The concept and role of theory in mathematics education

theory in math educationWhat is theory?

Mogan Niss in his paper The concept and role of theory in mathematics education offers this definition of theory:

A theory is a system of concepts and claims with certain properties, namely

  • The theory consists of an organised network of concepts (including ideas, notions, distinctions, terms etc.) and claims about some extensive domain, or a class of domains, of objects, situations and phenomena.
  • In the theory, the concepts are linked in a connected hierarchy (oftentimes of a logical or proto-logical nature), in which a certain set of concepts, taken to be basic, are used as building blocks in the formation of the other concepts in the hierarchy.
  • In the theory, the claims are either basic hypotheses, assumptions, or axioms, taken as fundamental (i.e. not subject to discussion within the boundaries of the theory itself), or statements obtained from the fundamental claims by means of formal or material (by “material” we mean experiential or experimental) derivation (including reasoning).
What are the theories put to use in mathematics education?

Niss: To begin with, four general observations pertaining to this question should be kept in mind.

  • Firstly, there is no such thing as a well-established unified “theory of mathematics education” which is supported by the majority of mathematics education researchers. On the contrary, different groups of researchers represent different schools of thought, some of which appear to be mutually incompatible if not outright contradictory. It is not likely that we shall get a unified theory of mathematics education in a foreseeable future, if ever.
  • The second observation is that many mathematics education researchers relate their work to explicitly invoked theories borrowed from other fields (or at least from authors who belong to other fields), and often do so in rather eclectic or vague ways. Only rarely are theories “homegrown” within mathematics education itself.
  • Thirdly, much discussion and debate in mathematics education research takes the shape of “fights” with and between theories. This may be potentially fruitful to the extent competing theories offer different perspectives on the same thing, whereas it is potentially futile, if not destructive, if the theories deal with different things and therefore are only competing in the superficial sense that “my topic object of study is more important than yours”.
  • Finally, the fourth observation is that quite a few mathematics education researchers do not explicitly invoke or employ any theory at all in their work. Many researchers who actually do invoke a theory in their publications do not seem to go beyond the mere invocation.

In other words, some theoretical framework may be referred to in the beginning or in the end of a paper without having any presence or bearing on what happens between the beginning and the end.

What should we strive at in theory building in mathematics education?

Niss: Imagine that there existed a full-fledged theory of mathematics education. What would it look like, and what minimum requirements would it have to fulfil? In order for it to be comprehensive enough to be worth its name, it would have to contain at least the following of sub-theories, each accounting for essential traits of mathematics education:

  • a sub-theory of mathematics as a discipline and a subject in all its dimensions, including is nature and role in society and culture;
  • a sub-theory of individuals’ affective notions, experiences, emotions, attitudes, and perspectives with regard to their actual and potential encounters with mathematics; a sub-theory of individuals’ cognitive notions, beliefs, experiences, and perceptions with regard to their actual and potential encounters with mathematics, and the outcomes thereof;
  • a sub-theory of the teaching of mathematics seen within all its institutional, societal, national, international, cultural and historical contexts;
  • a sub-theory of teachers of mathematics, individually and as communities, including their personal and educational backgrounds and professional identities and development.

Extension of number concepts to integers

In the paper Using intuition from everyday life in ‘filling’ the gap in children’s extension of their concept to include negative numbers, the authors reports an instructional method designed to address the cognitive gaps in children’s mathematical development where operational conceptions give rise to structural conceptions (such as when the subtraction process leads to the negative number concept). The method involves the linking of process and object conceptions through semiotic activity with models which first record processes in situations outside mathematics and subsequently mediate activity with the signs of mathematics.



The authors describe two experiments in teaching integers, an interesting case in which previous literature has focused on the dichotomy between the algebraic approach and the modelling approach to instruction and conceptualize modelling as the transformation of outside-school knowledge into school mathematics, and discuss the opportunities and difficulties involved. Their instructional method build on Realistic Mathematics Education (RME) developed by Freudenthal’s followers at the Freudenthal Institute (Treffers, 1987; Gravemeijer, 1994).

The study involved a series of teaching sequences, each of about 5 one hour- long sessions, with groups (of three children at a time in the first experiment and four in the second experiment) of grade 6 pupils who had not yet received any instruction in negative numbers. The final sequence led the children to construct the integers and operations of addition and subtraction.

Authors: LIORA LINCHEVSKI and JULIAN WILLIAMS

Educational Studies in Mathematics 39: 131–147, 1999. © 1999 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...