William Higginson (1980) presented a model to explain the foundational disciplines which constitute modern mathematics education:
1. “The psychological dimension of mathematics education is mainly concerned with the way in which the individual attempts to learn mathematics.”
2. “The social-cultural dimension deals with the influence of groups of individuals and their creations on this experience. “
3. The philosophical dimension deals with the concept of mathematics knowledge
4. And of course, mathematics dimension itself
This model of mathematics education is simplified into a tetrahedral shape, referred to as MAPS, with each side representing one constituent discipline:
M-Mathematics, A-Philosophy (arbitrary?), P-Psychology, S-Sociology
Reflection:
The analogous model does have its appeal as it gives a more vivid presentation of dynamics and interactions than a plain text description. However, although with good intentions, the author overlooked the complexity of the contributing disciplines when he tried to express that mathematics education is a complex phenomenon. Indeed, I tend to think each of these building elements as equally sophisticated as the main topic of education itself. Inspired by the author, I would rather express mathematics education as a four-pronged model where each dimension of learning is equally complex as the subject itself. At the centre, we can find the core concept of “mathematics education” which is greatly affected by the four substituents, each of which pulls it into its respective corner.
.
Question:
The author claimed that that the four foundational disciplines are not only necessary, but also sufficient, to determine the nature of mathematics education. Given the growing complexity of mathematics education, do you see any new constituent dimensions emerging after 30 years of the publication?
This article seems to be very interesting because, from my point of view, teaching and educating mathematics is affected by several disciplines that wisely mentioned by Higginson. However, I am interested to know how author came up with these dimensions?
ReplyDeleteThis question is exactly my question when I was reading this reflection. Considering how a topic in mathematics can be teach or can be learnt reveal that the psychological dimension of mathematics education, discussed by author, covers all aspect of personal learning. However the influence of family, culture and society is vary in mathematics educations so although author indicates the influence of groups of individuals and their creations on mathematics education, there must be several aspect that recently have been studied such as influence of migration on learning mathematics.
I appreciate your reworking of the tetrahedral model. While innovative at the time, I agree with you that there are other models that might serve us better today. There is so much interconnection between mathematics education and other disciplines that a rhizome could also be useful. Cognitive development was listed under psychology. An expanded understanding of cognition in relation to mathematics education would include multiple intelligences, also different ways of thinking and processes sensory information. This would link to arts based math education and aesthetic value. As well, I think that social justice and equity could connect. I found the prediction of social, cultural and technology development issues and influences on math education to be insightful. The author’s sense of historical shifts, some almost absurd, was most interesting for me.
ReplyDeleteMy first thought about this four-pronged idea is where, arguably, the biggest change to the classroom in the last 30 years would fit: technology. It could potentially fit into either the social or the psychological disciplines, as technology has had a large impact on both: it has changed both how and when, even if, humans interact. Mathematics education is increasingly being tasked with implementing new technologies, most recently with the new curriculum in B.C. adding computer science to the umbrella of mathematics in high school.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if technology would be a significant enough discipline to require or merit its own “prong”? Although it is a massive change to the entire education system, i think it could still be considered a tool that would be included with the other disciplines and not as its own.
(Nancy, I was thinking the same on rereading Higginson's article. Although he (quite perceptively) saw that society was on the brink of a huge technological revolution in 1980, he didn't consider technology a 'prong' or factor in his model!)
Delete