Advertisement

Discovery Method and Teaching-Research

  • William Baker

Abstract

In Unit 1 we reflected upon the gap between research and practice and reviewed recent efforts to close this gap by reconceptualising mathematics education research as a design research (Unit 4). In Chapter 1.1 we began a discussion about the essential role of discovery learning in conducting teaching research, in this chapter we reflect upon discovery learning as an important tool in the effort by constructivist pedagogy to reform mathematics education.

Keywords

Mathematics Education Mathematics Classroom Direct Instruction Constructivist Pedagogy Discovery Learning 
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. Abrahamson, D., Gutiérrez, J. F., Charoenying, T., Negrete, A. G., & Bumbacher, E. (2012). Fostering hooks and shifts: Tutorial tactics for guided mathematical discovery. Technology, Knowledge, and Learning, 17(12), 61–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dean, D., & Kuhn, D. (2006). Direct instruction vs. Discovery: The long view. Science Education, 91, 384–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ernest, P. (1997). The epistemological basis of qualitative research inn mathematics education: A post modern perspective (Qualitative Research Methods in Mathematics Education). Journal for Research in Mathematics Education (Monograph, 9), 22–177.Google Scholar
  4. Gilles, R., & Haynes, M. (2011). Increasing explanatory behaviour, problem-solving, and reasoning within classes using cooperative group work. Instructional Science, 39, 349–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Goldin, G. A. (2003). Developing complex understanding: On the relation of mathematical education research to mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 54, 171–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C., A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.Google Scholar
  7. Karagiorgi, Y., & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating constructivism into instructional design: Potential and limitations. Educational Technology and Society, 8(1), 17–27.Google Scholar
  8. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: Effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychology Science, 15, 661–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Klein, D. (2007). A quarter century of US ‘math wars’ and political partisanship. BSHM Bulletin Journal for British Society of the History of Mathematics, 22(1), 22–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Laursen, S. (2013, November 24–29). From innovation to implementation: Multi-institution pedagogical reform in undergraduate mathematics. The 9th Delta Conference on teaching and learning of undergraduate mathematics and statistics, Kiama, Australia. Retrieved July 1, 2015 from http://www.colorado.edu/eer/research/documents/LaursenInnovationToImplementation_Delta2013.pdf
  12. Laursen, S. L., & Kogan, M. (2013). Assessing long-term effects of inquiry-based learning: A case study from college mathematics. Innovative Higher Education, 39(3), 183–199.Google Scholar
  13. Laursen, S. L., Hassi, M. L., Kogan, M., & Weston, T. J. (2014). Benefits for women and men of inquiry – based learning in college mathematics: A multi-institution study. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 45(4), 406–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lesh, R., & Sriraman, B. (2010). On re-conceptualizing mathematics education as a design science. In B. Sriramen & L. English (Eds.), Theories of mathematics education: Seeking new frontiers (pp. 121–122). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  15. Mahavier, T. (1997). A gentle discovery method (The Modified Moore Method). College Teaching, 45(4), 132–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Meyer, R. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 29(1), 14–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Norton A., & D’Ambrosio, B. (2008). ZPC and ZPD: Zones of teaching and learning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(3), 220–246.Google Scholar
  18. Ramai, R (2006). Twelve documents in the math wars, 1989–2006. Retrieved from http://www.math.rochester.edu/people/faculty/rarm/debate_appendix.html
  19. Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 105(9), 1623–1640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Zitarelli, D. (2004). The origins and early impact of the Moore method. The American Mathematical Monthly, 111(6), 465–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Sense Publishers 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • William Baker
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Mathematics DepartmentEugenio Maria de Hostos Community CollegeUSA
  2. 2.City University of New YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations