Advertisement

Forms of Knowledge in Mathematics and Mathematics Education: Philosophical and Rhetorical Perspectives

Chapter

Abstract

New forms of mathematical knowledge are growing in importance for mathematics and education, including tacit knowledge; knowledge of particulars, language and rhetoric in mathematics. These developments also include a recognition of the philosophical import of the social context of mathematics, and are part of the diminished domination of the field by absolutist philosophies. From an epistemological perspective, all knowledge must have a warrant and it is argued in the paper that tacit knowledge is validated by public performance and demonstration. This enables a parallel to be drawn between the justification of knowledge, and the assessment of learning. An important factor in the warranting of knowledge is the means of communicating it convincingly in written form, i.e., the rhetoric of mathematics. Skemp’s concept of ‘logical understanding’ anticipates the significance of tacit rhetorical knowledge in school mathematics. School mathematics has a range of rhetorical styles, and when one is used appropriately it indicates to the teacher the level of a student’s understanding. The paper highlights the import of attending to rhetoric and the range of rhetorical styles in school mathematics, and the need for explicit instruction in the area.

Keywords

Tacit Knowledge Mathematical Knowledge School Mathematics Mathematical Proof Mathematical Task 
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. Aiken, L. R.: 1972, ‘Language factors in learning mathematics’, Review of Educational Research 42 (3).Google Scholar
  2. Atkinson, P.: 1990, The Ethnographic Imagination: Textual Constructions of Reality, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  3. Austin, J. L. and Howson, A. G.: 1979, ‘Language and mathematical education’, Educational Studies in Mathematics 10, 161–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Avital, S. M. and Shettleworth, S. J.: 1968, Objectives for Mathematics Learning, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
  5. Ayer, A. J.: 1956, The Problem of Knowledge, Penguin Books, London.Google Scholar
  6. Bauersfeld, H.: 1992, ‘Classroom cultures from a social constructivist’s perspective’, Educational Studies in Mathematics 23, 467–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berg, J.: 1994, ‘Philosophical remarks on implicit knowledge and educational theory’, in D. Tirosh, Implicit and Explicit knowledge: An Educational Approach, Ablex Publishing Co., Norwood, NJ, pp. 245–253.Google Scholar
  8. Bishop, A. J.: 1988, Mathematical Enculturation, Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  9. Bloom, B. S. (ed.): 1956, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Part 1: The Cognitive Domain, David McKay, New York.Google Scholar
  10. Burton, L. and Morgan, C.: 1998, ‘Mathematicians writing’, unpublished paper. Chapman, A.: 1995, ‘h-itertextuality in school mathematics: The case of functions’, Linguistics and Education 7, 243–262.Google Scholar
  11. Chapman, A.: 1997, ‘Towards a model of language shifts in mathematics learning’, Paper presented at British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics Conference, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
  12. Cobb, P.: 1986, ‘Contexts, goals, beliefs, and learning mathematics’, For the Learning of Mathematics 6 (2), 2–9.Google Scholar
  13. Cobb, P.: 1989, ‘Experiential, Cognitive, and anthropological perspectives in mathematics education’, For the Learning of Mathematics 9 (2), 32–42.Google Scholar
  14. Davis, P. J. and Hersh, R.: 1980, The Mathematical Experience, Birkhauser, Boston.Google Scholar
  15. Dreyfus, H. L. and Dreyfus, S. E.: 1986, ‘Putting computers in their place’, Social Research 53 (1), 57–76.Google Scholar
  16. Durkin, K. and Shire, B., (eds.): 1991, Language in Mathematical Education. Research and Practice, The Open University Press, Milton Keynes.Google Scholar
  17. Ernest, P.: 1984, ‘CXC mathematics: A caribbean innovation in assessment’, Educational Studies in Mathematics 15, 397–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ernest, P.: 1991, The Philosophy of Mathematics EducationFalmer Press, London. Google Scholar
  19. Ernest, P.: 1993, ‘Mathematical activity and rhetoric: Towards a social constructivist account’, in N. Nohda (ed.), Proceedings of 17th International Conference on the Psychology of Mathematics Education, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan.Google Scholar
  20. Ernest, P.: 1995, ‘Values, gender and images of mathematics: A philosophical perspective’, International Journal for Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 26 (3), 449–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ernest, P.: 1997, Social Constructivism as a Philosophy of Mathematics, SUNY Press, Albany, New York.Google Scholar
  22. Ernest, P.: 1998, ‘The relation between personal and public knowledge from an epistemological perspective’, in F. Seeger, J. Voight and U. Waschescio (eds.), The Culture of the Mathematics Classroom, Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, pp. 245–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Firestone, W.: 1987, ‘Meaning in method: The rhetoric of quantitative and qualitative research’, Educational Researcher 16 (7), 16–20.Google Scholar
  24. Fischbein, E.: 1994, ‘Tacit Models’, in D. Tirosh, Implicit and Explicit knowledge: An Educational Approach, Ablex Publishing Co., Norwood, NJ, pp. 96–110.Google Scholar
  25. Fuller, S.: 1993, Philosophy, Rhetoric and the End of Knowledge, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
  26. Glasersfeld, E. von: 1995, Radical Constructivism: A Way of Knowing and Learning, Falmer Press, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hamlyn, D. W.: 1978, Experience and the Growth of Understanding, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
  28. Hersh, R.: 1993, ‘Proving is Convincing and Explaining’. Educational Studies in Mathematics 24 (4), 389–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hiebert, J. (ed.): 1986, Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge: The Case of Mathematics, Hillsdale, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  30. Kitcher, P.: 1984, The Nature of Mathematical Knowledge, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  31. Kitcher, P.: 1991; ‘Persuasion’, in M. Pera, W. R. Shea (eds.), Persuading Science: The Art of Scientific Rhetoric, Science History Publications, New York, pp. 3–27.Google Scholar
  32. Knuth, D. E.: 1985, ‘Algorithmic Thinking and Mathematical Thinking’, American Mathematical Monthly 92. 170–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kuhn, T. S.: 1970, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed., Chicago University Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  34. Lakatos, I.: 1976, Proofs and Refiutations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  35. Lakatos, I.: 1978, The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes (Philosophical Papers Volume 1 ), Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.Google Scholar
  36. Latour, B.: 1987, Science in Action, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  37. Lave, J. and Wenger, E.: 1991, Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Leechman, J.: 1864, Logic: Designed as a Introduction to the Study of Reasoning, William Allan and Company, London.Google Scholar
  39. Lerman, S. (ed.): 1994, Cultural Perspectives on the Mathematics Classroom, Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  40. Livingston, E.: 1986, The Ethnomethodological Foundations of Mathematics, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
  41. Manin, Y. I.: 1977, A Course in Mathematical Logic, Springer Verlag, New York, p. 48. Mellin-Olsen, S.: 1981, ‘Instrumentalism as an Educational Concept’, Educational Studies in Mathematics 12, 351–367.Google Scholar
  42. Morgan, C.: 1998, Writing Mathematically: The Discourse of Investigation, The Falmer Press, London.Google Scholar
  43. Mousley, J. and Marks, G.: 1991, Discourses in Mathematics, Deakin University Press, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.Google Scholar
  44. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics: 1989, Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, VA.Google Scholar
  45. Nelson, J., Megill, A. and McCloskey, D. (eds.): 1987a, The Rhetoric of the Human Sciences, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
  46. Pimm D.: 1987, Speaking Mathematically, Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd, London.Google Scholar
  47. Polanyi, M.: 1958, Personal Knowledge, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
  48. Popper, K.: 1959, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Hutchinson, London.Google Scholar
  49. Quine, W. V. O.: 1960, Word and Object, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  50. Reichenbach, H.: 1951, The Rise of Scientific Philosophy, University of California Press, Berkeley, California.Google Scholar
  51. Restivo, S.: 1992, Mathematics in Society and History, Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  52. Richards, J.: 1991, ‘Mathematical Discussions’, in E. von Glasersfeld (ed.), Radical Constructivism in Mathematics Education, Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 13–51.Google Scholar
  53. Robitaille, D. F. and Travers, K. J.: 1992, ‘International atudies of achievement in mathematics’, in D. A. Grouws (ed.), Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning, MacMillan, New York, pp. 687–709.Google Scholar
  54. Rorty, R.: 1979, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  55. Rotman, B.: 1988, ‘Towards a semiotics of mathematics’, Semiotica 72 (1/2), 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rotman, B.: 1993, Ad Infinitum The Ghost in Turing’s Machine: Taking God Ou t of Mathematics and Putting the Body Back in, Stanford University Press, Stanford California.Google Scholar
  57. Ryle, G.: 1949, The Concept of Mind, Hutchinson, London.Google Scholar
  58. Saxe, G. B.: 1991, Culture and Cognitive Development: Studies in Mathematical Understanding, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  59. Schoenfeld, A.: 1985, Mathematical Problem Solving. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  60. Schoenfeld, A.: 1992, ‘Learning to think mathematically’, in D. A. Grouws (ed.), (1992) Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning, MacMillan, New York, pp. 334–370.Google Scholar
  61. Simons, H. (Ed.): 1989, Rhetoric in the Human Sciences, Sage, London.Google Scholar
  62. Skemp, R. R.: 1976, ‘Relational understanding and instrumental understanding’, Mathematics Teaching 77, 20–26.Google Scholar
  63. Skemp, R. R.: 1979, ‘Goals of learning and qualities of understanding’, Mathematics Teaching 88, 44–49.Google Scholar
  64. Skemp, R. R. (ed.) 1982, ‘Understanding The Symbolism of Mathematics’, Visible Language 16(3).Google Scholar
  65. Thom, R.: 1986, ‘Mathematics’, in T. A. Sebeok (ed.), Encyclopedic Dictionary of Semiotics, Vol. 1, Mouton de Gruyter. Berlin, pp. 487–494.Google Scholar
  66. Tirosh, D. (ed.): 1994, Implicit and Explicit Knowledge: An Educational Approach, Ablex Publishing Co, Norwood, NJ.Google Scholar
  67. Tymoczko, T. (ed.): 1986, New Directions in the Philosophy of Mathematics, Birkhauser, Boston.Google Scholar
  68. Wilder, R. L.: 1981, Mathematics as a Cultural System, Pergamon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  69. Wittgenstein, L.: 1953, Philosophical Investigations (translated by G. E. M. Anscombe ), Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  70. Woolgar, S.: 1988, Science: The Very Idea, Ellis Horwood/Tavistock, London.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of ExeterExeter, DevonUK

Personalised recommendations