Zusammenfassung
Die Diskussionen über neue Formen des Lernens sind häufig vom Kern des Lernens weit entfernt. Im Gegensatz dazu wird in diesem Beitrag Lernen unter einer als solche erachteten Schlüsselfrage der Mathematikdidaktik überdacht: Wie können wir Lernende dazu veranlassen, auf der Basis ihres vorhandenen Wissens ein neues Verständnis auszubilden? Exemplarisch werden didaktische Bootstrapping-Strategien vorgestellt, um mit dieser „Paradoxie des Lernens” umzugehen. Ergänzend dazu wird auch dem „Wunder des Lernens” Aufmerksamkeit geschenkt. In Anbetracht der Qualität der Unterrichtskommunikation und der Erläuterungen, die Lernenden geboten werden, ist es oft erstaunlich, dass Lernen überhaupt stattfindet. Zur Entwicklung neuer didaktischer Einsichten müssen beide Seiten in Betracht gezogen werden.
Abstract
It is characteristic for the discussions about the new forms of learning that they are far removed from the core of the learning process. In contrast, in this contribution learning will be reconsidered from what is seen as a key question within the didactics of mathematics education: how can we prompt the students to construct new understanding based on what they already know. Examples are given of the didactical bootstrapping strategies that can be applied to handle this ‘learning paradox’. In addition to this high-level didactics attention is also paid to the ‘learning miracle’. In view of the quality of classroom communication and explanations given to students it is often remarkable that learning takes place. Taking both learning issues into account is necessary for developing new didactical insights.
Article PDF
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Adda, J. (1998). A glance over the evolution of reserach in mathematics education. In A. Sierpinska & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), Mathematics Education as a Research Domain: A Search for Identity. An ICMI Study. Book 1 (pp. 49–56). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Asimov, I. (1986). Futuredays: A nineteenth century vision of the year 2000. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Ball, D.L. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary school mathematics. Elementary School Journal, 93, 373–397.
Bereiter, C. (1985). Toward a solution of the learning paradox. Review of Educational Research, 55(2), 201–226.
Bransford, J.D. & Brown, A.L. & Cocking, R.R. (Eds.) (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Bransford, J.D. & Brown, A.L. & Cocking, R.R. (Eds.) (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school Expended edition. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Carpenter, T. & Fennema, E. (1992). Cognitively Guided Instruction: Building on the knowledge of students and teachers. In W. Secada (Ed.), International Journal of Educational Research. Special Issue: The case of mathematics in the United States (pp. 457–470).
Cobb, P. (1987). Information-processing psychology and mathematics education — A constructivist perspective. Journal of Mathematical Behaviour, 6(1), 3–40.
Cobb, P. & Yackel, E. & Wood, T. (1992). A constructivist alternative to the representiai view of mind in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23(1), 2–33.
Cobb, P. (1995). The relevance of practice: A response to Orton. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(3), 230–253.
Davis, B. (1997). Listening for differences: An evolving conception of mathematics teaching. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(3), 255–376.
Desforges, Ch. & Cockburn, A. (1987). Understanding the mathematics teacher. A study of practice in first schools. London: The Falmer Press.
Duckworth, E. (1987). The having of wonderful ideas and other essays on teaching and learning. New York: Teachers College press.
Fisher, G. & Palen, L. (1999). Design, learning and collaboration _ Things to remember. Boulder, CO: Center for Lifelong Learning & Design, University of Colorado.
Fodor, J. (1980). Fixation of belief and concept acquisition. In M. Piattelli-Palmarini (Ed.), Language and Learning: The Debate Between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky (pp. 142–149). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Freudenthal, H. (1968). Why to teach mathematics so as to be useful? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 7, 3–8.
Freudenthal, H. (1971). Geometry between the devil and the deep sea. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 3, 413–435.
Freudenthal, H. (1981). Major problems of mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12, 133–150.
Freudenthal, H. (1991). Revisiting Mathematics Education. China Lectures. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Grabinger, S. (1996). Rich environments for active learning. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for educational Telecommunications and Technology (pp. 665–692). New York: MacMillan.
Gravemeijer, K. & Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. & Streefland, L. (1990). MORE over zorgverbreding. In M. Dolk & E. Feijs (Eds.), Panama Cursusboek 8. Rekenen en zorgverbreding (pp. 80–89). Utrecht: OW&OC (Utrecht University) and HMN/FEO.
Gravemeijer, K. & Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. & Van Donselaar, G. & Ruesink, N. & Streefland, L. & Vermeulen, W. & Te Woerd, E. & Van der Ploeg, D. (1993). Methoden in het reken-wiskundeonderwijs, een rijke context voor vergelijkend onderzoek. Utrecht: CD-ß Press.
Gravemeijer, K: 1999, ‘How emergent models may foster the constitution of formal mathematics’, Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 1(2), 155–177.
Greeno, J.G. & Collins, A.M. & Resnick, L.B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D.C. Berliner & R.C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 15–46). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Greeno, J.G. (1998). Where is teaching? Issues in Education, 4(1), 111–119.
Haney, W. (2000). The myth of the Texas miracle in education. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(41), (http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n41/).
Holt, J. (1982). How children fail (2nd Ed.). New York: Dell Publishing Company. [Reprint by Penguin Books, 1990]
Lampert, M. (1986). Knowing, doing and teaching multiplication. Cognition and Instruction, 3, 305–342.
Lionni, L. (1970). Fish is fish. New York: Scholastic Press.
Ohlsson, S. (1995). Learning to do and learning to understand: A lesson and a challenge for cognitive modeling. In P. Reimann & H. Spada (Eds.), Learning in human and machines: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 37–62). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Oliver, R. (2000). When teaching meets learning: Design principles strategies for web-based learning environments that support knowledge construction. Keynote at the Ascilite 2000 Conference, 9–14 december 2000, Coffs Harbour, Australia.
Orton, R. (1995). Ockham’s razor and Plato’s beard. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(3), 204–229.
Newman, D. & Griffin, P. & Cole, M. (1989). The construction zone. Working for cognitive change in school. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Riel, M. (1998). Education in the 21st century: Just-in-time learning or learning communities. Paper presented at the Fourth Annual Conference of the Emirate Center for Strategic Studies and research, Abu Dhabi, May 24–26, 1998.
Romberg, T.A. (1993). How one comes to know: Models and theories of the learning of mathematics. In M. Niss (Ed.), Investigations into Assessment in Mathematics Education. An ICMI Study (pp. 97–111). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Romberg, T.A. (Ed.) (1997–1998). Mathematics in Contexts: A Connected Curriculum for Grade 5–8. Chicago, IL: Encyclopaedia Britannica Educational Corporation.
Roschelle, J. (1995). Learning in interactive environments: Prior knowledge and new experience. In J. Falk & L. Dierking (Eds.), Public Institutions for Personal Learning: Establishing a Research Agenda. Washington: American Association of Museums.
Schoenfeld, A.H. (1999). Looking toward the 21st century: Challenges of educationa theory and practice. Educational Researcher, 28(7), 4–14.
Sizer, T.R. (1997). On Lame Horses and Tortoises, Education Week, June 25.
Steinbring, H. (1991). Mathematics in teaching processes. The disparity between teacher and student knowledge. Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques, 11(1), 65–108.
Steinbring, H. (1998). Epistemological constraints of mathematical knowledge in social learning settings. In A. Sierpinska & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), Mathematics Education as a Research Domain: A Search for Identity. An ICMI Study. Book 2 (pp. 513–526). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Streefland, L. (1985). Wiskunde als activiteit en de realiteit als bron. Nieuwe Wiskrant 5(1), 60–67.
Streefland, L. (1993). The design of a mathematics course. A theoretical reflection. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 25, 109–135.
Streefland, L. (1996). Learning from history for teaching in the future. Utrecht: Freudenthal Institute, Utrecht University. (Regular lecture held at the ICME-8 in Sevilla, Spain)
Streefland, L. & Te Woerd, E. (1991a). Reken-wiskundeonderwijs, wat valt er van te leren. In M. Dolk & E. Feijs (Eds.), Panama Cursusboek 9. Deskundigheid (pp. 16–28). Utrecht: OW&OC (Utrecht University) and HMN/FEO.
Streefland, L. & Te Woerd, E. (1991b). Protocolanalyse kwalitatief. Utrecht: OW&OC, Utrecht University, (internal publication)
Treffers, A. (1978). Wiskobas doelgericht. IOWO, Utrecht.
Treffers, A. (1987). Three Dimensions. A Model of Goal and Theory Description in Mathematics Instruction — the Wiskobas Project. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing Company.
Uljens, M. (1992). What is learning a change of? Göteborg: Department of Education and Educational Research University of Göteborg.
Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. & Vermeer, H. (1999). Verschillen tussen meisjes enjongens bij het vak rekenen-wiskunde op de basisschool. Utrecht: CD-ß Press, Utrecht University.
Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2001). Realistic Mathematics Education in the Netherlands. In J. Anghileri, Principles and Practices in Arithmetic Teaching. Innovative approaches for primary classroom (pp. 49–63). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (under review). The didactical use of models in Realististic Mathematics Education: An example from a longitudinal trakectory on percentage. Submitted to Educational Studies in Mathematics.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1998). Scheme theory as a key to the learning paradox. Invited paper presented at the 15th Advanced Course, Archives Jean Piaget Geneva, September 20–24.
Wittmann, E.Ch. (1998). Mathematics education as a’design science’. In A. Sierpinska & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), Mathematics Education as a Research Domain: A Search for Identity. An ICMI Study. Book 1 (pp. 87–103). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Wittmann, E.Ch. (2001). Developing mathematics education in a systemic process. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 48, 1–20.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This article is an elaborated version of my plenary address at the 37th GDM Conference in Dortmund.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. The learning paradox and the learning miracle: thoughts on primary school mathematics education. JMD 24, 96–121 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03338972
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03338972