What Is Research in Mathematics Education, and What Are Its Results?

Author(s): Anna Sierpinska, Jeremy Kilpatrick, Nicolas Balacheff, A. Geoffrey Howson, Anna
Sfard and Heinz Steinbring
Source: Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Vol. 24, No. 3 (May, 1993), pp. 274-278
Published by: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/749348
Accessed: 19-01-2016 02:43 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal
for Research in Mathematics Education.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 121.58.232.35 on Tue, 19 Jan 2016 02:43:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Journalfor Researchin MathematicsEducation
1993, Vol. 24, No. 3, 274-278

A FORUM FOR RESEARCHERS

What Is Research in Mathematics Education,

and What Are Its Results?

ANNA SIERPINSKA, Concordia University

JEREMY KILPATRICK, University of Georgia
NICOLAS BALACHEFF, DidaTech, IMAG & Universitd Joseph Fourier
A. GEOFFREY HOWSON, University of Southampton
ANNA SFARD, Science Teaching Center, Hebrew University
HEINZ STEINBRING, IDM, Universitdt Bielefeld

As mathematics education has become better established as a domain of

scientific research (if not as a scientific discipline), exactly what this
research is and what its results are have become less clear. The history of
the past three International Congresses on Mathematical Education demon-
strates the need for greater clarity. At the Budapest congress in 1988, in
particular, there was a general feeling that mathematics educators from dif-
ferent parts of the world, countries, or even areas of the same country often
talk past one another. There seems to be a lack of consensus on what it
means to be a mathematics educator. Standards of scientific quality and the
criteria for accepting a paper vary considerably among the more than 250
journals on mathematics education published throughout the world.
The community of people concerned with research in mathematics educa-
tion is increasingly divided into specialized groups and cliques that are not
always tolerant of each other. Besides mutual understanding within the
community, however, there is also a need to explain the domain to represen-
tatives of other scientific communities, among which the community of
mathematicians seems to be the most important.
Many people want to develop research in mathematics education within
the academic community of mathematicians. This implies both the explana-
tion of the research's purpose on a social ground (Is there any need to
develop such research?) and its relevance within the narrow academic
world. Questions arise as to scientific standards, dissertations, publications,
congresses, the employment of young academics in the field, and the con-
nection between this research and the research done in other fields. Thus we

A longer version of this article, along with information about a forthcoming ICMI
Study with the same title, appeared in the December 1992 issue of the Bulletin of the
International Commission on Mathematical Instruction.

This content downloaded from 121.58.232.35 on Tue, 19 Jan 2016 02:43:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Sierpinska, Kilpatrick, Balacheff, Howson, Sfard, and Steinbring 275

need an inner identification of the research domain of mathematics educa-

tion, as well as an outer vision from the perspective of other domains.
One external domain, for example, is sociology. How is mathematics edu-
cation organized and institutionalized? Where is research on mathematics
education conducted? Where are dissertations on mathematics education
defended? Is a mathematics educator with a doctorate from a college of
education and employed by a mathematics department accepted as a full
member of the community of mathematicians? Are mathematics educators
viewed as a part of the mathematics community? Similar questions arise
when research in mathematics education is surveyed from other domains,
including history, philosophy, anthropology, and psychology. In this article,
we pose a number of questions about research in mathematics education
that arise from inside and outside the domain.

WHAT IS THE SPECIFIC OBJECT OF STUDY

IN MATHEMATICS EDUCATION?

The object of study (der Gegenstand) in mathematics education might be,

for example, the teaching of mathematics; the learning of mathematics;
teaching and learning situations; the relations between teaching, learning,
and mathematical knowledge; the reality of mathematics classes; societal
views of mathematics and its teaching; or the system of education itself.
If a mathematics educator studies mathematics, is it the same object for
him or her as it is for a mathematician who studies mathematics? What is
mathematics as a subject matter? What is "elementary mathematics"? Anal-
ogous questions could be asked concerning the learner of mathematics as an
object of study. Is it the same object for a mathematics educator as it is for
a psychologist or a pedagogue? Is the mathematics class or the process of
learning in the school viewed in the same way by a mathematics educator
and a sociologist, anthropologist, or ethnographer?Are questions of knowl-
edge acquisition viewed the same way by a mathematics educator and an
epistemologist?

