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)
"New Ideas" in Elementary Mathematics in China - Tianxiao Zhang (502.00 KB)
Portuguese Mathematics Curriculum Changes (293.00 KB)
DG4 Discussion Notes (21.00 KB)
DG4 members (292.00 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

>THE PAPERS OF 62 PARTICIPANTS FROM 25 COUNTRIES ARE INCLUDED IN THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DG 9

The proceedings of the DG 9 ware published through the generous support of:

• the University of Rousse, Bulgaria, www.ru.acad.bg

• the University of Latvia, Riga, Latvia, www.lu.lv

• the Faculty of Natural Sciences and Education of the University of Rousse, Bulgaria.www.ru.acad.bg

Editors: Emiliya Velikova and Agnis Andžāns

• 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, Sweden

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)

The changing nature and roles of mathematics textbooks: form, use, access

Aims and focus and discussion plan:
The aim of this discussion group is to steer discussion around the nature and role of textbooks. From the nine papers accepted for discussion it is apparent that the key issues that will guide the deliberations during the sessions are:

• The role of textbooks

• How do authors represent mathematical knowledge

• Teachers’ use of textbooks

• Evaluation of textbooks and mathematical tasks in textbooks

• Developing quality textbooks

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 and every participant’s contribution will be welcomed. We hope all those coming to the discussion will share generously their knowledge and experience.

First Session (Plenary – 2 hrs)

During this session we will focus our discussion on:

• The role of textbooks

• How do authors represent mathematical knowledge

For the discussion to be fruitful, we hope all participants will read papers 4, 8 and 9 before the session.

Second Session (Sub-groups – 2 hrs)

During this session we will form two groups. The first group will discuss:

• Teachers’ use of textbooks

Please read papers 2, 3 and 7 if you plan to contribute to this group.

The second group will discuss:

• Evaluation of textbooks and mathematical tasks in textbooks

• Developing quality textbooks

Please read papers 1, 5 and 6 if you plan to contribute to this group.

Each group will nominate a reporter and a recorder. The recorder will make notes of the proceedings of the group discussion while the reporter will share the proceedings with all members of the discussion group during the third and final session.

Third Session (Plenary – 1 hr)

During this session the reporters from the two sub-groups will present the proceedings of their respective groups. Each reporter will have 20 minutes to do so. The rest of the time will be used for a general discussion on related matters.

A brief of the papers follows:

Paper 1 – A methodology for evaluating middle-years mathematics textbooks by Mal Shield and Shelley Dole (Australia)

This paper describes a methodology developed by the authors for evaluating mathematics textbooks.

Paper 2 – Chinese teachers’ construction of their roles in developing curriculum by Li Jun (China)

This paper is about Chinese teachers who construct their own methods of engaging their students in learning mathematics despite the educational reforms and new methodologies presented via “new” textbooks.

Paper 3 – Pedagogical intent and practice by Ann Heirdsfield, Shelley Dole & Elizabeth Warren (Australia)

This paper is about a realistic situation in which the pedagogical intent of textbooks does not match the classroom practice of teachers using the textbooks.

Paper 4 – A multi-dimensional approach to understanding in mathematics textbooks developed by UCSMP by Denisse Thompson & Sharon Senk (United States)

This paper is about two features of textbooks written by the University of Chicago – SPUR perspective and CARE perspective

Paper 5 – ICE-EM mathematics schools project – development and first steps by Janine McIntosh (Australia)

This paper is about the process of developing textbooks by a national agency so as to improve the teaching and learning of mathematics in Australian schools.

Paper 6 – Mathematical Tasks in textbooks – Developing an analytical tool based on ‘connectivity’ by Bergit Pepin (United Kingdom)

This paper is about a framework against which mathematical tasks in textbooks may be benchmarked when analyzing textbooks.

Paper 7 – Too close, too far: mathematical knowledge and the knowledge of the textbook in geometry 6th and 7th EGB Year by Ibarra Lidia (Argentina)

This paper is about the manner in which textbook materials are used by teachers to help pupils construct their knowledge in geometry. Pupils appear not to have a copy of the textbook. They depend on whatever the teacher decides to Xerox and give them for work. There appears to be a lack of coherence in the construction of knowledge by the pupils resulting from (i) the way in which concepts are explained in the texts, (ii) the lack of the complete text, and (iii) poor knowledge of teachers and their inability to guide the pupils in learning concepts.

Paper 8 – Using situations in a more mathematical way by Guozhong Ding (China)

This paper is about how a change in the intended curriculum manifested by textbooks has brought about a change in pupils attitudes towards the learning of mathematics, but the mathematics classes have become less mathematical. Are too many real life factors diluting the mathematical taste and fascination for the subject? The author has some suggestions as to how real situations may be represented in deeper mathematical ways.

