Mathematics and Mathematics Education: Content and People, Relation and Difference

Author(s): Willi Dörfler

Source: Educational Studies in Mathematics, Vol. 54, No. 2/3, Connecting Research, Practise
and Theory in the Development and Study of Mathematics Education (2003), pp. 147-170
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3483194
Accessed: 09-05-2020 02:51 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3483194?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Educational
Studies in Mathematics

This content downloaded from 36.80.179.135 on Sat, 09 May 2020 02:51:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 WILLI DORFLER

MATHEMATICS AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION: CONTENT

AND PEOPLE, RELATION AND DIFFERENCE

ABSTRACT. A broad view of mathematics education takes it as the study of how people
learn and do mathematics. Starting with this view, the actual and potential relationships of
mathematics education as a research discipline to mathematics as a field of knowledge and
activity and to the mathematicians carrying out that activity are analyzed. This leads to the
picture of a gulf between the two scientific communities which are based in different cul-
tures of thinking and research. A (meta-)study of mathematics and all its facets termed here
mathematicology is proposed. It could serve as common ground for cooperative studies by
mathematicians and mathematics educators. Thereby the gulf will not necessarily become
narrower but a bridge over the differences and mutual misunderstandings could be built.

KEY WORDS: applied mathematics learning, mathematicology, mathematics, mathemat-

ics education, research methodology, socialization, teaching

I INTRODUCTION

Mathematics education as a scientific discipline is considered here in a

rather broad view as the study of how people learn and do mathematics
of any kind, and of how this learning and doing can be influenced and
fostered among others by teaching, by the use of media, by different rep-
resentations, or by the social organization of mathematical activity. Thus
the object of mathematics education clearly is a certain area of human
activities whose content, object and goal is mathematics at different levels
and in different forms. This should not be taken to suggest an existence of
mathematics outside and independent of the respective activities. Keeping
this in mind, mathematics education can metaphorically be considered as
studying the relationships between mathematics and human beings both
taken in their whole variety. In this sense, mathematics education has to be
interested in the early counting activities of children as well as the produc-
tion of a proof in analytic number theory. Acceptance of this description
of mathematics education clearly leads to attributing to mathematics a
very special role for mathematics education as a scientific discipline. Very
likely, the case is different for the role (professional) mathematicians cur-
rently take in relation to mathematics education. Though many of them are
involved in the teaching of mathematics at the university level, they them-

L Educational Studies inMathematics 54: 147-170, 2003.

W9 ) 2003 KluwerAcademic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

This content downloaded from 36.80.179.135 on Sat, 09 May 2020 02:51:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 148 WILLI DORFLER

selves consider as their main task to develop mathematical theories and/or

to apply them in various contexts. This should/could give a reason for
mathematics education to investigate the mathematical activity of math-
ematicians, its conditions, forms, means, goals, intentions, etc. This would
turn (research) mathematicians (pure and applied at all levels and in all
fields) into just the passive object of investigation and research. There exist
already some examples of this kind of relationship of mathematics educa-
tion to mathematicians when for instance beliefs and attitudes of research
mathematicians are investigated by using questionnaires or interviews (see
for instance Burton, 1999). I will consider later in the article if possibly an
active role could be taken by mathematicians as mathematicians in relation
to mathematics education.
Already from these few sentences it becomes clear that mathematics,
mathematics education, mathematicians and mathematics educators are
to be seen as parts or components of a complex network of mutual re-
lationships where everything and everybody depends on everything and
everybody else. The intention of this paper is not to analyze that whole
network. Instead I will focus on two of the many possible relations. First
I will investigate in which ways mathematics can be the object of study
and investigation within mathematics education thereby starting from the
presumption that for mathematics education a thorough knowledge of and
about mathematics is indispensable. Then I will focus on the human be-
ings in mathematics and mathematics education, their socialization and the
resulting opportunities and obstacles for communication and cooperation.
Finally, a perspective for closer relationships between the two research
communities is sketched based on some features of the style of work emer-
ging in applied mathematics. Much of the paper is based on informal
observations and personal experience and some of it has a programmatic
character by proposing certain research questions to be investigated within
mathematics education.

II MATHEMATICOLOGY: MATHEMATICS AS AN OBJECT OF

RESEARCH

Mathematics as the point of departure

As already stated, I will first concentrate on a possible role of mathematics

(as an activity and field of knowledge) within mathematics education, and
the opportunities and obstacles for such a role. Thereby, I take mathematics
as that which in the course of history has evolved as the product of the
activity of mathematicians and has to a great extent been standardized,

This content downloaded from 36.80.179.135 on Sat, 09 May 2020 02:51:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MATHEMATICS AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION 149

conventionalized and corroborated by extended experience and manifold

practical usages. It is the notions, concepts, methods, notations, basic as-
sumptions, whole theories, etc. which rather unanimously are considered
to be mathematical. I take the conventional view which takes mathematics
as the study of, for instance, numbers and number theory, of geometry,
algebra, analysis and calculus, of categories, sets, and so forth. I com-
pletely refrain from trying to describe what mathematics is beyond this
naive phenomenological stance taking as mathematics essentially what the
mathematicians do or have done and produced. But, I point to the fact that
there are many, even mutually exclusive standpoints, regarding the ques-
tion what mathematics is. There are very diverse opinions on the nature
of the objects studied in mathematics (e.g. platonism, realism, empiricism,
nominalism, mentalism, instrumentalism, fictionalism, etc., see Shapiro,
2002 and also Dorfler, 2002). Alternative views on mathematics have been
developed in feminist research within mathematics education (for instance
Jacobs et al., 2001).
Whatever the background philosophy or ontology, in a first and uncrit-
ical approach, mathematics education has to take mathematics in the above
sense as a kind of given and its central task then is to offer to the learner
ways to the respective mathematical notions, concepts, methods, theories,
practices and discourses. This does not disregard that school mathematics
has developed its own and sometimes specific content areas and solution
methods, as discussed in Dorfler and McLone (1987). But also they in
principle have to conform with the wider mathematical practices outside of
school. And one can question how far from the conventional mathematical
practices the school mathematical ones should and could diverge. There
is and will be a broad range and diversity of activities in the classroom
through which students will have the opportunity to develop their mathem-
atical ways of knowing. For instance, corresponding to the role of symbols
in mathematics there will (and should) be diverse symbolizing activities in
the classrooms. The backdrop against which this is to be organized is the
symbol use within mathematics in general, see the special issue of Journal
of Mathematical Behavior, vol. 19/4, 2000, edited by diSessa.
I admit that possibly those pathways into mathematics offered to the
students might differ depending on basic views about the nature of math-
ematics. Yet, this does not weaken the general tenet: In mathematics edu-
cation one has to study and investigate mathematics as it is currently prac-
ticed, produced and used in all its forms. This is not a mathematical study
but it is a meta-study of mathematics like musicology is the study of mu-
sic. Also musicology has no choice but to analyze music as a given hu-
man phenomenon and activity and its products as well. Possibly, this field

This content downloaded from 36.80.179.135 on Sat, 09 May 2020 02:51:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 150 WILLI DORFLER

of research could be termed 'mathematicology'. Mathematicology should

never be permitted to lose sight of the other pole of the relationship which
mathematics education is about: the human being. It thus has to investig-
ate mathematics as one of the two sides of mathematical activity yet not
detached from the people who carry it out. I emphasize that I consider
it as a discursive rhetoric to speak of mathematics as separated from the
mathematical activities and the human beings involved in them. This rhet-
oric reflects the very common shared experience of mathematicians and
of students as well that mathematics can be ascribed a kind of existence
independent of the mathematical activities. Mathematics takes on a sort
of experiential reality which, however, should not be interpreted as having
any ontological basis. This phenomenon could already establish one of the
first examples of a topic to be studied by mathematicology. In any case,
for analytical purposes we might think of mathematics in this objectified
form.
I emphasize already here that this kind of meta-research is to be just a
possibly small part of the whole of mathematics education research as a
scientific endeavor. I think that many other areas of research in mathem-
atics education be they empirical studies of classroom teaching, cognitive
studies, or curriculum development could profitably draw on the results of
research in mathematicology. Some kind of mathematicology has always
been pursued and is also pursued currently. A recent example would be
the study on the history and epistemology of Linear Algebra in Dorier
(2000), or what the German mathematics education community for many
years has carried out under the label of 'Stoffdidaktik' (content oriented
didactics). There one can find, among others, thorough conceptual analyses
(for example of 'continuity' in Otte and Steinbring, 1977) or the design of
representational means for a notion of school mathematics. I would further
subsume under the heading of mathematicology the famous books by Hans
Freudenthal "Mathematics as an Educational Task" (1973) and "Didactical
Phenomenology of Mathematical Structures" (1983). Thus, what I am ar-
guing for is rather an extension and intensification of this kind of research
and an enhanced regard for its results within mathematics education. On
these and related issues the reader is also referred to some of the chapters in
the ICMI Study "Mathematics Education as a Research Domain. A Search
for Identity", Sierpinska and Kilpatrick (1998).
As I have emphasized above, mathematics is considered as a human
activity comparable to other areas of human activity like music, art, liter-
ature, language or sports. For each of the latter ones there is an established
field of research which investigates those activities from a scientific point
of view. Mathematicology should take this role with respect to mathemat-

This content downloaded from 36.80.179.135 on Sat, 09 May 2020 02:51:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MATHEMATICS AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION 151

ics. It is therefore neither part of mathematics education nor is the latter

contained in mathematicology. But there is considerable overlap in many
respects and mutual benefit. From the analogy with fields like musicology,
literature studies or linguistics it can be expected that mathematicology
likewise will contribute to the understanding of mathematics as a human
activity. This deepened understanding will then contribute to the improve-
ment of teaching and learning. Being aware that mathematicology is just a
new term for already present research about mathematics one intent of this
article is possibly to enhance interest in it and relevance of it. This could
lead to an explicit institutionalization of mathematicology as is the case
with analogous disciplines.

Examples of research topics

Topics of research in mathematicology could be the following which are

neither exhaustive nor mutually disjoint but should indicate possible thrusts
of mathematicology. For each instance I offer one or more examples (in-
dicated by E) referring to school mathematics and its specific topics. This
illustrates how this part of mathematics is covered by mathematicology as
well. The literature references have only exemplary status and many others
could have been supplied as well.

- Quality and structure of mathematical concepts and theories, their

specificities, their differences from and commonalities with non-
mathematical concepts and theories, as well as the relationship and
interdependence with the vernacular and everyday theories and prac-
tices. E: The natural number concept of everyday life, of school math-
ematics, and of number theory; the sense in which numbers (of any
kind) can be considered and treated as objects having specified prop-
erties; the relational character of fractions and rational numbers ex-
pressing the ratio of two instances of a magnitude; the role played
by continuity in the study of functions; geometric figures as drawings
and as abstract objects defined by relationships.
- Symbols and symbolization in mathematics, more generally a semi-
otics of mathematics, see Rotman (1993, 2000, 2001) or Hoffmann
(2001 a,b). E: What can decimal numerals stand for? For instance: For
the product of counting activities organized according to the decimal
place-value system, for the numerosity of sets, or for abstract num-
bers. What are the relationships between those meanings and how can
they be developed by learners? The invention of symbols and sym-
bolic systems in mathematics; symbolic structures like polynomials
or systems of linear equations as the topic of study in mathemat-
ics, their tranformations and combinations (mathematics as a sym-

This content downloaded from 36.80.179.135 on Sat, 09 May 2020 02:51:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
152 WILLI DORFLER

bolic activity with symbolic structures defined by operating rules);

invention of symbols by young learners (see diSessa, 2000).
- Role of diagrams and any other type of representations in mathemat-
ics, see Janvier (1987), Goldin and Janvier (1998), and diSessa (2000).
E: Different types of representations for functions and their impact
on the function concept in general and for the learner; role of dia-
grams for reasoning, arguing and proving; role of visual and geomet-
ric proofs and their reliability (for example, the sum of the first natural
numbers or of some infinite series); how to understand diagrams for
infinite sets or processes (including the phrase "and so on", or the
common triplet of dots . . ., or commas and dots . . .,); limitations on
the use of diagrams, for instance visualizing limits of sequences or
functions; diagrams as the topic and object of study in mathematics
(for instance in Graph Theory or Network Theory).
- Notational systems and their historical development. E: Origin of
specific mathematical signs, such as =, or of the signs for the arith-
metic operations +, -, x, -?-; genesis of linear algebra; the extent to
which the development of a notational system (like decimal nota-
tion or matrices) reflects a conceptual development and the extent to
which the latter is influenced by the former (for example, the calcu-
lus of Leibniz, versus Newton's fluxion notation); notational systems,
symbols and diagrams as means and tools for thinking and problem
solving (see Kaput, 1991).
- Abstraction and generalization. E: What do we or should we mean by
those notions in general and specifically in mathematics; what makes
a concept 'abstract', and 'abstract' for whom? Which are the meth-
ods of generalization and abstraction used in mathematics and their
relation to school mathematics and its version of the concepts; gener-
alizing and abstracting as activities in the classroom, their means (like
symbols and diagrams) and constraints; relation of abstract concepts
to material situations (interpreting symbolic models and structures,
modeling concrete situations by symbolic structures); word problems
and problems of transfer between different contexts; concretization
versus abstraction and specialization versus generalization; all of the
above in general and in relation to the individual learner. A possible
reference to this area is Dorfler (1991).
- Idealization and reification, genesis and quality of mathematical ob-
jects. E: In elementary geometry we find the tension between differing
understandings of what geometric figures are. There are the draw-
ings on paper, and nowadays on the computer screen. Yet, geometry
as a mathematical discipline cannot possibly be about them: it is

This content downloaded from 36.80.179.135 on Sat, 09 May 2020 02:51:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MATHEMATICS AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION 153

about idealized properties of those figures. The question is how the

drawings and their idealizations are related in general, and in the
understanding of the learner, a question investigated by Fischbein
(1993). Do we need the drawings for our geometrical reasoning and,
if so, in which way do they monitor the latter? On the other hand,
numbers first stand for the activity of counting and its results, and
later on take on a kind of being as objects in themselves ('reification'
in the sense of Sfard, 1991). How does the understanding of numbers
emerge in general and for the individual learner? In what sensible
ways might we talk about objects in mathematics at all? Consider all
the talk about 'functions' in an objectified form as having properties
and being lumped together in sets of functions. I think very many
students in school feel at best uneasy and at worst alienated by that
mystifying talk which is in need of clarification, compare Dorfler
(2002).

Metaphors in mathematical language and discourse. E: A metaphor

is a linguistic cognitive means by which we can view and treat some-
thing as if it had the structure and quality of something else which we
already know (metaphoric projection). For instance, we can consider
real numbers as if they were points on a number line, or complex
numbers as if they were arrows in the Euclidean plane, subject to
certain operations. For learning and understanding mathematics at all
levels, therefore, the study of metaphors and their use in mathematics,
and in school mathematics in particular, is of very great importance.
Lakoff and Nunez (2000) take a rather extreme view on the role of
metaphors in mathematics.

Process-object duality in the sense of Douady (1991) or Sfard (1991).

E: A notorious example from school mathematics is that an arithmetic
or algebraic term can be considered as designating either the corres-
ponding calculation process or its result, depending on the context.
(For example, 5 is the sum of 2 and 3; and 2 + 3 can be accepted as a
'dual' form for 5). This demands flexibility of thinking on the part of
the students. Similarly, a function is either the process of evaluating
its values or the process of mapping, or it is the overall (taken as
accomplished) result of that process. There are many more of these
dualities, and to get better insight into their structure might support
how to teach the respective concepts which have a dynamic process-
aspect and a static object-aspect as well. Other work on this issue has
been done by Dubinsky (1991) and Gray and Tall (1994).

Epistemological obstacles (see for instance Artigue, 1990). E: For

most mathematical concepts a structural and developmental analysis

This content downloaded from 36.80.179.135 on Sat, 09 May 2020 02:51:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
154 WILLI DORFLER

will bring to the fore inhe

other concepts on which they are based or out of which they develop.
A good example might be the much researched (epistemological and
psychological) gulf between arithmetic and algebraic calculations and
understandings (for instance see Sutherland et al., 2001). Another
epistemological discontinuity is that from whole numbers to rational
numbers with all its well known consequences for student understand-
ing and learning (a recent overview is Pitkethly and Hunting, 1996).
A deeper insight in these and many other cases of relevance to school
mathematics is a prominent objective of mathematicology.

- Methods of concept formation within mathematics and other sciences.

E: This is closely related to other issues on this list, such as abstrac-
tion, generalization and reification. But there are specific questions
with distinctive relevance for school mathematics. Most concepts in
school mathematics can be traced back to an origin in material phys-
ical activities of some sort or another (such as counting, measur-
ing, drawing, constructing). To deeply understand this connection,
and the discontinuities, in the genesis of mathematical concepts and
methods from so called real-world problems and their solutions, is a
precondition for teaching and learning them.

- Proofs: Their types, role, and relevance (as a paradigmatic example

see Hanna, 1991 or Hanna and Jahnke, 1996). E: Are proofs indis-
pensable also in school mathematics and if so why and for what
purpose should they be learned? Is it enough to understand proofs
or is proving in itself an activity to be carried out by learners and at
which levels of schooling? Which kinds of reasoning should count as
reliable arguments in (school) mathematics (graphical and geomet-
ric proofs, heuristics, experimental mathematics, etc.)? Mathematical
proof and rational argumentation outside of mathematics: How do
they influence each other and students' thinking?

- Mathematization and applications of mathematics. E: This again con-

cerns the complex relationship between mathematical structures and
methods and non-mathematical situations. Mathematization is a multi-
faceted design process in which symbolic models for many kinds
of problem situations are developed. This design process is recurs-
ive, in that a cycle of design-test-revision is iterated until a certain
degree of fit is obtained. Mathematicology should study in more de-
tail those design processes. The insights gained might well help in
making choices for the school curriculum in general, and for the im-
plementation of special cases in particular. Processes of applications
of mathematics tend to have a variety of social implications. Hence

This content downloaded from 36.80.179.135 on Sat, 09 May 2020 02:51:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MATHEMATICS AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION 155

students can be involved in interpreting the pros and

mathematical models with respect to, say, ethical standards. But very
little is known about those relationships since folk theories (lay views,
or the public perception) have it that mathematics reaches solutions
to problems in a unique way without regard to other aspects. It is thus
interesting to study how the usual beliefs about mathematics change
if one takes part in genuine application processes. A recent reference
to these questions is Blum et al. (2003).

Specificities of the mathematical discourse, (e.g. the metamathem-

atical conventions like "Let A be...", "now we consider a..."; see
Davis and Hunting, 1990; Maier and Schweiger, 1999 or Brown, 1997).
E: Also in school mathematics we borrow and use many words and
terms from everyday language, with more or less changed or restric-
ted meanings. This naturally may interfere with students' understand-
ing. For instance, a debt of $500 is less than one of $1000, but -500 is
bigger than -1000. Alternatively, what sense will a student make of a
lesson about 'volume', if the student is thinking only of the 'volume'
control of a stereo? Or, take the many uses of a word like 'function'
outside of mathematics. Which of them relates to the mathematical
notion of function and in which way? It is very important for teachers
and their students to be aware of these issues and potential problems.
Hidden conventions and tacit assumptions in mathematical discourse.
E: These are ways of talking and of using symbols which inside math-
ematics are agreed upon and are not any more an issue for reflection
or discussion. One example would be the process-object duality dis-
cussed above. Another example is the different usages of the sign
'=', and other symbols, or the implicit conventional hierarchy of
arithmetic operations. The use of a phrase like "there exists" has a
specific meaning in mathematics which in mathematical texts usually
is not explicated, but might be confusing for students. All this is relat-
ively little researched, although those phenomena might present great
obstacles for learning mathematics at all levels.
Historical development of mathematical concepts and theories. E:
Without giving specific examples it should be clear that knowing the
history of the concepts of school mathematics might inform teaching
or may even be the topic of teaching (see Otte et al., 1995 and Katz,
2000).

Social and societal importance and the role of mathematics and its
applications. This topic, like the following ones, can very well be
part of the curriculum to some extent. It would loosen the widespread
isolation of school mathematics by embedding it in a wider context.

