Download pdf
Unrealistic Expectations and Compromised Observations in School Mathematics Research
- 1 Monash University
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Abstract
It is not often acknowledged that educational research increasingly places unrealistic expectations on teachers, especially teachers of mathematics. This paper explores issues relating to idealism within educational research, especially in terms of how it manifests as potentially unrealistic expectations academics may have of, and place on, classroom teachers. The paper draws on reflections from observing an international panel of mathematics education researchers observing classroom teachers at work. It outlines some of the philosophical complications of observations, especially it’s theory-laden nature, and outlines some potential implications such idealism can have for teachers, and how this may be linked to mathematics culture.
Keywords
school mathematics, unrealistic expectations, classroom observation, educational research
[1]. Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
[2]. Sullivan, P., Mousley, J., & Gervasoni, A. (2000). Caution: Classroom under observation. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 28(3), 247-261.
[3]. Australian Academy of Science. (2015). Desktop review of mathematics school education pedagogical approaches and learning resources. Australian Academy of Science.
[4]. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (2008). Schooling Issues Digest. Canberra: Australian Government.
[5]. Tzur, R., (2008). A researcher perplexity: why do mathematical tasks undergo metamorphosis in teacher hands? In O. Figueras, J. Cortina, S. Alatorre, T. Rojano, and A. Sepulveda (Eds.), International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education: Proceedings of the joint meeting of PME 32 and PME-NA XXX. Morelia, Mexico: PME, pp. 139-146.
[6]. Tomazin, F. (2009). School progress to appear online - Teachers risk being seen as naive if they object: Pike, The Age, 6 June 2009, 10.
[7]. Chilcott, T. (2010b). Claims of rorts hit tests - Posters guide pupils. The Courier Mail, 20 May 2010, 17.
[8]. Lee, J., Lee, J-S., & Ellis, N. (2023). Public Opinion About National Large-Scale Student Assessment: A Case of NAPLAN. Educational Assessment, 1-19.
[9]. Chilcott, T. (2010a). NAPLAN test focus slammed as students over-practise. The Courier Mail, 11 May 2010, 3.
[10]. Mazana, Y., Suero Montero, C., & Olifage, C. (2019). Investigating Students' Attitude towards Learning Mathematics. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 14 (1) , 207-231. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/3997.
[11]. Solomon, Y. (2009). Mathematical literacy: Developing identities of inclusion. Routledge.
[12]. Bishop, A. (1976). Decision making, the intervening variable. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 7(1), 41-47.
[13]. Sullivan, P., & Leder, G. (1992). Students’ influence on novice Australian teachers’ thoughts and actions regarding mathematics teaching: two case studies. The Elementary School Journal, 92(5), 621-642.
[14]. Leatham, K. (2006). Viewing mathematics teachers’ beliefs as sensible systems. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9(1), 91-102.
[15]. Graham, L., White, S., Cologon, K., & Pianta, R. (2020). Do teachers’ years of experience make a difference in the quality of teaching? Teaching and Teacher Education, 96, 10-31.
[16]. Zumwalt, K., & Craig, E. (2008). Who is teaching? Does it matter? In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, D. McIntyre, and K. Demmers (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: enduring questions in changing contexts. Routledge. pp. 404-423.
Cite this article
O’Donovan,R. (2023). Unrealistic Expectations and Compromised Observations in School Mathematics Research. Lecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public Media,19,48-56.
Data availability
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study will be available from the authors upon reasonable request.
Disclaimer/Publisher's Note
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s). EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
About volume
Volume title: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Educational Innovation and Philosophical Inquiries
© 2024 by the author(s). Licensee EWA Publishing, Oxford, UK. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license. Authors who
publish this series agree to the following terms:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the series right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this
series.
2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the series's published
version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial
publication in this series.
3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and
during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See
Open access policy for details).