Paper 9 – The reforms and characteristics of Korean elementary mathematics textbooks by Bae Jong Soo, Sihn Hang Gyun, Park Do-yong & Park Mangoo (Korea)

This paper is about how educational reform has impacted Korean elementary mathematics textbooks for the better – learning of mathematics in the context of daily life.

Questions we might additionally discuss:
Other questions central to the discussion that we might want to discuss include:

• What do textbooks look like?

• Do textbooks reflect educational standards of specific national or international contexts?

• How do the authors represent mathematical knowledge?

• How does the interplay between educational values, conceptual understanding, and procedural fluency unfold in mathematics textbooks?

• What are the pedagogical intentions (implicit, or explicit) of textbooks?

• Does the incipient movement for wiki-based textbooks hold promise for better mathematics programs?

• What are the challenges in using new technologies to design and develop coherent educational materials?

• What impact do commercial publishers (good, bad, and neutral) have on the nature of mathematics learning in schools?

• To what extent does research inform the contents of textbooks?

• How are students, or teachers, expected to use the textbook?

• Is it a student or teacher book?

• Who has access to (which) textbooks in classrooms/schools?

• What does that mean in terms of learning opportunities for pupils?

Papers:
We have accepted nine papers. You can download them below. We wish to thank the authors for their work and valuable contributions to starting our discussion.

Papers and discussion documents

Paper 1-Shield & Dole (584.00 KB)

Paper 2-Lijun (125.00 KB)

Paper 3-Heirdsfield, Dole, Warren (82.00 KB)

Paper 4-Thompson & Senk (107.00 KB)

Paper 5-Mcintosh (77.00 KB)

Paper 6-Pepin (139.00 KB)

Paper 7-Ibarra (68.00 KB)

Paper 8-Ding (121.00 KB)

Paper 9-Bae, Sihn, Park, Park (1.00 MB)

The role of ethnomathematics in mathematics education

Call for Papers

The organizing team invites submissions of papers for Discussion Group 18: The Role of Ethnomathematics in Mathematics Education.
Please, write your paper with attention to one or more of the following questions:

What is ethnomathematics?

How is ethnomathematics related to mathematics, anthropology, or the politics of mathematics education?

What evidence is there, and how do we get more, that school programms incorporating ethnomathematical ideas succeed in achieving their aims for the mathematical education of learners and of their ethnomathematical aims?

What are the implications of existing ethnomathematical studies for mathematics and mathematics education?

What is the relationship between Ethnomathematics and Multicultural Mathematics and between Ethnomathematics and Social Aspects of Mathematics Education.

How have the developments in Indigenous knowledge throughout the world affected or influenced ethnomathematical research.

Ubi D’Ambrosio and his disciples advocate that Ethnomathematics offers opportunities for teaching and learning mathematics that promote a world agenda for increasing the prospects of peace and diminishing the prospects of war and conflict? To what extent does consensus exist for this perspective? Why?

Please send by email proposals to all members of the Organizing Team:

Marcos Cherinda (Mozambique), Team Chair, mCherinda@tvcabo.co.mz Rick Silverman (USA), Team Chair, flsilver@aol.com Edith Saiz (Mexico) colibrizquierdo@hotmail.com Darlinda Moreira (Portugal) darmore@univ-ab.pt Mogege Mosimege (South Africa) mogege.mosimege@nwu.ac.za

Organizing Team members will screen each proposal and notify authors of the decision to accept or not accept by _____ . Authors whose proposals accepted will submit their completed papers to Organizing Team member by _____ . The Organizing Team will upload each paper to the DG18 website for public access and specifically for the purpose of attendees to ICME 11 – DG18 to read and study them in advance to prepare for discussion at the time at DG18 convenes at ICME 11. Accepted papers will be published on the website of the conference and on a conference CD. Authors are encouraged to submit papers for review for possible publication in The Journal of Mathematics and Culture (http://www.ccd.rpi.edu/Eglash/nasgem/jmc/jmc.htm ).

Initial Schedule

Short outline/proposal (2 pages) — Dec 28, 2007 – Feb 8, 2008 Answer to the authors — Feb 29, 2008 Paper Submitted —April 14, 2008 Papers reviewed by the organizing team — May 16, 2008 Final paper submitted and posted on the DG18 website — May 30, 2008

Practical information

Length of proposal: 2 pages plus references – Length of final paper: 8 pages including references.

Papers and discussion documents

Basic information (307.00 KB)

A Discussion of Important Implications for Mathematics Learning in a Second Language and Second Cultural Environment. Dr. Joyce Fischer and Mr. Robert Perez. (79.00 KB)

Indigenous Papua New Guinea Knowledges Related to Volume and Mass. Kay Owens and Wilfred Kaleva. (792.00 KB)

Challenges and possibilities in mathematics education: ethnomathematics and indigenous education in focus. Kátia Cristina de Menezes Domingues. (128.00 KB)

THE ETHNOMATHEMATICAL APPROACH IN ADULT EDUCATION: PRESENTING TWO EXPERIENCES IN RIO DE JANEIRO. Maria Cecilia de Castello Branco Fantinato. (53.00 KB)

CONCEPTUALIZING ETHNOMATHEMATICS AS A BRIDGE BETWEEN PEACE AND CONFLICT: THE CASE OF CULTURAL ARTEFACTS. Kgomotso Gertrude Garegae. (73.00 KB)

Crossing Borders. Barbara Garii, Fredrick L. “Rick” Silverman and Jim Barta. (47.00 KB)

How is a Mayan Ethnomathematics Perspective Actualized Through Intercultural Dialogue? Dr. Faviana Hirsch-Dubin. (64.00 KB)

Ethnomathematics and the politics of mathematics education: reflections on a research-project developed with the Brazilian Landless Movement. Gelsa Knijnik. (56.00 KB)

USING ETHNOMATHEMATICAL IDEAS FOR DESIGNING AN INTERDISCIPLINARY PROJECT THROUGH A WEBQUEST. Charoula Stathopoulou and Pota Kotarinou. (305.00 KB)

ENHANCING CHILDREN’S FORMAL LEARNING OF EARLY NUMBER KNOWLEDGE THROUGH INDIGENOUS LANGUAGES AND ETHNOMATHEMATICS: THE CASE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA MATHEMATICS CURRICULUM REFORM EXPERIENCE. Rex A. S. MATANG. (198.00 KB)

The Role of Culturally-Based Mathematics in the General Mathematics Curriculum. A Case for Presenting Culturally-Based Mathematics Lessons to All Students. Chadd W. McGlone. (33.00 KB)

Explorations between ethnomathematics and anthropology in relation to mathematics education. Darlinda Moreira. (51.00 KB)

“Freedom Quilts”: An Ethnomathematical Way of Communication Towards Liberation. Milton Rosa. (90.00 KB)

Pop: The Ethnomathematics of Globalization Using the Sacred Mayan Mat Pattern. Milton Rosa and Daniel Clark Orey. (157.00 KB)

ETHNOMATHEMATICS LOOKS BACK AND LOOKS FORWARD. Lawrence Shirley. (32.00 KB)

Mathematics as im/pure knowledge system: envisioning a contextualised mathematics education via inclusive logics. Bal Chandra Luitel and Peter Charles Taylor. (23.00 KB)

Creating communities of mathemathical practice: Increasing the viability of the mathematics classroom. Mia Kalish, Claudette Engleblom and Barbara Garii. (23.00 KB)

How to Know: Using Conceptual Blending Visualizations to Explore the Domain. Mia Kalish (12.00 KB)

TEch/thNOMATH: The Pedagogy and Practice of Hidden Mathematics. Barbara Garii (10.00 KB)

The role of mathematical competitions and other challenging contexts in the teaching and learning of mathematics

Aims and focus
Since ICME-10 an ICMI Study titled “Challenging Mathematics in and beyond the classroom” has been conducted and the study volume is in progress. The title of DG19 at ICME-11 reflects the tendency to widen the sphere of interest of the group to include not only mathematical competitions but other activities and opportunities of a challenging nature. Furthermore, questions of interest have been honed and horizons expanded.

DG19 will focus its discussion on the following questions:

1) Do mathematical challenges better reflect the nature, the beauty and other characteristics of the corpus of elementary mathematics, as well as the experience of doing mathematics, than does ordinary school mathematics? Does this make the mathematics involved more likely to engage the learner?

2) Does the widespread use of calculators and computers – marvelous tools that they are – imply that mathematics education can only justify itself (aside: in as much as it prepares the learner to use a calculator or computer in an intelligent fashion, or) in as much as it is challenging, non-routine and cannot trivially be done on a calculator or computer, that is, in as much as it provides opportunities for all learners to be engaged in challenging mathematics?

3) How does this last question apply to in-service and future teachers? What are the needs and characteristics of teacher education with regard to challenging mathematics?

4) What are the implications for more challenging assessment in mathematics – both in and beyond the classroom?

On each of these points, besides analyzing programs, projects and experiences, the questions of what research has been done and of what research is needed in the future will be examined.

CALL FOR CONTRIBUTIONS
The primary goal of this Discussion Group is to provide an opportunity for an international group of interested mathematics educators to examine the contexts in which more challenging and demanding mathematics can and should be offered to students at all levels of mathematical studies.

Following the long and fruitful tradition of mathematical competitions providing challenge through engagement in problem creation and solving, as well as new points of interest brought forward by ICMI Study 16, the group will address the following areas, both by analyzing programs, projects and experiences and examining relevant research:

1) Challenge and mathematics 2) Challenge and the student 3 Challenge and the teacher 4) Challenge and assessment

The organizing team for this discussion group has formulated four principal questions to stimulate contributions and discussion which are included in the description of the group seen above.

Those wishing to participate in DG 19 are encouraged to submit a one-page description of their interest and/or research related to these questions or more generally on the topic of the role of competitions and other challenging contexts in mathematics teaching and learning. This should be received by each of the five members of the committee no later than December 10, 2007 and should specify the question or questions that will be addressed.

No later than January 10, 2008, participants who have been accepted by the organizing team should submit, via e-mail attachment, a paper of 1000 to 2000 word in extent, to each member of the Organizing Team.

The organizing team 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, the organizing group will circulate an agenda for the four sessions of the study group and indicate how certain participants might contribute to its work.

The set of questions included here seeks to provide a stimulus for papers. They are not intended to limit the areas of discussion. Those wishing to participate in the discussion group are encouraged to e-mail other possible areas of discussion to the group chairs for inclusion in the draft program even if not supported by a discussion paper.

Breakdown of DG-19 Sessions at ICME-11
Programme:

Three slots have been scheduled for meetings:

Monday 16:30 – 18:30

Wednesday 17:00 – 19:00

Saturday 15:00 – 16:30

Structure:

On the panel for question 1 and related issues: Petar Kenderov, Alexander Soifer, Ana Rechtman, Agnis Andzans and Ilza France, Chair: Romualdas Kasuba. Secretary: Yahya Tabesh or Maria de Losada

On the panel for question 2 and related issues: Sergei Pozdnyakov, Romualdas Kasuba, Chair: Bill Richardson, Secretary: Yahya Tabesh or Maria de Losada

On the panel for question 3 and related issues: Andy Liu, Josef Molnar and Jaroslav Svrcek, Bill Richardson. Chair: Radmila Bulajich. Secretary: Yahya Tabesh or Maria de Losada

Depending on the number of people registered for DG-19 and attending the session, we will break into small groups for discussion of question 4. Each group will have one member of the Organizing Team in it who will act as secretary and record the proceedings of the group.

Schedule:

Monday

16:30 – 17:00 Each member of the discussion group introduces him/herself.

17:00 – 18:30 Panel for question 1 and related issues

Wednesday

17:00 – 18:00 Panel for question 2 and related issues

18:00 – 19:00 Panel for question 3 and related issues

Saturday

15:00 – 16:00 Small group discussion of question 4 and related issues

16:00 – 16:30 Organizing team discusses final report.

Papers and discussion documents

Discussion document 1. Agnis Andzans and Ilza France (87.00 KB)

Discussion document 3. Romualdas Kasuba (127.00 KB)

Discussion document 5. Posov, Pozdnyakov and Stepulenok (244.00 KB)

Discussion document 6. Rechtman (56.00 KB)

Discussion document 7. Soifer (97.00 KB)

Discussion document 7. Soifer (97.00 KB)

Discussion document 4. Andy Liu (38.00 KB)

Discussion document 8. - Yahya Tabesh (184.00 KB)

Discussion document 9. - Molnar and Svrcek (121.00 KB)

Discussion document 2. Petar Kenderov (79.00 KB)

Current problems and challenges in primary mathematics education

Questions central to the discussion

- What is the status of the National Curricula, in different countries, regarding content coverage, organization, assessment and pedagogical approaches?

- What is the current situation of teaching mathematics in primary schools in different countries to cater for the range of different abilities?

- How are different countries managing issues of equity of gender, access, language and disadvantaged groups in preschool and primary years?

- What are the key problems and challenges faced in primary school education in your country?

- What is the role of technology in different countries in preschool, primary and special education?

- What are the teaching approaches for teaching large classes of more than 70 learners?

- What is the role of informal knowledge in primary school education in different countries?

- What is the balance of focus for preparing primary mathematics teachers: a focus on strong mathematics content knowledge or a focus on the development of how children learn?

- How is the math education community responding to new strands of mathematics that are being introduced in the early years? e.g. Algebra, Mathematical modeling.

- What mathematics do teachers need to know and to learn to successfully teach mathematics in primary schools?

- What mathematics is seen to be critical or essential at this level of schooling?

- How is assessment conducted in primary schools to identify pupils’ current knowledge and mathematical abilities?

- What factors hinder pupils’ opportunity to learn in the context of primary schools?

Call for contributions
Those wishing to participate in DG 20 are encouraged to submit a one-page description of their interest and/or research related to these questions or other questions more generally on the topic of problems and challenges in primary mathematics teaching and learning. It would be helpful if these descriptions could include the author(s) names and location (town and country, school or establishment; the age range of the pupils concerned or, if referring to teachers, the ages of the pupils taught and, where relevant, the mathematics topics that are addressed.

These contributions should be received by each of the five members of the committee no later than Dec. 17, 2007 and should specify the question or questions that will be addressed.

As well as the usual kinds of paper proposals, we also invite contributions of brief video clips of pupil learning in elementary school classrooms. These clips would be accompanied by: a transcript in English or subtitles of the video clips in a language other than English. These clips would be supported by background information such as: country, type of school, age of students, research project as well as a description of the particular goals of the researcher/teacher in presenting the video.

Participants whose proposals will have been accepted by the organizing team should submit, via e-mail attachment, a paper of 1000 to 2000 word in extent, to each member of the Organizing Team not later than Jan. 18, 2008,

The organizing team expects to make its selection of participants no later than January 25, 2008. It is understood that a necessary condition for participation in the group and posting of any material is that the participant be registered for ICME 11.

No later than April 15, 2008, the organizing group will circulate an agenda for the three sessions. Some individuals will be requested to play particular roles. Please note that the set of questions we have included seeks to provide a stimulus for papers. They are not intended to limit the areas of discussion. Those wishing to participate in the discussion group are encouraged to e-mail other possible areas of discussion to the group chairs for inclusion in the draft program even if not supported by a discussion paper.

Papers and discussion documents

Gervasoni Ann, Australian Catholic University (Australia). The Problems and Challenges of Catering for the Range of Mathematics Abilities in Australian Primary Classrooms. (118.00 KB)

Campos Tânia (UNIBAN), Gitirana Verônica (UFPE), Magina Sandra (PUC/SP) & Galvão Spinillo Alina (UFPE) - Brazil. Combinatorial Reasoning: An Analysis of Elementary Students’ Errors. (39.00 KB)

Carvalho Liliane M. T. Lima, Federal University of Pernambuco (Brazil); Nunes Terezinha, University of Oxford (U.K). The status of the National Curricula in different countries regarding the use of re (480.00 KB)

Li Yuwen, Mathematics Education Research Institute, Dezhou College (Dezhou, Shandong 253023, P.R.China). Open Mind Questions and Creativity Education in Mathematics. (111.00 KB)

Santana Eurivalda Ribeiro Dos Santos; Cazorla Irene Mauricio, Universidade Estadual De Santa Cruz (Brazil) & Magina Sandra Maria Pinto, Pontifícia Universidade Católica De São Paulo (Brazil). Relationship Between the Conception of Teachers’ and St (75.00 KB)

Opyene Eluk Patrick, Islamic University in Uganda (Mbale, Uganda). Mathematics Content Required for Teaching in Primary Schools. (48.00 KB)

Ozmantar Fatih & Bingolbali Erhan, University of Gaziantep (Turkey); Akkoç Hatice, University of Marmara (Turkey). Curriculum Reform and Teachers: Difficulties and Dilemmas in Primary Mathematics Education. (67.00 KB)

Pavanello Regina Maria and Nogueira Clélia Maria Ignatius, State University of Maringá (Maringá PR, Brazil). Between Current Teacher Training and That We Wish to Have: Possible Paths. (45.00 KB)

Nogueira Clélia Maria Ignatius and Pavanello Regina Maria, State University of Maringá (Maringá PR, Brazil). Facing Learning Difficulties in the Teaching of Mathematics in the State Of Paraná, Brazil: The Support Classroom Program. (45.00 KB)

Nielce Meneguelo Lobo da Costa, Bandeirante University of São Paulo – UNIBAN (São Paulo, Brazil). Teaching Mathematics in Primary Level: An Experience with Computers Data-Base Analisys (117.00 KB)

Opolot-Okurut Charles, School of Education, Makerere University (Kampala - Uganda). Factors that hinder opportunities to learn mathematics in primary schools in Uganda. (63.00 KB)

Current problems and challenges in lower secondary mathematics education

Goals
DG21 has tow primary goals: (a) to facilitate a lively, informed, and constructive discussion about the most pressing issues, challenges and problems associated with the teaching and learning of mathematics at the lower secondary level, and (b) to provide a forum for participants to share what has worked well in addressing some of these issues and problems. For the purposes of this DG, the lower secondary level refers to students from ±12 years to ±15 years.

Call for Contributions
As Discussion Groups are expressly not about the presentation of papers, the Organising Team is calling for CONTRIBUTIONS (see points a) to g) below) which specifically address one or more of the following key questions.

1. What are the most important current problems and challenges pertaining to the teaching and learning of mathematics at the lower secondary level (that is, for 12± to 15± year olds)?

2. What issues impact the mathematics learning experiences of students?

3. What mathematics is seen to be critical or essential at this level of schooling?

4. What is the role of language, technology, and culture in the provision of and access to quality mathematics instruction?

5. What dilemmas confront teachers of mathematics at this level?

6. What are the implications for pre-service education, professional development, school organisation, and/or curriculum resources?

7. How should these problems, challenges, issues and dilemmas be addressed? What has worked well, where, and why?

Contributions should:

a) indicate the author(s) names and location(town and country, school or establishment) and contact details;

b) clearly address one or more of the DG21 questions included above (contributors are encouraged to suggest specific sub-questions for discussion);

c) specify the age range of students concerned or, if referring to teachers, the ages of the students taught and, where relevant, the particular area of mathematics;

d) briefly describe 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 and/or the provision of mathematics education in the country concerned;

e) describe and/or discuss the particular issue, problem, 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);

f) be between 1000 and 1200 words (12 point, single spaced) excluding references (only include if widely accessible to an international audience, e.g., web based report or relevant material);

g) be submitted by email to the Co-Chairs of DG21, grugeon@club-internet.fr and dianne.siemon@rmit.edu.au, no later than January 20, 2008.

Timeline
By the end of February 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 March 2008.

By 20th 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.

At some point in this process, the OT will also seek input from a small number of highly regarded ‘specialists’ in this field. The object of this is to help ground the discussion in an assessment/evaluation of current research, theory, and practice. It is envisaged that these people will be asked to provide a summative and/or evaluative account of relevant research and/or activity in their particular area of expertise for inclusion on the DG website.

Organisation

Papers and discussion documents

Impact of diversity and school structure on achievement (30.00 KB)

Importance of Multiplicative Thinking (126.00 KB)

Supporting a problem-based mathematics program (47.00 KB)

Affective issues in mathematics engagement (62.00 KB)

Diversity and differentiated curriculum (43.00 KB)

Stimulating creativity (111.00 KB)

Identifying starting points for teaching algebra (65.00 KB)

Assessing curriculum reform (371.00 KB)

Current problems and challenges in upper secondary mathematics education

Accepted Papers
“What Challenges We Are Confronted with in High School Mathematics?”

Author: Wang Linquan

Professor of Mathematics Education, School of Mathematics Science, South China Normal University, Guangzhou 510631, P.R.China, wanglq@scnu.edu.cn

Papers and discussion documents

What Challenges Are We Confronted with in High School Mathematics? (93.00 KB)

Reasoning and Proof in a Spatial Geometry Teaching Situation (80.00 KB)

Current problems and challenges in non-university tertiary mathematics education

Contributors:
USA:

Sadie Bragg – sbragg@bmcc.cuny.edu

Marcos Zyman – mzyman@bmcc.cuny.edu

Félix Apfaltrer – fapfaltrer@bmcc.cuny.edu

Marilyn Mays – memays@dcccd.edu

Vilma Mesa – vmesa@umich.edu

Stephen Krevisky – skrevisky@mxcc.commnet.edu

Randy Taylor – rtaylor@laspositascollege.edu

Uganda:

George Ekol – g_ekol@yahoo.com

Philippines:

Auxencia “Ching” Limjap – ching_limjap@yahoo.com

Russia:

Ildar Safuanov – safuanov@yahoo.com

Papers and discussion documents

Randy Taylor, Steve Krevisky (94.00 KB)

The Multiple Purposes of Classroom Assessment (26.00 KB)

Vilma Mesa (190.00 KB)

Félix Apfaltrer and Marcos Zyman (44.00 KB)

Auxencia A. Limjap (75.00 KB)

Ildar Safuanov (21.00 KB)

George Ekol (45.00 KB)

DG 23 Timetable (46.00 KB)

Discussion Group 23 at ICME (29.00 KB)

Huei Wuan (64.00 KB)

Current problems and challenges in university mathematics education

Call for papers
We welcome proposals dealing with any aspects of university mathematics teaching or learning but will give priority to proposals more specifically addressing the questions as they are stated below.

What are the most important current problems and challenges pertaining to the teaching and learning of mathematics at the university and where are they located?

Are there issues or dilemmas of a controversial nature?

How should these problems, issues and challenges be dealt with?

If you wish to present a paper, please send a two-page abstract. It is important to submit your text by email as Microsoft word and PDF attachments before January 20th.of 2008, to Rosa Maria Farhan at educys@gmail.com and to Prodipta Hore at prodipta@saralabirlaacademy.org.

Authors with accepted submissions will be asked for an extended version of their contribution (maximum 6 pages ) before January 31, with final papers (6 pages) due by 31st. March. The full paper will be submitted as a file in both Microsoft word using times new Roman 12 point font size and single spacing and PDF format. They will include title, author(s), institution, postal address,fax,telephone numbers and email address at the beginning of the abstract.

All papers will be peer-reviewed.

Papers and discussion documents

The papers will soon be available for downloading here.

Current problems and challenges in distance teaching and learning

Papers and discussion documents

The papers will soon be available for downloading here.

Current problems and challenges in the conditions and practice of mathematics teachers

Aims and focus
The Discussion Group 26 aims at engaging participants in fruitful dialogue about the main issues of conditions and practices of mathematics teachers through:

Sharing experiences among participants on controversial issues or dilemmas in the practices of mathematics teachers

Identifying problems and challenges in the conditions and practices of mathematics teachers;

Sharing the approaches to the problems and the recent researches involved in the practices of mathematics teachers

Meeting the challenges in the conditions and practices of mathematics teachers

Call for papers
Those wishing to join the Discussing Group 26 are strongly encouraged to submit a brief one-page description of their interest and/or research on the questions on the topic of Current problems and challenges in the conditions and practice of mathematics teachers. This should be received by each of the five members of the organizing team no later than December 10, 2007 and should specify the question or questions that will be addressed.

No later than January 20, 2008 accepted participants should submit a paper between about 2000 words by e-mail attachment.

Send to DG26Proposals@icme11.org

Papers and discussion documents

The papers will soon be available for downloading here.

How is technology challenging us to re-think the fundamentals of mathematics education?

Aims and focus
Although technology has been a key aspect of mathematics education for several decades, its role and use continue to be subject to controversy and debate amongst mathematics educators and mathematicians. What is undeniable is that the introduction of technology into mathematics classrooms should bring transformations to both the educational processes and the mathematics itself. The central aims of this discussion group are to identify possible changes that are brought about by the use of technology within mathematics education, as well as the different factors which contribute to the debates surrounding the integration process and how (or if) it has impacted on the ways we do, learn and teach mathematics as well as on the mathematics that we teach, learn and do.

We hope that the discussions will both look to the future and reflect upon what we might learn from the past. Although we accept that the use of any technological tool brings potential changes to learning ecologies, in order to promote a focussed discussion, we use technology as shorthand for digital technology and we welcome contributions associated with the use of technology tools as a means to express mathematical ideas (including handheld devices such as calculators as well as desktop machines). We also envisage that group discussion will consider the use of technology in the creation of new learning spaces and virtual mathematics education communities. We hope to receive contributions the reflect the diversity of both learning contexts and learners, since it is far from clear that technology impacts on our thinking about mathematics and its teaching in any uniform way.

The following questions are suggested as starting points for the discussions:

• What are the nature and goals of mathematics education and should we rethink the goals in an ever-evolving technological world?
• What are the new opportunities that digital technologies offer to mathematics education?

• What are the consequences (both positive and negative) that are likely to result from the use of technology in mathematics education and how do these vary in different countries and learning contexts?

• Will the use of technology in mathematics education permit a more democratic and universal access to the development of certain sorts of mathematical insight and competencies or will it contribute to an undermining of the mathematical literacy of the student population ?

We intend that contributions to the discussion group will be available on the group site prior to the conference so that the discussion during ICME-11 can consider whether and how the main areas of controversy can be resolved and if the problems associated with attempts to integrate technology into mathematics classrooms across the world can be counteracted. In the light of this discussion, we hope it will be possible to begin to formulate recommendation as to how this might be achieved.

Call for contributions
The organizing team for DG 27 welcomes contributions related to any of the questions outlined above. We will also be happy to receive papers raising additional challenges associated with the role of technology in rethinking the fundamentals of Mathematics Education. We hope to receive contributions from a wide range of participants – researchers and practitioners, including those who choose NOT to use technology, those who would like to have more choice about technology use as well as those already committed to integrating technology. We encourage contributions focussing on contexts and learners currently under-represented in the technology and mathematics education literature, so that our discussions can contemplate the situation as regards those with special educational needs, cover a diversity of countries and include reflections related to technology within school mathematics, university mathematics and in work and other out of school contexts.

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. Hence the programme of DGs will not be structured around the oral presentation of individual contributions. Instead, all the contributions accepted to DG 27 will be made available on the Discussion Group web-site prior to the congress and all contributors will also be invited to bring copies of accepted papers to be presented-by-distribution. All proposals will be reviewed by members of the organising group. This review procedure will lead to three possible outcomes: (1) acceptance, (2) recommendation for revision, or (3) rejection.

Proposals will be accepted until the 1st of February 2008 and information about the acceptance of papers will be available by early in March 2008. Note that earlier submissions allow for the possibility of revision.

Practical Information
Papers should be a MAXIMUM of 8 pages in length. They should be written clearly in English. Text should be 14 point TIMES with 16 point spacing and should fit into an outline of 16 cm x 25 cm. Papers should start with an abstract of up to 10 lines, single spaced and indented 1cm from the left text edge. Spacing between paragraphs should be 12 points. The title should be in 16 point bold capitals, followed by authors’ names and institutions in 14 point italics, all centred in the text; name(s) of participating authors should be underlined. Papers in .doc or .pdf format should be sent to the Topic Group chair: Lulu Healy

Papers and discussion documents

Abigail Fregni Lins (58.00 KB)

Daniel Jarvis, Zsolt Lavicza, Chantal Buteau. (86.00 KB)

Dorothy French (48.00 KB)

Francisco Mattos, Luiz Carlos Guimarães, Rafael Barbastefano, Thiago Moraes. (63.00 KB)

Hoa Nguyen (40.00 KB)

Kate Highfield, Joanne Mulligan (366.00 KB)

Lenni Haapasalo (272.00 KB)

Mauricio Herrera, Rubén Preiss, Gonzalo Riera. (44.00 KB)

Maria Aparecida Viggiani Bicudo, Maurício Rosa. (44.00 KB)

Mikio Miyazaki, Chino Kimih, Hitoshi Arai, Fumihiro Ogihara, Tatsuo Morozumi, Ryuhei Katoh. (216.00 KB)

Nielce Meneguelo Lobo da Costa (121.00 KB)

Ralph Kemphaus (36.00 KB)

Wei-Chi Yang (234.00 KB)

Yuriko Yamamoto Baldin (50.00 KB)

Zuly Alfonzo (102.00 KB)

Carlos Armando Cuevas Vallejo, Magally Martínez Reyes, François Pluvinage (163.00 KB)

The role of professional associations in mathematics education: locally, regionally, and globally

Request for initial input about associations in mathematics education (updated 24 October)
In order to prepare the discussion we have designed a short online survey to learn about about associations dealing with mathematics and mathematics education around the world.

If you are involved in an association with an interest in mathematical education, we wish you will spend a few minutes to answer our survey (please click on the link). We also have a version in Spanish — contact the organizers if you need to respond in that language.

The information gathered in the surveys will be summarised for the purposes of the work of the Discussion Group in order to develop background papers, and to help identify people to take leading roles in the discussions.

To go to the web-based survey form please click SURVEY

Update prior to ICME11 Congress Some 60 societies have responded to the survey and a draft summary paper has been prepared. This summary will reported to participants in Discussion Group 28. Their advice and assistance to finalize the paper will be sought.

Call for papers (updated 24 October)
Apart from answering the survey (see above), organisers welcome submissions of contributions related to questions and issues addressed in DG28.
The Discussion Group sessions will be arranged around the following three themes:

Relationships between different associations in a particular country — what are the benefits and difficulties?

Relationships between associations in different countries. What are the benefits and difficulties?

The future — the possibility of international collaboration between professional associations in mathematics and mathematics education in order to respond to aspects of “globalization” (for example international comparison such as TIMMS and PISA and many other international projects)

Contributions that address one or more of these themes will be favored in the selection process.

Two page abstracts should be sent by December 1st to both DG28 chairs.

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 has to be sent by March 1st (maximum 6 pages).

The authors will be requested to participate to DG28 sessions and discuss their contribution with the other participants.

If you have any questions or would like further guidance, please contact the DG28 chairs.

The program of speakers

This has now been finalised. Abstracts of the brief talks can now been downloaded.

Papers and discussion documents

Draft paper summarising survey results (87.00 KB)

Abstract of talk on Topic 2 - Eduardo Mancera Martínez (Mexico) (36.00 KB)

Abstract of talk on Topic 2 - Louise Poirier (Canada) (32.00 KB)

Absract of talk on Topic 3 - Jim Rubillo (USA) (42.00 KB)

Abstract of talk for Topic 1 - Gilles Aldon (France) (27.00 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

The changing nature and roles of mathematics textbooks: form, use, access

Aims and focus and discussion plan:

Questions we might additionally discuss:

Papers:

Papers and discussion documents

The role of ethnomathematics in mathematics education

Call for Papers

Papers and discussion documents

The role of mathematical competitions and other challenging contexts in the teaching and learning of mathematics

Aims and focus

CALL FOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Breakdown of DG-19 Sessions at ICME-11

Papers and discussion documents

Current problems and challenges in primary mathematics education

Questions central to the discussion

Call for contributions