This content downloaded from 36.80.179.135 on Sat, 09 May 2020 02:51:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 156 WILLI DORFLER

Of course, for that to be possible the topic has to be investigated in

more detail and the results have to be made available in an easily
accessible form: another important task for mathematicology. This
extends to the remaining topics (which do not include examples).
- Relations between mathematics and other sciences, commonalities
and differences (natural and social and economic sciences as well).
- Relations between mathematics and arts: for instance regarding modes
of representation or language use (see Goodman, 1976).

Further clarification and two analogies

Mathematicology as conceived here should try to develop theoretical de-

scriptions and models of mathematical activities and processes, their gen-
esis and current structure. By this, what mathematicians and learners of
mathematics do or don't do is reflected upon, is made conscious and ex-
plicit and thereby amenable to being monitored, changed and influenced.
Differing descriptions will arise which then have to compete for being
considered viable and applicable. As already mentioned, a comprehensive
body of research of this kind is available. Possibly it is not exploited to
a sufficient extent and it should be extended in a systematic way within
mathematics education.
I repeat that mathematicology is not to be identified in any way with
mathematics education research. But I consider it as a fundamental branch
of the whole complex and interdisciplinary endeavor of the latter. For
facilitating the learning of mathematics a deepened understanding of math-
ematics as a human activity is an undisputable and indispensable precon-
dition. This deepened understanding is in my view not just knowledge of
mathematics per se but the kind of knowledge about mathematics which
I want to indicate by the above features of mathematicology. Appropriate
parts of mathematicology should form an integrated part of the expertise of
mathematics education researchers, of teachers and also of students. This
corresponds to the idea that knowledge has to be organized and regulated
by meta-knowledge.
Mathematicology presents only a segment of the totality of research
which is, should or could be carried out under the heading of mathematics
education. On the other hand, in one way or another its results and in-
sights are interwoven with most kinds of mathematics education research.
There is no absolute and definite borderline around mathematicology. It is
informative to cite examples of research which I would not consider be-
longing to mathematicology: Case studies of individual learning processes
based on clinical interviews, teaching experiments, study of misconcep-
tions in students, statistical and comparative studies, studies on teacher

This content downloaded from 36.80.179.135 on Sat, 09 May 2020 02:51:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MATHEMATICS AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION 157

beliefs, curriculum development and evaluation studies. It is rather the

case, in my opinion gleaned from leafing through many journals, that the
bulk of current mathematics education research should not be counted as
mathematicology, though it makes use of it to varying degrees.
I further point out that the kind of analysis I call mathematicology is
different from research on the foundations of mathematics as done in logic,
proof theory, set theory, or model theory. Those are equally mathematical
activities in need of being reflected upon along the lines sketched above.
In mathematicology the explicit or implicit focus is on the human sub-
jects as the agents of the mathematical activities. Foundational research in
mathematics to the contrary excludes the human actor completely. This is
very clearly documented by the fact that all foundational research (with the
possible exception of intuitionism) strives for an objective, ahistoric, and
universal basis for all or part of mathematics with the aim of guaranteeing
its consistency and soundness once and for ever. This endeavor is worthy
of a study in the sense of mathematicology: What is the motivation, which
methods and ideas are used, what has been and what will be accomplished
at all? What can create the impression of having found a basis for human
thinking which is independent of this thinking by lying outside of this
thinking?
The methods employed in mathematicology can vary from theoretical
and conceptual analyses of mathematical texts, to historical studies, to
empirical studies of the mathematical activities of individuals and groups.
Thereby an overarching goal has to be to gain a deepened understanding
of mathematics as a human activity. A pretext for a mathematicology is
the acceptance and appreciation of the fact that all of mathematics and all
about mathematics has been said and is to be said or written by humans.
And therefore one has to look for the roots, the genesis, and the grounds
and foundations of mathematics in this very human activity.
To hopefully further clarify the intent of mathematicology I offer two
analogies which suffer from weaknesses as most analogies do. A first ana-
logy is with sports and the current scientific studies of physical activities:
anatomic conditions, nutrition, training methods. Taking only the positive
aspects, one could say that also in sports we have a human activity which
is investigated with the aim of finding better ways for becoming an expert
in this activity. The complex processes regulating physical behavior have
to be understood in a viable way. Studies like physiology of sport, of nutri-
tion, of anatomy of motion, of psychological motivation could correspond
to mathematicology. To carry the analogy to the extreme limit, training of
athletes based on the results of those studies and its evaluation is then re-

This content downloaded from 36.80.179.135 on Sat, 09 May 2020 02:51:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 158 WILLI DORFLER

lated to the mathematical ed

mathematics education research.
Another analogy which might better clarify my intentions regarding the
role of mathematicology for mathematics education is the relationship of
linguistics to spoken languages and to language acquisition. Linguistics
is the scientific study of language as a human, a psychological, a soci-
etal, a neurophysiological, etc., phenomenon and as such correlates with
mathematicology whereas mathematics corresponds to the actually spoken
language. As linguistics endeavors to investigate and understand the hu-
man activity of language use, production and acquisition, mathematico-
logy should serve the same purposes for the human activity of mathem-
atics use, production and acquisition. In both cases research results can
shed new light on related educational processes and problems. Well, these
remarks should suffice to convey the central intention of mathematicology.

Usages of outcomes and insights

I turn now to the question what use can be made of the outcomes of this
kind of research about mathematics. Again the points raised in the follow-
ing are not an exhaustive list and are not mutually exclusive. Reflexively
they try to clarify further the notion of mathematicology and its role and
possible impact within mathematics education as a complex network of
diverse research activities.
First, mathematicology can inform and motivate further research in
mathematics education like empirical studies about concrete learning and
teaching processes. Those investigations need regulation and structuring
from a theoretical basis. Foregoing analyses of the above kind permit to
ask appropriately relevant research questions. Many empirical studies, in
my view, have an ad hoc character leaving open why just that is invest-
igated. Thereby no strict and univalent derivation of research problems
can be expected but the epistemological insights from mathematicology
will have to be interpreted in the respective contexts and transformed into
answerable questions. In a similar way, findings of mathematicology can
be used to interpret and analyze phenomena found in teaching and learning
processes. A well known example is the relation of learning obstacles to
epistemological obstacles. I remark that many research studies in math-
ematics education are in principle organized along this pattern. As just
one example I point to the developmental research in the context of Real-
istic Mathematics Education (RME) conducted at the Freudenthal Institute
in Utrecht, compare Gravemeijer (1998, 1999). RME-research is carried
out within a consistent and consistently developing theoretical framework
which contains many results from mathematicology as understood here.

This content downloaded from 36.80.179.135 on Sat, 09 May 2020 02:51:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MATHEMATICS AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION 159

Second, curricular decisions can be informed and legitimized by a

deeper understanding of mathematics and mathematical activities. From
mathematicology one can find arguments and reasons for discussions and
deliberations about content and organization of curricula. Again, nothing
is deductively determined but rational discourse is enhanced and suppor-
ted to transcend ideological positions and subjective taste. Rather than
determining the details of a curriculum, mathematicology can set a gen-
eral framework or a basic orientation, and inspire the philosophy behind
a curriculum in a reflected and rational way. I think that the 'Standards'
published by NCTM (see for instance NCTM (2000)) are based on this
kind of insights rather than on the personal taste of their authors. The
failure of New Maths points to the dangers of limiting the focus solely
to the structure of mathematics and of losing sight of the human actors.
Another good example might again be the central role played by symbols
and symbolization within mathematics. The study by mathematicology of
the function and genesis of symbols in mathematical activities can pos-
sibly result in strong indications how to implement related activities in
classrooms (compare the volume Cobb et al., 2000). Thus the impact of
mathematicology is not restricted to mathematical content in a narrow
sense but extends definitely to general methods and strategies.
Third, mathematical activities including mathematical research can cap-
italize on mathematicology and its outcomes. Reflected understanding of
tools and means used hitherto in a more unconscious and routinized way
might change and broaden their usage. For instance, models of processes
of mathematization can be used to organize, plan, design and monitor
applications of mathematics. Knowledge about the semiotics of symbol
use can guide deliberate symbolization. In this sense mathematicology
could be another kind of foundational study for mathematics by reflecting
analytically on its practices, methods, and strategies. This would com-
prise a study of mathematical constructions like quotient structures, direct
products, completion and compactification, limits, or ultra-products based
on filters, but also a study of the diagrammatic character of much of math-
ematics (see Hoffmann, 2001a, on Peirce's idea of diagrammatization).
Understanding the general features and intentions of those methods might
be of use within mathematics itself but even more so for learning the the-
ories of (advanced) mathematics. But already a deepened understanding
of symbol use in the case of numerals and their relation to numbers might
foster the development of basic number knowledge in the early grades.
Fourth, mathematicology permits to talk about mathematics as a body
of knowledge and as a human activity by supplying adequate notions,
concepts, theories and empirical results. This is not only very important

This content downloaded from 36.80.179.135 on Sat, 09 May 2020 02:51:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 160 WILLI DORFLER

for mathematics education as a research discipline but should also form

part of classroom discourse. Offering views on one's own activities in
mathematics will help to demystify mathematics in schools and thereby
possibly lower some psychological barriers. For instance, I think here of
a discussion of the epistemological and psychological status of so-called
mathematical objects. Students thereby can be offered a chance to form a
rational understanding of their own mathematical activity by developing a
consistent view on what they are talking about in mathematics, compare
Dorfler (2000, 2002).
Fifth, epistemological, social, and psychological analyses of mathem-
atics of the sort mentioned above might eventually lead to a substantiated
critique of certain practices in mathematics. I will not go into any details
here and only point to the fact that in the course of history didactical needs
and stipulations have had ever again a strong influence on developments
within mathematics. This can be seen for instance from Babylonian and
Egyptian texts and the exactification of calculus in the early 19th cen-
tury. Here the need to make the pertinent mathematics accessible to a
broader community led to a clarification of fundamental concepts like
continuity (see Jahnke and Otte, 1981). Also the current discussion about
undergraduate education in mathematics fits into this aspect. Here we even
find journals dedicated to those questions (UMAP, Journal of Collegiate
Mathematics Education, compare also Dubinsky et al., 1998).
Sixth, the potential benefits of historical studies for mathematics educa-
tion are well known and do not need any more comments for our purposes
here. I just refer to the newsletter published by the International Group on
the History and Pedagogy of Mathematics within ICMI which reflects the
importance of that part of mathematicology, to a recent ICMI study on that
topic (Fauvel and van Maanen, 1997), and to Otte et al. (1995).
Seventh, an important feature of mathematicology might be that by the
notions, concepts, and descriptions, devised therein to reflect and speak
about mathematics, one finds a possibility to convey pivotal intentions and
characteristics of mathematics to a broader audience. Mathematics (and
mathematics education too) so far has completely failed to make itself
understood by the general public and especially by the stakeholders. I think
there is no other field of modern science for which the lack of information
about its quality and the range of misunderstandings in the public have
such a daunting extent as for mathematics. To counter this, mathematico-
logy would have to develop a vocabulary and metaphors accessible to the
interested layman. Musicology might be a good example by devising ways
to speak about music to non-musicians. I personally always feel embar-
rassed being unable to speak about mathematics to non-mathematicians in

This content downloaded from 36.80.179.135 on Sat, 09 May 2020 02:51:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MATHEMATICS AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION 161

a way which does not give a caricature of mathematics. Discourse about

mathematics cannot be a substitute for doing mathematics like literary
science cannot replace reading literature or musicology cannot step in for
listening to or performing music. If mathematicians and mathematics edu-
cators want to convince the public of the relevance of their endeavor they
have to be able to talk sensibly and with fidelity about mathematics.
Eighth, knowledge developed by research in mathematicology can and
should become the topic of mathematics education in school. Not everything
will be appropriate for school and this also depends on the grade of the
class. To take up again two of the former analogies, this use of the products
of mathematicology can be viewed as being similar to learning music.
One usually learns to sing or to play an instrument but also gets informed
about music, about its different styles, the history, the representations, th
instruments, the composers and musicians and so on and this again informs
and enriches the performance of, or just the listening to music. Similarly,
when learning a (foreign) language one has to study its grammar, its special
structure and the culture in which the language is embedded. Thus one does
not only learn the language as such but a lot about the specific language and
about languages in general. And again this enhances the comprehension of
that language and its sensible use. I envisage similar effects for the learn-
ing of mathematics if via mathematicology the learner understands that
mathematics is a very human activity and therefore amenable to humans.

III MATHEMATICS AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION - Two

CULTURES

Indicators of difference and separation

It is remarkable that between the communities of mathematicians an

ematics educators in general there are rather few functioning and m
enriching relationships, notwithstanding some notable exceptions. Indic-
ators for this lack and deficit are in my view especially the following
points:

- Mathematics and mathematics education are usually organized in sep-

arate institutions without formal channels of communication. Math-
ematics education is often located within a school or faculty or de-
partment of education, and the cases are rare where mathematics and
mathematics education are together in the same department and without
structural and organizational separation.
- A similar separation holds for the teaching: Mathematicians teach
mathematics and mathematics educators teach mathematics educa-

This content downloaded from 36.80.179.135 on Sat, 09 May 2020 02:51:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
162 WILLI DORFLER

tion at all levels. There are only rare cases of crossover teaching at
some universities (like at mine in Klagenfurt). And what makes the
situation often worse: The two areas of teaching are not at all or only
weakly coordinated. Needless to say that to this, as to the other points,
there are well functioning counter-examples. Yet I am afraid that the
general picture is rather like the one drawn here. Many mathematics
educators at the university or college level are involved in the teaching
of school mathematics or elementary mathematics as part of teacher
education. But they are usually not in a direct way engaged in the
education of those specializing in mathematics proper. Mathematics
education research on undergraduate and on advanced mathematics
is not much developed. A gradual change, at least with a minority
of professional mathematicians, can be observed as recurrent public-
ations in journals like American Mathematical Monthly or Notices
of the American Mathematical Society document. Noteworthy are
also publications like the volume edited by Tall (1991) on Advanced
Mathematical Thinking.

- The education of experts in the two communities is as well strongly

separated in most places. The education of mathematicians is highly
standardized all over the world and general levels of and demands
on the contents covered are widely accepted and shared. In contrast,
mathematics educators are recruited from very diverse fields and rather
few have a mathematical education beyond a certain level. Only re-
cently, specified curricula for doctoral studies in mathematics educa-
tion begin to emerge here and there. In mathematics education there
is much less homogeneity, less shared background knowledge, and a
much greater variety of academic careers, some starting after many
years of teaching in schools. There is no commonly agreed upon
core body of basic knowledge in mathematics education. Indicative
of that is that there are no generally accepted text-books on mathem-
atics education in general or even on subdomains (besides research
monographs, of course). Clearly, this is due to mathematics education
being a very young field of institutionalized scientific endeavor. The
first professional journals were started only about 30 years ago. It is
also due to its diversity and interdisciplinary character which entail a
lack of common standards and shared basic knowledge.

- There are almost no common conferences or shared journals. Again

there are noteworthy exceptions to the latter like periodicals as "Journal
of Collegiate Mathematics Education" in the USA or "Mathematische
Semesterberichte" in Germany. At some mathematical congresses one
finds sections dedicated to history and/or pedagogy of mathematics,

This content downloaded from 36.80.179.135 on Sat, 09 May 2020 02:51:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MATHEMATICS AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION 163

like at the IMU (International Mathematical Union) congresses or at

the congresses of the DMV (Deutsche Mathematiker Vereinigung)
in Germany. Yet, these have a marginal character and no crossover
occurs. This rather indicates the current separation than expresses a
genuine mutual interest.

Mathematics and mathematics education as a rule are organized in

almost disjoint professional organizations with few members from
the respective other field. Thereby some of the mathematical soci-
eties entertain a commission or the like for mathematics education
(for instance the IMU with ICMI or similarly the European Mathem-
atical Society EMS). Those commissions do not have much impact
on their mother institutions, which possibly see them as a means to
keep mathematics education within their own jurisdiction. There are
organizations in mathematics education truly independent of mathem-
atics which are predominantly interested in the professionalization of
mathematics educators (like the GDM (Gesellschaft fur Didaktik der
Mathematik) in Germany). I think, only from such an independent po-
sition can one start to establish relationships which put mathematics
and mathematics education on a par.

One does not read texts from the respective other field. This is a
very subjective statement and I have to apologize for every single
case which presents a counterexample. But there is a widespread ig-
norance on both sides about what the people in the other scientific
community do and work about. The availability of excellent mono-
graphs on fairly every (basic) subject of mathematics makes, in prin-
ciple, mathematics well accessible. One does not expect non-experts
to read research articles in mathematics but the style and dominant
features of modern mathematics can be gleaned from textbooks as
well. Since many mathematics educators do not have a particularly
strong mathematical background they might not be prepared to en-
deavor reading a mathematical textbook on their own. On the other
hand, in mathematics education almost exclusively original research
publications or synopses of research are available and these are by
necessity rather narrowly focused. Getting an idea of the mainstream
of mathematics education is not easy for somebody from outside the
field. A kind of reader in mathematics education might help with
the access by offering a selection of prototypic work. How to select
this is a daunting task. Nevertheless it has been attempted and the
available 'Handbooks' are a big step towards one possible solution
of this problem. The difficulty is also due to the fact that in mathem-
atics education there is a great diversity of research methods, empir-

This content downloaded from 36.80.179.135 on Sat, 09 May 2020 02:51:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 164 WILLI DORFLER

ical and theoretical-analytical ones, in contrast to the methodological

homogeneity of mathematics.
- Negative opinions and prejudices about the respective other field and
its representatives prevail though not in an outspoken way. This re-
flects an implicit but nevertheless powerful ranking of different fields
of scientic work. Mathematicians like to confront mathematics edu-
cators with a question like what are the main results of research and
that progress is being made. By that they apply, deliberately or not,
their standards to the other field. The standards and characteristic
features of one's own field are taken as a general norm and clearly
the others do not match up to them. Mathematics educators on the
other hand reproach mathematicians with the remoteness of their re-
search and their neglect for people therein, for teaching and for work
with students. I point out that to substantiate these claims (and other
made in the various points here) by empirical investigation would
count as a prominent task for mathematicology. Thus the reader might
view these points not so much as factual assertions but as a research
program for mathematicology.
- Characteristic features of the respective other discipline are viewed
as deficits or weaknesses. This will be elaborated in some of the
paragraphs below.

Understanding and explaining the diversity

I am aware of these statements being of a very generalizing quality. They

are not based on systematic data collection (which would have been bey-
ond the possibilities of the author considering the breadth of aspects cove-
red) but on observations over a long period of time, on many informal talks
and personal contacts. They are rather intended to mark basic trends in the
relationships between the two fields. The concrete situation varies from
country to country and there again from institution to institution. Thus, to
each point raised above counterexamples exist. Contrary to mathematics,
in the social sciences counterexamples do not invalidate general assertions.
This is a feature which again contributes to the mutual misunderstandings
between the two considered scientific fields and more generally between
natural and social sciences. I further believe that the distinction and separ-
ation indicated here for mathematics and mathematics education are not
equally sharp and abrupt in other fields of academic inquiry like, say,
biology, sociology, humanities, language studies, and their respective edu-
cational studies. This can be expected from a comparison of the respective
scientific cultures along the lines as carried out below for mathematics
and mathematics education. The review by Steen (1999) of Sierpinska and

This content downloaded from 36.80.179.135 on Sat, 09 May 2020 02:51:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MATHEMATICS AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION 165

Kilpatrick (1998) is illuminating and informative on these two cultures

in several respects. A comprehensive sociological study of the culture of
mathematics can be found in Heintz (2000).
My position now is to acknowledge the deeply rooted cultural dif-
ferences between the two communities of mathematics and mathematics
education and to turn them first into a topic of reflection and investigation
and then possibly into a source of mutual understanding and common de-
velopment. Without trying to be exhaustive and in a rather naive way let me
state some of the dividing traits which lurk beneath the apparent separation
of mathematics and mathematics education as scientific communities (the
order is by chance).

