Classroom practice should be directly related to a theory of learning. Mathematics educators have used the works of theorists such as Skinner, Piaget, and Bruner to guide their work. Recant innovations in classroom practice include listening to students' explanations of their mathematical reasoning processes, recognizing students' potential for mathematical reasoning. recognizing the number and complexity of processes necessary for the solution of problems, and providing experiences that encourage students to construct assimilation paradigms to help them reconcile new concepts with their current knowledge base and thus construct new knowledge. Do we have a sound base of theoretical support for these new practices? The author argues that the requisite theories do exist, but probably not as a single unified theory at the present time.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlstonA., DavisR., MaherC., and MartinoA. (1994). Children's different ways of thinking about fractions. Proceedings of the eighteenth annual conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics, Lisbon, Portugal.
2.
AndersonJ. (1983). The architecture of cognition.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
3.
BarrA., & FeigenbaumE. (Eds.). (1981). The handbook of artificial intelligence.Stanford, CA: HeurisTech Press.
4.
BegleyS. (1996). “Your child s brain: How kids are wired for music, math & emotions.”Newsweek, February 19, 1996, 54–62.
5.
BobrowD., & CollinsA. (Eds.). (1975). Representation and understanding: Studies in cognitive science.New York: Academic Press.
6.
BooleM. E. (1904). The preparation of the child for science.New York: Oxford University Press.
7.
BrunerJ. (1960). The process of education.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
8.
BrunerJ. (Ed.). (1966). Learning about learning: A conference report.Washington. DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
9.
CreminL. (1961). The transformation of the school.New York: Random House.
10.
DavisR. (1967). The changing curriculum Mathematics.Washington. DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
11.
DavisR. (1984). Learning mathematics: The cognitive science approach to mathematics education.Loudon: Routledge.
12.
DavisR. (1986). The convergence of cognitive science and mathematics education. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 5(3), 321–333.
13.
DavisR. (1996). One very complete view (though only one) of how children learn mathematics, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,(1), 100–106.
14.
DavisR., and MaherC. (in press). How students think: The role of representations.
15.
DyerM. (1983). In-depth understanding.Cambridge. MA: MIT Press.
16.
FosnotC. (Ed.). (1996). Constructivism: theory, perspectives, and practice.New York: Teachers College Press.
17.
GearyD., & WidamanK. (1987). Individual differences in cognitive arithmetic. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.116, 154–171.
18.
GearyD. (1994). Children's mathematical development. Research and practical implications.Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
19.
GinsburgH. (1989). Children's arithmetic: How they learn it, and how you teach it.Austin, TX: Pro Ed.
LehnertW., & RingleM., (Eds.). (1982). Strategies for natural language processing.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
27.
MaherC., MartinoA., PantozziR., SteenckenE., & DomingL. (1996). Analyzing student personal histories: Foundations of mathematical ideas, paper presented at AERA Annual Meeting, New York, April, 1996
28.
MinskyM. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge, in WinstonP. (Ed.), The psychology of computer vision.New York: McGraw-Hill.
29.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics.Reston. VA: Author.
30.
NewellA., & SimonH. (1972). Human problem solving.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
31.
PageD. (1964). Number lines, functions, and fundamental topics.New York: Macmillan.
PiagetJ. (1952). The child's conception of number.New York: Humanities Press.
34.
PolyaG. (1954). Mathematics and plausible reasoning.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
35.
SchifterD., & FosnotC. (1993). Reconstructing mathematics education: Stories of teachers meeting the challenge of reform.New York: Teachers College Press.
36.
SchoenfeldA. (1985). Mathematical problem solving.Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
37.
Schools Council (1964). Mathematics in primary schools.London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
38.
SealeyL. (1966). “Looking back on Leicestershire,”ESI Quarterly Report.Newton, MA: Education Development Center.
39.
ShulmanL., & KeislarE., (Eds.). (1966). Learning by discovery: A critical appraisal.Chicago: Rand McNally.
40.
SingleyM., & AndersonJ. (1989). The transfer of cognitive skill.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
41.
WatsonB. (1966). If a = math arid b = magic, then a + b = the Algebra Project. Smithsonian.26, 11, 114–125.
42.
WilliamsE., and ShuardH. (1970). Primary mathematics today.London: Longman.
