skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Explore Research Products in the PAR
It may take a few hours for recently added research products to appear in PAR search results.


Title: Myths of Priority and Unity in Mathematics Learning
How people see the world, even how they research it, is influenced by beliefs. Some beliefs are conscious and the result of research, or at least amenable to research. Others are largely invisible. They may feel like “common knowledge” (though myth, not knowledge), unrecognized premises that are part of the surrounding culture. As we will explain, people also hold ideas in both a detailed form and in a thumbnail image and may not notice when they are using the low-resolution image in place of the full picture. In either case, unrecognized myths about how young learners develop mathematical ideas naturally or with instruction are insidious in that they persist unconsciously and so sway research and practice without being examined rigorously. People are naturally oblivious to the ramifications of unrecognized premises (myths) until they encounter an anomaly that cannot be explained without reexamining those premises. Like all disciplines, mathematics education is shaped and constrained by its myths. This article is a conceptual piece. It uses informally gathered (but reproducible) classroom examples to elaborate on two myths about mathematics learning that can interfere with teaching and can escape the scrutiny of empirical research. Our goal is to give evidence to expand the questions researchers think to pose and to encourage thoughtful reappraisal of the implications of the myths. The myths we will discuss involve the order in which mathematical ideas are learnable and the “unity” of mathematical topics, with special attention to algebra. With examples, we will show that some ideas develop at a strikingly counterintuitive and early time. Taking advantage of such unexpectedly early developments can let educators devise pedagogies that build on the logic young children already have rather than predicating learning on statistically observed learning patterns or even the apparent structure of mathematics. Acknowledging such early developments might change the questions researchers ask and change how they study children’s mathematical learning, with the possible result of changing how children are taught.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1741792
PAR ID:
10065485
Author(s) / Creator(s):
;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Education sciences
Volume:
8
Issue:
2
ISSN:
2227-7102
Page Range / eLocation ID:
85
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; ; ; ; (, North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education)
    Lamberg, T; Moss, D (Ed.)
    As part of a longitudinal study focused on mathematical play, we (Melissa, Amy, and Anita) are often faced with questions about what counts as play and what mathematics (and other learning) we see in play, and whose play is most likely to be seen or dismissed. Rather than discuss our findings from classroom videos of kindergarten children engaged in mathematical play, we asked scholars who bring different lenses to research on play, young children, and teaching and learning mathematics to look at some of our data and provide their perspectives. In this session, we will share video and discuss with our panel (Nathaniel, Naomi, and Tran) various ways to interpret that video. This paper provides background on the potential of mathematical play and the details of the study that generated data for analysis. We conclude with a copy of a transcript that is associated with a video we will watch during the plenary with hopes that participants will watch prior to the session and come with their own questions/perspectives. 
    more » « less
  2. ; ; ; ; ; ; (, International Society of the Learning Sciences)
    This study explores how young people, aged 14-22, employed as facilitators of math learning for younger children in an out-of-school time organization, talk with each other about their experiences as they participate in a routine known as “debriefs.” Debriefs occur between facilitation sessions and allow opportunities for youth to discuss mathematical ideas and understand their roles as facilitators. They also provide space for youth to begin planning the next facilitation. Through interaction analysis of one typical debrief session, we offer implications for understanding how debriefs contribute to the unique ways that young people develop their pedagogical approaches—a process we call “youth pedagogical development. 
    more » « less
  3. (, Journal of the Learning Sciences)
    Background: While there exists a large body ofresearch on the benefits of play in supporting chil-dren’s mathematical learning, the vast majority ofsuch research has been conducted in early childhoodor informal contexts, rather than formal K-12 schools.Moreover, this research has predominantly focusedon adults’ perspectives of children’s play. Seeking to bring young children’s voices into methodological and design considerations, this study investigates children’s video interpretations of their mathematical play. Methods: Leveraging data from a larger project that explores the integration of play in elementary mathematics classrooms, I draw upon socio-cultural theory and critical childhood studies, as well as video-elicited interviews with four children, in order to examine play as both a context for mathematics learning, as well as a text for reading the mathematical worlds of young children. Findings: Findings suggest that the four children drew upon sophisticated frames when making sense of video data, including situated conditions, networks of care, affective experiences, tangible fulfillment, and mathematical curiosities.Contribution: Insights from this study challenge traditionally narrow perspectives of young children as merely consumers of knowledge, who learn in order to “become adults,” and instead situates them as active sense-makers, whose noticings may better position us to design mathematics learning environ-ments according to their insights and vantage points. 
    more » « less
  4. (, Proceedings of Constructionism 2018)
    Seymour Papert’s 1972 paper “Teaching Children to be Mathematicians Versus Teaching About Mathematics” started with the summary statement “The important difference between the work of a child in an elementary mathematics class and that of a mathematician is not in the subject matter…but in the fact that the mathematician is creatively engaged….” Along with “creative,” a key term Papert kept using is project rather than the common notion of problem. A project is not simply a very large problem. It centrally includes a focus on sustained and active engagement. The projects in his illustrations were essentially research projects, not just multi-step, fullyprescribed, build-a-thing tasks, no matter how nice the end product might be. A mathematical playground with enough attractive destinations in it draws children naturally to pose their own tasks and projects—as they universally do in their other personal and group playgrounds—and to learn to act and think like mathematicians. They even acquire conventionally taught content through that play. Physical construction was always available, and appealed to such thinkers as Dewey, but for Papert computer programming, newly available to school, suggested a more flexible medium and a model for an ideal playground. A fact about playgrounds is that children choose challenge. In working and playing with children I’ve seen that puzzles tap some of the same personally chosen challenge that a programming centric playground offers. Children are naturally drawn to intellectual challenges of riddles (ones they learn and ones they invent) and puzzles; and adults are so lured by puzzles that even supermarkets sell books of them. So what’s the difference between real puzzles and school problems? What’s useful about creating a puzzle or posing a problem? How might puzzles and problem posing support mathematical learning? And what’s constructionist about this? This plenary will try to respond to these questions, invite some of your own responses, let you solve and create some puzzles, and explore how problem posing in programming and puzzling can support mathematics even in an age of rigid content constraints. 
    more » « less
  5. (, Constructivist Foundations)
    > Context • In 1972, Papert emphasized that “[t]he important difference between the work of a child in an elementary mathematics class and […]a mathematician” is “not in the subject matter […]but in the fact that the mathematician is creatively engaged […]” Along with creative, Papert kept saying children should be engaged in projects rather than problems. A project is not just a large problem, but involves sustained, active engagement, like children’s play. For Papert, in 1972, computer programming suggested a flexible construction medium, ideal for a research-lab/playground tuned to mathematics for children. In 1964, without computers, Sawyer also articulated research-playgrounds for children, rooted in conventional content, in which children would learn to act and think like mathematicians. > Problem • This target article addresses the issue of designing a formal curriculum that helps children develop the mathematical habits of mind of creative tinkering, puzzling through, and perseverance. I connect the two mathematicians/educators – Papert and Sawyer – tackling three questions: How do genuine puzzles differ from school problems? What is useful about children creating puzzles? How might puzzles, problem-posing and programming-centric playgrounds enhance mathematical learning? > Method • This analysis is based on forty years of curriculum analysis, comparison and construction, and on research with children. > Results • In physical playgrounds most children choose challenge. Papert’s ideas tapped that try-something-new and puzzle-it-out-for-yourself spirit, the drive for challenge. Children can learn a lot in such an environment, but what (and how much) they learn is left to chance. Formal educational systems set standards and structures to ensure some common learning and some equity across students. For a curriculum to tap curiosity and the drive for challenge, it needs both the playful looseness that invites exploration and the structure that organizes content. > Implications • My aim is to provide support for mathematics teachers and curriculum designers to design or teach in accord with their constructivist thinking. > Constructivist content • This article enriches Papert’s constructionism with curricular ideas from Sawyer and from the work that I and my colleagues have done 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email