The Mathematical Education (한국수학교육학회지시리즈A:수학교육)

Korean Society of Mathematical Education (한국수학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Reflections on the application of progressivism and constructivism in mathematics education

수학교육에서 진보주의와 구성주의 적용에 대한 성찰

  • Received : 2021.08.08
  • Accepted : 2021.08.17
  • Published : 2021.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The present study was conducted on the assumptions that both progressivist and constructivist education emphasized the subjective knowledge of learners and confronted similar problems when the derived educational principles from the two perspectives were adopted and applied to mathematics research and practice. We argue that progressivism and constructivism should have clarified the meaning, purpose, and direction of 'emphasizing subjective knowledge' in application to the particular educational field. For the issue, we reflected Dewey's theory on the application of past progressivism, and aligned with it, we took a critical view of the educational applications of current constructivism. As a result, first, the meaning of emphasizing subjective knowledge is that each of the students constructs a unique mathematical reality based on his or her experience of situations and cognitive structures, and emphasizes our understanding of this subjective knowledge as researchers/observers. Second, the purpose of emphasizing subjective knowledge is not to emphasize subjective knowledge itself. Rather, it concerns the meaningful learning of objective knowledge: internalization of objective knowledge and objectification of subjective knowledge. Third, the application of the emphasis on subjective knowledge does not specify certain teaching/learning methods as appropriate, but orients us toward a genuine learner-centered reform from below. The introspections, we wish, will provide new momentum for discussion to establish constructivism as a coherent theory in mathematics classrooms.

본 연구는 진보주의 교육과 구성주의 교육이 학습자의 주관적 지식을 강조한다는 측면에서 공통점이 있으며, 이 두 교육 사조로부터 도출된 교육 원리가 수학교육 연구와 현장에 채택되어 적용될 때 유사한 문제점 또는 부작용이 발생한다는 문제의식을 전제로 수행되었다. 주관적 지식을 강조하는 진보주의와 구성주의는 이를 교육 현장에 적용함에 있어 주관적 지식 강조의 의미, 그 목적 및 적용 방향을 분명히 할 필요가 있었다. 이 문제에 대해 먼저 과거 진보주의의 교육적 적용 방식에 대해 Dewey의 이론을 바탕으로 반성해보고, 이를 거울삼아 동일한 문제에 대한 현재 구성주의의 교육적 적용에 대해 비판적 성찰을 시도하였다. 이를 통해 구성주의에 대한 발전적 이해와 수학 교실에서 보편적 이론으로 자리매김할 수 있는 논의의 단초를 제공하고자 하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Adler, J. (1999). The Dilemma of Transparency: Seeing and Seeing through Talk in the Mathematics Classroom. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(1), 47-64. https://doi.org/10.2307/749629
  2. Bang, S. O. (2015). A study on the issues about success and failure of constructivist view of instruction. The Journal of Sciences and Arts, S(9), 121-146.
  3. Cho, Y. G. (2000). The key to linking open education. Journal of Elementary Education, 16, 167-196.
  4. Choi, C. W. (2000). A case study of elementary mathematics class in a constructive view. The Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics, 10(2), 229-246.
  5. Choi, S. H. (2020). Interaction patterns between teachers-students and teacher's discourse structures in mathematization processes. The Mathematical Education, 59(1), 17-29. https://doi.org/10.7468/MATHEDU.2020.59.1.17
  6. Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 13-20. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X023007013
  7. Cobb, P., & Yackel, E. (1996). Constructivist, emergent, and sociocultural perspectives in the context of developmental research. Educational Psychologist, 31(3), 175-190. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3103&4_3
  8. Cobb, P., Wood, T., Yackel, E., Nicholls, J., Wheatley, G., Trigatti, B., & Perlwitz, M. (1991). Assessment of a problem-centered second-grade mathematics project. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(1), 3-29. https://doi.org/10.2307/749551
  9. Cobb, P., Yackel, E., & Wood, T. (1992). A constructivist alternative to the representational view of mind in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23, 2-33. Retrieved Feb. 27, 2019, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/749161 https://doi.org/10.2307/749161
  10. Confrey, J. (1981). Conceptual change analysis: implications for mathematics and curriculum. Curriculum Inquiry, 11(3), 243-257. https://doi.org/10.2307/1179803
  11. Confrey, J., & Kazak, S. (2006). A thirty-year reflection on constructivism in mathematics education in PME. In A. Gutierrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education: Past, present and future(pp. 305-345). Rotterdam: Sense Publications.
  12. Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagogical creed. School Journal, 54, 77-80. Retrieved May. 29, 2019, from http://dewey.pragmatism.org/creed.htm
  13. Dewey, J. (1902). The child and the curriculum. USA: The University Press of Chicago Press.
  14. Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1997). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research in education, communication, and technology. New York: Macmillan. Retrieved Aug. 1, 2021, from http://homepages.gac.edu/~mkoomen/edu241/constructivism.pdf
  15. Durkheim, E. (1922). Education et sociologie(Translated by Lee, J. K.): Seoul: Baeyoungsa.
  16. Ernest, P. (1991). The philosophy of mathematics education. London: The Palmer Press.
  17. Ernest, P. (1994). Social constructivism and the psychology of mathematics education. In P. Ernest (Ed.), Constructing mathematical knowledge: Epistemology and mathematics education (pp. 68-77). London: The Falmer Press.
  18. Ernest, P. (1998). Social constructivism as a philosophy of mathematics. New York: SUNY Press Albany.
  19. Ernest, P. (1999). What is social constructivism in the psychology of mathematics education. In J. P. da Ponte, & J. F. Matos (Eds), Proceedings of the 18th International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 304-311), Lisbon, Portugal: University of Lisbon.
  20. Ernest, P. (2011). The psychology of learning Mathematics: The cognitive, affective and contextual domains of mathematics education. Saarbrucken: LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing
  21. Garrison, J. (1995). Deweyan Pragmatism and the Epistemology of Contemporary Social Constructivism. American Educational Research Journal, 32(4), 716-740. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032004716
  22. Hackenberg, A. J. (2010). Students' reasoning with reversible multiplicative relationships. Cognition and Instruction, 28(4), 383-432. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2010.511565
  23. Han, M. H., & Ko, J. H. (2005). A philosophical understanding of education. Seoul: Moonumsa.
  24. Heo, K. J. (2007). Limitations of constructivism learning theory. CBNU J ournal of Educational Research, 28(3), 103-131.
  25. Hwang, H. J., Na, G. S., Choi, S. H., Park, K. M., Yim, J. H., & Seo, D. Y. (2016). New theory of mathematics education. Seoul; Moonumsa.
  26. Hwang, H. J., & Yim, J. H. (1999). Comments on developing mathematics textbooks based on constructivism. The Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics, 9(1), 295-309.
  27. Kang, E. K. (2018). A search for the meaning of constructivism: Constructivism revisited and reviewed. Education of Primary School Mathematics, 21(3), 261-272. https://doi.org/10.7468/JKSMEC.2018.21.3.261
  28. Kang, I. A. (1995). A brief reflection on cognitive and social constructivism. Journal of Educational Technology, 11(2), 3-20. https://doi.org/10.17232/KSET.11.2.3
  29. Kang, I. A. (1997). Why constructivism? Seoul: Moonumsa.
  30. Kang, I. A., Choi, J. I., & Jang, K. W. (2006). Retrospecting and Prospecting Studies of Constructivism: The comparison of Korean and Western Countries. Journal of Educational Technology, 22(4), 105-135. https://doi.org/10.17232/KSET.22.4.105
  31. Kang, O. K., He, N., Cho, H. G., Park, K. E., & Lee, H. C. (2010). A theory of mathematics education. Seoul: Kyungmunsa.
  32. Kim, J. G. (2002). A study on the re-recognition of educational experience based on the John Dewey's epistemology. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 20(1), 75-95.
  33. Kim, M. G. (2005). The relation between constructivism and Dewey's theory of knowledge: A reinterpretation. The Korean Journal of Philosophy of Education, 34, 23-43. https://doi.org/10.15754/JKPE.2012.34.3.002002
  34. Kim, S. D., Kim, J. K., Seo, E. J., Lee, K. R., & Lee, B. S. (2011). Educational philosophy and pedagogy history. Seoul: Yangseowon.
  35. Kim, T. H., & Kim, J. H. (2010). Effects of math lessons based on constructivism ideas on learners' achievements -With focus on the area of fractions for 4th graders-. Education of Primary School Mathematics, 13(2), 67-84.
  36. Kim, Y. B. (2008). The merits and limits of constructivist instruction. The Journal of Educational Research, 22, 81-104.
  37. Kim, Y. S., & Park, Y. B. (1994). On the meaning of radical constructivism in mathematics education. The Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics, 4(1), 25-38.
  38. Kim, Y. S., & Park, Y. B. (1996). A study on the constructivistic development in teaching and learning mathematics. The Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics, 6(1), 91-110.
  39. Kirschner, P. A. (2009). Epistemology or pedagogy, that is the question. In S. Tobias, & T. M. Duffy (Eds), Constructivist instruction: success or failure? (pp. 156-169). New York: Routledge.
  40. Lee, S. E. (2015). A study on historical changes of progressive educational reforms in Korea. The Journal of Yeolin Education. 23(4), 19-43.
  41. Lee, S. J., & Shin, J. (2015). Distributive partitioning operation in mathematical situations involving fractional quantities. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(2), 329-355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-013-9478-9
  42. Lerman, S. (1983). Problem-solving or knowledge-centred: the influence of philosophy on mathematics teaching. International Journal for Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 14(1), 59-66. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739830140109
  43. McCarthy, C. & Sears, E. (2000). Deweyan pragmatism and the quest for true belief. Educational theory, 50(2). 213-227. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2000.00213.x
  44. Mok, Y. H. (2003). Constructivism and the 7th national Curriculum. The Korean Journal of Philosophy of Education, 29, 27-43.
  45. Na, G. S. (1998). (An) Analysis of the nature of proof and practice of proof education : focused on the middle school geometry. Doctoral dissertation. Seoul National University.
  46. Namgung, Y. G., Yim, C. S., Jung, C. J., Kwon, G. I., Kim, E. S., Kim, N. G., & Kim, N. Y. (2008). Educational philosophy and pedagogy history. Seoul: Yangseowon.
  47. Noh, J. W., & Lee, K. H. (2016). Deleuze's epistemology and mathematics learning. School Mathematics, 18(3), 733-747.
  48. Noh, S. S. (2008). Complexity of mathematics education reform: Learnings from US math curriculum reform history. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 26(3), 121-154.
  49. Oh, C. G., Lee, B. H., & Lee, K. I. (2010). Educational philosophy and pedagogy history. Seoul: Taeyoung Publishing.
  50. Park, J. S., & Shin, J. (2019). Discussion on pedagogical aspects of Paul Ernest's mathematical knowledge construction process. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 19(2), 993-1016. https://doi.org/10.22251/jlcci.2019.19.20.993
  51. Park, J. Y. (1996). Educational understanding. Seoul: Hakjisa.
  52. Prawat, R. S. (1995). Misreading Dewey: Reform, Projects, and the Language Game. Educational Researcher, 24(7), 13-22. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X024007013
  53. Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective knowledge: an evolutionary approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  54. Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational researcher, 27(2), 4-13. https://doi.org/10.2307/1176193
  55. Sfard, A, & Kieran, C. (2001). Cognition as communication: rethinking learning-by-talking through multi-faceted analysis of students' mathematical interactions. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 8(1), 42-76. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327884MCA0801_04
  56. Shin, B. H., Jeon, S. J., Cho, H. Y., Kim, H. Y., Shim, H., & Seo, D. K. (2017). Educational philosophy and pedagogy history. Seoul: Jeongminsa.
  57. Shin, D. R., Lee, B. S., Woo, Y. H., & Kim, H. Y. (2004). An easily written pedagogic and pedagogic history. Seoul: Yangseowon.
  58. Shin, H. S. (1992). Constructivist perspectives in mathematics curriculum. The Mathematical Education. 31(3), 73-82.
  59. Shin, J., Lee, S. J., & Steffe, L. P. (2020). Problem solving activities of two middle school students with distinct levels of units coordination. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 59, 1-19.
  60. Simon, M. A. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(2), 114-145. https://doi.org/10.2307/749205
  61. Simon, M. A. (2009). Amidst multiple theories of learning in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40(5), 477-490. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.40.5.0477
  62. Simon, M., Kara, M., Placa, N., & Avitzur, A. (2018). Towards an integrated theory of mathematics conceptual learning and instructional design: The Learning Through Activity theoretical framework. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 52, 95-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2018.04.002
  63. Steffe, L. P., Cobb, P., & von Glasersfeld, E. (1988). Construction of arithmetical meanings and strategies. New York: Springer-Verlag.
  64. Steffe, L. P., & Gale, J. (1995). Constructivism in education. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  65. Steffe, L. P., & Kieren, T. (1994). Radical constructivism and mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25, 711-733. https://doi.org/10.2307/749582
  66. Steffe, L, P., & Olive, J. (2010). Children's fractional knowledge. New York: Springer.
  67. Steffe, L. P., & Thompson, P. W. (2000). Teaching experiment methodology: Underlying principles and essential elements. In R. Lesh & A. E. Kelly (Eds.), Research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 267-307). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  68. Steffe, L. P., & Wiegel, H. G. (1992). On reforming practice in mathematics education. 445-465.
  69. Sweller, J. (2009). What human cognitive architecture tells us about constructivism. In S. Tobias, & T. M. Duffy (Eds), Constructivist Instruction: Success or Failure? (pp. 139-155). New York: Routledge.
  70. Thompson, P. W. (2000). Radical constructivism: reflections and directions. In L. P. Steffe & P. W. Thompson (Eds.), Radical constructivism in action: Building on the pioneering work of Ernst von Glasersfeld (pp. 412-448). London: Falmer Press.
  71. Thompson, P. W. (2013). Constructivism in Mathematics Education. In S. Lerman (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Mathematics Education. Springer Reference (www.springerreference.com). Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. DOI: 10.1007/Springer Reference_3132102013-05-10 00:00:07UTC
  72. von Glasersfeld, E. (1989a). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthese, 80(1), 121-140. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00869951
  73. von Glasersfeld, E. (1989b). Constructivism in Education. In: T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education. Supplement Volume 1. Pergamon Press, Oxford: 162-163. Retrieved Sep, 25, 2019, from http://von Glasersfeld.com/114.
  74. von Glasersfeld, E. (1990). An Exposition of Constructivism: Why Some Like It Radical. In JRME Monograph, 4, 19-30.
  75. von Glasersfeld, E. (Ed.)(1991). Radical Constructivism in Mathematics Education. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  76. von Glasersfeld, E. (1992) Philosophy of mathematics (Review of Paul Ernest). Zentralblatt fur Didaktik der Mathematik 24(2), 46. Retrieved Jul, 10, 2021, from Available at https://cepa.info/1438
  77. von Glasersfeld, E. (1994). A constructivist approach to teaching. In L. P. Steffe, & J. Gale. (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 3-15). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  78. von Glasersfeld, E. (1995a). A constructivist approach to teaching. In L. P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 3-15). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  79. von Glasersfeld, E. (1995b). Radical Constructivism: A Way of Knowing and Learning. London: Falmer Press.
  80. von Glasersfeld, E. (1998). Why constructivism must be radical. In M. Larochelle, N. Bednarz, & J. Garrison (Eds.), Constructivism in education. (pp. 23-28). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  81. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of mind: Sociocultural approach to mediated action(Translated by Park, D. S.): Seoul: Hakisiseup.
  82. Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1993). Sociomathematical Norms, Argumentation, and Autonomy in Mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458-477. https://doi.org/10.2307/749877
  83. Yang, H. S., & Kim, M. K. (2018). A study on the mathematical disposition and communication level in process of applying mathematical journal writing to the 3rd graders in a mathematics classroom. The Mathematical Education, 57(3), 247-270. https://doi.org/10.7468/MATHEDU.2018.57.3.247
  84. Yim, J. H. (1999). Mathematics education and constructivism. Journal of the Elementary Education Society, 2, 96-108.
  85. Yim, J. H., & Hong, J. K. (1998). The Meaning and Mechanism of the 'Construction' in the Operational Constructivism and the Social Constructivism. Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics, 8(1), 299-312.
  86. Yoo, Y. J., & Yim, J. H. (1997). Postmodernism and radical, social constructivism. Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics, 7(2), 359-380.
  87. Yoon, J. M., & Kang, W. (2006). Effects of reciprocal writing-reflection activities on the learning elementary mathematics-focused on the 2nd grade students-. Journal of Elementary Mathematics Education in Korea, 10(1), 21-42.