‘Mathematical beliefs and different aspects of their meaning’, Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik 28(4), 101–108.Google Scholar
  28. Pimm, D.: 1987, Speaking Mathematically: Communication in Mathematics Classrooms, Routledge and Paul Kegan, London.Google Scholar
  29. Robert, A.: 1982, ‘L'Acquisition de la notion de convergence des suites numériques dans l'Enseignement Supérieur’, Recherches en Didactiques des Mathématiques 3(3), 307–341.Google Scholar
  30. Ruthven, K.: 1996, ‘Calculators in the mathematics curriculum: the scope of personal computational technology’, in Clements, K., Keitel, C., Kilpatrick, J. and Laborde, C. (eds.): International Handbook of Mathematics Education, Vols. 1–2, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands A. Bishop et al. (eds.), 1996, Chapter 12, pp. 435–468.Google Scholar
  31. Schoenfeld, A.: 1983, ‘Beyond the purely cognitive: belief systems, social cognitions, and metacognitions as driving forces in intellectual performance’, Cognitive Science 7(4), 329–363.Google Scholar
  32. 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), 1–36.Google Scholar
  33. Sfard, A. and Linchevski, L.: 1994, ‘The gains and pitfalls of reification — the case of algebra’, Educational Studies in Mathematics 26(3), 191–228.Google Scholar
  34. Sierpinska, A.: 1994, Understanding in Mathematics, The Falmer Press, London.Google Scholar
  35. Sierpinska, A. and Kilpatrick, J. (eds.): 1998, Mathematics Education as a Research Domain — An ICMI Study, Vols. 1–2, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  36. Sierpinska, A. and Lerman, S.: 1996, ‘Epistemologies of mathematics and of mathematics education’, in Clements, K., Keitel, C., Kilpatrick, J. and Laborde, C. (eds.): International Handbook of Mathematics Education, Vols. 1–2, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands A. Bishop et al. (eds.), 1996, Chapter 22, pp. 827–876.Google Scholar
  37. Skovsmose, O.: 1994, Towards a Philosophy of Critical Mathematics Education, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  38. Tall, D. (ed.): 1991, Advanced Mathematical Thinking, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  39. Tall, D.: 1992, ‘The transition to advanced mathematical thinking: functions, limits, infinity, and proof’, in D. Grouws (ed.), pp. 495–511.Google Scholar
  40. Tall, D. and Vinner, S.: 1981, ‘Concept image and concept definition in mathematics with particular reference to limits and continuity’, Educational Studies in Mathematics 12(2), 151–169.Google Scholar
  41. Tirosh, D.: 1991, ‘Intuitions on infinity and the cantorian theory’, in D. Tall (ed.), Chapter 12, pp. 199–214.Google Scholar
  42. Vergnaud, G.: 1990, ‘La théorie des champs conceptuels’, Recherches en Didactiques des Mathématiques 10(2/3), 133–170.Google Scholar
  43. Vinner, S.: 1991, ‘The role of definitions in teaching and learning’, in D. Tall (ed.), Chapter 5, pp. 65–81.Google Scholar
  44. Vinner, S., and Dreyfus, T.: 1989, ‘Images and definitions for the concept of functions’, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 20(4), 356–66.Google Scholar
  45. Wittmann, E.: 1995, Mathematics education as a “Design Science”, Educational Studies in Mathematics 29(4), 355–374.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mogens Niss
    • 1
  1. 1.Roskilde University, IMFUFARoskildeDenmark

Personalised recommendations