Summary:
In this article, Jeremy Kilpatrick discusses some researchers' view that research has a hierarchical structure, with pure, or basic, research at the top, followed by applied research. He offers an alternate view that both types are complementary to one another. Kilpatrick calls this view of the "lens" model, meaning "a study may be basic or applied depending upon the lens you use in reading a report of it." He goes on to discuss the reasons that research in mathematics education is ineffective: the lack of funding (in the US), the lack of a true identity as a community, and more research being conducted for dissertations rather than by true researchers publishing in journals.
Kilpatrick also found, from looking at 38 U.S. journal articles, that none attempted to link their research to a theory in mathematics education. He gives a few examples of people whose theories had a large impact upon education, namely Thorndike, Piaget and Polya. He encourages teachers to be involved in research, to not only collaborate on the collection of data, but also the analysis of the results and the writing of reports and articles. His conclusion is threefold: a strong sense of community is needed in mathematics education, there needs to be theory grounding the research and finally, acceptance both of the limits of research as well as its complexity.
Stops:
I agree with Kilpatrick that all research can be read differently, depending on the "lens" of the reader. The same concept is true in many disciplines. Literature analysis can vary greatly, depending on the experience and background of the reader. It seems natural that whether the research is seen as applied or basic would vary, depending on the reader. As a teacher, I see the same word problem interpreted in numerous ways on a daily basis. It follows that research in mathematics education would be similar.
I wonder if his analysis of the lack of theory in mathematics education research would hold true in other countries. He readily admits in the article that he purposely chose articles from U.S. researchers. Certainly, the U.S, likely has one of the largest number of math researchers in the world, but perhaps researchers in Europe or Asia would have a stronger connection to theory.
I also wonder why it is that teachers do not often participate in conducting research. I have certainly come across the stereotype of mathematics educators being thought of a cold, logical, intellectual people with poor social skills. In my experience, this is not usually true. Teachers in elementary school are often intimidated by mathematics, some due to their own math anxiety. This alone could certainly discourage engaging in discussion and reflection on mathematics; participating in or conducting research would not be desired by such teachers.
Question: Do you agree with Kilpatrick that research cannot be classified simply as basic or applied, but rather is dependent on the lens through which it is viewed?
Do you have any ideas as to why it might be that many teachers to not research? Or do you feel this has changed since the article was written in 1981?
Since I have read this article too, it is interesting for me how you see the article and summarize it. You nicely put together the most important points of this article. So reader must pay attention to every single sentence as it carries a main point of article. You mention to “lack of funding in US” as a reason behind ineffectiveness of research in mathematics, however, I did not see it as important hinder, but after seeing your emphasize and think about it carefully, now I see its importance. On the other hand you state that most research has been done for “dissertations rather than by true researchers publishing in journals”, I believe these students who were researching for thesis were true researcher too but the problem is that they mostly did not continue their research in the same area which means many ideas, good points and finding did not use or consider.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this part of your writing “He gives a few examples of people whose theories had a large impact upon education, namely Thorndike, Piaget and Polya.” I am confused because from my point of view although Kilpatrick finds Piaget’s study interesting, he still believed it was not effective.
In respond to your first question, I can say that yes, I am strongly agree with Kilpatrick that we cannot classified all research as pure and applied. To explain my claim I would like to use the pipeline model idea. In fact most of the time the results of the pure research is the raw material of the applied research which means these are related to each other and cannot be separated.
To answer you second question, I think a reason behind lack of teacher’s collaboration in research area is the idea of separating the applied and pure knowledge. On that time, I suppose, there was a line between teachers work and researcher’s and everybody tried to do his/her duties. However, I am believe right now it is changed and most of the teachers and researchers are working together or many teachers are studying as researchers.
Thank you for the nice summary. It led me back to a quick skim of the article. Among all 3 models incorporating pure vs applied research, I favor the “lens” model the least. It has some side effects. It forces me into a dilemma of deciding who are the meaning makers. Of course, readers may bring their own frames of references anyway to the report and label the study to fit to his/her purpose. Still, I advocate that as a researcher, who has the first-hand data, is holding the major responsibility to demonstrate the intention of connecting the study to theory or practice or both.
ReplyDeleteI think that there has been change in education research generally to include practicing teachers as researchers. Qualitative research methodologies such as participatory action research, autoethnography and a/r/tograpy have gained legitimacy. I'm not sure what the equivalent of basic research might be today. Perhaps standardized testing is an example. I hope that mathematics curriculum theory research continues to move in the direction of centring the experiences of educators and learners.
ReplyDelete