1. Mathematics education is primarily concerned with actual and living

human beings. Thus it has to pay attention to the needs, wishes, anxi-
eties, expectations, feelings, etc. of concrete people, be they students,
teachers or researchers. All this even becomes a research topic. The
social context, the individual and social histories interfere with math-
ematical learning processes. None of that occurs in mathematics: Quite
to the contrary, there the human beings and their subjectivity have to
be eliminated, or at least one strives for that. Even in physics now the
role of the observer is recognized. But mathematics is presented as if it
were not devised by people. And in both mathematics and mathematics
education this respective trait of paying attention to the human being
or not is considered as the ultimate criterion of high quality. A slight
change appears to develop in applied mathematics where increasingly
the role of the human agents is recognized in determining the success
or failure of a specific case of application. Here the situation is very
similar to that in software engineering. But still, it is not the mathemat-
ics itself which incorporates the human individuals and social groups.
Instead, the latter get more actively involved and respected in the pro-
cess of application. As it turns out, a mathematical optimum will not
necessarily always present a socially acceptable course of action.
2. Mathematics education, by its very nature, is a highly multidisciplin-
ary field again contrary to the monolithic edifices of mathematics. This
is also reflected in the broad variety of research methods employed in
mathematics education, contrasting with the very restricted methods of
mathematical research. On the other hand, applied mathematics neces-
sarily has an interdisciplinary character since one of its main functions
is to provide operational models for processes and situations, either
from other scientific fields or from concrete practice. In any case it will
never be the mathematics by itself which determines a solution and its
quality but the whole context of the application has to be involved.

This content downloaded from 36.80.179.135 on Sat, 09 May 2020 02:51:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
166 WILLI DORFLER

3. Mathematical concepts are well defined within the respective theories.

Many notions central to mathematics education (like meaning, under-
standing, thinking, generalization) are inherently vague and open. In
a way, the respective research can be understood as the endeavor to
explicate and develop a sensible meaning of those terms. Similar fea-
tures can be found in areas of applied mathematics where concepts are
rather determined by the reference to the context of application than
by formal-logical definitions. An example might be furnished by the
finite-element-method for which only after a long time of successful
use a formal justification by an exact theory has been developed.

4. Mathematics education has a reflective and cybernetic relationship to

its objects of research. Those are not viewed as immutable but quite to
the contrary the wider goal of research is to enable their change and de-
velopment. Human beings react autonomously and in non-foreseeable
ways to outside influences. This has to be respected in mathematics
education research and in its practical implementations as well. Need-
less to say that nothing of this sort can be found in pure mathematics,
but to some extent can be observed in applications of mathematics to
economics, politics, and society. Here a process of application or of
model building usually runs recursively through the stages of design-
test-revision whereby the factual and social context and conditions are
at least partly taken into account.

5. Mathematics is (viewed as) universal and context-independent. By its

very nature mathematics education invariably is embedded in the wider
culture and its history. Even its success and viability to a large extent
depend on conditions and restrictions beyond its influence. There is
the eminent problem of the dissemination of research outcomes, which
is hampered by ideological barriers, economic interests and organiza-
tional structures. Mathematics education is part of politics in this sense
and has to reflect this role consciously. Mathematicians on the other
hand, due to the detached quality of their field, do not yet feel the need
for reflecting on the social status and role of mathematics. Up to now
this attitude even proved advantageous for the scientific community of
pure mathematicians. That any application of mathematics is highly
context-dependent and even so on different layers of contexts does
not need to be stressed: Solutions to 'real' problems never can have
universal validity.

This content downloaded from 36.80.179.135 on Sat, 09 May 2020 02:51:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MATHEMATICS AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION 167

IV CONCLUSION: BUILDING BRIDGES

This list of traits describing a structural gulf between (pure) mathematics

and mathematics education as scientific disciplines could be extended fur-
ther. Yet the aim of this analysis is not critique. Rather, the aim is to exhibit
differences which possibly threaten and impede communication and ex-
change between the two communities. In my view, recognizing this is the
first step to understanding each other without abandoning one's identity. It
is important to realize the strengths and weaknesses of the respective other
discipline to open up the route to more cooperation. Given the sketched
traits, mathematics educators should be more inclined and motivated to
make the initial moves. I propose to look for partners in the field of ap-
plied mathematics which shows some features analogous to aspects of
mathematics education. One of those I have already mentioned, namely
the recognition of the role of human agents. Another is that successful
applications of mathematics as a rule demand team work by experts from
different fields. Like mathematics education, applied mathematics has to
strive for social acceptance, for an understanding of its proposed models
and problem solutions and for a broader usefulness and viability of its
methods and theories. In other words, applied mathematics does not have
the universality, homogeneity and detachedness as it is pretended by tradi-
tional pure mathematics. What here and now might be a viable solution to
a problem will possibly be inadmissible there and then. Thus, the notion of
(viable) mathematization could be a linking theme between mathematics
education and socially aware applied mathematics.
In conclusion, to bring the two main parts of the article closer together
I further propose to consider mathematicology as an enterprise in which
mathematicians and mathematics educators can engage together in grow-
ing numbers. Within mathematicology, I think, there can be found a com-
mon and shared interest though possibly with differing aims. Mathemati-
cology needs for its success and soundness the expertise and involvement
of professional mathematicians. Mathematicology presents itself as a truly
multidisciplinary research field which serves the interests of both discip-
lines involved. Thereby the differences between the disciplines cannot be
eliminated. They will even be made more visible but simultaneously also
better understood and valued as necessary and productive. This at least
would be a great success for mathematicology!

This content downloaded from 36.80.179.135 on Sat, 09 May 2020 02:51:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 168 WILLI DORFLER

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper is a substantial extension of an article in the ICMI Bulletin,

no.49, 2001, which again is based on a plenary contribution to WGA8 at
ICME IX in Tokyo. The current version was completed when the author
was a Visiting Distinguished Scholar at the Institute for Advanced Study
at LaTrobe University, Bundoora, Melbourne.

