Advertisement

Abstract

Schoenfeld (1992) notes that constructivism rooted in Piaget is grounded in the belief that “…learning proceeds through construction not absorption” (p. 340). He surmises that teacher beliefs directly influence their pedagogy, he notes a teacher who believed that, “…mathematics is fixed and predetermined, as dictated by the physical world” (p. 349) would not tend to focus on the process of learning and construction of knowledge but rather regard math as, “…a finished product to be assimilated.”

Keywords

Mathematics Education Percent Increase Solution Activity Educational Study Mathematics Education Research 
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. Proceedings of the 37th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 2–23). Sydney: MERGA.Google Scholar
  2. Adi, H., & Pulos, S. (1980). Individual differences and formal operational performance of college students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 11(2), 150–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amit, M. (2010). Commentary 1 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: Spring Verlag.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson J. (1995). Cognitive psychologyt and its implications (4th ed.). New York, NY: W.H. Freedman and Co.Google Scholar
  5. Arnon, I., Cottrill, J., Dubinsky, E., Oktaç, A., Fuentes, S. R., Trigueros, M., & Weller, K. (2013). APOS theory: A framework for research and curriculum development in mathematics education. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  6. Bailin, S. (1987). Critical and creative thinking. Informal Logic, 9(1).Google Scholar
  7. Bishop, A. (1998). Research, effectiveness, and the practitioners world. In A. Sierpinska & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), Mathematics education as a research domain: A search for identity. Dordrecht The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Boote, D. N. (2010). Commentary 3 on re-conceptualizing mathematics education as a design science. In Theories of mathematics education (pp. 159–168). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caddle, M. C., & Brizuela, B. M. (2011). Fifth graders’ additive and multiplicative reasoning: Establishing connections across conceptual fields using a graph. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 30(3), 224–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cifarelli, V. V. (1998). The development of mental representations as a problem solving activity. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17(2), 239–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clements, D. H., & Battista, M. T. (1990). Constructivist learning and teaching. Arithmetic Teacher, 38(1), 34–35.Google Scholar
  12. Cobb, P., & Steffe, L. P. (2010). The constructivist researcher as teacher and model builder. In A journey in mathematics education research (pp. 19–30). Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cobb, P. (2011). Chapter 2 Introduction: Part I radical constructivism. In E. Yackel, K. Gravemeijer, & A. Sfard (Eds.), A journey in mathematics education research: Insights from the work of Paul Cobb, Mathematics Education Library 48 (pp. 9–17). Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York, NY: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  14. Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Confrey, J. (1995). A theory of intellectual development. For the Learning of Mathematics, 15(1), 38–48.Google Scholar
  16. Czarnocha, B., Dubinsky E., Prabu, V., & Viadokovic, D. (1999) One theoretical perspective in undergraduate mathematics education research. In O. Zaslavsky (Ed.) Proceedings of the 23rd Conference of PME, Haifa, Israel, 1, 95–110.Google Scholar
  17. English, L. D. (2010a). Preface to Part III: Theoretical, conceptual, and philosophical foundations for mathematics education research: Timeless necessities. In B. Sriramen & L. English (Eds.), Theories of mathematics education: Seeking new frontiers (pp. 121–122). Berlin, Heidelberg: Spring Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. English, L. D. (2010b). Preface to Part V: Re-conceptualizing mathematics education as design science: In B. Sriramen & L. English (Eds.), Theories of mathematics education: Seeking new frontiers (pp. 121–122). Berlin, Heidelberg: Spring Verlag.Google Scholar
  19. Fernandez, C., Llinares, S., Modestou, M., & Gagatsis, A. (2010). Proportional reasoning: How task variables influence the development of students’ strategies from primary to secondary school. Acta Didactica Universitatis Comenianae Mathematics (ADUC), 10, 1–18.Google Scholar
  20. Glasersfeld, E. V. (1998, September). Scheme theory as a key to the learning paradox. Paper presented at the 15th Advanced Course, Archives Jean Piaget. Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  21. Glasersfeld, E. V. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. In Studies in mathematics education series. London: The Falmer Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Goodson-Espy, T. (1998). The roles of reification and reflective abstraction in the development of abstract thought: Transitions from arithmetic to algebra. Educational studies in mathematics, 36(3), 219–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gray, E. M., & Tall, D. O. (1994). Duality, ambiguity, and flexibility: A” proceptual” view of simple arithmetic. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 116–140.Google Scholar
  25. Harel, G. (2010). Commentary on the theoretical, conceptual, and philosophical foundations for research in mathematics education. In Theories of mathematics education (pp. 87–94). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Huang, R., & Bao, J. (2006). Towards a model for teacher professional development in China: Introducing KELI. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9, 279–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. New York, NY: Basic Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jaworski, B. (2014). Mathematics education development research in teaching ↔ Learning in practice. In J. Anderson, M. Cavanagh, & A. Prescott (Eds.), Curriculum in focus: Research guided practice (pp. 135–142). Sydney: MERGA.Google Scholar
