Open Access Peer-reviewed Research Article

Main Article Content

Sergei Abramovich corresponding author

Abstract

The paper suggests interpreting the term triangulation, commonly used in social science research, as multiple ways of solving a problem in the context of mathematics education. The availability of different technological tools provides new perspectives on problem solving as modeling from where ideas for problem posing stem. Using topics from geometry and trigonometry, triangulation is considered through lens of teacher education. Reflections by teacher candidates on activities which are shared and reviewed in the paper indicate future teachers’ readiness to implement the pedagogy of triangulated perspectives on problem solving and posing in their own mathematics classrooms.

Keywords
triangulation, mathematics education, teacher education, computational thinking, geometry, trigonometry

Article Details

How to Cite
Abramovich, S. (2022). Advancing the concept of triangulation from social sciences research to mathematics education. Advances in Educational Research and Evaluation, 3(1), 201-217. https://doi.org/10.25082/AERE.2022.01.002

References

  1. Chace AB, Manning HP and Archibald RC. The Rhind Mathematical Papyrus, British museum 10057 and 10058, vol. 1. Mathematical Association of America: Oberlin, OH, USA, 1927.
  2. Boyer CB and Merzabach UC. A History of Mathematics (2nd edition). Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1989.
  3. Kuijt I. (Ed.) Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity and Differentiation. Kluwer: New York, NY, USA, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1007/b110503
  4. Webb EJ, Campbell DT, Schwartz RD, et al. Unobtrusive Measures; Rand McNally: Chicago, IL, USA, 1966.
  5. Kitcher P. The Nature of Mathematical Knowledge; Oxford University Press: Fair Lawn, NJ, USA, 1983.
  6. Grinshpan AZ. The Bieberbach conjecture and Milin's functionals. American Mathematical Monthly, 1999, 106: 203-214. https://doi.org/10.1080/00029890.1999.12005031
  7. Löwe B and van Kerkhove B. Methodological triangulation in empirical philosophy (of mathematics). Advances in experimental philosophy of logic and mathematics, 2019, 15-38. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350039049.0005
  8. Harrison J. Formal proof - theory and practice. Notices of American Mathematical Society, 2008, 55: 1395-1406.
  9. Sharma S. Qualitative approaches in mathematics education research: Challenges and possible solutions. Education Journal, 2013, 2(2): 50-57. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.edu.20130202.14
  10. Bachman HJ, Elliott L, Duong S, et al. Triangulating multi-method assessments of parental support for early math skills. Frontiers in Education, 2020, 5: 589514. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.589514
  11. McFee G. Triangulation in research: two confusions. Educational Research, 1992, 34: 215-219. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013188920340305
  12. Pólya G. How to Solve It; Anchor Books: New York. NY, USA, 1957.
  13. Abramovich S. Mathematical problem posing as a link between algorithmic thinking and conceptual knowledge. The Teaching of Mathematics, 2015, 18: 45-60.
  14. Denzin NK. Triangulation. In The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology, vol. 10; Ritzer G., Ed.; Blackwell Publishing: Malden, MA, USA, 2007; pp. 5075-5080 https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405165518.wbeost050
  15. Cooney TJ. Considering the paradoxes, perils, and purposes of conceptualizing teacher development. In Making Sense of Mathematics Teacher Education, Lin, F. L., Ed.; Kluwer; Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2001; pp. 9-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0828-0_1
  16. Swan M. The impact of task-based professional development on teachers' practices and beliefs: A design research study. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 2007, 10: 217-237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-007-9038-8
  17. Liljedahl P, Oesterle S and Bernèche C. Stability of beliefs in mathematics education: a critical analysis. Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education, 2012, 17: 101-118.
  18. Freudenthal H. Weeding and Sowing; Kluwer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1978.
  19. Conole G and Dyke M. What are the affordances of information and communication technologies? ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology, 2004, 12: 113-124. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v12i2.11246
  20. Wing JM. Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 2006, 49: 33-35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215
  21. Arnheim R. Visual Thinking. University of California Press: Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA, USA, 1969.
  22. Abramovich S. Using Wolfram Alpha with elementary teacher candidates: From more than one correct answer to more than one correct solution. MDPI Mathematics (Special issue: Research on Teaching and Learning Mathematics in Early Years and Teacher Training), 2021, 9(17): 2112. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9172112
  23. Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences. The Mathematical Education of Teachers II. The Mathematical Association of America: Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
  24. Common Core State Standards. Common Core Standards Initiative: Preparing America's Students for College and Career, 2010. http://www.corestandards.org
  25. Dewey J. How We Think; D. C. Heath and Company: New York, NY, USA, 1933.
  26. Campbell DT. A study of Leadership Among Submarine Officers. Ohio State University Research Foundation: Columbus, OH, USA, 1953.
  27. Campbell DT and Fiske DW. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 1959, 56(2): 81-105. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046016
  28. Denzin NK. The Research Act in Sociology: The Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods. Butterworth: London, UK, 1970.
  29. Mathison S. Why triangulate? Educational Researcher, 1988, 17: 13-17. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X017002013
  30. Saukko P. Doing Research in Cultural Studies: An Introduction to Classical and New Methodological Approaches; Sage: London, UK, 2003.
  31. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. The Author: Reston, VA, USA, 2000.
  32. Department for Education. National Curriculum in England: Mathematics Programmes of Study, Crown copyright. (2013, updated 2021). https://www.gov.uk
  33. Department of Basic Education. Mathematics Teaching and Learning Framework for South Africa: Teaching Mathematics for Understanding, The Author, Private Bag, Pretoria, South Africa, 2018.
  34. Felmer P, Lewin R, Martínez S, et al. Primary Mathematics Standards for Pre-Service Teachers in Chile. World Scientific: Singapore, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1142/8948
  35. Ministry of Education, Singapore. Mathematics Syllabus, Primary One to Four. The Author: Curriculum Planning and Development Division, 2012. https://www.moe.gov.sg
  36. Ministry of Education Singapore. Mathematics Syllabuses, Secondary One to Four. The Author: Curriculum Planning and Development Division, 2020. https://www.moe.gov.sg
  37. National Curriculum Board. National Mathematics curriculum: Framing Paper. The Author: Australia, 2008, accessed on October 20, 2022.
  38. Ontario Ministry of Education. The Ontario Curriculum, Grades 1-8, Mathematics (2020), 2020. https://www.edu.gov.on.ca
  39. Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators. Standards for Preparing Teachers of Mathematics, 2017. https://amte.net/standards
  40. Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences. The Mathematical Education of Teachers. The Mathematical Association of America: Washington, DC, USA, 2001.
  41. Silver EA, Ghousseini H, Gosen D, et al. Moving from rhetoric to praxis: Issues faced by teachers in having students consider multiple solutions for problems in the mathematics classroom. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 2005, 24: 287-301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2005.09.009
  42. Vygotsky LS. Educational Psychology; St. Lucie Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1997.
  43. Canobi KH. Children's profiles of addition and subtraction. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 2005, 92: 220-246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2005.06.001
  44. Vygotsky LS. Mind in Society. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1978.
  45. Abramovich S and Freiman V. Fostering collateral creativity through teaching school mathematics with technology: What do teachers need to know? International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2022.2113465
  46. Vygotsky LS. Thought and Language; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1962. https://doi.org/10.1037/11193-000
  47. Advisory Committee on Mathematics Education. Mathematical Needs: The Mathematical Needs of Learners. The Royal Society: London, UK, 2011. https://www.nuffieldfoundation.org
  48. Lillard AS. Montessori: The Science Behind the Genius. Oxford University Press: NY, New York, USA, 2017.
  49. Avitzur R. Graphing Calculator [Version 4.0]. Pacific Tech: Berkley, CA, USA, 2011.
  50. Abramovich S and Ehrlich A. Computer as a medium for overcoming misconceptions in solving inequalities. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 2007, 26: 181-196.
  51. Langtangen HP and Tveito A. How should we prepare the students of science and technology for a life in the computer age? In Mathematics Unlimited-2001 and Beyond, Engquist B, Schmid W, Eds., Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2001; pp. 809-825. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-56478-9_40
  52. Boaler J, Ball DL and Even R. Preparing mathematics education researchers for disciplined inquiry: Learning from, in, and for practice. In Second International Handbook of Mathematics Education, Bishop AJ, Clements MA, Keitel C, Kilpatrick J, Leung FKS, Eds. Springer International Handbooks of Education, vol 10. Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2003, 491-521. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0273-8_17
  53. Pinto A and Koichu B. Implementation of mathematics education research as crossing the boundary between disciplined inquiry and teacher inquiry. ZDM Mathematics Education, 2021, 53: 1085-1096. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-021-01286-7
  54. Wenning CJ. Scientific epistemology: How scientists know what the know. Journal of Physics Teacher Education Online. 2009, 5(2): 3-15. https://www.phy.ilstu.edu/jpteo