REFERENCES

Artigue, M.: 1990, 'Epistemologie et Didactique,' Recheres en Didactiques des Mathem-

atiques 10(2/3), 241-286.
Blum, W. et al.: 2003, 'ICMI Study 14: Applications and modelling in mathematics
education - Discussion document,' Educational Studies in Mathematics 51, 149-171.
Brown, T.: 1997, Mathematics Education and Language, Mathematics Education Library,
vol. 20. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Burton, L.: 1999, 'The practices of mathematicians: What do they tell us about coming to
know mathematics?,' Educational Studies in Mathematics 37, 121-143.
Cobb, P., McClain, K. and Yackel, E. (eds.): 2000, Symbolizing and Communicating in
Mathematics Classrooms, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Davis, G. and Hunting, R.: 1990, Language Issues in Learning and Teaching Mathematics,
La Trobe University, Bundoora.
DiSessa, A. (ed.): 2000, Meta-Representational Competence. Special Issue, Journal of
Mathematical Behavior 19/4.
Dorier, J.-L. (ed.): 2000, On the Teaching of Linear Algebra, Mathematics Education
Library, vol. 23. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Dorfler, W.: 1991, 'Forms and means of generalization in mathematics', in A.J. Bishop, S.
Mellin-Olson and J. v. Dormolen (eds.), Mathematical Knowledge: Its Growth Through
Teaching, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 63-88.
Dorfler, W.: 2000, 'Means for meaning', in Cobb et al. (2000).
Dorfler, W.: 2002, 'Formation of mathematical objects as decision making,' Mathematical
Thinking and Learning 4/4, 337-350.
Dorfler, W. and McLone, R.: 1987, 'Mathematics as a schoolsubject', in B. Christiansen,
A.G. Howson and M. Otte (eds.), Perspectives on Mathematics Education, Reidel,
Dordrecht.
Douady, R.: 1991, 'Tool, object, setting, window', in A. Bishop, J. van Dormolen
and St. Mellin-Olson (eds.), Mathematical Knowledge: Its Growth Through Teaching,
Mathematics Education Library, vol. 10. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Dubinsky, E.: 1991, 'Reflective abstraction in advanced mathematical thinking', in D. Tall,
pp. 95-123.
Dubinsky, E., Schoenfeld, A. and Kaput, L. (eds.): 1998, Research on Collegiate Mathem-
atics Education, American Mathematical Society.
Fauvel, J. and van Maanen, J.: 1997, 'The role of history of mathematics in the teaching and
learning of mathematics: Discussion document for an ICMI study,' Educational Studies
in Mathematics 34(3), 255-259.
Fischbein, E.: 1993, 'The theory of figural concepts,' Educational Studies in Mathematics
24/2, 139-162.

This content downloaded from 36.80.179.135 on Sat, 09 May 2020 02:51:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MATHEMATICS AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION 169

Freudenthal, H.: 1973, Mathematics as an Educational Task, Reidel, Dor

Freudenthal, H.: 1983, Didactical Phenomenology of Mathematical Str
atics Education Library, vol. 1. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht
Goldin, G. and Janvier, C. (eds.): 1998, 'Representations and the psyc
ematics I and II', Special Issues of Journal of Mathematical Behavior 17(1 and
2).
Goodman, N.: 1976, Languages of Art, Hackett, Indianapolis.
Gray, E.M. and Tall, D.: 1994, 'Duality, ambiguity and flexibility: A proceptual view of
simple arithmetic,' Journalfor Research in Mathematics Education 26, 115-141.
Gravemeijer, K.: 1998, 'Developmental research as a research model', in J. Kilpatrick
and A. Sierpinska (eds.), Mathematics Education as a Research Domain: A Search for
Identity, vol. 2, pp. 277-295. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Gravemeijer, K.: 1999, 'How emergent models may foster the constitution of formal
mathematics,' Mathematical Thinking and Learning 1(2), 155-177.
Hanna, G.: 1991, 'Mathematical proof', in D. Tall.
Hanna, G. and Jahnke, H.-N.: 1996, 'Proof and proving', in A. Bishop et al. (eds.),
International Handbook of Mathematics Education, Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Dordrecht.
Heintz, B.: 2000, Die Innenwelt der Mathematik. Zur Kultur und Praxis einer beweisenden
Disziplin, Springer, Wien - New York.
Hoffmann, M.: 2001b, 'Peirce's diagrammatic reasoning as a solution to the learning
paradox', in G. Debrock (ed.), The Quiet Revolution: Essays on Process Pragmatism,
Amsterdam.
Hoffmann, M.: 2001a, 'Skizze einer semiotischen Theorie des Lernens,' Journal fur
Mathematikdidaktik 22(3/4), 231-251.
Jacobs, J.E., Becker, J.R. and Gilmer, G.F.: 2001, Changing the Faces of Mathematics:
Perspectives on Gender, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, VA.
Jahnke, H.-N. and Otte, M. (eds.): 1981, Epistemological and Social Problems of the
Sciences in the Early Nineteenth Century, Reidel, Dordrecht-Boston-London.
Janvier, C. (ed.): 1987, Problems of Representation in Mathematics Learning and Problem
Solving, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Kaput, J.: 1991, 'Notations and representations as mediators of constructive processes,'
in E. von Glasersfeld (ed.), Radical Constructivism in Mathematics Education, Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Katz, V. (ed.): 2000, Using History to Teach Mathematics: An International Perspective,
MAA Notes no. 51. The Mathematical Association of America, Washington, D.C.
Lakoff, G. and Nunez, R.E.: 2000, Where Mathematics Comes From, Basic Books, New
York.
Maier, H. and Schweiger, F.: 1999, Mathematik und Sprache, Osterreichischer Bundesver-
lag, Wien.
NCTM: 2000, Principles and Standards for School Mathematics, NCTM, Reston, VA.
Otte, M., Knoche, N. and Jahnke, H.-N. (eds.): 1995, Interaction between History of
Mathematics and Mathematics Learning, Vandenhoek and Ruprecht, Gottingen.
Otte, M. and Steinbring, H.: 1977, 'Probleme der Begriffsentwicklung - Zum Stetigkeits-
begriff,' Didaktik der Mathematik 1, 16-25.
Pitkethly, A. and Hunting, R.: 1996, 'A review of recent research in the area of initial
fraction concepts,' Educational Studies in Mathematics 26, 114-145.
Rotman, B.: 1987, Signifying Nothing. The Semiotics of Zero, St. Martin's Press, New York.

This content downloaded from 36.80.179.135 on Sat, 09 May 2020 02:51:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 170 WILLI DORFLER

Rotman, B.: 1993, Ad Infinitum: The

Stanford.
Rotman, B.: 2000, Mathematics as Si
Press, Stanford.
Shapiro, S.: 2000, Thinking about Mathematics, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Sierpinska, A. and Kilpatrick, J. (eds.): 1998, Mathematics Education as a Research
Domain: A Search for Identity, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Sfard, A.: 1991, 'On the dual nature of mathematical conceptions: Reflections on processes
and objects as different sides of the same coin,' Educational Studies in Mathematics
22(1), 1-36.
Steen, L.A.: 1999, 'Theories that gyre and gimble in the wabe,' Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education 30(2), 235-241.
Sutherland, R., Rojano, T., Bell, A. and Lins, R.: 2001, Perspectives on School Algebra,
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Tall, D. (ed.): 1991, Advanced Mathematical Thinking, Mathematics Education Library,
vol. 11. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

Institutfiur Mathematik,
Universitdt Klagenfurt,
A-9020 Klagenfurt, Austria,
E-mail: willi.doerfler@ uni-klu.ac.at

This content downloaded from 36.80.179.135 on Sat, 09 May 2020 02:51:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms