Discussion groups

Curriculum reform: movements, processes and policies

Aims and focus

In process. Please consult later.

Call for papers

Papers and discussion documents

The papers will soon be available for downloading here.

The relationship between research and practice in mathematics education

Aims and focus

The Organizing team for DG 2 of ICME 11 welcome submissions of contributions related to the topic:

The relationship between research and practice in mathematics education.

The theme for our discussion group is intended to focus on how different practices in preparation for learning are related to teachers´ view on learning of mathematics, and how these views are related to basic theoretical aspects of mathematics education. Research in this tension between theory and practice will develop more knowledge about practices that can foster improved learning in mathematics. It will therefore enhance knowledge about favourable approaches to education in school and to pre-service and in-service education of teachers.

We are interested in papers that articulate issues or dilemmas that will help the DG to organize the following three themes:

1. What kind of research has leaded to changes in practice? We are interested in different research from all over the world that has been generalized from mathematics education research and which has been important for developing mathematics education.

2. Where and how should the interaction between practitioners and researchers take place and be organized? What can practitioners learn from researchers? Do the researchers understand a practitioner?

3. What are the forces that govern the evolution of mathematics education research and what are the ultimate goals of mathematics education research? What kind of research do we need for developing mathematics education in the next years?

Proposal will be accepted until the January 1st 2008. Paper should be 2 pages in length and be written clearly in English (using Times New Roman 12-point font size and single-spacing). Papers should be sent to both the DG two chairs. Information about the acceptance of paper will be available by middle of February 2008. The authors will then be asked for a longer version of their text, maximum 6 pages. This extended version has to be sent by March 31 st to the two chairs.

Contributions should indicate the author(s) names and location (country, town, school) and contact details.

The review procedure will lead to three possible outcomes: 1. acceptance 2. recommendation for revision 3. rejection

Papers and discussion documents

Paper (69.00 KB)
Practitioners and Research _ Reed (72.00 KB)

Mathematics education: for what and why?

Aims and focus

The overarching question for this Discussion Group is: What is mathematics education for? There is no single answer to this question. The aspects listed below all have validity, and the relative weights given will depend on the life experience, intellectual and educational history, and values of any individual:

The nurturing of the next generation of mathematicians and those who will use mathematics in their work.
Teaching how to think rationally, dispassionately, objectively.
Providing skills for dealing with situations in everyday life.
The training of a workforce equipped to compete successfully in the global economy of the information age.
Intellectual enrichment, acknowledging mathematics as equally a part of humankind’s cultural and aesthetic heritage as literature or music.
Making accessible powerful tools to analyse, critique, and act upon, social and political issues.
Building critical skills for understanding how mathematical ideas influence social and political issues that impact our lives.

Against this background, we propose to discuss the following issues:

• Mathematical literacy

“Mathematical literacy” has become a popular term to refer, roughly speaking, to the mathematical disposition and proficiency desirable in a citizen. As such it represents a step towards a more widespread access to powerful mathematics, particularly in relation to the practicalities of personal, social, and economic life. However, the term is interpreted in so many different ways that its meaning has lost definition. For example, there is a stark contrasts between an interpretation that focuses on “basic skills” or “numeracy” as preparation for the workforce and one that focuses on development of critical tools for the analysis of social and political issues.

What are the most productive ways of characterizing “mathematical literacy”?

• Diversity of mathematical practices and school mathematics education

Developments in mathematics education, such as the field of ethnomathematics founded by Ubiratan D’Ambrosio, reactions against the Eurocentric narrative of the history of mathematics, the acknowledgment of mathematics as a human activity, and a parallel shift in cognitive psychology to theories of situated cognition, mean that the dominance of mathematics-as-school-subject by mathematics-as-discipline can no longer be taken for granted. Mathematics educators and others express concern that school mathematics has scant relevance to the personal and collective lives of the students or the adults they will become.

Should school mathematics education be dominated by the discipline of academic mathematics, rather than reflecting the diversity of mathematical practices?

• Implications of globalization for mathematics education

There are tensions within mathematics education resulting from globalization. Should homogenization of curriculum be resisted, as with the disappearance of languages under the dominance of English? Is there an imposition of a single view of humankind, and the associated European construction of rationality? Is it possible to reconcile honoring the mathematics of a culture and planning mathematics education for economic progress – in a post-colonial country, for example?

Can a balance be achieved between a homogeneous globalized curriculum and the diversity of people and forms of knowledge construction and use?

• Mathematics education for living with technology

Mathematics influences and controls our lives in ways that, for most people and most of the time, are not recognized. Complementary to such mathematization is “demathematization” whereby mathematical models become hidden within black-box devices. Should a major aim of mathematics education be to prepare people to critically examine such phenomena and react appropriately? Rather than training in routine expertise and simplistic thinking, should we aim to nurture adaptive expertise and the ability to recognize, and ideally have some grasp of, complex situations modeled through mathematics? Is a major aspect of such a goal to provide students with better analytical tools to evaluate the exponentially increasing information made accessible through technology?

How should mathematics education prepare people for technology?

CORE PAPERS TO FOCUS DISCUSSION

The key questions just presented are phrased in rather general terms, so further information to frame the discussions has been presented in the form of “core papers” selected by the Organizing Team for DG3. These are posted below. Participants are expected to have read, and be prepared to discuss, this set of papers in advance of the meeting. Experience shows that participants in Discussion Groups generally do not read a lot of papers ahead of time! Accordingly, there is a relatively small number of core papers, and they are short.

PLANNED STRUCTURE FOR THE THREE SESSIONS

In keeping with the spirit of Discussion Groups at ICME, there will be no formal presentations. Rather, time is intended for focused discussion, with emphasis on every participant having a voice.

First session (plenary, 2 hours): After a brief introduction, participants will be allowed a short time (depending on the number who attend) in which to comment, depending on their interest, on one or more of the issues related to the questions formulated above and addressed in the core papers. (Note that given the likely number of participants, our original plan to allow all participants to comment during the first session is unlikely to be possible). For this arrangement to work effectively, it is essential that all participants: (a) read all the core papers. (b) direct their comments to the questions formulated above or raised in the core papers. Any time left at the end will be devoted to general discussion, and to the organization of subgroups for the second session.

Second session (subgroups, 2 hours): Division into subgroups will enable all participants to have a voice, given that numbers may prevent this happening in the plenary sessions. One subgroup will be devoted to each of the issues listed above and the core papers related to them. In addition, it is envisaged that there will be a Spanish-speaking subgroup. The sixth subgroup will address the example of South African approaches to actualizing a vision of mathematical literacy. Each subgroup will be led by a moderator. Recorders will be selected for each group, who will provide a written summary ahead of the third session.

Third session (plenary, 1 hour): A designated reporter from each subgroup will summarize the discussions of the subgroup. If time allows, there will then be a general discussion.

Preparation of report: After the meeting, reporters from the subgroups will revise the written record of their discussions as necessary and give these final reports to the Organizing Group. The co-chairs will prepare a report on the working of the DG, based on the subgroup reports, and on documentation of the first and third sessions (recorders will be selected for these sessions). A draft of our report will be circulated to the other members of the OG, and to all participants, for comment and reaction.

GUIDELINES FOR WRITTEN CONTRIBUTIONS

The deadline for submission of new papers has now passed.

It is suggested that, if you have submitted a paper, you also prepare it in the form of a poster. The conference organizers have confirmed that any poster submitted will almost certainly be accepted and they will issue documents acknowledging that you have made a presentation at the conference, which for some participants may be necessary to secure funding from their institutions. The poster does not have to be elaborate, and could simply be an adaptation of your written contribution. Please consult the ICME11 Website for details on size, etc.

Looking ahead, the Organizing Team is considering a publication, in the form of a journal issue or book, based on the work of the group. Such a publication would include the core papers and a selection of the written contributions. One idea would be invite longer versions of these papers. The publication would also include summaries of the discussions during the conference.

Papers and discussion documents

GreerCORE (32.00 KB)
DavisCORE (23.00 KB)
GellertJablonkaCORE (80.00 KB)
AtwehCORE (36.00 KB)
AgudeloValderramaCORE (51.00 KB)
FionaWalls (40.00 KB)
AlexandrePais (34.00 KB)
MonicaMesquita (56.00 KB)
AishengWang (23.00 KB)
RozaLeikin (38.00 KB)
GravenVenkatCORE (48.00 KB)

Reconceptualizing the mathematics curriculum

Aims and focus

Specific goals for DG 4 at the Congress are:

1. To share information about current or planned reconceptualization efforts that are underway and the relevant issues that have arisen in relation to these efforts

2. To produce a summary of the critical issues surrounding mathematics curriculum reconceptualization

To accomplish these goals, the members of the Organizing Team for ICME-11 Discussion Group 4 solicited discussion proposal addressing our topic. The resulting agenda for the three DG 4 sessions is posted below. Brief summaries or links to papers related to the presentations on the agenda are also posted below. We encourage you to read these in preparation for attendance and group participation. We look forward to seeing you at the DG 4 sessions.

Papers and discussion documents

Agenda for DG 4 sessions (41.00 KB)
Christiansen discussion topic summary (58.00 KB)
Gardner discussion topic summary (49.00 KB)
Schielack discussion topic summary (38.00 KB)
Ma Yun-peng discussion topic summary (30.00 KB)
Zhang, Zhu, Tang discussion topic summary (323.00 KB)
Persistent tensions on curricular change - Guimaraes (800.00 KB)
Social-cultural context - Yeping Li (249.00 KB)
Accompanying Table of Algebra Content - Yeping Li (58.00 KB)
What is mathematical literacy? - Gardner (116.00 KB)
Reflections from Mainland China - Ma Yunpeng (1.00 MB)
Portuguese Mathematics Curriculum Changes - Guimaraes (605.00 KB)
"New Ideas" in Elementary Mathematics in China - Tianxiao Zhang (502.00 KB)
DG4 discussion notes (34.00 KB)

The role of philosophy in mathematics education

Aims and focus

In process, please consult later.

Call for contributions: Please send your contribution no later than January 20th!

How to participate

As their name suggests, Discussion Groups (DGs) are designed to gather congress participants who are interested in discussing, in a genuinely interactive way, certain challenging or controversial issues and dilemmas – of a substantial, non-rhetorical nature – pertaining to the theme of the DG.

Discussion Groups are expressly not about the presentation of research papers and therefore there are no oral presentations in a DG.

However, as starting points for discussions the OT is calling for written contributions (see the call for papers for more information) that bring forward issues, problems, and challenges addressing one or more of the questions listed in the introduction.

After having been accepted, these contributions will be posted on the web page of DG11 and will be referred to during the discussions at ICME11.

Organisers welcome submissions of contributions related to questions and issues addressed in DG5 (see introduction). The questions might concern primary issues such as : What is philosophy of mathematics education? (Philosophy applied to or of mathematics education? Philosophy of mathematics applied to mathematics education or to education in general? Philosophy of education applied to mathematics education?...). What are the relations between philosophy of mathematics education and other kinds of philosophies? They can also refer to the link between philosophies of mathematics and mathematical practices or the relations between personal philosophies of mathematics, values and classroom image of mathematics. Multicultural aspects of these issues are welcome. Some other questions, less general than the aforementioned can be addressed, related to a specific mathematical topic (eg. the bond between epistemology and learning and teaching of algebra). Finally, the authors can contribute by providing examples of teaching experiences in which the link between mathematics and philosophy is at the core.

The written contribution should be in English, in no more than 6 pages (A4) in length using 14-point font, single spaced, with 2 cm margins, and should be submitted electronically to both DG5 co-chairs (zacg@xanum.uam.mx and cbardini@math.univ-montp2.fr). Files should be saved in RTF-format (Rich Text Format) and filenames should indicate the name of the first author proceeded by “DG5”; e.g. for a contribution by Dufus and Smith, the file should be named: DG5_dufus.rtf ( _ is an underscore not a space).

Please use the template designed to help you in the writing of your contribution (you can download the template below) so to ensure a consistent appearance for all papers in the congress.

All proposals will be reviewed by members of the organising group.

Agenda

20th January 2008 : Deadline for submitting your written contribution

1st March 2008: Information about acceptance sent to the authors

10th April 2008 : The OT will prepare and publish an organising framework for the operation of the DG based on the extended contributions received. At this stage it is envisaged that we will spend the first 2 sessions in small groups after a brief introduction to the key issues by members of the OT. For the final session (1 hour only) the OT is considering the possibility of a more formal report back session to share general observations and possibly produce a short communiqué.

Papers and discussion documents

The nature and roles of international cooperation in mathematics education

Aims and focus

Building on the learnings on this topic during ICME 10, the group aims at engaging participants in fruitful dialogue about the main issues of international co-operation in mathematics education through:

1. Sharing experiences among participants on co-operating with colleagues from around the world;

2. Identifying benefits and problems arising from such co-operation; and

3. Developing recommendations for strengthening international co-operation in the field.

Papers and discussion documents

Dilemmas and controversies in the education of mathematics teachers

Aims and focus

In mathematics education the critical role of the teacher is becoming increasingly recognized and has attained much research interest. This has put high demands on the institutions that organize the formal preparation and the professional development of mathematics teachers. Research has pointed to the complexity of this enterprise and a number of dilemmas and controversies involved. The aim of the discussion group is to provide a forum for researchers and practitioners to further investigate into these issues. The following general questions were initially set up by the OT to structure the work in the discussion group:

Organization: How can we attain an appropriate balance and connection between main components of teacher education, e.g. mathematical, educational, and didactical components for different educational levels?
Mathematical knowledge: What kind and what level of mathematical knowledge do teachers need and how could it be fostered in educational activities?
Professional development: Seeing the development of teacher knowledge as a lifelong process, how can this process be initiated in pre-service teacher education programs, and what ways of promoting in-service mathematics teachers’ professional development are effective?
Theory and practice: To what extent should teacher education be research or experience based, and what do we mean by that, e.g. when relating teaching practice and theoretical courses?
Policy issues: What roles do teacher preparation programs play in relation to tradition and renewal within mathematics education?

With those critical issues as a background the organizing team invited experts in the field to write position papers and announced a call for papers by prospective participants in the discussion group. Authors were also invited to set up specific questions for discussion raised by their paper. Contributions from both researchers and practitioners were foreseen and submissions from all countries with different economic contexts and cultural backgrounds were encouraged. Colleagues wishing to participate in the discussion group were encouraged to e-mail potential areas of discussion to the group co-chairs for inclusion in the draft program even if not supported by a discussion paper. The papers were reviewed in a two-step procedure, based first on abstracts and then on the full papers. Thirteen submitted papers were accepted and made available on the DG7 web page at dg.icme11.org prior to the congress.

The following agenda for the work during the three scheduled sessions was designed by the OT. Based on the accepted and invited papers more detailed focus questions will be added for the discussion in the different subgroups.

Schedule for the sessions

Session 1

Plenary session, after 45 minutes splitting into subgroups.

a) Welcome and introduction by the organizing team, followed by panel presentations in order to set up the agenda and stimulate the discussions in the group (45 minutes):

Christer Bergsten: The didactic divide in initial teacher training: Can it be avoided?

Abstract

Ruhama Even: Educating practicing mathematics teachers: What is missing in the literature?

Abstract | Full document

Konrad Krainer: What do we know about the sustainability of professional developmental programmes?

Abstract

b) Split into subgroups, led by OT members/authors of papers, with focus questions organised by the submitted and invited papers. (75 minutes)

Session 2

Subgroups session: Continued discussion. (120 minutes)

Session 3

Plenary session: Main outcome from groups reported and discussed. Concluding discussion on the main topics raised for the discussion group. (60 minutes)

Accepted submitted papers:

Hatice Akkoç, Fatih Ozmantar, Erhan Bingolbali (Turkey) – Exploring the technological pedagogical content knowledge

Elisabeth Belfort, Luiz Carlos Guimaraes (Brazil) – Pró-letramento matemathics: Improving mathematical knowledge and practices of primary teachers in Brazil

Ana Paula Canavarro, Isabel Rocha (Portugal) – Professional development of mathematics teachers: Challenges from a national in-service teacher education program in Portugal

Tony Gardiner (UK) – The key component?

Sebastian Kuntze (Germany), Frank Lipowsky (Germany), Kathrin Krammer (Switzerland), Kristina Reiss (Germany) – What is “best practice” for video-based in-service teacher trainings? Views and experiences of secondary mathematics teachers and findings from evaluation research.

Hea-Jin Lee (USA) – Developing professional knowledge, implementing professional learning, and sustaining professional growth

Ana Lúcia Manrique (Brazil) – Changes in expectations of students doing a mathematics teacher training program about the teaching profession

William McCallum (USA) – Seeing the mathematical knowledge of teachers: A mathematician’s perspective

Bernard Murphy (UK) – The ‘Teaching Advanced Mathematics’ programme of professional development

Ana Maria Redolfi Gandulfo (Brazil) – The education of mathematics teachers and a learning environment

Allan Tarp (Denmark) – Concealing choices to teachers

Jian Wang (USA) – Chinese elementary teachers’ understanding and representation of mathematics concepts in classroom: Relationship between pedagogical content knowledge, instructional practice, and mandated curriculum materials

Fan Zhongxiong (China) – The development of mathematics higher education for Tibetan learners in China

Papers and discussion documents

Hatice Akkoç, Fatih Ozmantar, Erhan Bingolbali (Turkey) (249.00 KB)
Elisabeth Belfort, Luiz Carlos Guimaraes (Brazil) (179.00 KB)
Ana Paula Canavarro, Isabel Rocha (Portugal) (134.00 KB)
Tony Gardiner (107.00 KB)
Hea-Jin Lee (USA) (151.00 KB)
Ana Lúcia Manrique (Brazil) (123.00 KB)
William McCallum (USA) (282.00 KB)
Bernard Murphy (UK) (135.00 KB)
Ana Maria Redolfi Gandulfo (Brazil) (174.00 KB)
Allan Tarp (Denmark) (134.00 KB)
Jian Wang (USA) (168.00 KB)
Fan Zhongxiong (China) (55.00 KB)
Sebastian Kuntze, Frank Lipowsky, Kathrin Krammer, Kristina Reiss (Germany and Switzerland) (39.00 KB)

The role of mathematics in access to tertiary education

Main questions

The following issues will be tackled (other questions may be identified by intending participants):

* What evidence is there from various national contexts that mathematics continues to operate as a “critical filter” for entry to undergraduate university courses?
* In those undergraduate courses which do require substantial mathematics, what kind of mathematics is required from those entering and what kind of mathematics will be taught?
* What implications does an answer to the above question have for the content of senior high school mathematics courses?
* Is there a tension between the expectation that mathematical studies in high school should prepare students for tertiary education and role of mathematics in the general high school curriculum?
* Where specific mathematics courses are taught within undergraduate courses, what implications does this have for university departments of mathematics?
* Are bridging and service courses the answer? Is the role of bridging and service courses different from the perspective of training and further education, as distinct from undergraduate university courses?

Call for contributions

The organisers of DG8 welcome submissions of contributions related to the issues addressed above, or to other questions relevant to the focus. Those making submissions should include specific references to their own national contexts.

Abstracts (one page maximum) should be sent by January 10 to both of the chairs: Max Stephens or Sang-Gu Lee .

Information about acceptance will be sent to the authors by January 31st who will then be asked for a longer version of their text. This extended version will need to be sent by March 1st (maximum 6 pages).

All authors will be expected to participate to DG8 sessions and discuss their contributions and perspectives with other participants.

Papers and discussion documents

The papers will soon be available for downloading here.

Promoting Creativity for All Students in Mathematics Education

Addresses to the Participants

• Prof. Hristo Beloev, Rector of the University of Rousse, Bulgaria.

• Prof. Mārcis Auziņš, Rector of the University of Latvia.

• Prof. Margarita Teodosieva, Dean of the Faculty of Natural Sciences and Education of the University of Rousse, Bulgaria.

Aims and focus

The goal of Discussing Group 9 is to support productive discussions about important current problems, issues and challenges relevant to promoting creativity for all students in mathematics education. This discussion group will have four main aims:

• to examine the concept of mathematical creativity;

• to analyze whether all students can and should be mathematically creative;

• to explore environmental effects on the mathematical creativity of students;

• to consider how mathematical creativity might be assessed and how assessment might affect the development of mathematical creativity.

The group will address these focus questions and/or others that may be suggested by interested participants. Research in support of responses to these questions is strongly encouraged.

1. WHAT IS MATHEMATICAL CREATIVITY AND WHICH MATHEMATICS STUDENTS CAN AND SHOULD BE CREATIVE?

• Is mathematical creativity a property of a person, a problem, a solution, a process or a teaching technique?

• Is mathematical creativity domain specific?

• How does mathematical creativity relate to general concepts of mathematics, mathematical problem solving, problem posing, research, and creativity? Can ‘concepts’ be creative, rather than simply ‘problems’ or ‘solutions? What would this mean?

• Should mathematical creativity be something new to the world or can it be just new to the creator?

• Is it enough to have ideas that are novel and innovative or must creative mathematics be applied to mathematical problem solving?

• Can all mathematics students be creative? Is mathematical creativity dependent on mathematical talent or is it a distinct trait?

• Can creativity be developed? Is it innate? Can it be taught?

• Is an in-depth knowledge of mathematics a prerequisite for becoming mathematically creative?

2. WHAT IS THE ROLE OF THE TEACHER AND OTHERS IN RECOGNIZING AND PROMOTING MATHEMATICAL CREATIVITY? WHAT IS THE GOAL IN DOING THIS?

• How should we prepare teachers to foster mathematical creativity in all students?

• Is there a difference between the ‘creative teacher’ and the ‘productive teacher’? between the ‘creative teacher’ and the teacher of mathematical creativity?

• Must the teacher be mathematically creative to foster student creativity?

• Should a teacher to demonstrate his or her mathematical creativity? If so, how and when should this be done?

• What might teachers, students, parents, or others do to foster (or inhibit) creativity?

• Should mathematical creativity be made an explicit goal/critical area in mathematic education? If so, how?

• Will a focus on mathematical creativity distract from other critical areas of mathematics education?

• Should mathematical concepts and skills be learned creatively or should they be memorized before students are encouraged to be creative?

• What methods of instruction might stimulate students to create new problems, solve problems uniquely, conduct research work in mathematics, etc.?

• What is the role of motivation in creativity?

• When do we look for creativity? How? Where?

• Is it ever too late to search for creativity?

• What might the benefits be of teaching creativity in mathematics, for students who will not become mathematicians? Are we developing creative students simply for the benefit of society (or of the economy)? Or is there an intrinsic value to the individual of developing the faculty of creativity?

3. HOW MIGHT MATHEMATICAL PROBLEMS BE USED TO DEVELOP MATHEMATICAL CREATIVITY? HOW MIGHT MATHEMATICAL CREATIVITY BE ASSESSED? HOW DO WE EVALUATE OUR SUCCESS IN DEVELOPING MATHEMATICAL CREATIVITY IN ALL STUDENTS?

• What are examples of good investigations and problems that can be useful for promoting mathematical creativity?

• How might problems best be used to develop mathematical creativity?

• Can all mathematical problems be used to evoke a creative response? Should they be used in this way?

• How might assessment be used to promote rather than inhibit mathematical creativity so that all students might be creators and not simply consumers of knowledge?

• What are the effects of standardized or standards-based assessment on mathematical creativity?

• How do we know when creativity has ‘happened”? How do we put this phenomenon to use?

• What criteria might be used to recognize, encourage, and assess creativity? How do we recognize a creative act? Can we teach our students to recognize one? Is it the surprising solution? The brief solution? The solution that uses advanced notions? Or the simplest notions?

• How do we evaluate whether we have been successful at developing mathematical creativity?

4. HOW DO TECHNOLOGY, OTHER RESOURCES, AND THE ENVIRONMENT AFFECT THE MATHEMATICAL CREATIVITY OF THE STUDENT?

• Does the use of technology promote or inhibit students’ mathematical creativity?

• How might technology and other resources, including those outside the school setting, best be used?

• What environment best nurtures creativity? How does this environment differ from student to student, from grade to grade, from level to level, from subject area to subject area?

• How do these environments (or even the goals of these environments) vary in different cultures? Does ‘creativity’ mean the same thing in different social contexts? How is the creative individual viewed in different cultures?

• How do political contexts affect our work? How can we adapt to the constraints set up by our political situation? How can we influence the making of political decisions that affect us?

5. WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED AND WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

• Can we summarize our findings?

• Are there major suggestions for future research?

• Should we explore a permanent professional society? Should it include both mathematical creativity and mathematical giftedness, talent, or promise? What about mathematical challenge?

