Abstract
It has become a tradition in the field of mathematics education that before a researcher outlines the research design for a study, he or she should outline a theoretical framework for the investigation which is about to be conducted. Then, after research questions are stated, and the design of the study is described, the investigation takes place. The data gathering, data analyses, and interpretation are guided by the theoretical framework and conclusions are couched in terms of, and seen in the light of, the theoretical framework. There are many mathematics education researchers who regard this theory-based process as sacrosanct, as absolutely essential for high-quality research. In the first part of this chapter it is argued that the traditional “theoretical-framework” process just described is flawed, that it can result in important aspects of data being overlooked, and that it can lead to incorrect, or inappropriate, conclusions being made. It is argued that the first thing that needs to be done in a mathematics education research investigation is to identify, in clearly stated terms, the problems for which solutions are to be sought. Having done that, historical frameworks—which have only occasionally been taken seriously by mathematics education researchers—should be provided. Then, having identified the problems and having provided a historical framework, a design-research approach ought to be adopted whereby a theory, or parts of a theory, or a combination of parts of different theories, are selected as most pertinent to the problems which are to be solved. This chapter identifies three main problems: (a) “Why do so many middle-school students experience difficulty in learning algebra?” (b) “What theoretical positions might be likely to throw light on how that problem might be best solved?” (c) “In the light of answers offered for (a) and (b), what are the specific research questions for which answers will be sought in subsequent chapters of this book?”
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (2004). Education, knowledge, and action research. London, UK: Routledge.
Clement, J., Lochhead, J., & Monk, G. S. (1981). Translation difficulties in learning mathematics. American Mathematical Monthly, 88, 286–290.
Clements, M. A., & Del Campo, G. (1987). Fractional understanding of fractions: Variations in children’s understanding of fractional concepts across embodiments, Grades 2 through 5. In J. Novak (Ed.), Proceedings of the Second International Seminar on Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in Science and Mathematics (Vol. 3, pp. 98–110). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
Del Campo, G., & Clements, M. A. (1987). A manual for the professional development of teachers of beginning mathematicians. Melbourne, Australia: Catholic Education Office of Victoria/Association of Independent Schools of Victoria.
Del Campo, G., & Clements, M. A. (1990). Expanding the modes of communication in mathematics classrooms. Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik, 11(1), 45–99.
Dunkel, H. B. (1970). Herbart and Herbartianism: An educational ghost story. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Ellerton, N. F., & Clements, M. A. (2005). A mathematics education ghost story: Herbartianism and school mathematics. In P. Clarkson, A. Downton, D. Gronn, M. Horne, A. McDonagh, R. Pierce, & A. Roche (Eds.), Building connections: Research, theory and practice (pp. 313–320). Sydney, Australia: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.
Herbart, J. F. (1904a). Outlines of educational doctrine. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Herbart, J. F. (1904b). The science of education. London, UK: Sonnenschein.
Hjalmarson, M., & Lesh, R. A. (2008). Engineering and design research: Intersections for education research and design. In A. E. Kelly, R. A. Lesh, & J. Y. Baek (Eds.), Handbook of design research methods in education: Innovations in science, technology, engineering and mathematics learning and teaching (pp. 96–110). New York, NY: Routledge.
Kanbir, S. (2014, November). Two approaches: Beginning algebra students’ variable concept development. Professional project presented to the Group for Educational Research in Mathematics at Illinois State University, Normal, IL.
Kanbir, S. (2016a). An intervention study aimed at enhancing seventh-grade students’ development of the concept of a variable (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (Kanbir_ilstu_0092E_10787.pdf).
Kanbir, S. (2016b, April 12). Three different approaches to middle-school algebra: Results of a pilot study. Paper presented at the 2016 Research Conference of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, held in San Francisco, CA.
Kelly, A. E., & Lesh, R. A. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kelly, A. E., Lesh, R. A., & Baek, J. Y. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of design research methods in education: Innovations in science, technology, engineering and mathematics learning and teaching. New York, NY: Routledge.
Lean, G. A., Clements, M. A., & Del Campo, G. (1990). Linguistic and pedagogical factors affecting children’s understanding of arithmetic word problems. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 21(2), 165–191.
Lochhead, J., & Mestre, J. P. (1988). From words to algebra: Mending misconceptions. In A. F. Coxford & A. P. Schulte (Eds.), The ideas of algebra, K–12, 1988 yearbook (pp. 127–135). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
MacGregor, M. E. (1991). Making sense of algebra: Cognitive processes influencing comprehension. Geelong, Australia: Deakin University.
Peirce, C. S. (1992). The essential Peirce: Selected philosophical writings (Volume 1, 1867–1893). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Peirce, C. S. (1998). The essential Peirce (Volume 2). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Suzuki, S. (2012). The Kyoto School and J. F. Herbart. In P. Standish & N. Saito (Eds.), Education and the Kyoto School of philosophy: Pedagogy for human transformation (pp. 41–54). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Thomas, G. (1997). What’s the use of theory? Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 75–104.
Toulmin, S. (1969). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Vaiyavutjamai, P. (2004). Factors influencing the teaching and learning of equations and inequations in two government secondary schools in Thailand (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation). Universiti Brunei Darussalam.
Vaiyavutjamai, P. (2006). Grade 9 students’ errors on gently challenging algebra tasks: The good news and the bad news. In H. S. Dhindsa, I. J. Kyeleve, O. Chukwu, L. S. Bee, H. Z. b. H. Taha, A. Baimba, & S. Upex (Eds.), Shaping the future of science, mathematics and technical education (pp. 212–221). Gadong, Brunei Darussalam: Universiti Brunei Darussalam.
Wittman, E. (1998). Mathematics education as a “design science”. In A. Sierpinska & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), Mathematics education as a research domain: A search for identity (pp. 87–103). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kanbir, S., Clements, M.A.(., Ellerton, N.F. (2018). Framing a Classroom Intervention Study in a Middle-School Algebra Environment. In: Using Design Research and History to Tackle a Fundamental Problem with School Algebra. History of Mathematics Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59204-6_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59204-6_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-59203-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-59204-6
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)