Mathematical Thinking: from Cacophony to Consensus
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
MATHEMATICAL THINKING: FROM CACOPHONY TO CONSENSUS A dissertation submitted to the Kent State University College and Graduate School of Education, Health, and Human Services in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy By Sean F. Argyle August 2012 2012 by Sean F. Argyle Some Rights Reserved http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ A dissertation written by Sean F. Argyle B.S., Slippery Rock University, 2005 M.Ed., Slippery Rock University, 2006 Ph.D., Kent State University, 2012 Approved by _________________________, Co-director, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Michael G. Mikusa _________________________, Co-director, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Lisa A. Donnelly _________________________, Member, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Natasha Levinson Accepted by _________________________, Director, School of Teaching, Learning Alexa Sandmann and Curriculum Studies _________________________, Dean, College of Education, Health and Human Services Daniel F. Mahony ARGYLE, SEAN F., Ph.D., August 2012 Curriculum and Instruction MATHEMATICAL THINKING: FROM CACOPHONY TO CONSENSUS (199 pp.) Co-Directors of Dissertation: Michael G. Mikusa, Ph.D. Lisa A. Donnelly, Ph.D. Various standards have demanded that teachers improve “mathematical thinking,” but definitions are vague – if present at all. What little research on the subject exists is disjointed and dissenting, leading some researchers to lament the possibility of ever coming to an agreement on how to define “mathematical thinking” as a viable construct. Rather than add one more voice into the cacophony of competing definitions, this dissertation seeks to discuss the results of a conceptual meta-analysis of the term’s use in an appropriately titled journal – Mathematical Thinking and Learning. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am grateful to Valerie, who proofread so much of this paper. Surely, it would have been far muddier without her advice. I am, furthermore, indebted to my mother for her continued modeling of how to proceed through adversity. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Heading Pg. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. iv LIST OF FIGURES. vii CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION. 1 Guiding Research Questions. 8 Methodology. 9 Conceptual Analysis. 12 Data Analysis. 16 Procedure. 21 CHAPTER II: THE MODEL. 22 “Mathematical Thinking” or “Thinking About Mathematics” . 22 Four Views of Mathematical Thinking. 24 Think about mathematics. 24 Think when doing mathematics. 25 Habits of mind. 26 Think mathematically. 27 Synthesis of the Four Views. 27 1. Mathematical thinking could potentially apply to almost anything. 28 2. Mathematical thinking is implicitly tied to the process of mathematics. 30 3. Mathematical thinking requires habituation. 34 4. Mathematical thinking operates on and outside generalized thinking. 37 An Overview of the Model. 39 CHAPTER III: EVERYDAY EXPERIENCE. 46 Abstraction. 51 Summary. 54 Generalization. 55 Overgeneralization. 60 Summary. 65 Reification. 66 Summary. 68 Chapter Summary. 69 v TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.) CHAPTER IV: MATHEMATICAL WORLD. 70 Mathematization. 72 Summary. 81 Justification. 81 Summary. 87 Chapter Summary. 88 CHAPTER V: MATHEMATICAL COMMUNITY. 89 Normalization. 95 Summary. 108 Contribution. 109 Summary. 114 Chapter Summary. 115 CHAPTER VI: MATHEMATICAL DISPOSITION. 116 Internalization. 119 Summary. 123 Intuition. 124 Summary. 127 Motivation. 128 Summary. 132 Aesthetic Evaluation. 133 Summary. 135 Chapter Summary. 136 CHAPTER VII: SENSE-MAKING. 137 Interpretation. 141 Representation. 145 Organization. 149 Chapter Summary. 152 CHAPTER VIII: PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS. 153 Limitations. 159 Discussion. 162 Statistical Thinking. 163 Curriculum & Instruction. 169 Conclusion. 179 REFERENCES. 180 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure Pg. 1. Word Cloud. 11 2. Model Research Methodologies. 12 3. Article Category Percentages. 20 4. Annual Category Counts. 20 5. A Meta-analytic Model of Mathematical Thinking. 40 6. Everyday Experience. 46 7..