Abstract
This paper first summarises and discusses Pegg and Tall’s (this volume) fundamental cycle model of conceptual construction from action to object and its relationship to particularly the SOLO UMR framework. Then the paper compares this with another model of different psychological theories of learning mathematics and discusses how these models can either be merged or learn from each other. This includes a discussion of another use of the SOLO framework. This leads to a general discussion about the problem of having many different theories and fashions, how knowledge grows and accumulates, and if there is a unifying theory to be found. The paper concludes that the development of meta-theories, such as in the work of Pegg and Tall, is necessary rather than uncritical complementarism.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Arbib, M. A., & Hesse, M. B. (1986). The Construction of Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Asiala, M., Brown, A., Devries, D. J., Dubinsky, E., Mathews, D., & Thomas, K. (1996). A framework for research and curriculum development in undergraduate mathematics education. In CBMS Issues in Mathematics Education (Vol. 6, pp. 1–32).
Biggs, J. B. (2003). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the Quality of Learning: The SOLO Taxonomy, Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome. London: Academic Press.
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Boero, P., & Szendrei, J. R. (1998). Research and results in mathematics education: Some contradictory aspects. In A. Sierpinska & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), Mathematics Education as a Research Domain: A Search for Identity (An ICMI Study) (pp. 197–212). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Brabrand, C., & Dahl, B. (2009). Using the SOLO-taxonomy to analyze competence progression of university science curricula. Higher Education, 58(4), 531–549.
Brown, M. (1998). The paradigm of modeling by iterative conceptualization in mathematics education research. In A. Sierpinska & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), Mathematics Education as a Research Domain: A Search for Identity (An ICMI Study) (pp. 263–276). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Collin, F. (1997). Social Reality. London: Routledge.
Dahl, B. (2004a). Analysing cognitive learning processes through group interviews of successful high school pupils: Development and use of a model. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 56, 129–155.
Dahl, B. (2004b). Can different theories of learning work together? Some results from an investigation into pupils’ metacognition. Paper presented by distribution at Discussion Group 10: Different perspectives, positions, and approaches in mathematics education research, at ICME-10. Denmark, July 2004. http://www.icme-organisers.dk/dg10/.
Dahl, B. (2005). Contrasting dichotomies and pendulum swings in mathematics curricula: A comparison between Virginia and Denmark. Presentation at the 49th Annual Conference of the Comparative and International Education Society (CIES), Stanford University, USA, March 2005.
Dahl, B. (2006a). Various theoretical frameworks in concept construction and how to move forward as a field: A commentary to Pegg and Tall. ZDM, Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 38(1), 63–69.
Dahl, B. (2006b). Theories are from Mars—practice is on Venus: How on Earth to use learning theories in a classroom. Virginia Mathematics Teacher, 33(1), 7–10.
Dahl, B., Hølledig, V., Munter, J., Møller, J., Nielsen, L., Simoni, L. S., & Thomassen, L. (1992). Paul Ernests socialkonstruktivisme: en grundlags- og konstistenskritik. Aalborg: Aalborg University, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Denmark (MAT3 report).
Eisner, E. (1993). Objectivity in educational research. In M. Hammersley (Ed.), Educational Research: Current Issues (pp. 49–56). London: The Open University.
English, L., & Sierpinska, A. (2004). The Tenth International Congress on Mathematics Education (ICME-10), Denmark, July 2004. Discussion Group 10: Different perspectives, positions, and approaches in mathematics education research: http://www.icme-organisers.dk/dg10/.
Ernest, P. (1991). The Philosophy of Mathematics Education. London: Falmer.
Garrison, J. W. (1986). Some principle of postpositivistic philosophy of science. Educational Researcher, 15(9), 12–18.
Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical Constructivism: A Way of Knowing and Learning. London: Falmer.
Hadamard, J. (1945). An Essay on The Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field. New York: Dover.
Hansen, H. C. (2002). Fra forstandens slibesten til borgerens værktøj: Regning og matematik i folkets skole 1739–1958 (Papers from Center for Educational Development in University Science, Aalborg University, Denmark, No. 16).
Hawking, S. W. (1994). Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays. London: Bantam Books.
Hollis, M. (1994). The Philosophy of Social Science: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Johnson, P. E. (1995). Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law, and Education. Downers Grove: InterVarisity Press.
Krutetskii, V. A. (1976). The Psychology of Mathematical Abilities in Schoolchildren. Chicago: The University of Chicago.
Kuhn, T. (1996). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago.
Kulik, C.-L. C., & Kulik, J. A. (1991). Effectiveness of computer-based instruction: An updated analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 75–94.
Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and Refutations: The Logic of Mathematical Discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Lerman, S. (1996). Intersubjectivity in mathematics learning: A challenge to the radical constructivist paradigm? Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(2), 211–223.
Marshall, I., & Zohar, D. (1997). Who’s Afraid of Schrödinger’s Cat? London: Bloomsbury.
Mason, J. (1985). Thinking Mathematically. Amsterdam: Addison-Wesley (with L. Burton and K. Stacy).
Mewborn, D. (2005). Framing our work (Plenary). In G. M. Lloyd, M. Wilson, J. L. M. Wilkins, & S. L. Behm (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. October 20–23, 2005, Virginia Tech, USA.
Mitchell, S. D. (2002). Integrative Pluralism. Biology and Philosophy, 17, 55–70.
Motterlini, M. (1999). For and Against Method. Imre Lakatos and Paul Feyerabend. Including Lakatos’s Lectures on Scientific Method and the Lakatos-Feyerabend Correspondence. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Nozick, R. (2001). Invariances—The Structure of the Objective World. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University.
Pegg, J., & Tall, D. (2005). The fundamental cycle of concept construction underlying various theoretical frameworks. ZDM, Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 37(6), 468–475.
Phillips, D. C. (1993). Subjectivity and objectivity: An objective inquiry. In M. Hammersley (Ed.), Educational Research: Current Issues (pp. 57–72). London: The Open University.
Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic Epistemology. New York: Columbia University.
Piaget, J. (1971). Psychology and Epistemology: Towards a Theory of Knowledge. New York: Penguin.
Polya, G. (1971). How to Solve It: A New Aspect of Mathematical Method. Princeton: Princeton University.
Popper, K. (1979). Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Clarendon.
Pring, R. (2000). Philosophy of Educational Research. London: Continuum.
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.
Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the danger of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.
Skemp, R. R. (1993). The Psychology of Learning Mathematics. London: Penguin.
Skinner, Q. (Ed.) (2000). The Return of Grand Theory in the Human Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The M.I.T.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dahl, B. (2010). Commentary on The Fundamental Cycle of Concept Construction Underlying Various Theoretical Frameworks. In: Sriraman, B., English, L. (eds) Theories of Mathematics Education. Advances in Mathematics Education. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00742-2_20
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00742-2_20
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-00741-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-00742-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)