Mathematics Education as a ‘Design Science’

Abstract

AbstractMathematics education (didactics of mathematics) cannot grow without close relationships to mathematics, psychology, pedagogy and other areas. However, there is the risk that by adopting standards, methods and research contexts from other well-established disciplines, the applied nature of mathematics education may be undermined. In order to preserve the specific status and the relative autonomy of mathematics education, the suggestion to conceive of mathematics education as a “design science” is made. In a paper presented to the twenty second Annual Meeting of German mathematics educators in 1988 Heinrich Bauersfeld presented some views on the perspectives and prospects of mathematics education. It was his intention to stimulate a critical reflection’among the members of the community’ on what they do and what they could and should do in the future (Bauersfeld 1988). The early seventies have witnessed a vivid programmatic discussion on the role and nature of mathematics education in the German speaking part of Europe (cf., the papers by Bigalke, Griesel, Wittmann, Freudenthal, Otte, Dress and Tietz in the special issue 74/3 of the Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik as well as Krygowska 1972). Since then the status of mathematics education has not been considered on a larger scale despite the contributions by Bigalke (1985) and Winter (1986). So the time is overdue for redefining the basic orientation for research; therefore, Bauersfeld’s talk could hardly have been more appropriate. In recent years the interest in a better understanding of the nature and role of mathematics education has also grown considerably at the international level as indicated, for example, by the ICMI-study on ‘What is research in mathematics education and what are its results?’ launched in 1992 (cf., Balacheff et al. 1992). The following considerations are intended both as a critical analysis of the present situation and an attempt to capture the specificity of mathematics education. Like Bauersfeld, the author presents them ‘in full subjectivity and in a concise way’ as a kind of ‘thinking aloud about our profession’. (The present paper concentrates on the didactics of mathematics although the line of argument pertains equally to the didactics of other subjects and also to education in general (cf., Clifford and Guthrie 1988, a detailed study on the identity crisis of the Schools of Education at the leading American universities).)