Participants and Papers

• Linda Sheffield, USA

sheffield@nku.edu

Promoting Creativity for All Students in Mathematics Education: Report of the DG 9

SESSION 1: WHAT IS MATHEMATICAL CREATIVITY AND WHICH MATHEMATICS STUDENTS CAN AND SHOULD BE CREATIVE?
HARTWIG MEISSNER and LINDA SHEFFIELD (coordinators)

• Dalia Aralas, UK

dalia.aralas@linacre.ox.ac.uk

Mathematical Creativity and Its Connection With Mathematical Imagination

• Younggi Choi and Jonghoon Do, Korea

yochoi@snu.ac.kr , djhn@dreamwiz.com

Research on the Characteristics of Mathematically Gifted Students in Korea

• Coralie Daniel, New Zealand

cdaniel@xnet.co.nz

Analogy and Metaphor

• Bradford Hansen-Smith, USA

wholemovement@sbcglobal.net

Wholemovement Approach to Creativity in Mathematics Education

• Djordje Kadijevich, Serbia

djkadijevic@megatrend-edu.net

Which Kind of Creativity May Be Attained by Most Students?

• István Lénárt, Hungary

h12572len@helka.iif.hu

Gifted and Non-gifted Students and Teachers

• Hartwig Meissner, Germany

meissne@uni-muenster.de

Intuitive-Creative-Gifted-Logical: An Analysis for the Discussion Group DG 9 at ICME 11

• Eugenia Meletea, Greece

evmeletea@med.uoa.gr

Creating Common Languages in Pedagogy: Mental Models and Structural Niches in Approaching Concepts for the Harmonic Development of Gifted Talented Students

• Fayez Mina, Egypt

fmmina@link.com.eg

Promoting Creativity for All Students in Mathematics Education

• Iliana Tsvetkova, Bulgaria

iliana_tzvetkova@yahoo.com

Preparing Students for Team Competitions in Mathematics – Possibility to Work with All Students

SESSION 2. WHAT IS THE ROLE OF THE TEACHER AND OTHERS IN RECOGNIZING AND PROMOTING MATHEMATICAL CREATIVITY? WHAT IS THE GOAL IN DOING THIS?

FOONG PUI YEE (coordinator)

• Oscar João Abdounur, Brazil

abdounur@ime.usp.br

An Exhibition as a Tool to Approach Didactical and Historical Aspects of The Relationship Between Mathematics and Music

• Aida Maria Torres Alfonso and Dámasa Martínez Martínez, Cuba

aida@uclv.edu.cu , damasa@uclv.edu.cu

Developing the Understanding by Means of a Didactic Model That Favors the Mathematical Creativity

• Kim Beswick, Australia

Kim.Beswick@utas.edu.au

Fostering Creativity by Establishing the Conditions for Complex Emergence

• Pui Yee Foong, Singapore

puiyee.foong@nie.edu.sg

Teachers’ Conceptions of Mathematical Creativity

• Hagar Gal, Esther Levenson, Bruria Shayshon, Bertha Tesler, Tzippi Eyal, Naomi Prusak and Shmuel Berger, Israel

hagarg@dyellin.ac.il

From One End to the Other: Raising Teachers’ Awareness of Mathematically – Talented Students in Mixed – Ability Classes

• Ronnie Karsenty and Alex Friedlander, Israel

Ronnie.Karsenty@weizmann.ac.il , Ntfried@wisemail.weizmann.ac.il

Teaching the Mathematically Gifted: A Professional Development Course

• Richard Millman and Tim Jacobbe, USA

millman@ms.uky.edu , jacobbe@coe.uky.edu

Fostering Creativity in Preservice Teachers through Mathematical Habits of the Mind

• Gladys Ong, Singapore

ong_li_ching_gladys@moe.edu.sg

Promoting Creativity for All Students in Mathematics Education: Cultivating the Habits of Persisting and Thinking Interdependently

• Poh Yew Teoh, Malaysia

teohpy@tm.net.my

Developing Mathematical Creativity by Forcing Connections

• Nataliya Toncheva, Bulgaria

natalia_1@abv.bg

Reflexive Approach and Creativity

SESSION 3. HOW MIGHT MATHEMATICAL PROBLEMS BE USED TO DEVELOP MATHEMATICAL CREATIVITY? HOW MIGHT MATHEMATICAL CREATIVITY BE ASSESSED? HOW DO WE EVALUATE OUR SUCCESS IN DEVELOPING MATHEMATICAL CREATIVITY IN ALL STUDENTS?

KIM SOO HWAN and EMILIYA VELIKOVA

• Svetoslav Bilchev, Bulgaria

slavy@ami.ru.acad.bg

Affection the Mathematical Creativity of the Students with Complexes of Examples of Good Practice

• Chan Chun Ming Eric, Singapore

eric.chan@nie.edu.sg

The Use of Mathematical Modeling Tasks to Develop Creativity

• Andrejs Cibulis and Gunta Lāce, Latvia

Andrejs.Cibulis@mii.lu.lv , gunta.lace@lu.lv

The Experience of Development of Pupils’ Creativity in Latvia

• José Quintín Cuador Gil, Cuba

cuador@info.upr.edu.cu

Promoting Mathematical Creativity Using Geostatistics for Engineering Students in Geosciences Fields

• Fong Kok Hoong, Singapore

fong_kok_hoong@moe.edu.sg

Promoting Mathematical Creativity for All Students with Creative Assessment

• Valentina Gogovska and Risto Malcevski, F.Y.R.O.M.

valet@iunona.pmf.ukim.edu.mk , rmalcheski@yahoo.com

Counter-Examples in Lecturing Mathematics

• Graham Hall, UK

g.hall@meirion-dwyfor.ac.uk

Creativity in Mathematics Through Analysis of Ill-Defined Problems

• Derek Holton, New Zealand

An Example of Creativity

• Kim Soo Hwan , Korea

soohwan@sugok.cje.ac.kr

What is Creative Problem Solving in Mathematics?

• Yuwen Li, China

lyw_534@163.com

Open Mind Questions and Creativity Education in Mathematics

• Grupo MUSA.E1, Coordinators: Jesús Hernando Pérez and Reinaldo Núñez, Columbia

reinaldo.nunez@usa.edu.co

Creativity and Elementary Mathematical Theories

• Ilya Sinitsky, Israel

sinitzsk@gordon.ac.il

Both for Teachers and Students: On Some Essential Features of Creativity-Stimulating Activities

• Teresa Swirski, Leigh Wood, Georgina Carmody and Stephen Godfrey, Australia

anna.swirski@students.mq.edu.au , lwood@efs.mq.edu.au ,

georgina.carmody@uts.edu.au , Stephen.godfrey@student.uts.edu.au

Creativity in University Mathematics Assessment

• Nairi M. Sedrakyan, Armenia

gagri@yerphi.am

The Book of “Geometrical Inequalities” as a Collection of the Creative Work of the Students

SESSION 4: HOW DO TECHNOLOGY, OTHER RESOURCES, AND THE ENVIRONMENT AFFECT THE MATHEMATICAL CREATIVITY OF THE STUDENT?

EMILIYA VELIKOVA (coordinator)

• Dace Bonka and Agnis Andžāns, Latvia

guntala@lanet.lv , agnis@lanet.lv

First Little Steps on a God-Knows-How Long Route

• Homero Flores, Mexico

ahfs58@yahoo.com.mx

Learning Mathematics, Doing Mathematics: Creativity in the Classroom

• Sholy Johny, Uganda

johnypkfish@yahoo.co.in

Effect of Some Environmental Factors on Mathematical Creativity of Secondary Students of Kerala (India)

• Kyoko Kakihana, Chieko Fukuda and Shin Watanabe, Japan

kakihana@tsukuba-g.ac.jp

Stimulating Students’ Creativity in an Integrated Learning Environment With Technology

• Hans-Stefan Siller, Austria

Hans-Stefan.Siller@sbg.ac.at

Functional Modeling – A Creative Way in Modeling

• Emiliya Velikova, Bulgaria

emily@ami.ru.acad.bg

Promoting Creativity for All Students – Educational Technology and Multimedia Usage

• Shin Watanabe, Japan

Where Is the Creative Activity on the Mathematical Education?

• Wolfgang Windsteiger, Austria

Wolfgang.Windsteiger@risc.uni-linz.ac.at

Stimulating Students’ Creativity Through Computer-Supported Experiments and Automated Theorem Proving

• Otto Wurnig, Austria

adyotto.wurnig@aon.at
Some Problem Solving Examples of Multiple Solutions Using CAS and DGS

SESSION 5: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED AND WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

LINDA SHEFFIELD (coordinator)

• Linda Sheffield, USA

sheffield@nku.edu

Promoting Creativity for All Students in Mathematics Education: An Overview

New participants
• Mark Saul , Templeton Foundation, USA

marksaul@earthlink.net

• Carlos López Leiva, University of Illinois at Chicago, USA

clopez@uic.edu

• Jong Sool Choi, Korea Science Academy, Korea

choijon@pusan.ac.kr

• Ycung Han Choe, Korea Society of Mathematics Education, Korea

yhchoe1940@yahoo.co.kr

• Andra Araya, University of Costa Rica, Costa Rica

andraaraya@hotmail.com

• Knut Ole Lysoe, Norway

knut.lyso@hist.no

• Floria Arias, University of Costa Rica, Costa Rica

ucrma0125@gmail.com

• Valeria Pandelieva, University of Ottawa, Canada

valeria.pandelieva@sympatico.ca

• Kyung Hoja Lee, Korean National University of Education, Korea

khmath@knue.ac.kr

• Florenda Gallos Cronberg, NISMED, University of Philippines, Philippines

flor@trulscronberg.com

• Piet van Blokland , Vrue Universiteit

ppvanblokland@gmail.com

• Yosike Tsujiyawa , Tsakuba University, Japan

yosket23@yahoo.co.jp

• Mairead Greene, Rockhurst University, USA

mairead.greene@rockhurst.edu

• Paul Goldenberg, Education Development Center, Bostan, USA

pgoldenberg@edc.org

• Miriam Amit , Ben-Gurion University, Israel

amit@bgu.ac.il

• Boris Koichu , TECHNION – Israel Institute of Technology, Israel

bkoichu@technion.ac.il

• Thierry Dana-Picard , Jerusalem College of Technology, Israel

dana@jct.ac.il

• Margareta Oscarsson , Department of Education, Stockholm, Sweeden

margareta.oscarsson@utbilding.stockholm.se

• Harvey Keyness , Math-University of Minnesota, USA

keynes@math.umn.edu

• Fatemeh Baradaran Ghandi , Masomeh School, Istfahan, Iran

mohammad88@yahoo.com

• Leily Hatamgadeh , Isfahan Mathematics House, Istfahan, Iran

lhatamzadeh80@yahoo.com

• Ali Rejali , Isfahan University of Technology, Istfahan, Iran

a_rejali@cc.iut.ac.ir

• Daud Mamiy , School of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Adyghe State University, Russia

dmami@yandex.ru

• Kwon Oh Nam, Seoul National University, Korea

onkwon@snu.ac.kr

• Viktor Freiman , University of Moncton, Canada

viktor.freiman@umoncton.ca

• Anthony Gardiner , University of Birmingham, United Kingdom

A.D.Gardiner@bham.ac.uk

Activities and organzation

Main Room: Polivalente Auditorium, Architecture Building F

Monday, July 7, 16.30-18.30

Wednesady, July 9, 17.00-19.00

Saturday, July 12, 15.00-16.30

• The beginning of the first session will be devoted to a short introduction to the Discussion Group activities and a general comment, by the Discussion Group chairs, on the papers accepted for contribution to the Discussion Group 9.

• For each of the above Discussion Group issues, a sub-group may be organized. The members of a sub-group will discuss the questions raised and contributions from the authors of the accepted papers that are considered more relevant to the specific sub-group issues. The activities in each sub-group will be coordinated by a member of the Organizing Team.

• A short report from each sub-group will be presented in the final Discussion Group session.

How to join the DG 9?
Papers to be considered for DG 9 were due in January, 2008 and submissions are now closed. We encourage all interested participants to read the papers posted here and join us for a lively, informative discussion.

Those wishing to join the Discussing Group 9 are strongly encouraged to submit a brief one-page description of their interest and/or research on the questions on the topic of promoting creativity for all students in mathematics education. This should be received by each of the five members of the committee no later than and should specify the question or questions that will be addressed. No later than January 15, 2008 accepted participants should submit a paper between 1000 and 2000 words by e-mail attachment (See Example of Paper.doc). All papers will be published on the web site http://dg.icme11.org/tsg/show/10 and, possibly, in a hard copy, prepared by the University of Rousse, Bulgaria.

The organizing group expects to make its selection of participants no later than January 22, 2008. It is understood that a necessary condition for participation in the group and posting of any material is that the participant be a registered delegate to ICME 11.

No later than April 15, 2008, each author listed below should send a final copy of his or her paper ready to be posted on the website and included in a proceedings.

A set of fundamental questions was included here to provide a stimulus for the papers that have been submitted. It is not intended that these limit the areas of discussion. We hope that the questions and the papers give impetus to rich discussions during the conference and productive research and development of mathematical creativity for all following it

Papers and discussion documents

3_5_International_Organizing_Team (47.00 KB)

6_10_Preface_-_Aims_and_Focus_Questions (52.00 KB)

17_21_Content (95.00 KB)

22_Section_1 (31.00 KB)

23_32_Dalia_Aralas_UK (68.00 KB)

33_47_Younggi_Choi_and_Jonghoon_Do_Korea (230.00 KB)

48_55_Coralie_Daniel_New_Zealand (473.00 KB)

56_61_Bradford_Hansen-Smith_USA (50.00 KB)

62_68_Djordje_Kadijevich_Serbia (100.00 KB)

69_79_Istvan_Lenart_Hungary (617.00 KB)

80_88_Hartwig_Meissner_Germany (66.00 KB)

89_96_Eugenia_Meletea_Greece (118.00 KB)

97_103_Fayez_Mina_Egypt (59.00 KB)

104_110_Iliana_Tsvetkova_Bulgaria (88.00 KB)

111_Section_2 (38.00 KB)

112_119_Oscar_Joao_Abdounur_Brazil (61.00 KB)

120_126_Aida_Maria_Torres_Alfonso_and_Damasa_Martinez_Martinez_Cuba (59.00 KB)

127_132_Kim_Beswick_Australia (64.00 KB)

133_140_Foong_Pui_Yee_Singapore (69.00 KB)

141_149_Hagar_Gal_and_others_Israel (78.00 KB)

150_157_Ronnie_Karsenty_and_Alex_Friedlander_Israel (85.00 KB)

158_163_Richard_Millman_and_Tim_Jacobbe_USA (53.00 KB)

164_179_Gladys_Ong_Singapore (408.00 KB)

180_185_Poh_Yew_Teoh_Malaysia (114.00 KB)

186_193_Nataliya_Toncheva_Bulgaria (66.00 KB)

194_Section_3 (38.00 KB)

195_206_Svetoslav_Bilchev_Bulgaria (291.00 KB)

207_216_Chan_Chun_Ming_Eric_Singapore (82.00 KB)

217_223_Andrejs_Cibulis_and_Gunta_Lace_Latvia (101.00 KB)

224_229_Jose_Quintin_Cuador_Gil_Cuba (55.00 KB)

230_234_Fong_Kok_Hoong_Singapore (539.00 KB)

235_245_Valentina_Gogovska_and_Risto_Malcevski_Macedonia (230.00 KB)

246_254_Graham_Hall_UK (719.00 KB)

255_260_Derek_Holton_New_Zealand (63.00 KB)

261_267_Kim_Soo_Hwan_Korea (170.00 KB)

268_274_Yuwen_Li_China (125.00 KB)

275_278_Grupo_MUSA.E1_Columbia (52.00 KB)

279_287_Ilya_Sinitsky_Israel (69.00 KB)

288_294_Leigh_Wood_and_others_Australia (1.00 MB)

295_Section_4 (41.00 KB)

296_302_Dace_Bonka_and_Agnis_Andzans_Latvia (68.00 KB)

303_307_Angel_Homero_Flores_Samaniego_Mexico (61.00 KB)

308_313_SholyJohny_Uganda (64.00 KB)

314_322_Kyoko_Kakihana_and_Chieko_Fukudaand_Shin_Watanabe_Japan (463.00 KB)

323_329_Hans-Stefan_Siller_Austria (149.00 KB)

330_344_Emiliya_Velikova_Bulgaria (2.00 MB)

345_350_Shin_Watanabe_Japan (946.00 KB)

351_357_Wolfgang_Windsteiger_Austria (366.00 KB)

358_367_Otto_Wurnig_Austria (1.00 MB)

368_Section_5 (37.00 KB)

369_381_Linda_Jensen_Sheffield_USA (86.00 KB)

11_12_Address_to_the_Participants_HRISTO_BELOEV__Rector (49.00 KB)

13_14_Address_to_the_Participants_MARCIS_AUZINS__Rector (177.00 KB)

15_16_Address_to_the_Participants_MARGARITA_TEODOSIEVA__Dean (70.00 KB)

382_392_Nairi_M._Sedrakyam_Armenia (425.00 KB)

393_395__Participant_List__DG_9__ICME_11 (125.00 KB)

Public perceptions and understanding of mathematics and mathematics education

Aims and focus
Discussion Groups (DGs) are designed to gather congress participants who are interested in discussing, in a genuinely interactive way, certain challenging or controversial issues and dilemmas – of a substantial, non-rhetorical nature – pertaining to the theme of the DG. Discussion Groups are expressly not about the presentation of research papers and therefore there are no oral presentations in a DG. However, as starting points for discussions the Organising Team is calling for written contributions that bring forward issues, problems, and challenges addressing one or more of the questions listed in the introduction.

After having been accepted, these contributions will be posted on the web page of DG 10 and will be referred to during the discussions at ICME 11.

The organisers welcome submissions of contributions related to all of the questions and issues raised in the introduction to DG 10.

In particular, the organisers encourage submissions of reports about successful work on increasing the public’s perceptions about the needs for good mathematics teaching; the success parameter being that the work has resulted in improved conditions for mathematics teaching and maybe even has led to changes in the mathematics curriculum for a community, a district, a state, or, even a whole nation. As another highly difficult challenge, we encourage submissions of contributions about specific cases of successful public outreach initiatives.

Websites related to the public’s perceptions of mathematics
Experiencing Mathematics—An International Exhibition supported by UNESCO

Culture Math—Ressources pour les enseignants de mathématiques

Figure This! Math Challenges for Families

European Research Consortium for Informatics and Mathematics, Mathematics Everywhere

Das Jahr der Mathematik. A German-language site in support of the Mathematical Year in Germany.

A list of additional resources on the public understanding of mathematics reported by the Math Forum

Math at Work. In construction, health care, aerospace, and manufacturing; brochures also available at no charge from Achieve, a policy organization focused on standards, accountability and support for American states raising their academic standards

“We all use math everyday.” A collection of high-quality mathematics activities to accompany episodes of the successful United States television program “NUMB3RS,” a drama about a mathematician who helps his FBI brother to solve crimes.

Other resources
The Mathematical Association of America (MAA) has published two reports (including a position statement in the first) on the need for quantitative literacy among the broad population. These reports are available for download by chapter without restriction or fees at the MAA site in pdf format as follows:

Mathematics and Democracy (2001)

The 2003 sequel: Quantitative Literacy: Why Literacy Matters for Schools and Colleges

Dimensions: Une Promenade Mathématique

Dandelin Spheres—a case of three planes and a cone

The following two videos of old American movies show interesting (and incorrect) computational algorithms, demonstrating the kind of public entertainment that create confusion, while being accepted as everyday entertainment:

Ma and Pa Kettle with a different algorithm to solve a percent problem

Abbott and Costello with a different algorithm to solve a division problem

Papers and discussion documents

Jozef Hvorecký and Lenni Haapasalo, Managerial Perspective to Mathematics Education Research [article] (141.00 KB)

Jozef Hvorecký and Lenni Haapasalo, Managerial Perspective to Mathematics Education Research [PowerPoint presentation] (2.00 MB)

Christiane Rousseau [PowerPoint presentation] (2.00 MB)

Websites related to the public’s perceptions of mathematics, and other resources (45.00 KB)

NCTM Past President’s Message: Johnny Lott: Students, Families, Communities, and Mathematics Teachers (53.00 KB)

NCTM President's Message: Cathy L. Seeley: Untapped Potential (28.00 KB)

NCTM President's Message: Cathy L. Seeley: A Flattening World (50.00 KB)

Quality and relevance in mathematics education research

How to Participate
Discussion Groups are expressly not about the presentation of research papers. However, as starting points for discussions the OT is calling for written contributions that bring forward issues, problems, and challenges addressing one or more of the questions listed above. After having been accepted, these contributions will be posted on the web page of DG11 and will be referred to during the discussions at ICME11. It is envisioned that some contributions, as a result of work in the group, may be developed into papers that provide new perspectives on quality and relevance in mathematics education research. Other written contributions will have a different aim and form – this will not be decisive for acceptance.

Contributors are expected to participate in all the sessions of the Discussion Group, together with others who are interested in the theme but have not entered a written contribution. Efforts will be made to minimize language difficulties during the discussions. The OT welcomes contributions and participants with different cultural backgrounds and with different kinds of relationship to mathematics education research (researchers, practitioners, policy-makers, etc.). The written contributions should include the following information:

. the author(s) names and location (town and country, school, or establishment) and contact details; . an indication as to which of the DG11 questions are addressed; . a brief description of the context and setting of the particular issue, problem, or challenge (contributors should not assume readers will be familiar with the structure and context of schooling, the provision of mathematics education in the country concerned, or the context within which research is conducted); . a description of the particular issue, problem, or challenge from a practical and/or theoretical perspective (include specific examples and/or sample evidence to help illustrate and/or quantify the particular issues/experiences involved where relevant).

The written contribution should be no more than 4 pages (A4 please) in length using 12-point font, single spaced, with 2 cm margins, and should be submitted electronically to both DG11 co-chairs (objorkqv@abo.fi and lester@indiana.edu).

THE NEW DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION IS 7 MARCH 2008.

Timeline:

By the end of March 2008 – Information about acceptance will be sent to contributors who will be asked to prepare an extended version of their text (6 pages maximum) by the end of April 2008.

By the 20 April 2008 – The OT will prepare and publish an organising framework for the operation of DG11 based on the extended contributions received. At this stage we envision devoting the first 2 sessions to small group discussions after a brief introduction to the key issues by members of the OT. For the final session (1 hour only) the OT is considering the possibility of a more formal report back session to share general observations and possibly produce a short communiqué.

Papers and discussion documents

The papers will soon be available for downloading here.

Rethinking doctoral programs in mathematics education

Aims and focus
Discussion group 12 in ICME11 Rethinking doctoral programs in mathematics education

The discussion group will deal with three overarching themes, one in each of the three sessions. Each session will have a short introduction, where background and frameworks are presented. Participants will then work in small groups and discuss a set of more elaborated issues and questions under each theme. Session 1 will focus on The Goals and Processes of Doctoral Programs in Mathematics Education, Session 2 will focus on Participants of doctoral programs and session 3 on A vision for doctoral programs in mathematics education. Questions will include 1) What are the goals of different programs? 2) Who are the participants and 3) Is there a central core of knowledge that doctorates in mathematics education possess?

Session 1, coordinator Peter Sullivan

The Goals and Processes of Doctoral Programs in Mathematics Education This component of DG 12 will facilitate sharing of approaches to doctoral education in mathematics education across in various countries. It will be analogous to the TIMSS lesson study approach, with the focus being doctoral programs, and the researchers being participants in the DG. This comparison of approaches aims to: - increase understanding of the diversity of goals and processes for doctoral study in mathematics education; - allow reflection on common elements of the doctoral programs, and critical consideration of features that differ; - facilitate identification of the best features of various programs and support participants in reviewing their own approaches; and - provide commonality of understandings that will provide the background for sessions 2 and 3 of this DG. A range of perspectives on the focus questions below will be sought. We welcome participants from all countries. All participants will be invited to prepare, in advance, written responses to the following questions. The following are some focus questions, with some indicative issues that could be addressed): What are the goals for doctoral programs in your University? (e.g., is priority given to candidates learning to research, contributing to new knowledge, being inducted to academician?) Are particular perspectives privileged on the nature of knowledge, argument, theory, and methodology? (e.g., are some methods favoured over others, are there cultural perspectives on what constitutes evidence?) What are the expectations for candidates’ background for entry to doctoral programs? (e.g., what mathematics studies are expected, what practical education experience is required, are there pre-requisites for prior research?) What is the content, and what is the demand for coursework? (e.g., are coursework studies core, and if so what are they, are they elective, if so from what range of courses?) What are the expectations for supervision, of both the supervisor(s) and the candidate? (e.g., how many times would the supervisor(s) read Chapter x, how many minutes would supervisors meet with full time students each month?) What are the requirements for the thesis? (e.g., what is the word length, are there specifications for quality, are there alternatives to a thesis, what is the minimum full time equivalent time for study?) What is the process for examination, and what guidelines are given to examiners? (e.g., is there a viva presentation, can examiners confer, is it possible to “fail”?) To what extent is professional and practical knowledge valued? (e.g., are curriculum or resources development projects considered as an alternative to conventional research?) Are there differences between mathematics education and other education theses, and other doctoral theses? (e.g., are students directed to a particular topic or can they choose, do requirements for entry vary between programs?) What are the expectations for candidatures to participate in the life of the Faculty and University? (e.g., are their expectations for tutoring, attendance at non required seminars, mentoring of other candidates?) It is noted that goals and processes vary between institutions, and we are only asking participants to report for their University, not their country The co-ordinator of the session, Peter Sullivan, will analyse and synthesise some of the responses for the first session, and Barbro Grevholm will synthesis others for the second session.

Session 2, coordinator Barbro Grevholm

Participants of doctoral programs in mathematics education

In this session we will focus the people who participate in the programs, the doctoral students, the supervisors and teachers of doctoral courses. What academic and professional backgrounds should individuals admitted to graduate studies aiming at mathematics education research have? - What is the case today and how could it be changed? - What kinds of problems are linked to recruitment of doctoral students? - What influence do the backgrounds have on the outcome of the education?

The doctoral student’s ability to write is crucial for success. How can this ability be developed systematically during the program?

Doctoral students often come with ideas about what to do research on. The choice of research problem is crucial, its limitations and precision is an important and difficult process. The importance of having a burning interest for what you are investigating is often critical for the doctoral student. What experiences do we have about these issues?

How can we define new areas for research internationally? Is there any common consensus about these new areas? How do we ensure that the research problems doctoral students choose are relevant for mathematics teaching and learning in school or other educational institutions? What research problems are supervisors prepared to work with?

Do we have any experience from systematic exchange programmes for doctoral students? How can such programs be built up?

How are supervisors educated and how can they develop their skills? What education for supervisors do we know about? What are the demands for supervisors in order to be accepted as such?

What do we know about the subtle relation and work between student and supervisor? What degree of freedom do doctorates have in choosing a supervisor for their degree? What variables influence them to choose their supervisor? If there is any barrier of lack of freedom in making the decision to have her/his supervisor, what is it that caused that to happen?

What is the role of supervision and how do we offer competence development for the supervisors? What are the responsibilities of the supervisor?

Session 3, coordinator Robert Reys

A vision for doctoral programs in mathematics education

Background Doctoral programs in mathematics education vary greatly within and across countries. Some doctoral programs require K-12 teaching experience prior to admission. Others require collegiate teaching experience. Still others require no prior teaching experience. Some institutions require full-time residence for multiple years in order to complete a degree, other programs can be done on a part-time basis and a doctorate be completed while working full-time in another position. Programs also vary greatly in the range and depth of mathematics content required, as well as the manner in which research competence is acquired. Some view this diversity in programs as a strength, others as an area of concern. It certainly raises at least one important question: Is there a central core of knowledge/experiences that doctorates in mathematics education possess? An equally important question is: Should there be a common core of knowledge for graduates with doctorates in mathematics education. That is, when someone says they have a doctorate in mathematic education, what is reasonable to assume about the knowledge they possess with respect to mathematics education.

If the answer to this question “Is there a central core of knowledge that doctorates in mathematics education possess?” is Yes, then several natural questions follow, including: What should constitute this common core of knowledge? Who should decide what constitutes this common core? How should it be delivered? How should competence in mathematics education be assessed? Should there be an accreditation of doctoral programs in mathematics education?

One could argue that answers to these questions would provide useful guidance to doctoral granting institution. Others may argue that such information would be too prescriptive, and therefore run the risk of curtailing creativity and uniqueness currently associated with doctoral programs in mathematics education.

One vision for the future A vision for the future is that doctoral programs in mathematics education become more convergent. Does this mean that all doctoral programs in mathematics education would be alike? No, definitely not. Such convergence does not exclude interdisciplinary experiences, but it would insure that doctorates in mathematics education would share a common core of knowledge. Unless a common core of knowledge exists, it is hard to justify mathematics education as a discipline of study.

The Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators developed a document entitled Principles to Guide the Design and Implementation of Doctoral Programs in Mathematics Education that included the identification of core knowledge areas. At the least this effort provides some talking points regarding a ‘common core of knowledge’. If there is agreement that some refinement of this type of effort would be of value internationally, then perhaps some plans could be made to move at ICME-12 in that direction.

The organising team of DG12 is considering the opportunities to produce a pre-ICME11 booklet if we get written contributions to our invitation above that are good enough to be published as a working material. Please follow the development here.

Everybody interested in active participation in the work of DG12 is kindly asked to send in the abstract of her/his possible communication in the amount of one page, containing also the name, affiliation, e-mail address and 3-5 key words. The abstract must give clear understanding about what the author wants to discuss and what are the most important conclusions he has come to. Each member of the organizing team should receive it no later than March 1st, 2008. Until April 1st the authors of accepted contributions will be informed about acceptance and asked to send in the full paper in the amount of 1000-2000 words until May 1st.

News, 20080415 There will be written contributions to the work in DG12 from the following persons: Agnis Andzans Sang Sook Choi-Koh Barbro Grevholm Vena M. Long Robert Mayes Michaela Regecov Robert Reys Filippo Spagnolo Peter Sullivan

These papers will be available on this webpage soon after the 1st of May 2008. Any other interested contributors are asked to contact Barbro Grevholm or Peter Sullivan.

For DG12 a booklet has been produced and printed. This booklet will be available at the sessions of DG12. It is also available for anyone who wants do download it from this web page. See files below. It contains the programme of DG12 and all written contributions to the discussion group. We want to express our sincere thanks to Professor Agnis Andzans and Dr Dace Bonka and the University of Latvia for the work with the production of this booklet.

Papers and discussion documents

Paper by Bob Reys (41.00 KB)

Paper by Vena Long (164.00 KB)

Paper by Robert Mayes et al (101.00 KB)

Paper by A. Andzans & L. Ramana (57.00 KB)

Paper by Michaela Regecova (34.00 KB)

Paper by Sang Sook Choi-Koh (132.00 KB)

Paper by Peter Sullivan (75.00 KB)

Paper by Barbro Grevholm (117.00 KB)

Paper by Filippo Spagnolo (66.00 KB)

DG12 booklet cover page (702.00 KB)

DG12 booklet text (94 pages) (596.00 KB)

Challenges posed by different perspectives, positions, and approaches in mathematics education research

Aims and focus
Challenges and possibilities posed by different perspectives and theoretical approaches in mathematics education research

The large diversity of different perspectives and theoretical approaches in the mathematics education research community has often been described. It poses challenges for international communication, for the integration of empirical results into a bigger corpus of scientific knowledge and in the long run for a cumulative and joint progress in the research field.

On the other hand, the diversity of different perspectives is unavoidable due to very different traditions and focuses. Even stronger, some researchers (including the organizing team) consider it to be a rich resource that enables researchers to grasp the complexity of the research objects. The discussion group focuses not only on challenges, but also on possible strategies for connecting perspectives for a better understanding of complex phenomena in mathematics teaching and learning.

In order to avoid a too abstract discussion without concrete basis, we will refer to concrete research projects in the field of mathematics teaching and learning (most preferably, but not only with a special attention paid to ICT, i.e. Information and Communications Technology, its design and use):

- How are different perspectives and theoretical approaches reflected in concrete research practices? (Exemplify the expression of different theories on research practices);

- Where has the diversity of perspectives and theoretical approaches been used as a resource for a better understanding of complex phenomena? (exemplify the use different perspectives for understanding empirical phenomena);

- What strategies can be used to connect different perspectives and approaches in concrete research projects? (connect different theories for their development)? How can different theoretical approaches learn from each other?

Agenda after ICME
For the participants!

Thanks for participating to DG13 sessions! You could find below some documents related to our work. Do not hesitate to react by sending email to the co-chairs of the DG!

For the OT members

- end of August, making available the data (video, transcript, translation) on the website;

- end of September, sending his/her own analysis, from his/her own theoretical perspective;

- end of November, frame with meta-theoretical perspectives;

- end of December, frame of a paper.

Papers and discussion documents

Text from Teresa Rojano for first session (152.00 KB)

Text from Jana Trgalova fro third session (75.00 KB)

Slides presented during the three sessions (7.00 MB)

International comparisons in mathematics education

Papers and discussion documents

Call for papers (19.00 KB)

ICMEDG14-AndrewsandSayers (126.00 KB)

ICMEDG14-Leungetal (110.00 KB)

ICMEDG14-Lingefjaerd (50.00 KB)

ICMEDG14-Roane (69.00 KB)

ICMEDG14-WangLin (130.00 KB)

ICMEDG14-Wongetal (105.00 KB)

ICMEDG14-ClarkeandShimizu (163.00 KB)

ICMEDG14-Sorto (170.00 KB)

ICMEDG14-GrovesandDoig (63.00 KB)

ICMEDG14-Schwarz_et_al (220.00 KB)

The shaping of mathematics education through assessment and testing

Call for papers :
Discussion group 15 will address the following key questions and issues:

– Are current assessment and testing modes and instruments compatible with today’s goals and aims of mathematics education?

– How do these modes and instruments influence the teaching and learning of mathematics?

– How does the use of ICT influence the teaching and learning of mathematics?

- How much is too much in assessment and testing?

- Do the costs of testing match the positive results?

- What is the balance of positive and negative outcomes of testing?

- How can assessment and testing be devised and organised so as to serve as means to develop and strengthen the teaching and learning of mathematics?

- What are the barriers to the adoption of innovative modes of assessment and testing?

The organizers of Discussion Group 15 welcome submission of contributions related to questions. In preparing your paper, please use the following guidelines:

1. Include a cover page with the first author’s contact information (for communication purposes)

2. The maximum length of a paper is 3 pages including any references

3. Deadline for submission is January 31, 2008

These abstracts should be submitted electronically to both DG15 co-chairs:

Fumi Ginshima < ginshima@nier.go.jp>

Gunnar Gjone < gunnar.gjone@ils.uio.no>

Preliminary schedule

■ Three Discussion sessions are scheduled as follows:

・Discussion 1: Monday, 7 17:00-19:00

・Discussion 2: Wednesday, 9 17:30-19:30

・Discussion 3: Saturday, 12 15:00-16:00

■ Preliminary schedule:

□ Discussion 1: Monday, 7 17:00-19:00

1-1) Introduction

1-2) The framework of discussion

1-3) Short presentation by Dr. Gunnar : using technology in written exams

1-4) Short presentation by Dr. Issic : impact of web-based assessment exercise

1-5) Short presentation by Dr. Hak : assessment of students’ performance

1-6) Short presentation by Dr. Ginshima : the role of national achievement test

1-7) Spare time for presentation for someone

1-8) discussion—

Q. How does the use of ICT influence the teaching and learning of mathematics?

Q. How do these modes and instruments influence the teaching and learning of mathematics?

Q. Are current assessment and testing modes and instruments compatible with today’s goals and aims of mathematics education?

… , etc.

□　Discussion 2: Wednesday, 9 17:30-19:30

2-1) Short presentation by Dr. Arne : portfolio as a learning strategy and a tool for assessment

2-2) Short presentation by Dr. Wang : assessment standard and methods

2-3) Short presentation by Dr. Sue : using assessment to improve math methods courses

2-4) Spare time for presentation for someone

2-5) discussion—

Q. How can assessment and testing be devised and organised so as to serve as means to develop and strengthen the teaching and learning of mathematics?

Q. How much is too much in assessment and testing?

Q. What is the balance of positive and negative outcomes of testing?

… , etc.

□　Discussion 3: Saturday, 12 15:00-16:00

3-1) discussion

3-2) summarize the discussion

Papers and discussion documents

Paper by Wang Xiong (140.00 KB)

Paper by Sue Brown (55.00 KB)

Paper by Hak Ping Tam (40.00 KB)

Paper by Arne Mogensen (197.00 KB)

Paper by Issic Leung (99.00 KB)

The evaluation of mathematics teachers and curricula within educational systems

Aims and Focus
Discussion Group 16 will focus on both the evaluation of mathematics curricula and the evaluation of mathematics teachers within educational systems. For a brief introduction to each of these areas please see the framing documents in the papers and discussion section below.

Call for Papers
As Team Chairs for Discussion Group, 16 we are pleased to post this request for discussion papers that are prepared addressing our topic:

The evaluation of mathematics teachers and curricula within educational systems.

We are interested in papers that articulate issues or dilemmas that will help set the context for our discussions. A writer may choose to focus on the evaluation of mathematics teachers or mathematics curriculum or both. The team will be looking for a range of contexts or perspectives. We expect to post 7 to 10 papers on the ICME website so that participants can read these in advanced preparation for our discussion group work. The following questions are meant to prompt your thinking.

How do current requirements for increased accountability in education, and the ensuing trends of widespread evaluation of teachers, curricula, and systems, influence the teaching and learning of mathematics, as well as teachers and learners? What forms of such evaluation can further and accelerate the development of mathematics education rather than distort it?
Specific goals for the discussion at the Conference are:

To push our collective thinking about these issues

To develop key questions that would move the field forward in the evaluation of teachers and curriculum in the context of mathematics. These may take the form of researchable questions to encourage cross context and country collaboration.

Manuscript Preparation
In preparing your paper, please use the following guidelines:

Include a cover page with the first author’s contact information (for communication purposes)

The maximum length of a paper is 3 pages including any references

Deadline for submission is January 31, 2008

Manuscript Submission

To enable editing, submit your manuscripts in Word to: Lorraine Males, maleslor@msu.edu

Each manuscript will be reviewed by the members of the DG team in order to choose a set of papers that articulate the important issues and examples that will inform our discussion. These will be posted on the ICME-11 website so that participants may read these in advance of the meeting.

Our intention is to inform authors whose papers have been chosen and post the selected papers by March 30, 2008.

Your interest in and contribution to this discussion group’s work is greatly appreciated. Sincerely,

Glenda Lappan Michigan State University, USA

Barbara Clarke Monash University, Australia

Papers and discussion documents

Framing Document - The Evaluation of Curricula (273.00 KB)

Framing Document - The Evaluation of Teachers - COMING SOON! (2.00 KB)

Manizade - Developing Rubrics & Measures for Evaluation of Mathematics Teachers Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Geometry & Measurement at the Lower Secondary Level: Delphi Study (127.00 KB)

Wang - An Assessment Method of Mathematical Classroom Teaching for Senior High Schools (206.00 KB)

Poblete & Diaz - The Evaluation of the Professor of Mathematics and Quality of Education (164.00 KB)

Diaz & Poblete - The Evaluation of Mathematics Learning in Context (114.00 KB)

Discussion groups

Curriculum reform: movements, processes and policies

Aims and focus

Call for papers

Papers and discussion documents

The relationship between research and practice in mathematics education

Aims and focus

Papers and discussion documents

Mathematics education: for what and why?

Aims and focus

Papers and discussion documents

Reconceptualizing the mathematics curriculum

Aims and focus

Related Readings

Papers and discussion documents

The role of philosophy in mathematics education

Aims and focus

Call for contributions: Please send your contribution no later than January 20th!

Agenda

Papers and discussion documents

The nature and roles of international cooperation in mathematics education

Aims and focus

Papers and discussion documents

Dilemmas and controversies in the education of mathematics teachers

Aims and focus

Schedule for the sessions

Papers and discussion documents

The role of mathematics in access to tertiary education

Main questions

Call for contributions

Papers and discussion documents

Promoting Creativity for All Students in Mathematics Education

Addresses to the Participants

Aims and focus

Participants and Papers

New participants

Activities and organzation

How to join the DG 9?

Papers and discussion documents

Public perceptions and understanding of mathematics and mathematics education

Aims and focus

Websites related to the public’s perceptions of mathematics

Other resources

Papers and discussion documents

Quality and relevance in mathematics education research

How to Participate

Papers and discussion documents

Rethinking doctoral programs in mathematics education

Aims and focus

Papers and discussion documents

Challenges posed by different perspectives, positions, and approaches in mathematics education research

Aims and focus

Agenda after ICME

Papers and discussion documents

International comparisons in mathematics education

Papers and discussion documents

The shaping of mathematics education through assessment and testing

Call for papers :

Preliminary schedule

Papers and discussion documents

The evaluation of mathematics teachers and curricula within educational systems

Aims and Focus

Call for Papers

Papers and discussion documents