Chapter 10: Teacher Development in Mathematics in a Constructivist Framework

Abstract

Only decades ago John Dewey argued for a carefully developed philosophy of experience. Yet the sources of a contructivist to learning have been shown to span a long history of over 2500 years (von Glasersfeld, Chapter 2, this volume). As recently as five years ago, intense debate regarding the credibility of a approach to mathematics learning extended in some way to involve members of the mathematics education community. In 1986, Brophy and Confrey publicly debated the implications of the at an intense AERA session. At the 1987 Psychology of Mathematics Education meeting in Montreal, plenary speakers argued for or against the appropriateness of the perspective as a framework for research in mathematics education. Members of the community struggled to make sense of the philosophical and practical issues involved. For many mathematics educators, the customary assumption that each student was building up in his or her own mind a good (if not yet complete) replica of the ideas in the teacher's mind had rather suddenly come into question. The methodological issues became more compelling as mounting evidence indicated the presence of many student misconceptions about mathematical ideas that previously had been overlooked. Surely the constructions by students were very much influenced by the nature of the activity that was taking place in mathematics classroom environments. It was not easy to dismiss the debate. By reconsidering the nature of student experience in the classroom, methodological and pedagogical issues engaged members of the community in a reconsideration of their personal perspectives and an examination of the implications of a constructivist view on learning. The suggestion by Noddings (Chapter 1, this volume) that constructivism is not a strong epistemological position and might better be considered a post-epistemological perspective makes possible a reconciliation that, while not resolving a basic point of difference, enables mathematics educators to get on with their business of finding ways to help teachers learn to provide environments for children that will foster powerful mathematical constructions. Noddings calls our attention to the power of the environment to press for