Online Assignment

2013-2014
St.thomas training college
mukkola tvpm
THANSEELA.N
MATHEMATICS
REG.NO :
13386008
[ASSIGNMENT]

AN ASSIGNMENT ON
RESEARCH
IN
MATHEMATICSEDUCATION
2

Research in Mathematics
3
Education
“Bertrand Russel has defined mathematics as the science in which we
never know what we are talking about or whether what we are saying is
true. Mathematics has been shown to apply widely in many other scientific
fields. Hence, most other scientists do not know what they are talking about
or whether what they are saying is true.”
Joel Cohen,”On the nature of mathematical proof”
“There are no proofs in mathematical education”
Hentry Pollark
The first quotation above is humorous; the second serious.
Both, however, serve to highlight some of the major differences
between mathematics and mathematics education—differences that
must be understood if one is to understand the nature of methods and
results in mathematics education. The Cohen quotation does point to
some serious aspects of mathematics. In describing various
geometries, for example, we start with undefined terms. Then, following
the rules of logic, we prove that if certain things are true, other results
must follow. On the one hand, the terms are undefined; i.e., “we never
know what we are talking about.” On the other hand, the results are
definitive. As Gertrude Stein might have said, a proof is a proof is a
proof. Other disciplines work in other ways. Pollak’s statement was not
meant as a dismissal of mathematics education, but as a pointer to the
fact that the nature of evidence and argument in mathematics education
is quite unlike the nature of evidence and argument in mathematics.
Indeed, the kinds of questions one can ask (and expect to be able to
answer) in educational research are not the kinds of questions that
mathematicians might expect. Beyond that, mathematicians and
education researchers tend to have different views of the purposes and
goals of research in mathematics education.

4
Purposes
Research in mathematics education has two main purposes, one pure and
one applied:
• Pure (Basic Science):
To understand the nature of mathematical thinking, teaching, and
learning;
• Applied (Engineering):
To use such understandings to improve mathematics instruction. These
are deeply intertwined, with the first at least as important as the second.
The reason is simple: without a deep understanding of thinking, teaching,
and learning, no sustained progress on the “applied front” is possible. A
useful analogy is the relationship between medical research and practice.
There is a wide range of medical research.
Some is done urgently, with potential applications in the immediate future.
Some is done with the goal of understanding basic physiologica
mechanisms. Over the long run the two kinds of work live in synergy.This
is because basic knowledge is of intrinsic interest and because it
establishes and strengthens the foundations upon which applied work is
based. These dual purposes must be understood. They contrast rather
strongly with the single purpose of research in mathematics education, as
seen from the perspective of many mathematicians: “Tell me what works
in the classroom.”Saying this does not imply that mathematicians are not
interested at some abstract level in basic research in mathematics
education, but that their primary expectation is usefulness in rather direct
and practical terms. Of course, the educational community must provide
useful results—indeed, usefulness motivates the vast majority of
educational work—but it is a mistake to think that direct applications
(curriculum development, “proof” that instructional treatments work, etc.)
are the primary business of research in mathematics education.
Some of the fundamental contributions from research
in mathematics education are the following:

• Theoretical perspectives for understanding thinking, learning, and
teaching;
• Descriptions of aspects of cognition (e.g., thinking mathematically;
student understandings and misunderstandings of the concepts of
function, limit, etc.);
• Existence proofs (evidence of cases in which students can learn
problem solving, induction, group theory; evidence of the viability of
various kinds of instruction);
• Descriptions of (positive and negative) consequences of various forms
of instruction.
5
.
Standards for Judging Theories, Models,
and Results
There is a wide range of results and methods in mathematics education.
A major question thenis the following: How much faith should one have
in any particular result? What constitutes solid reason, what constitutes
“proof beyond a reasonable doubt”? The following list puts forth a set of
criteria that can be used for evaluating models and theories (and more
generally any empirical or theoretical work) in mathematics education:
• Descriptive power
• Explanatory power
• Scope
• Predictive power
• Rigor and specificity
• Falsifiability
• Replicability
• Multiple sources of evidence (“triangulation”)
Descriptive Power
The capacity of a theory to capture “what counts” in ways that seem
faithful to the phenomena being described. Theories of mind, problem
solving, or teaching should include relevant and important aspects of
thinking, problem solving, and teaching respectively. At a very broad
level, fair questions to ask are: Is anything missing? Do the elements of
the

theory correspond to things that seem reasonable? For example, say a
problem-solving session, an interview, or a classroom lesson was
videotaped .Would a person who read the analysis and saw the
videotape reasonably be surprised by things that were missing from the
analysis?
Explanatory Power
By explanatory power providing explanations of how and why things
work. It is one thing to say that people will or will not be able to do used
those techniques did poorly on the test, largely because they ran out of
time.
Scope
By scope mean the range of phenomena covered by the theory. A theory
of equations is not very impressive if it deals only with linear equations.
Likewise, a theory of teaching is not very impressive if it covers only
straight lectures!
Predictive Power
The role of prediction is obvious: one test of any theory is whether it can
specify some results in advance of their taking place. Again, it is good to
keep things like the theory of evolution in mind as a model. . About half
of the time they were then able to predict the incorrect answer that the
student would obtain to a new problem before the student worked the
problem! Such fine-grained and consistent predictions on the basis of
something as simple as a diagnostic test are extremely rare of course.
For example, no theory of teaching can predict precisely what a teacher
will do in various circumstances; human behavior is just not that
predictable. However, a theory of teaching can work in ways analogous
to the theory of evolution. It can suggest constraints and even suggest
likely events. Making predictions is a very powerful tool in theory
refinement. When something is claimed to
be impossible and it happens, or when a theory makes repeated claims
that something is very likely and it does not occur, then the theory has
problems! Thus, engaging in such predictions is an important
methodological tool, even when it is understood that precise prediction is
impossible.
6
Rigor and Specificity

Constructing a theory or a model involves the specification of a set of
objects and relationships among them. This set of abstract objects and
relationships supposedly corresponds to some set of objects and
relationships in the “real world.
Falsifiability
The need for falsifiability—for making non tautological claims or
predictions whose accuracy can be tested empirically—should be clear
at this point. It
is a concomitant of the discussion in the previous two subsections. A
field makes progress (and guards against tautologies) by putting its ideas
on the line.
Replicability
The issue of replicability is also intimately tied to that of rigor and
specificity. There are two related sets of issues: (1) Will the same thing
happen if the circumstances are repeated? (2) Will others, once
appropriately trained, see the same things in the data? In both cases
answering these questions depends on having well-defined procedures
and
constructs.
Multiple Sources of Evidence (“Triangulation”)
Here we find one of the major differences between mathematics and the
social sciences. In mathematics one compelling line of argument (a
proof)
is enough: validity is established. In education and the social sciences
we are generally in the business of looking for compelling evidence. The
fact is,evidence can be misleading: what we think is general may in fact
be an artifact or a function of circumstances rather than a general
phenomenon.
7
Lessons From Research
Decades of research indicate that students can and should
solve problems before they have mastered procedures or algorithms
traditionally used to solve these problems (National counsil of teachers of
mathematics,2000). If they are given opportunities to do so, their
conceptual understanding and ability to transfer knowledge is increased.

Indeed some of the most consistently successful of the reform curricula
have been programs that
 Build directly on students strategies
 Provide opportunities for both invention and practice.
 Have children analyse multiple strategies.
 Ask for explanations.
Research evaluations of these programs show that these curricula
facilitate conceptual growth without sacrificing skills and also help
students learn concepts and skills while problem solving.
Reaserch provides several recommendations for meeting the needs of
all students in mathematical education.
 Keep expectations reasonable, but not low.
Expectations must be raised because “mathematics can
and must be learned by all students” ( NCTM, 2000), Raising standerds
includes increased emphasis on conducting experiments, authentic
problem solving and project learning.
 Patiently help students develop conceptual understanding and skill.
Students who have difficulty in maths may need
additional resources to support and consolidate the underlying concepts
and skill being learned. They benifict from the multiple experiences with
models abstract, numerical manipulations.
8
 Build on childrens strengths.
This statements often is little more than a trite
pronouncement. But teachers can reinvigorate it when they make a
conscientious it when they make a conscientious effort to buid on what
children know how to do, relying on children’s own strengths to address
their deficits.
 Build on childrens informal strategies
Even severely learning disabled children can
invent quite sophisticated counting strategies. Informal strategies provide
a sterting place for developing both concepts and procedures.
 Develop skills in a meaningfull and purp[oseful fashion.
Practice is important, but practice at the
problem solving level is preferred whenever possible. Meaningfull
purposefull practice gives the price to one.
 Use manipulate wisely

Make sure students explain what they are doing
and link their work with manipulates to underlying concepts and formal
skills.
9
 Use technology wisely
Computers with voice recognition or voice
creation software can teachers and peers access to the mathematical
idea and arguments developed by students with facilities.
 Make connections
Integrate concept and skill help children link
symbols, verbal description and work with manipulatives.
 Adjust instructional formats to individual learning styles or specific
learning needs
It includes modeling, demonstration and feedback ,
guiding and teaching strategies, mnemonic strategies for learning
number combinations and peer mediations
Conclusion
The research in (undergraduate) mathematics education is a very
different enterprise from research in mathematics and that an
understanding of the
differences is essential if one is to appreciate (or better yet, contribute to)
work in the field. Findings are rarely definitive; they are usually
suggestive. Evidence is not on the order of proof, but is cumulative,
moving towards conclusions that can be considered to be beyond a
reasonable doubt. A
scientific approach is possible, but one must take care not to be
scientistic—what counts are not the trappings of science, such as the
experimental method, but the use of careful reasoning and standards of
evidence, employing a wide variety of methods appropriate for the tasks
at hand.It is worth remembering how young mathematics education is as
a field. Mathematicians are used to measuring mathematical lineage in
centuries, if not millennia; in contrast, the lineage of research in
mathematics education (especially undergraduate mathematics
education) is measured in decades. The journal Educational Studies in
Mathematics dates to the 1960s. The first issue of Volume 1 of the
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education was published in
January 1970. The series of volumes Research in Collegiate
Mathematics Education—the first set of volumes devoted solely to

mathematics education at the college level—began to appear in 1994. It
is no accident that the vast majority of articles cited by Artigue [1] in her
1999 review of research findings were written in the 1990s; there was
little at the undergraduate level before then! There has been an
extraordinary amount of progress in recent years, but the field is still very
young, and there is a very long way to go. Because of the nature of the
field, it is appropriate to adjust one’s stance toward the work and its
utility. Mathematicians approaching this work should be open to a wide
variety of ideas, understanding that the methods and perspectives to
which they are accustomed do not apply to educational research in
straightforward ways. They should not look for definitive answers but for
ideas they can use. At the same time, all consumers and practitioners of
research in (undergraduate) mathematics education should be healthy
skeptics. In particular, because there are no definitive answers, one
should certainly be wary of anyone who offers them. More generally, the
main goal for the decades to come is to continue building a corpus of
theory and methods that will allow research in mathematics education to
become an
ever more robust basic and applied field.
10
References
http://:www.ams.org/.../fea-schoenfeld
http://:www.math.upenn.edu/.../psutalk
http://:www.ernweb.com/browse-topic/math-ed
http://:wikipedia.org/wiki/mathematic.
M. ASIALA, A. BROWN, D. DE VRIES, E. DUBINSKY, D. MATHEWS,
and K. THOMAS, A framework for research and
curriculum development in undergraduate mathematics
education, Research in Collegiate Mathematics
Education (J. Kaput, A. Schoenfeld, and E. Dubinsky,
eds.), vol. II, Conference Board of the Mathematical
Sciences, Washington, DC, pp. 1–32.
D. P. AUSUBEL, Educational Psychology: A Cognitive
View, Holt-Reinhardt-Winston, New York, 1968.

J. S. BROWN and R. R. BURTON, Diagnostic models
for procedural bugs in basic mathematical skills,
Cognitive Science 2 (1978), 155–192.
11

Online Assignment

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Online Assignment (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Online Assignment