Real and illusionary difficulties in conceptual learning in mathematics: comparison between constructivist and inferentialist perspectives

IF 1.4 Q3 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Yusuke Uegatani, Hiroki Otani, Shintaro Shirakawa, Ryo Ito
{"title":"Real and illusionary difficulties in conceptual learning in mathematics: comparison between constructivist and inferentialist perspectives","authors":"Yusuke Uegatani, Hiroki Otani, Shintaro Shirakawa, Ryo Ito","doi":"10.1007/s13394-023-00478-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Due to the learning paradox, students cannot have real difficulty in understanding a mathematical concept that they have not yet understood. There is a gap between real difficulties, directly experienced by students, and illusionary ones, only observed by researchers. This paper aims to offer a critical reflection on our understanding of the term <i>difficulty</i> in mathematics education research. We start this paper by arguing that a constructivist perspective, which has often been adopted in researches on mathematical task design, can deal with difficulties in solving a mathematical problem, but it cannot theoretically deal with those in understanding a mathematical concept. Therefore, we need the alternative philosophy of Robert Brandom’s inferentialism to capture students’ real difficulties in conceptual learning. From an inferentialist perspective, we introduce the idea of illusionary and real difficulties. The former is defined as what students cannot do, but they are not conscious of what they should do, while the latter is defined as what students cannot do despite their consciousness of what they should do. Through an eighth grade classroom episode, we argue that it is important in mathematics education research to focus not only on illusionary difficulties but also on the transition from illusionary to real difficulties. Researchers are encouraged to design a learning environment in which students become conscious of what they cannot do and to observe their mathematics learning in such an environment.</p>","PeriodicalId":46887,"journal":{"name":"Mathematics Education Research Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mathematics Education Research Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-023-00478-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Due to the learning paradox, students cannot have real difficulty in understanding a mathematical concept that they have not yet understood. There is a gap between real difficulties, directly experienced by students, and illusionary ones, only observed by researchers. This paper aims to offer a critical reflection on our understanding of the term difficulty in mathematics education research. We start this paper by arguing that a constructivist perspective, which has often been adopted in researches on mathematical task design, can deal with difficulties in solving a mathematical problem, but it cannot theoretically deal with those in understanding a mathematical concept. Therefore, we need the alternative philosophy of Robert Brandom’s inferentialism to capture students’ real difficulties in conceptual learning. From an inferentialist perspective, we introduce the idea of illusionary and real difficulties. The former is defined as what students cannot do, but they are not conscious of what they should do, while the latter is defined as what students cannot do despite their consciousness of what they should do. Through an eighth grade classroom episode, we argue that it is important in mathematics education research to focus not only on illusionary difficulties but also on the transition from illusionary to real difficulties. Researchers are encouraged to design a learning environment in which students become conscious of what they cannot do and to observe their mathematics learning in such an environment.

Abstract Image

数学概念学习中真实与虚幻的困难:建构主义与推理主义观点的比较
由于学习悖论,学生在理解他们尚未理解的数学概念时不会有真正的困难。学生直接体验到的真实困难和只有研究人员观察到的虚幻困难之间是有差距的。本文旨在对我们在数学教育研究中对术语困难的理解进行批判性反思。本文首先指出,在数学任务设计研究中经常采用的建构主义视角可以解决数学问题中的困难,但在理论上却不能解决理解数学概念中的困难。因此,我们需要罗伯特·布兰多姆的推理主义的替代哲学来捕捉学生在概念学习中的真正困难。从推理主义的角度,我们引入了虚幻困难和现实困难的概念。前者被定义为学生不能做什么,但他们不知道他们应该做什么,后者被定义为学生不能做什么,尽管他们意识到他们应该做什么。通过一个八年级的课堂故事,我们认为在数学教育研究中,不仅要关注幻想的困难,还要关注从幻想到现实困难的过渡。研究人员被鼓励设计一个学习环境,让学生意识到他们不能做什么,并在这样的环境中观察他们的数学学习。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Mathematics Education Research Journal
Mathematics Education Research Journal EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
11.10%
发文量
30
期刊介绍: The Mathematics Education Research Journal seeks to promote high quality research that is of interest to the international community.   The Mathematics Education Research Journal seeks to present research that promotes new knowledge, ideas, methodologies and epistemologies in the field of mathematics education.    The Mathematics Education Research Journal actively seeks to promote research from the Australasian region either as research conducted in the region; conducted by researchers from the region and/or draws on research from the region.  The Mathematics Education Research Journal accepts papers from authors from all regions internationally but authors must draw on the extensive research that has been produced in the Australasian region.   The Mathematics Education Research Journal normally does not encourage publication of teacher education programs or courses. These are more suited for theother MERGA journal, Mathematics Teacher Education and Development.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信