Statistics education has begun to mature as a discipline distinct from mathematics education, creating new perspectives on the teaching and learning of statistics. This commentary emphasizes the importance of coordinating perspectives from statistics education and mathematics education through boundary interactions between the two communities of practice. I argue that such interactions are particularly vital in shared problem spaces related to the teaching and learning of measurement, variability, and contextualized problems. Collaborative work within these shared problem spaces can contribute to the vitality of each discipline. Neglect of the shared problem spaces may contribute to insularity and have negative consequences for research and school curricula. Challenges of working at the boundaries are considered, and strategies for overcoming the challenges are proposed.
The third edition of the Handbook of International Research in Mathematics Education (henceforth, HIRME) comes at an interesting time for the community of mathematics education researchers because it tackles two essential problems for the community, namely, (a) what constitutes “great challenges” for the field, in the opening chapter, and (b) how scalable mathematics education research is, in the concluding chapter.
A listing is given of current online offerings for Equity in Mathematics Education, the special issue of JRME that explores the subject of equity.
Steven R. Williams and Keith R. Leatham
We present the results of 2 studies, a citation-based study and an opinion-based study, that ranked the relative quality of 20 English-language journals that exclusively or extensively publish mathematics education research. We further disaggregate the opinion-based data to provide insights into variations in judgment of journal quality based on geographic location, journal affiliations and publishing records, and experience in the field. We also report factors that survey respondents indicated were important indicators of journal quality. Finally, we compare our results to previous related rankings and conclude by discussing how our results might inform authors, editors, and evaluators in their efforts to publish and recognize quality research in mathematics education.
Leslie P. Steffe and Thomas Kieren
Our intention in this article is to provide an interpretation of the influence of constructivist thought on mathematics educators starting around 1960 and proceeding on up to the present time. First, we indicate how the initial influence of constructivist thought stemmed mainly from Piaget's cognitive-development psychology rather than from his epistemology. In this, we point to what in retrospect appears to be inevitable distortions in the interpretations of Piaget 's psychology due primarily to its interpretation in the framework of Cartesian epistemology. Second, we identify a preconstructivist revolution in research in mathematics education beginning in 1970 and proceeding on up to 1980. There were two subperiods in this decade separated by Ernst von Glasersfeld's presentation of radical constructivism to the Jean Piaget Society in Philadelphia in 1975. Third, we mark the beginning of the constructivist revolution in mathematics education research by the publication of two important papers in the JRME (Richards & von Glasersfeld, 1980; von Glasersfeld, 1981). Fourth, we indicate how the constructivist revolution in mathematics education research served as a period of preparation for the reform movement that is currently underway in school mathematics.
A review of the literature on error analysis in mathematics education and an extensive investigation of errors made by German schoolchildren suggests a classification of errors and their causes in terms of information-processing mechanisms. Pupils' errors may be caused by semantic differences between mathematical language and natural language, by individual differences in spatial abilities, by deficiencies in the mastery of prerequisites, by incorrect associations or failure of cognitive control, and by the application of irrelevant strategies or rules. Implications for research and practice are suggested.
former and present editors of JRME to write reflections on research in mathematics education during the time of our editorships. My assignment was a little unusual; given that the first and second editors of the journal are no longer available, I am
The JRME Special Issue, titled Equity in Mathematics Education, is currently online. It can be accessed at www.nctm.org/jrme/equity.
Marilyn N. Suydam
ln this 13th annual listing of mathematics education research to appear in JRME, the references are given alphabetically by author within three categories (research summaries, articles, and dissertations). Some studies in which mathematics education was not the primary focus are included. Such studies are usually not annotated, as are studies focused on mathematics education. Annotations generally indicate one principal finding of a study, although most studies have additional findings. The original report should be checked for other results as well as for limitations affecting the validity of the findings.
Research Advisory Committee of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
The past year saw a number of very positive developments in mathematics education research. Of most direct impact on researchers was the fact that the National Science Foundation research programs reestablished in 1984 began funding a sizable number of projects in 1985. The renewed availability of funds for research will have a ripple effect across the mathematics education community for years to come. In addition to the increased funding for research, 1985 marked the beginning of several long-range projects and programs that are of particular interest to mathematics education researchers.