Teachers try to help their students learn. But why do they make the particular teaching choices they do? What resources do they draw upon? What accounts for the success or failure of their efforts? In How We Think, esteemed scholar and mathematician, Alan H. Schoenfeld, proposes a groundbreaking theory and model for how we think and act in the classroom and beyond. Based on thirty years of research on problem solving and teaching, Schoenfeld provides compelling evidence for a concrete approach that describes how teachers, and individuals more generally, navigate their way through in-the-moment decision-making in well-practiced domains. Applying his theoretical model to detailed representations and analyses of teachers at work as well as of professionals outside education, Schoenfeld argues that understanding and recognizing the goal-oriented patterns of our day to day decisions can help identify what makes effective or ineffective behavior in the classroom and beyond.

This volume supports the belief that a revised and advanced science education can emerge from the convergence and synthesis of several current scientific and technological activities including examples of research from cognitive science, social science, and other discipline-based educational studies. The anticipated result: the formation of science education as an integrated discipline.

This volume is a result of mathematicians, cognitive scientists, mathematics educators, and classroom teachers combining their efforts to help address issues of importance to classroom instruction in mathematics. In so doing, the contributors provide a general introduction to fundamental ideas in cognitive science, plus an overview of cognitive theory and its direct implications for mathematics education. A practical, no-nonsense attempt to bring recent research within reach for practicing teachers, this book also raises many issues for cognitive researchers to consider.

This volume supports the belief that a revised and advanced science education can emerge from the convergence and synthesis of several current scientific and technological activities including examples of research from cognitive science, social science, and other discipline-based educational studies. The anticipated result: the formation of science education as an integrated discipline.

This volume is a result of mathematicians, cognitive scientists, mathematics educators, and classroom teachers combining their efforts to help address issues of importance to classroom instruction in mathematics. In so doing, the contributors provide a general introduction to fundamental ideas in cognitive science, plus an overview of cognitive theory and its direct implications for mathematics education. A practical, no-nonsense attempt to bring recent research within reach for practicing teachers, this book also raises many issues for cognitive researchers to consider.

Teachers try to help their students learn. But why do they make the particular teaching choices they do? What resources do they draw upon? What accounts for the success or failure of their efforts? In How We Think, esteemed scholar and mathematician, Alan H. Schoenfeld, proposes a groundbreaking theory and model for how we think and act in the classroom and beyond. Based on thirty years of research on problem solving and teaching, Schoenfeld provides compelling evidence for a concrete approach that describes how teachers, and individuals more generally, navigate their way through in-the-moment decision-making in well-practiced domains. Applying his theoretical model to detailed representations and analyses of teachers at work as well as of professionals outside education, Schoenfeld argues that understanding and recognizing the goal-oriented patterns of our day to day decisions can help identify what makes effective or ineffective behavior in the classroom and beyond.

In the early 1980s there was virtually no serious communication among the various groups that contribute to mathematics education -- mathematicians, mathematics educators, classroom teachers, and cognitive scientists. Members of these groups came from different traditions, had different perspectives, and rarely gathered in the same place to discuss issues of common interest. Part of the problem was that there was no common ground for the discussions -- given the disparate traditions and perspectives.
As one way of addressing this problem, the Sloan Foundation funded two conferences in the mid-1980s, bringing together members of the different communities in a ground clearing effort, designed to establish a base for communication. In those conferences, interdisciplinary teams reviewed major topic areas and put together distillations of what was known about them.*
A more recent conference -- upon which this volume is based -- offered a forum in which various people involved in education reform would present their work, and members of the broad communities gathered would comment on it. The focus was primarily on college mathematics, informed by developments in K-12 mathematics. The main issues of the conference were mathematical thinking and problem solving.

Testing matters It can determine kids' and schools' futures. In a conference at the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute, mathematicians, maths education researchers, teachers, test developers, and policymakers gathered to work through critical issues related to mathematics assessment. They examined: * The challenges of assessing student learning in ways that support instructional improvement; * Ethical issues related to assessment, including the impact of testing on urban and high-poverty schools; * The different (and sometimes conflicting) needs of the different groups; and * Different frameworks, tools, and methods for assessment, comparing the kinds of information they offer about students' mathematical proficiency. This volume presents the results of the discussions. It highlights the kinds of information that different assessments can offer, including many examples of some of the best mathematics assessments worldwide. A special feature is an interview with a student about his knowledge of fractions and a demonstration of what interviews (versus standardized tests) can reveal.

This fourth volume of ""Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education"" (""RCME IV"") reflects the themes of student learning and calculus. Included are overviews of calculus reform in France and in the U.S. and large-scale and small-scale longitudinal comparisons of students enrolled in first-year reform courses and in traditional courses. The work continues with detailed studies relating students' understanding of calculus and associated topics. Direct focus is then placed on instruction and student comprehension of courses other than calculus, namely abstract algebra and number theory. The volume concludes with a study of a concept that overlaps the areas of focus, quantifiers. The book clearly reflects the trend towards a growing community of researchers who systematically gather and distill data regarding collegiate mathematics' teaching and learning.

Testing matters It can determine kids' and schools' futures. In a conference at the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute, mathematicians, maths education researchers, teachers, test developers, and policymakers gathered to work through critical issues related to mathematics assessment. They examined: * The challenges of assessing student learning in ways that support instructional improvement; * Ethical issues related to assessment, including the impact of testing on urban and high-poverty schools; * The different (and sometimes conflicting) needs of the different groups; and * Different frameworks, tools, and methods for assessment, comparing the kinds of information they offer about students' mathematical proficiency. This volume presents the results of the discussions. It highlights the kinds of information that different assessments can offer, including many examples of some of the best mathematics assessments worldwide. A special feature is an interview with a student about his knowledge of fractions and a demonstration of what interviews (versus standardized tests) can reveal.