  29. Karagiorgi, Y., & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating constructivism into instructional design: Potential and limitations. Educational Technology and Society, 8(1), 17–27.Google Scholar
  30. Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 16–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lamon, S. (2007). Rational numbers and proportional reasoning: Towards a theoretical framework for research. In F. K. Lester, Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  32. Lerman, S. (2010). Theories of mathematics education: Is plurality a problem. In B. Sriramen & L. English (Eds.), Theories of mathematics education: Seeking new frontiers (pp. 99–110). Berlin, Heidelberg: Spring Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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: Spring Verlag.Google Scholar
  34. Lester Jr., F. K. (2010). On the theoretical, conceptual, and philosophical foundations for mathematics education research in mathematics education. In B. Sriramen & L. English (Eds.), Theories of mathematics education: Seeking new frontiers (pp. 67–86). Berlin, Heidelberg: Spring Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lo, J. J., & Watanabe, T. (1997). Developing ratio and proportion schemes: A story of a fifth grader. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(2), 216–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2008). Critical and creative thinking. Dillon Beach, CA: The Foundation for Critical Thinking Press. Retrieved January 2015, www.criticalthinking.orgGoogle Scholar
  37. Piaget, J., & Garcia, R. (1991). Toward a logic of meaning (Trans.) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (Original work published 1987)Google Scholar
  38. Polya, G. (1971). How to solve it (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Presmeg, N. (2003). Creativity, mathematizing, and didactizing: Leen Streefland’s work continues. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 54(1), 127–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Presmeg, N. C. (2006). Research on visualization in learning and teaching mathematics. In A. Gutiérrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education (pp. 205–235). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  41. Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 105(9), 1623–1640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schoenfeld, A. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. In D. Grows (Ed.), Handbook for research on mathematics teaching and learning. New York, NY: Macmillian.Google Scholar
  43. Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. New York, NY: Basic Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sfard, A. (1992). Operational origins of mathematical objects and the quandary of reification-the case of function. In G. Harel & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), The concept of function: Aspects of epistemology and pedagogy (25th ed., pp. 59–84). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.Google Scholar
  45. 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
  46. Simon, M. A., Tzur, R., Heinz, K., & Kinzel, M. (2004). Explicating a mechanism for conceptual learning: Elaborating the construct of reflective abstraction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(5), 305–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Singh, P. (2000). Understanding the concepts of proportion and ratio constructed by two grade six students. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 43, 271–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sriramen, B., & English, L. (2010). Preliminary remarks: Surveying theories and philosophies of mathematics education. In B. Sriramen & L. English (Eds.), Theories of mathematics education: Seeking new frontiers (p. 7). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Steffe, L. (1991). The constructivist teaching experiment illustrations and implications. In E. Von Glaserfeld (Ed.), Radical constructivism in mathematics education. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publisher.Google Scholar
  50. Steffe, L. P. (1991). The constructivist teaching experiment: Illustrations and implications. In E. Von Glasersfeld (Ed.), Radical constructivism in mathematics education (pp. 177–194). Boston, MA : Kluwer Academic Publisher.Google Scholar
  51. Steffe, L. P., & Thompson, P. W. (2000). Teaching experiment methodology: Underlying principles and essential elements. In R. Lesh & A. E. Kelly (Eds.), Research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 267–307). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  52. Tall, D. (1993) Success and failure in mathematics: The flexible meaning of symbols as process and objects. Mathematics Teacher, 142, 6–10.Google Scholar
  53. Tall, D., Thomas, M., Davis, G., Gray, E., & Simpson, A. (2000). What is the object of the encapsulation of a process? Journal of Mathematical Behaviour, 18(2), 1–19.Google Scholar
  54. The Arithmetic Teacher, 38(1), 34–35.Google Scholar
  55. Treffinger, D. (1995). Creative problem solving: Overview and educational implications. Educational Psychological Review, 17(3), 301–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tzur, R. (2007). Fine grain assessment of students’ mathematical understanding of participatory and anticipatory stages in learning a new mathematical conception. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66(3), 273–291.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