Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A research framework for creative and imitative reasoning

  • Published:
Educational Studies in Mathematics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Schoenfeld did not use the term ‘competence’ but ‘knowledge and behaviour’.

References

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Balacheff, N. (1990). Towards a problematique for research on mathematics teaching. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21(4), 258–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Bergqvist, T., & Lithner, J. (2005). Simulating creative reasoning in mathematics teaching. Research Reports in Mathematics Education 2, Dept. of Mathematics, Umeå University.

  • Bergqvist, T., Lithner, J., & Sumpter, L. (2007). Upper secondary students task reasoning. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology (in press).

  • Bloom, B. S. (Ed.) (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Part 1: The Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchman, C. W. (1971). The design of inquiring systems: Basic concepts of system and organization. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, W. (1988). Work in mathematics classes: The context of students thinking during instruction. Educational Psychologist, 23, 167–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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).

  • Ernest, P. (1999). Forms of knowledge in mathematics and mathematics education: Philosophical and rhetorical perspectives. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 38(1), 67–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischbein, E. (1999). Intuitions and schemata in mathematical reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 38(1), 11–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haylock, D. (1997). Recognising mathematical creativity in schoolchildren. Zentralblatt fuer Didaktik der Mathematik, 29(3), 68–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Huckstep, P., & Rowland, T. (2000). Creative mathematics – real or rhetoric? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 42(1), 81–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Leron, U., & Hazzan, O. (1997). The world according to Johnny: A coping perspective in mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 32, 265–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lester, F. (2005). On the theoretical, conceptual, and philosophical foundations for research in mathematics education. Zentralblatt fuer Didaktik der Mathematik, 37(6), 457–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lithner, J. (2000a). Mathematical reasoning and familiar procedures. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 31, 83–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lithner, J. (2000b). Mathematical reasoning in task solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 41, 165–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Lithner, J. (2003). Students mathematical reasoning in university textbook exercises. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 52, 29–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lithner, J. (2004). Mathematical reasoning in calculus textbook exercises. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 23, 405–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Långström, P., & Lithner, J. (2007). Students learning strategies and mathematical reasoning in textbook-related metacognitive processes (in press).

  • McGinty, R., VanBeynen, J., & Zalewski, D. (1986). Do our mathematics textbooks reflect what we preach? School Science and Mathematics, 86, 591–596.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monaghan, J., & Ozmantar, M. (2006). Abstraction and consolidation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 62(3), 233–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: The Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niss, M. (2003). Mathematical competencies and the learning of mathematics: The Danish KOM project. Third Mediterranean conference on mathematics education (pp. 115–124).

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pólya, G. (1954). Mathematics and plausible reasoning (Vols. I and II). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoenfeld, A. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Orlando, FL: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sierpinska, A. (1996). Understanding in mathematics. Routledge: Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silver, E. (1997). Fostering creativity through instruction rich in mathematical problem solving and problem posing. Zentralblatt fuer Didaktik der Mathematik, 29(3), 75–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skemp, R. (1978). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Arithmetic Teacher, 26(3), 9–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sriraman, B. (2004). The characteristics of mathematical creativity. The Mathematics Educator, 14(1), 19–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stacey, K., & MacGregor, M. (1999). Taking the algebraic thinking out of algebra. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 11, 24–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tall, D. (1991). Reflections. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 251–259). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • van Hiele, P. (1986). Structure and insight. A theory of mathematics education. Orlando: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vinner, S. (1997). The pseudo-conceptual and the pseudo-analytical thought processes in mathematics learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 34, 97–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wedege, T., & Skott, J. (2006). Changing views and practices? A study of the Kapp-Abel mathematics competition. Trondheim: NTNU.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mathematics, Umeaa University, S90187, Umeaa, Sweden

    Johan Lithner

Authors
  1. Johan Lithner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johan Lithner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lithner, J. A research framework for creative and imitative reasoning. Educ Stud Math 67, 255–276 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-007-9104-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-007-9104-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation