# In the Absence of Meaning…

## Abstract

There are many diagnoses of the bad state of U.S. mathematics education, ranging from incoherent curricula to low-quality teaching. In this chapter I will address a foundational reason for the many manifestations of failure—a systemic, cultural inattention to mathematical meaning and coherence. The result is teachers’ inability to teach for understanding and students’ inability to develop personal mathematical meanings that support interest, curiosity, and future learning. In developing this argument I discuss the subtle ways in which actual meanings with which teachers currently teach and actual meanings students currently develop in interaction with instruction contribute to dysfunctional mathematics education. I end by proposing a long-term strategy to address this situation.

### Keywords

Retina Coherence Assure Assimilation Posit### References

- Bauersfeld, H. (1980). Hidden dimensions in the so-called reality of a mathematics classroom.
*Educational Studies in Mathematics, 11*, 23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Bauersfeld, H. (1988). Interaction, construction, and knowledge: Alternative perspectives for mathematics education. In T. J. Cooney & D. A. Grouws (Eds.),
*Effective mathematics teaching*. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar - Branca, N. A. (1980). Communication of mathematical structure and its relationship to achievement.
*Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 11*, 37–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Bringuier, J. C. (1980).
*Conversations with Jean Piaget*. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar - Cai, J. (2010). Conceptions of effective mathematics teaching within a cultural context: Perspectives of teachers from China and the United States.
*Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 13*, 265–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Carlson, M. P., Oehrtman, M. C., & Engelke, N. (2010). The precalculus concept assessment (PCA) instrument: A tool for assessing students’ reasoning patterns and understandings.
*Cognition and Instruction, 28*, 113–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Carpenter, T. P. (1986). Conceptual knowledge as a foundation for procedural understanding. In J. Hiebert (Ed.),
*Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics*(pp. 113–132). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar - Castillo-Garsow, C. C. (2010).
*Teaching the Verhulst model*:*A teaching experiment in covariational reasoning and exponential growth*. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ. Retrieved from http://pat-thompson.net/PDFversions/Theses/2010CastilloGarsow.pdf - Clark, J. M., Cordero, F., Cottril, J., Czarnocha, B., DeVries, D. J., St. John, D., et al. (1997). Constructing a schema: The case of the chain rule?
*Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 16*, 345–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Cobb, P. (2007). Putting philosophy to work: Coping with multiple theoretical perspectives. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.),
*Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning*(Vol. 1, pp. 3–38). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar - Cobb, P., Boufi, A., McClain, K., & Whitenack, J. (1997). Reflective discourse and collective reflection.
*Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28*, 258–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Cobb, P., & Glasersfeld, E. V. (1983). Piaget’s scheme and constructivism.
*Genetic Epistemology, 13*(2), 9–15.Google Scholar - Dewey, J. (1910).
*How we think*. Boston, MA: D. C. Heath.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Dewey, J. (1933).
*How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process*. Boston, MA: D. C. Heath.Google Scholar - Dubinsky, E., & Harel, G. (1992). The nature of the process conception of function. In G. Harel & E. Dubinsky (Eds.),
*The concept of function: Aspects of epistemology and pedagogy*(pp. 85–106). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.Google Scholar - Dugdale, S., Wagner, L. J., & Kibbey, D. (1992). Visualizing polynomial functions: New insights from an old method in a new medium.
*Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 11*(2), 123–142.Google Scholar - Ferrini-Mundy, J., Floden, R. E., McCrory, R., Burrill, G., & Sandow, D. (2005).
*Knowledge for teaching school algebra: Challenges in developing an analytic framework*. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Knowledge of Algebra for Teaching Project.Google Scholar - Ferrini-Mundy, J., & Gauadard, M. (1992). Secondary school calculus: Preparation or pitfall in the study of college calculus.
*Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23*, 56–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Ferrini-Mundy, J., & Graham, K. (1994). Research in calculus learning: Understanding of limits, derivatives, and integrals. In J. J. Kaput & E. Dubinsky (Eds.),
*Research issues in undergraduate mathematics learning*. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.Google Scholar - Glasersfeld, E. v. (1995).
*Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning (studies in mathematics education)*. London, England: Falmer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 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 - Grice, H. P. (1957). Meaning.
*Philosophical Review, 66*, 377–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Hackworth, J. A. (1994).
*Calculus students*’*understanding of rate*. Unpublished Masters Thesis, San Diego State University, Department of Mathematical Sciences. Retrieved from http://pat-thompson.net/PDFversions/1994Hackworth.pdf - Heid, M. K. (1988). Resequencing skills and concepts in applied calculus using the computer as a tool.
*Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19*, 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. P. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In D. Grouws (Ed.),
*Handbook for research on mathematics teaching and learning*(pp. 65–97). New York, NY: 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: The case of mathematics*(pp. 3–20). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar - Hiebert, J., Stigler, J. W., Jacobs, J. K., Givvin, K. B., Garnier, H., Smith, M., et al. (2005). Mathematics teaching in the United States today (and tomorrow): Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study.
*Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27*, 111–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Hill, H. C. (2010). The nature and predictors of elementary teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching.
*Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41*, 513–545.Google Scholar - Hill, H. C., Blunk, M. L., Charalambous, C. Y., Lewis, J. M., Phelps, G. C., Sleep, L., et al. (2008). Mathematical knowledge for teaching and the mathematical quality of instruction: An exploratory study.
*Cognition and Instruction, 26*, 430–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Johnckheere, A., Mandelbrot, B. B., & Piaget, J. (1958).
*La lecture de l’expérience (observation and decoding of reality)*. Paris, France: P. U. F.Google Scholar - Kaput, J. J. (1993). The urgent need for proleptic research in the graphical representation of quantitative relationships. In T. Carpenter, E. Fennema, & T. Romberg (Eds.),
*Integrating research in the graphical representation of functions*(pp. 279–311). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar - Kieran, C. (2007). Learning and teaching algebra at the middle school through college levels: Building meaning for symbols and their manipulation. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.),
*Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning*(pp. 707–762). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar - Kilpatrick, J., Hoyles, C., Skovsmose, O., & Valero, P. (Eds.). (2005).
*Meaning in mathematics education (mathematics education library vol. 37)*. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar - Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., Carpenter, S., & Penner, D. E. (2000). The interrelated development of inscriptions and conceptual understanding. In P. Cobb & K. McClain (Eds.),
*Symbolizing and communicating in mathematics classrooms: Perspectives on discourse, tools, and instructional design*(pp. 325–360). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar - Lortie, D. C. (1975).
*Schoolteacher*. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar - Ma, L. (1999).
*Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers’ knowledge of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States*. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar - Machín, M. C., Rivero, R. D., & Santos-Trigo, M. (2010). Students’ use of Derive software in comprehending and making sense of definite integral and area concepts. In F. Hitt, D. Holton, & P. W. Thompson (Eds.),
*Research in collegiate mathematics education, 7, issues in mathematics education*(Vol. 16, pp. 29–62). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar - Montangero, J., & Maurice-Naville, D. (1997).
*Piaget or the advance of knowledge (A. Curnu-Wells, Trans.)*. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar - Moschkovich, J., Schoenfeld, A. H., & Arcavi, A. A. (1993). Aspects of understanding: On multiple perspectives and representations of linear relations and connections among them. In T. A. Romberg, E. Fennema, & T. P. Carpenter (Eds.),
*Integrating research on the graphical representation of functions*(pp. 69–100). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar - National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008).
*Foundations for success*:*Final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel*. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/report/final-report.pdf - Oehrtman, M. C., Carlson, M. P., & Thompson, P. W. (2008). Foundational reasoning abilities that promote coherence in students’ understandings of function. In M. P. Carlson & C. Rasmussen (Eds.),
*Making the connection: Research and practice in undergraduate mathematics*(pp. 27–42). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Ogden, C. K., & Richards, I. A. (1923/1989).
*The meaning of meaning*. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar - Orton, A. (1983). Students’ understanding of differentiation.
*Educational Studies in Mathematics, 14*, 235–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Pask, G. (1975).
*Conversation, cognition and learning: A cybernetic theory and methodology*. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar - Pask, G. (1976).
*Conversation theory: Applications in education and epistemology*. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.Google Scholar - Percy, W. (1975a).
*The message in the bottle: How queer man is, how queer language is, and what one has to do with the other*(Kindleth ed.). New York, NY: Open Road.Google Scholar - Percy, W. (1975b). The delta factor.
*Sourthern Review, 11*, 7–14.Google Scholar - Piaget, J. (1968).
*Six psychological studies*. New York, NY: Vintage Books.Google Scholar - Piaget, J. (1977).
*Psychology and epistemology: Towards a theory of knowledge*. New York, NY: Penguin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Piaget, J. (1995).
*Sociological studies*(T. Brown, R. Campbell, N. Emler, M. Ferrari, M. Gribetz, R. Kitchener et al., Trans.). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar - Piaget, J., & Garcia, R. (1991).
*Toward a logic of meanings*. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar - Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969).
*The psychology of the child*. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar - Putnam, H. (1973). Meaning and reference.
*Journal of Philosophy, 70*, 699–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Putnam, H. (1975). The meaning of “meaning.” In
*Mind*,*language and reality*.*Philosophical papers*(Vol. 2, pp. 215–271). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar - Schmidt, W. H., Houang, R., & Cogan, L. S. (2002, Summer). A coherent curriculum: The case of mathematics.
*American Educator*, 1–17. Retrieved from http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/summer2002/curriculum.pdf - Schmidt, W. H., Wang, H. C., & McKnight, C. (2005). Curriculum coherence: An examination of US mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective.
*Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37*, 525–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Scott, B. (2009). Conversation, individuals, and concepts: Some key concepts in Gordon Pask’s interaction of actors and conversation theories (electronic version).
*Constructivist Foundations*,*4*, 151–158. Retrieved from http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/4/3/151.scott - Simon, M. A., Tzur, R., Heinz, K., Kinzel, M., & Smith, M. S. (2000). Characterizing a perspective underlying the practice of mathematics teachers in transition.
*Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31*, 579–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Skemp, R. (1961). Reflective intelligence and mathematics.
*The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 31*, 44–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Skemp, R. (1962). The need for a schematic learning theory.
*The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 32*, 133–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Skemp, R. (1979).
*Intelligence, learning, and action*. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar - Sofronos, K. S., & DeFranco, T. C. (2010). An examination of the knowledge base for teaching among mathematics faculty teaching calculus in higher education. In F. Hitt, D. Holton, & P. W. Thompson (Eds.),
*Research in collegiate mathematics education, 7, issues in mathematics education*(Vol. 16, pp. 171–206). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar - Steffe, L. P., & Thompson, P. W. (2000). Interaction or intersubjectivity? A reply to Lerman.
*Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31*, 191–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Stigler, J. W., Gonzales, P., Kawanaka, T., Knoll, S., & Serrano, A. (1999).
*The TIMSS videotape classroom study: Methods and findings from an exploratory research project on eighth-grade mathematics instruction in Germany, Japan, and the United States*(National Center for Education Statistics Report, Number NCES 99-0974). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar - Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999).
*The teaching gap*. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar - Stroud, C. (2010).
*Students’ understandings of instantaneous rate of change: Report of a pilot study*. Tempe, AZ: School of Mathmatics and Statistics, Arizona State University.Google Scholar - Thompson, P. W. (1987). Mathematical microworlds and intelligent computer-assisted instruction. In G. Kearsley (Ed.),
*Artificial intelligence and education*(pp. 83–109). New York, NY: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar - Thompson, P. W. (1989). Artificial intelligence, advanced technology, and learning and teaching algebra. In C. Kieran & S. Wagner (Eds.),
*Research issues in the learning and teaching of algebra*(pp. 135–161). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar - Thompson, P. W. (1994a). Images of rate and operational understanding of the fundamental theorem of calculus.
*Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26*, 229–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Thompson, P. W. (1994b). Students, functions, and the undergraduate mathematics curriculum. In E. Dubinsky, A. H. Schoenfeld, & J. J. Kaput (Eds.),
*Research in collegiate mathematics education, 1, issues in mathematics education*(Vol. 4, pp. 21–44). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar - Thompson, P. W. (1994c). The development of the concept of speed and its relationship to concepts of rate. In G. Harel & J. Confrey (Eds.),
*The development of multiplicative reasoning in the learning of mathematics*(pp. 179–234). Albany, NY: SUNY.Google Scholar - Thompson, P. W. (1996). Imagery and the development of mathematical reasoning. In L. P. Steffe, P. Nesher, P. Cobb, G. A. Goldin, & B. Greer (Eds.),
*Theories of mathematical learning*(pp. 267–283). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar - Thompson, P. W. (2000). Radical constructivism: Reflections and directions. In L. P. Steffe & P. W. Thompson (Eds.),
*Radical constructivism in action: Building on the pioneering work of Ernst von Glasersfeld*(pp. 412–448). London, England: Falmer.Google Scholar - Thompson, P. W. (2002). Didactic objects and didactic models in radical constructivism. In K. Gravemeijer, R. Lehrer, B. V. Oers, & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Symbolizing, modeling and tool use in mathematics education (pp. 197–220). Dordrect, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
- Thompson, P. W. (2008a). On professional judgment and the National Mathematics Advisory Panel Report.
*Educational Researcher, 38*, 582–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Thompson, P. W. (2008b). Conceptual analysis of mathematical ideas: Some spadework at the foundations of mathematics education. In O. Figueras, J. L. Cortina, S. Alatorre, T. Rojano, & A. Sépulveda (Eds.),
*Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education*(Vol. 1, pp. 45–64). Morélia, Mexico: PME. Retrieved from http://pat-thompson.net/PDFversions/2008ConceptualAnalysis.pdf - Thompson, P. W. (2011). Quantitative reasoning and mathematical modeling. In L. L. Hatfield, S. Chamberlain, & S. Belbase (Eds.),
*New perspectives and directions for collaborative research in mathematics education, WISDOMe monographs*(Vol. 1, pp. 33–57). Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming.Google Scholar - Thompson, P. W., Carlson, M. P., & Silverman, J. (2007). The design of tasks in support of teachers’ development of coherent mathematical meanings.
*Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 10*, 415–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Thompson, P. W., & Saldanha, L. A. (2003). Fractions and multiplicative reasoning. In J. Kilpatrick, G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.),
*Research companion to the principles and standards for school mathematics*(pp. 95–114). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar - Thompson, P. W., & Thompson, A. G. (1992, April).
*Images of rate*. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from http://pat-thompson.net/PDFversions/1992Images.pdf - Thompson, A. G., & Thompson, P. W. (1996). Talking about rates conceptually, part II: Mathematical knowledge for teaching.
*Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27*, 2–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Tucker, M. S. (2011).
*Standing on the shoulders of giants: An American agenda for education reform*. Washington, DC: National Center on Education and the Economy.Google Scholar - White, P., & Mitchelmore, M. (1996). Conceptual knowledge in introductory calculus.
*Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27*, 79–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar