Theories of Learning Mathematics

Home

For Librarians

Authors
Professor Richard A Lesh

School of Education, Counseling

and Educational Psychology,
Bloomington, USA

Professor Bharath Sriraman

Department of Mathematical
Sciences, Missoula, USA

Professor Lyn English

Editor
Professor Stephen Lerman
London South Bank
University, Department of
Education, London, UK

Session History (max. 10)

Richard A Lesh

Help

My SpringerReference

Go

Submit Article

Track Changes

Advanced Search

Exit Editing

Theories of Learning Mathematics

Encyclopedia of Mathematics Education Article ID: 313336 Chapter ID: 157
[edit] [options]

Key words
Complexity; Learning Theories; Models and Modeling; Models versus Theories; Theories of
mathematics education.

Definition
According to Karl Popper, widely regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science in
the 20 th century, falsifiability is the primary characteristic that distinguishes scientific

theories from ideologies or dogma. For example, for people who argue that schools
should treat creationism as a scientific theory, comparable to modern theories of evolution,
advocates of creationism would need to become engaged in the generation of falsifiable
hypothesis, and would need to abandon the practice of discouraging questioning and
inquiry. Ironically, scientific theories themselves are accepted or rejected based on a
principle that might be called survival of the fittest. So, for healthy theories on
development to occur, four Darwinian functions should function: (a) variation avoid
orthodoxy and encourage divergent thinking, (b) selection submit all assumptions and
innovations to rigorous testing, (c) diffusion encourage the shareability of new and/or
viable ways of thinking, and (d) accumulation encourage the reuseability of viable
aspects of productive innovations.

Characteristics
The history and nature of theory development
To describe the nature of theories and theory development in mathematics education, it is
useful to keep in mind the preceding four functions, and to focus on two books that have
been produced as key points during the development of mathematics education as a
research community: Critical Variables in Mathematics Education (Begle, 1979) and
Theories of Mathematics Education (Sriraman & English, 2010).

Begle was one of the foremost founding fathers of mathematics education as a field of
scientific inquiry; and, his book reviews the literature and characterizes the field when it
was in its infancy. For example, before 1978, the USAs National Science Foundation had
funding programs to support curriculum development, teacher development, and student
development; but, it had no comparable program to support knowledge development (i.e.,
research). Similarly, before 1970, there was no professional organization focusing on
mathematics education research or theory development; there was no journal for
mathematics education research; and, in the USA, just as in most other countries, there
existed no commonly recognized curriculum standards for school mathematics.
Furthermore, most mathematics educators thought of themselves as being curriculum
developers, program developers, teacher developers, or student developers (i.e., teachers)
and only secondarily as researchers. And, if any theories were invoked to guide their
research or development activities, these theories were mainly borrowed from educational
psychology such as: Blooms taxonomy of educational objectives, Gagnes behavioral
objectives and learning hierarchies, Piagets stage theory, Ausabels advanced organizers
and meaningful verbal learning - and later Vygotskys socially-mediated learning, and
Simons artificial intelligence models for cognition. However, the practitioners side of
these mathematics education researchers made it difficult for them to ignore the fact that
very few of their most important day-to-day decision-making issues were informed in any
way by these borrowed theories.

In contrast to the preceding state of affairs, Sriraman and Englishs (2010) book clearly
documents a shift beyond theory-borrowing toward theory-building in mathematics
education; the relevant theories draw on far more than psychology; and, the mathematics
education research community has become far more international and far more multidisciplinary in its membership. Furthermore, the field changed significantly after the
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) published its nationally endorsed
Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics (NCTM, 1989), commonly
referred to as the Standards in the U.S.A. Since then, similar documents were produced
in many other countries throughout the world. But, to what extent have these documents
been products of empirical research and theory development instead of dogma? The
NCTM Standards themselves were not based on any research per se, but simply an

http://www.springerreference.com/docs/edit/chapterdbid/313336.html[11/12/2012 7:13:29 PM]

Share

Theories of Learning Mathematics

envisioning of what mathematics education in classrooms, i.e., in practice might look like
and what the appropriate content might look like, keeping the learner in mind.

Curricular standards and mathematics education research

Two decades later, consider the USAs newest Common Core State Curriculum Standards
(CCSC 2012). In this case, there clearly exist some instances where these CCSC
Standards were informed by the work of a few researchers. But, it is equally clear that
this document was produced using a process of political consensus-building in which the
views of some stake-holders were given great attention (e.g., university-based
mathematicians and teacher educators) whereas others were ignored almost completely
(e.g., engineers, social scientists, and other heavy users of mathematics outside of
schools). Consequently, the CCSC Standards exhibit little recognition of the fact that,
outside of school in the 21 st century, many new kinds of problem solving situations

abound in which new types of mathematical thinking are needed. In fact, little is said in
the CCSC Standards that could not have been said when Begle was in his prime. For
example:

The mathematics education community still does not know how to operationally
define measurable conceptions of almost any of the higher-level understandings or
abilities that the CCSC Standards refers to as mathematical practices. So, the only
goals that are stated in ways that can be documented and assessed tend to be the
CCSCs long lists of things students should know and be able to do (i.e. declarative
statements {facts} or condition-action rules {skills}).
In spite of the CCSCs claim of being based on research-based learning progressions,
it still is unclear how the mastery of the CCSCs lists of things students should know
and be able to do interacts with the development of higher-order conceptual
understandings of the type which are needed to conceptualize (i.e. mathematize by
quantifying, dimensionalizing, coordinatizing, systematizing, etc.) situations that do
not occur in a pre-mathematized form. In particular, it is unclear how (or whether)
the CCSCs lists of things students should know and be able to do should be
treated as prerequisites which must be mastered before students should be
introduced to deeper and higher-order conceptual understandings and abilities.
Furthermore, modern research in the learning sciences clearly has shown that (a)
students and teachers conceptual understandings of most big ideas in the K-12
curriculum develop (in parallel and interactively) over time periods of many years,
and (b) students conceptual understandings of these big ideas are a great deal
more situated and socially mediated than theories of thirty years ago led educators
to believe.
Modeling continues to be characterized as the application of concepts (traditionally)
taught in school. Yet, research in the learning sciences clearly is showing that, in
modern societies, in students everyday lives outside of schools and departments of
mathematics, many of the situations that students need to mathematize involve: (a)
integrating ideas and procedures drawn from more than a single textbook topic area,
and (b) using more than a single, solvable, and differentiable function. For example,
in problem solving situations that involve data analysis and statistics, Bayesian and
Fisherian computational models tend to be far more accessible and powerful than
traditional methods that depend on Calculus and the use of traditional analytic
methods. And, in situations that involve several interacting agents, issues often arise
that involve feedback loops, second-order effects, and issues such as maximization,
minimization, or stabilization. And again, graphics-oriented computational models
make it possible for quite young children to deal effectively with situations that no
longer need to be postponed until after courses in Calculus.

Perhaps the most important general theme that cuts across many of the chapters in
Sriraman and Englishs book is that, from early number concepts through proportional
reasoning and Calculus, the mathematics education community in general has been quite
nave about: (a) what it means to understand nearly every big idea in the K-12
curriculum, (b) how these understandings develop along dimensions such as concreteabstract, intuition-formalization, or situated-decontextualized, (c) what it means for one
concept or ability to be prerequisite to another, and (d) how understandings of both big
ideas and basic facts and skills evolve as inter-connections and distinctions develop.

Begles powerfully influential School Mathematics Study Group (SMSG) projects provide
clear instances of a curriculum development project that attempted to make research and
theory development important parts of their collective agenda. For example, the National
Longitudinal Study of Mathematics Abilities (NLSMA) was an important part of SMSG
initiatives. Nonetheless, in their introduction to Begles book, Wilson and Kilpatrick
reported that: (Begle) tried to persuade the SMSG advisory board to sponsor research as
well as curriculum development, but he was not successful (p.x.). Similarly, in his
keynote address at the First International Congress of Mathematics Education , Begle
stated:

I see little hope for any further substantial improvements in mathematics education until

http://www.springerreference.com/docs/edit/chapterdbid/313336.html[11/12/2012 7:13:29 PM]

Theories of Learning Mathematics

we turn mathematics education into an experimental science until we abandon our

reliance on philosophical discussions based on dubious assumptions, and instead follow a
carefully constructed pattern of observation and speculation, the pattern so successfully
employed by physical and natural scientists.

Much of what goes on in mathematics education is based on opinions that are so firmly
held that the thought of doubting them crosses very few minds. Yet, most of these
opinions have no empirical substantiation, and in fact many of them are, if not wrong, at
least in need of serious qualifications. (xvi)

In other words, Begle believed that a large share of what paraded as theory in
mathematics education was (and continues to be) dogma. For example, in his reviews of
the literature in topic areas ranging from problem solving to teacher development, Begle
identified many examples of dubious opinions which continue to go unquestioned.

Concerning Teacher-level Knowledge: Despite all of our efforts, we still have no way
of deciding, in advance, which teachers will be effective and which will not. Nor do
we know which training programs will turn out effective teachers and which ones will
not. (p.29) The outcomes of teaching does not depend just on the teacher (or the
program used) but rather is the result of complex interactions among teachers,
students, the subject matter, the instructional materials available, the instructional
procedure used, the school and community, and who knows what other variables. (p.
32) Many of our common beliefs about teachers are false, or at the very best rest
on shaky foundations. For example, the effects of a teachers subject matter
knowledge and attitudes on students learning seem to be far less powerful than most
of us had realized. (p54)
Most mathematics educators surely believe that teacher-level understandings of topics to
be taught should involve understanding both more and also differently than students. But,
we still know little about the nature of these teacher-level understandings.
Concerning Problem Solving: A substantial amount of effort has gone into attempts
to find out what strategies students use in attempting to solve mathematical
problems. But no clear-cut directions for mathematics education are provided by
the findings of these studies. In fact, there are enough indications that problemsolving strategies are both problem- and student-specific to suggest that hopes of
finding one (or a few) strategies which should be taught to all (or most) students are
far too simplistic. (p.145)

In the NCTMs most recent Handbook of Research in Mathematics Education (Lester,

2007), the chapter on problem solving (Lesh & Zawojewski, 2007) concludes that very
little has changed since Begles time. New words (such as metacognition, or habits of
mind) have been introduced to replace previously discredited constructs (such as those
reviewed by Begle), but the following fundamental issues remain. (a) Strategies,
heuristics, or other meta-level procedures which seem to provide useful after-the-fact
descriptions of what successful problem solvers behaviors seem to have done do not
necessarily provide prescriptions of what novice problem solvers should do next during
ongoing problem solving activities, and (b) If attention focuses on a small number of
larger or more general rules of behavior, then these general rules tend to lack prescriptive
power. But, if attention focuses on a larger number of smaller or more specific rules of
behavior, then knowing when to use such behaviors is a large part of what it means to
understand them. And, transfer of learning that was expected to occur in such studies
has been unimpressive.

Theories versus Models

Sriraman and Englishs book identifies a trend in which theory development shifts toward
model development; and, modeling perspectives are being used to provide alternatives to
traditional theories related to topic areas ranging from teacher development to problem
solving; and, accompanying design research methodologies are being used to supplement
what can be investigated using more traditional methods.

The key assumption that underlies a models & modeling perspective is that all relevant
subjects including not only students and teachers, but also researchers themselves
are model developers. Students develop models to make sense of mathematical problem
solving situations that do not occur in a pre-mathematized form. Teachers develop
models to make sense of students model development activities. And, researchers
develop models of interactions among students, teachers, and learning environments. For
example, in the case of both teaching and problem solving, it is widely recognized that
highly effective people not only do things differently than their less experienced or less
effective counterparts, but they also see (or interpret) things differently. Furthermore, the
interpretation systems that they develop are both learnable and assessable as well as
being powerful, sharable, and reuseable (i.e., transferrable).

Similarly, according to MMP, students conceptual understandings of big ideas are

http://www.springerreference.com/docs/edit/chapterdbid/313336.html[11/12/2012 7:13:29 PM]

Theories of Learning Mathematics

expected to involve conceptualizing (mathematizing, or mathematically interpreting)

situations; relevant models are expected to involve the gradual integration, differentiation,
reorganization, and adaptation of existing models. In other words, for a given big idea
in the K-12 curriculum, a large part of conceptual understanding is expected to involve
the development of powerful, sharable, and reuseable models.

To highlight some other important ways that model development is expected to contribute
to theory development, while at the same time being different than theory development, it
is useful to shift attention to curriculum development and program development. Critics
often accuse the mathematics education research community of failing to provide
scientifically sound empirical evidence about curriculum materials that work (ref
needed). But, most mathematics education researchers are also practitioners e.g.,
teachers, teacher educators, or developers of curriculum materials. And, it is precisely
their practitioner-side that makes them aware of the uselessly simplistic nature of most
studies claiming to show that some curriculum innovation works - using standardized
and randomly assigned treatment groups and control groups in situations where: (a)
the criteria for working tend to be poorly aligned with the most important goals of the
curriculum that is used, (b) it is well known that working depends on far more that the
curriculum materials themselves, and (c) curriculum innovations dont simply act on
students and teachers - students and teachers also react (or act back)! So, successful
curriculum innovations usually involve continual adaptations based on the strengths and
weaknesses of individual students and teachers, and based on their reactions at various
stages of implementation.

The complexity of models in mathematics education

To see why no two situations are never exactly alike and why the same thing never
happens twice, consider the following. During the 1980s and 1990s, a number of
learning theorists who wanted to apply their learning theories to mathematics education
developed a methodology called aptitude-treatment-interaction studies (ATI). These ATI
studies recognized that, even in very simple learning situations (e.g., one student and one
teacher), different students reacted differently to a given treatment. So, attempts were
made to identify profiles of student attributes (A1, A2, , An) which could be matched
with alternative pre-planned treatment attributes (T1, T2, Tm). But, the results of
these ATI studies showed that progressively finer-grained student and treatment profiles
not only led to unworkable combinatorial nightmares, but they also involved feedback
loops in which students acted on treatments as much as treatments acted on students.
So, what emerged in such situations is similar to what happens when two identically
configured double pendulums are set in motion at exactly the same time. Within a few
cycles, identical systems will function in ways that are quite different and unpredictably
so (as shown in the diagram below).

Figure 1. Two Identical Starting Points for a Double Pendulum System

http://www.springerreference.com/docs/edit/chapterdbid/313336.html[11/12/2012 7:13:29 PM]

Theories of Learning Mathematics

Figure 2: Stopping the Two Systems after 10 Seconds.

These kinds of systems are studied in a branch of mathematics known as complexity

theory. And, one thing complexity theory implies is that, even in situations that are as
simple as a double pendulum, feedback loops tend to lead to unpredictable behaviors in
only a few cycles. So, simple input-output rules of the form {Use treatment A and result B
will occur.} are not likely to work for situations involving student-teacher interactions,
student-student interactions, teacher-treatment interactions, and student-treatment
interactions all functioning simultaneously.

No research methodology is scientific if it is based on assumptions that are inconsistent

with those that are considered to be reasonable for the subjects and situations being
investigated. So, a fundamental dilemma that mathematics education researchers face is
that (quite often) they are trying to understand subjects that they (as a community) also
are trying to change, design, or develop. This means that mathematics education
researchers tend to be more like engineers and other design scientists than they are like
pure scientists in fields such as physics or chemistry. In a completely pure science, a
theory would tell which problems are priorities to solve; the theory also would determine
the correctness of permissible solution processes; and, the theory also would determine
when the problem is solved. Whereas, in design sciences, problems arise in the real
world (outside of any theory); solution processes usually need to integrate ideas and
procedures drawn from a variety of disciplines (or textbook topic areas); and, problems
are not solved until the relevant real life issue is resolved.

Why do realistically complex problems tend to require solutions which draw on more than
a single theory? One reason is because real life problems often involve partly conflicting
constraints such as high quality and low costs, low risk and high gain, simple and
complete. Is a Jeep Cherokee a better buy than a Ford Taurus or a Toyota Prius?
Answers depend on preferences of relevant decision makers. So, one size fits all is
seldom a principle that decision makers will accept.

The central shortcoming of mathematics education research is not a lack of success in

producing effective programs and materials. The central problem is lack of accumulation
coupled with the repeated recycling of previously discredited ways of thinking. And, for
accumulation to occur, it is important to notice that, in mature sciences, research
communities tend to devote large portions of their time and energy to the development of
tools to provide infrastructure for their own use. So, it is revealing that the mathematics
education research community still does not have tools to document and assess the most
important achievements that are expected of students, teachers, or programs.

To recognize why lack of accumulation has been such a problem in mathematics

education. Consider the following facts. If it were possible (It isnt!) to inspect the
archives of all past curriculum innovation projects which have been supported by agencies
such as the USAs National Science Foundation, then (beginning with early projects such
as School Mathematics Study Group, The Madison Project, and MiniMast, and continuing
up to current times) inspectors of these archives would have no difficulty producing
convincing evidence that important parts of most of these projects would be highly likely
to be useful and effective today (under some conditions, and for some students, some
teachers, some schools, and some communities). On the other hand, other parts clearly

http://www.springerreference.com/docs/edit/chapterdbid/313336.html[11/12/2012 7:13:29 PM]

Theories of Learning Mathematics

would be missing or in need of significant revision. For example, most projects that
focused on the development of innovative learning materials for children were not
accompanied by adequate teacher development materials, or implementation plans to help
projects evolve from entry-level implementations (during the first year) to more complex
and comprehensive implementations (during the Nth year). Furthermore, most of these
projects did not provide assessment tools to document the achievements of higher-level
achievements of students, teachers, or programs.

If mathematics education researchers pointed to one topic area where they believe theory
development to be strongest, they'd point to either (a) early number concepts, or (b)
early algebraic reasoning (or rational numbers & proportional reasoning). Evidence of this
theory development in learning is found in the literature related to Piaget-like cognitive
structures (Steffe, 1995; Steffe et al., 1996); cognitively guided instruction which focuses
on task variables which are not at all like Piagetian cognitive structures, the focus on
counting strategies and Vygotsky's socially mediated views of development, and focus on
computer-based embodiments which are in some ways similar to those used by Zoltan
Dienes (Sriraman, 2008), but which also emphasize constructs similar to those
emphasized by Steffe.

Yet, each of the preceding perspectives are based on significantly different (and in some
ways incompatible) ways of thinking about mathematics concept development. One place
where differences can be seen where the preceding perspectives differ has do with
"learning trajectories" (or "learning progressions") through which development occurs. The
notion of "learning trajectories" generally describes development (in both learning and
problem solving situations) as if it were like a point moving along a path. Yet, the
following facts are well known.
1. It is easy to change the difficulty of a given task by several years by varying
mathematically insignificant aspects of the task.
2. Research on models & modeling has shown that thinking is far more situated than
traditional perspectives have suggested - because thinking tends to be organized around
experience as much as it is organized around abstractions.
3. For a given concept, understandings develop along a variety of interacting dimensions:
concrete-abstract, situated-decontextualized, specific-general, intuition-formalization, etc.
4. In each of the preceding dimensions, there exist "zones of proximal development" (ZPD)
similar to those described by Vygotsky. Can these ZPDs be unpacked?
5. The development of "big ideas" interact - so that understandings of any one of them
depends partly on the development of others.
We conclude this encyclopedic entry with more questions than answers per se, with the
hope of the community becoming interested in answering these fundamental questions in
their quest for developing theories of mathematical learning.

How do understandings of various "big ideas" interact?

How does the development of "big ideas" interact with the development of "basic
skills"?
How does the development of "big ideas" interact with the ability to use these ideas
in situations that are not pre-mathematized (outside of mathematics classrooms)?

Cross references
History of Mathematics Teaching and Learning; Policy debates in mathematics education;
Zone of Proximal development in mathematics education

References
Begle, E. G. (1979). Critical Variables in Mathematics Education: Findings from a Survey of
theEmpirical Literature. Mathematical Association of America

Common Core State Curriculum Standards (2012). Retrieved from

http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/key-points-in-mathematics

Lesh, R., & Zawojewski, J. S. (2007). Problem solving and modeling. In F. Lester (Ed.),
Second Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. Greenwich, CT:
Information Age Publishing.

Lester, F. (2007). Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning.

Reston, VA: Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Popper, K. (1963)Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge.

Routledge.

http://www.springerreference.com/docs/edit/chapterdbid/313336.html[11/12/2012 7:13:29 PM]

Theories of Learning Mathematics

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards

for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.

Sriraman, B. (2008). Mathematics education and the legacy of Zoltan Paul Dienes.
Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC.

Sriraman, B., & English, L. D. (Eds.). (2010). Theories of Mathematics Education: Seeking
new frontiers. Advances in Mathematics Education, Series: Springer.

Steffe, L. P. (1995). Alternative epistemologies: An educator's perspective. In L. P. Steffe

& J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 489523.

Steffe, L.P et al. (1996). Theories of Mathematical Learning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum

Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language: The MIT press.

Springer 2012

Imprint | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | About Us | System Requirements

Logged in as Bharath Sriraman (sriramanb@mso.umt.edu) SpringerReference Community [3000447318]

Remote Address: 72.174.5.222 Server: senldogo0403 Date: 2012- 11- 13 03:07:00 CET
User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 9.0; Windows NT 6.1; Trident/5.0)
Project Version: 1.7 (2012- 10- 29)

http://www.springerreference.com/docs/edit/chapterdbid/313336.html[11/12/2012 7:13:29 PM]