WHAT ARE THE AIMS OF RESEARCH

IN MATHEMATICS EDUCATION?
One might think of two kinds of aims: pragmatic aims and more funda-
mental scientific aims. Among the more pragmatic aims would be the
improvement of teaching practice as well as of students' understanding and
performance. The chief scientific aim might be to develop mathematics edu-
cation as a recognized academic field of research.
What might the structure of such a field be? Would it make sense to
structure it along the lines of mathematical subject matter (e.g., the didac-
tics of algebra or the didactics of geometry), of various theories or

This content downloaded from 121.58.232.35 on Tue, 19 Jan 2016 02:43:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
276 WhatIs Research in Mathematics Education, and WhatAre Its Results?

approaches to the teaching and learning of mathematics, or of specific top-

ics or probldmatiques, that is, specific research questions related to a
theoretical framework (research on classroom interaction and communica-
tion, research on students' understandingof a concept, etc.)?
Both kinds of aims seem to assume that it is possible to develop some
kind of professional knowledge, whether that of a mathematics teacher, a
mathematics educator, or a researcher in mathematics education. The ques-
tion arises, however, whether such professional knowledge can exist. Is it
possible to provide a teacher, say, with a body of knowledge that would, so
to say inevitably, ensure the success of his or her teaching? In other words,
is teaching a profession (un metier) or an art?
On what does successful teaching depend? Are there methods of teaching
so sure, so objective, that they would work no matter who the teacher and
students were? Are there methods of teaching that are teacher-proof and
methods of learning that are student-proof? If not, is there anything like
objective fundamental knowledge for a researcher in mathematics educa-
tion-something that any researcher could build on, something accepted
and agreed on by all? Or will the mathematics education community
inevitably be divided by what is considered to belong to this fundamental
knowledge?
Many mature fields of scientific knowledge have become specialized into
narrow subfields. Is this the fate of mathematics education as well? Or
rather, in view of the interdisciplinary nature of mathematics education,
must every researcher necessarily be a humanist, knowing something of all
domains and problems in mathematics education?

WHAT ARE THE SPECIFICRESEARCH QUESTIONS OR

PROBLEMATIQUESOF RESEARCH IN MATHEMATICSEDUCATION?
Mathematics education lies at the crossroads of many well-established
scientific fields such as mathematics, psychology, pedagogy, sociology,
epistemology, cognitive science, semiotics, and economics, and it may be
concerned with problems imported from these fields. But mathematics edu-
cation certainly has its own specific probldmatiques that cannot be viewed
as particular cases or applications of those from other fields. One question
to be addressed is that of identifying and relating to each other the various
probldmatiques specific to mathematics education.
There are two distinct types of questions in mathematics education: those
that stem directly or almost directly from the practice of teaching and those
generated more by research. For example, the question of identifying stu-
dents' difficulties in learning a specific piece of mathematics belongs to the
first kind. But questions of classifying difficulties, seeing how widespread a
difficulty is, locating its sources, or constructing a theoretical framework to
analyze it belong among the research-generated questions. A difficulty may

This content downloaded from 121.58.232.35 on Tue, 19 Jan 2016 02:43:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Sierpinska, Kilpatrick, Balacheff, Howson, Sfard, and Steinbring 277

remain unnoticed or poorly understood without an effort to answer ques-

tions of the latter type, that is, without more fundamental research on
students' understanding of a topic. Is it, therefore, possible to separate so-
called practical problems from so-called research-generatedproblems?
Is it possible to admit the existence of two separate types of knowledge:
the theoretical knowledge for the scientific community of researchers and
the practical knowledge useful in applications for teachers and students? It
might be helpful to reflect on the nature of these two types of knowledge,
on relations between them, and on whether it would be oossible to have a
unified body of knowledge encompassing them both.

WHAT ARE THE RESULTS OF RESEARCH IN

MATHEMATICS EDUCATION?

Any result is relative to a problematique, to the theoretical framework on

which it is directly or indirectly based, and to the methodology through
which it was obtained. This relativity of results, though commonplace in
science, is often forgotten.
Two types of findings can be distinguished in mathematics education:
those based on long-term observation and experience and those founded on
specially mounted studies. Are the former less scientific than the latter? In
the seventeenth century, Spinoza set out three levels of understanding of
the rule of three (which, incidentally, can be viewed as an elaboration of
the instrumental-relational model of Skemp and Mellin-Olsen, expounded
over three centuries later). This, like the well-known levels of the van
Hieles, was based on observation and experience. In contrast, for example,
the Concepts in Secondary Mathematics and Science (CSMS) project used
specially mounted classroom studies to develop and investigate similar
hierarchies of understanding. Do we rule out the work of Spinoza as
research in mathematics education? If we do, then we lose much valuable
knowledge, especially that resulting from curriculum development. If we do
not, then it becomes difficult to find a workable definition of research in
mathematics education.
If we attempt to contrast hierarchies-say those obtained by the van
Hieles and the CSMS group, we observe that (a) the hierarchies were
obtained in different ways, and (b) the researchers may not have been ask-
ing the same kind of question. What were these questions? How valid are
the answers they provide? How is it possible to relate them?
Most people would probably agree that making empirical investigations is
research. But is doing practical things research? Is thinking research? Can
these activities be separated? Can a result be obtained without thinking and
the doing of practical things? Should mathematics education be considered
a science? Perhaps it is a vast domain of thought, research, and practice.
What qualifies a domain of activity as scientific is the kind of validation

This content downloaded from 121.58.232.35 on Tue, 19 Jan 2016 02:43:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
278 WhatIs Research in Mathematics Education, and WhatAre Its Results?

and justification methods it uses. Proofs and experiments are considered

scientific. But there are thoughts not validated in either of these ways that
are valuable because they are filled with meaning.
Can we identify some categories of results? One category might be econ-
omizers of thought. Any facts, laws, methods, procedures, or theories that
are general enough to direct our experience and predict its results will give
us increased power over our teaching and learning. Another category might
be demolishers of illusions. Results that undermine our beliefs and assump-
tions are always valuable contributions to the field. A third category might
be energizers of practice. Teachers welcome research that helps them
understand what they teach and provides them with ideas for teaching. The
development of teaching materials, activities, and challenging problems
belongs to this category. Other categories of results might emerge from
epistemological, methodological, historical, and philosophical studies.

WHAT CRITERIA SHOULD BE USED TO EVALUATE THE RESULTS

OF RESEARCH IN MATHEMATICS EDUCATION?
How do we assess the validity of research findings? How do we assess
their worth? Should we use the criterion of relevance? What about objectiv-
ity? Or originality? Should we consider the influence research has had on
the practice of teaching?
The first problem is to clarify the meaning of terms such as truth, validi-
ty, and relevance in the context of mathematics education. A related issue is
the question of what is knowledge as such. This is an even more fundamen-
tal question than that of validation. If we knew what kind of knowledge
mathematics education aims at, we would be better equipped for answering
the question of methods of validation.
It is also useful to understandthe ways in which research results are used.
How have the results of research in mathematics education been applied?
How do teachers or policy makers use the research? By clarifying the uses
to which research is put, we may be able to develop better criteria for
assessing its validity.
We in mathematics education have not been very reflective about the
growing body of research we have been producing. The questions posed
above, and others like them, deserve more thorough consideration than they
have received to date. They appear to require extensive thought and discus-
sion if the field of mathematics education is to become more coherent.

This content downloaded from 121.58.232.35 on Tue, 19 Jan 2016 02:43:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions