Towards A Problematique For Research On Mathematics Teaching

Towards a Problématique for Research on Mathematics Teaching
Author(s): Nicolas Balacheff

Source: Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Vol. 21, No. 4 (Jul., 1990), pp. 258-
272
Published by: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/749524
Accessed: 06-12-2017 19:42 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/749524?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access to Journal for Research in Mathematics Education
This content downloaded from 177.228.83.138 on Wed, 06 Dec 2017 19:42:20 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education
1990, Vol. 21, No. 4, 258-272
TOWARDS A PROBLEMATIQUE FOR RESEARCH

ON MATHEMATICS TEACHING
NICOLAS BALACHEFF, Laboratoire IRPEACS, CNRS
This article presents the main features of the theoretical framework of French research known
as recherches en didactique des mathematiques. The foundation of this approach consists
mainly of the relationships between two hypotheses and two constraints, which are presented
together with some specific key words. Outlines are given of Brousseau's thdorie des situations
didactiques (theory of didactical situations). An example is given that presents in some detail
the rationale for the construction of a didactical situation and its analysis. This article ends with
some questions addressed to research on mathematics teaching.
Kilpatrick (1981) pointed out some years ago that "one of our greatest needs in
research ideas on mathematical learning and thinking is for conceptual, theory-
building analyses of the assumptions we are using in our research" (p. 370). It
could be added that that search for theories is not sufficient, insofar as theories are
of no use if they are not related to precise problems. To say that our problem is to
improve mathematics teaching or even the teaching of algebra, or that one of our
problems is pupils' difficulties in thinking mathematically, is too vague. First of
all, theories are tools either to solve problems or to clarify them and improve their
formulation. Inversely, to solve research problems very often leads to the improve-
ment of theories, or at least it puts them under question; and sometimes it leads us
to consider the need for new theories. This fundamental dialectic between theories
and research problems is at the core of the approach to research on mathematics
teaching I would like to present here.
A prioblmatique is a set of research questions related to a specific theoretical
framework. It refers to the criteria we use to assert that these research questions
are to be considered and to the way we formulate them. It is not sufficient that the
subject matter being studied is mathematics for one to assert that such a study is
research on mathematics teaching. A problem belongs to a probldmatique of re-
search on mathematics teaching if it is specifically related to the mathematical
meaning of pupils' behavior in the mathematics classroom. In this article I present
the main features of such a prioblmatique and an example of a research done in
this framework.
The material in this article was an invited address at the research presession of the 65th
annual meeting of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Anaheim, CA, April
1987, written when I was a member of the Equipe de Recherche en Didactique des Math6ma-
tiques et de l'Informatique from Grenoble; its content has had the benefit of discussions with
many of my colleagues there. I deeply appreciate discussions with Jere Confrey and her
comments on the earlier version of this article. I would also like to thank Jeremy Kilpatrick
for his comments and editing remarks that helped me to carry out this final version.
259
TWO BASIC HYPOTHESES, A PROBLEM, AND TWO CONSTRAINTS
Our theoretical framework is grounded on two hypotheses: The constructivist

hypothesis and the epistemological hypothesis.
The constructivist hypothesis is that pupils construct their own knowledge, their
own meaning. The fact that previous knowledge is questioned, the disequilibration
in the Piagetian sense, results in the construction of new knowledge as a necessary
response to the pupils' environment.
The epistemological hypothesis (Vergnaud, 1982) is that problems are the source
of the meaning of mathematical knowledge, but also intellectual productions turn
into knowledge only if they prove to be efficient and reliable in solving problems
that have been identified as being important practically (they need to be solved
frequently and thus economically) or theoretically (their solution allows a new
understanding of the related conceptual domain).
These two hypotheses imply that pupils' learning depends on their recognition
and re-construction of problems as being their own. It is not sufficient that the
teacher proposes a problem for this problem to become that of the pupils, because
usually the responsibility for what is true in the mathematics classroom depends
on the teacher. A problem is a problem for a student only if she or he takes the
responsibility for the validity of its solution. This transfer of the responsibility for
truth from teacher to pupils must occur in order to allow the construction of mean-
ing. Here is our fundamental problem: What are the conditions for the devolution
of the responsibility for truth from teacher to pupils in the mathematics classroom?
If this devolution process is achieved, then we can consider that pupils' intellec-
tual activity is intrinsically justified by the problem and not by what they think is
expected by the teacher. As far as learning is a personal process, its product would
be private knowledge, the pupils' conceptions. But this process conflicts with two
constraints specific to the teaching process, which has to guarantee the socializa-
tion of pupils' conceptions for the following reasons:
1. Mathematical knowledge is a social knowledge. Pupils should make their own

the knowledge that exists outside the classroom. It has a social status in society or
in smaller social groups under whose control it is used. For example, the com-
munity of mathematicians or that of engineers can be taken as a social frame of
reference.
2. The mathematics class exists as a community. The teacher has to obtain a

certain homogeneity in the meaning of the knowledge constructed by pupils, and
she or he has to ensure its coherence. Otherwise, the functioning of the class will
hardly be possible. This constraint is quite evident if one considers the language
or the means of representation specific to a given piece of mathematical knowl-
edge. Because of the constructivist hypothesis, the use of authority is not desirable.
Thus the homogenization can only be the result of a negotiation or of other spe-
cific social interactions such as the one Brousseau (1986a, 1986b) has described
to frame his thdorie des situation didactiques.
260 Towards a Probldmatique for Research on Teaching
ELEMENTS OF BROUSSEAU'S DIDACTICAL THEORY
We consider the aim of teaching to be carrying pupils from their

tions related to a given item of mathematical knowledge to resulta
through what we call a didactical process. The control and the des
dactical process constitute the heart of our approach.
It follows from the two hypotheses we mentioned that the fund
to initiate this process are mathematical problems. Mathematica
fundamental insofar as they constitute means to challenge the pup
ceptions and to initiate their evolution. Also, they are fundament
convey the meaning of the mathematical content to be taught ma
explicit the epistemological obstacles that must be overcome for th
of that meaning.
Pupils' behaviors in the context of a classroom situation cannot
only through an analysis of the mathematical content involved or
chological complexity. The problems offered to pupils in a didactic
set in a social context dominated by both explicit and implicit rule
to function but also that give meaning to pupils' behaviors. For ex
the case of a pupil proposing a solution to a given problem without e
attempt to base its solution on a proof. Before one makes any diag
tual understanding, cognitive level, or ability level, one has to ex
there was any necessity for the pupil to give a proof in such a situat
1982, 1988b). The rules of social interaction in the mathematics cla
such issues as the legitimacy of the problem, its connection with the
room activity, and the responsibilities of both the teacher and pup
to what constitutes a solution or to what is true. We call this set of rules a didacti-
cal contract. A rule belongs to the set, if it plays a role in the pupils' understand-
ing of the related problem and thus in the constitution of the knowledge they con-
struct.
Thus, the pupils' behavior and the type of controls pupils may exert on the solu-
tion they produce strongly depend on the feedback given during the situation. If
there is no feedback, then the pupils' cognitive activity is different from what it
could be in a situation in which the falsity of the solution could have serious con-
sequences. In this last type of situation, pupils will search for a proof, the level of
which could depend on both the nature of the knowledge they have available and
the pressure of the situation. Perhaps they will even reconsider their own knowl-
edge before producing a definitive answer.
Brousseau (1981) differentiates types of situations with respect to the kind of
cognitive functioning they imply. First, there are situations imposed by the social
constraints I have mentioned. Brousseau calls them situations for institutional-
ization. They aim at pointing out, and giving an official status to, some piece of
knowledge that has been constructed during the classroom activity. In particular
they concern the knowledge, symbolic representation, and so on, to be retained for
further work. A new mathematical concept has to be recognized as something to
Nicolas Balacheff 261
be kept for further activiti

hand, although many new i
lem-solving process, not all
tained. That shows the impor
gives the status of knowled
Also, the new knowledge ha
tablish its practical interest
But the processes for instit
problems and exercises) are
initial meaning constructed
(Boschet, 1983; Robert, 1982). The control of this evolution is a didactical
problem.
But such a status can be given to a piece of knowledge only if it has been con-
sidered as an object explicitly recognized and not just as a tool implicitly used in
problem-solving activities (Douady, 1985). Brousseau distinguishes two main
types of situations that allow one to elicit the formulation of pupils' intellectual
productions: situations for validation and situations for formulation.
Situations for validation require pupils to offer proofs and thus to formulate the
related theories and means underlying their problem-solving processes. Situations
for decision (Balacheff, 1987) are situations for validation within which there is
an intrinsic need for certainty but a proof is not explicitly requested.
Situations for formulation involve the construction and the acquisition of ex-
plicit models and language. Situations for communication are situations for formu-
lation with explicit social dimensions. The problem of formulation is not a mere
problem of encoding ready-made knowledge. In a situation that specifically re-
quires a formulation (i.e., whose success depends on the quality of the formula-
tion), it appears from experimental studies that the process engaged is dialectical
(Laborde, 1982): The failure of a formulation chosen for the purpose of a problem-
solving strategy causes a reconsideration of the underlying knowledge itself, its
components, and its relationships. That is quite clear in a situation for communi-
cation because of its social dimension.
Pupils cannot enter directly the situations characterized above; before the knowl-
edge becomes an object of discourse, it has to exist as a tool. At that initial point,
Brousseau considers another type of situation: situations for action. These situ-
ations favor the development of conceptions-as models for action-necessary to
initiate the teaching-learning process or the search for a solution to a given
problem.
A KEY ISSUE: PUPILS' ERRORS
Pupils' errors are the most obvious indication of their difficulties with
matics. The problem of the meaning of these errors is one of the key issu
field of research on mathematics teaching.
Let us take the case of decimal numbers: To the question "Does there ex
real number between 2.746 and 2.747?" Izorche (1977) found that about
16-year-old pupils answered that "it is not possible." This type of error has also
been shown at the level of primary school and at the beginning of secondary school
(Perrin-Glorian, 1986). In a task in which pupils had to order decimals, Grisvard
and Leonard (1981) found that the procedures used by pupils can be described by
the following rules: (a) The decimal that has a bigger number to the right of the
decimal point is bigger (62% of their sample); (b) the smaller number is the one
that has the longer decimal part (16% of their sample). The existence of these rules
has been confirmed by other reseachers (Nesher & Peled, 1986).
The problem is not only to eliminate such errors but to identify what their origin
might be. The basic hypothesis of our theory is that these errors are not mere fail-
ures but symptoms of specific pupils' conceptions. In the case of decimal numbers,
a hypothesis is that pupils' conceptions can be related to the errors mentioned
above in the following way: (a) Decimals are integers with a decimal point that
share some properties with the integers; (b) decimals are pairs of integers separated
by a decimal point, a conception that can also explain errors like (2.4)2 = 4.16. If
we claim that such conceptions are part of the pupils' knowledge, we have to show
that they allow the pupils to solve some problems correctly.
For Conception (a), we consider problems of calculation. To succeed in learn-
ing how to calculate with decimals, it is efficient to consider them as integers with
a decimal point. Pupils have then only to learn how to cope with the decimal point,
having added or multiplied the numbers as if they were mere integers. At a deeper
level we note that decimals are often introduced to pupils in a context of measure-
ment, in which they appear to be integers with the decimal point as information
about a chosen unit.
For Conception (b), we consider one of the algorithms at hand for comparing
decimals: First you compare the integers written on the left of the decimal point,
and if they are equal you then compare the integers written on the right, provided
that they have the same number of digits. But some pupils forget this constraint
when they compare two decimals. It could be argued that in this case pupils will
not succeed in performing comparison tasks, so their errors will be apparent to
them. But more often than not the pupils do not really need to pay attention to the
constraint, because the exercises that are offered to them frequently have the same
number of digits to the right of the decimal. Their conception is reinforced by the
fact that in everyday life decimals used to code a price are in fact understood as
being a pair of integers: francs and centimes in France, dollars and cents in the U.S.
These descriptions of pupils' conceptions of decimals are hypothetical descrip-
tions proposed by researchers. They are validated by experimental means and by
the fact that they allow us to foresee what the pupils' productions will be for a
given task. It is not possible to make a direct observation of pupils' conceptions
related to a given mathematical concept; one can only infer them from the obser-
vation of pupils' behaviors in specific tasks, which is one of the more difficult
methodological problems we have to face.
So if pupils' conceptions have all the properties of an item of knowledge, we
have to recognize that it might be because they have a domain of validity. These
conceptions have not been t

opens the possibility for th
is possible to avoid a prior
conceptions.
THE DIDACTICAL TRANSPOSITION
I have suggested that pupils' unintended conceptions can be unders

erties of the content to be taught or of the way it is taught. To overco
culty, a first idea could be to search for a new definition of that cont
framework of mathematics as a science. In such an approach the
mathematics is likely to be reduced to the text of its presentation. In
the content to be taught might appear essentially as being more ele
its scientific reference. Such an approach does not take into accoun
matics is first of all a tool to solve problems or that problems for wh
cal concepts have been forged are part of their meaning, just as part o
ing resides in the context of their discovery.
Mathematical concepts cannot be fully understood if we do not k
of problem they allow one to solve. Also, we have to know that thei
is not only a deductive process but also the result of dialectical con
different points of view, together with different metaphysical conce
we should know that this process of construction is still not finishe
More often than not, this historical context of discovery cannot b
the mathematics classroom. Because it is not by means of the same
activity or within the same epistemological context, the meaning c
pupils may be qualitatively different from that of mathematics as a s
Consequently, we can no longer consider the relationship between m
a science and mathematics as a content to be taught as being the re
process of elementarization.
On the other hand, mathematicians are not solely responsible for
is to be taught and how. At least in France, that is the result of a soci
within which teachers and mathematicians as well as parents, pol
industrialists are involved. All these interactions contribute to con
specific epistemology of the content to be taught. The concep
transposition coined by Chevallard (1985) aims at giving a theoretic
to the study of this process, a process by which some mathematica
transformed to become teachable. The most general constraints tha
didactical transposition process and at the same time assign its form a
compatibility constraints between the didactical system and socie
constraints pertaining to the different sociological groups involved
constraints specific to didactical functioning in the strict sense (Ch
It should be emphasized that the didactical transposition is unavo
of constraints specific to mathematics teaching. I would like to me
them:
1. Any content has to be embedded in a context in order to be teach
264 Towards a Problematique for Research on Teaching
it has to be taken out of that context to exist as genuine mathematical knowle

This context, together with the way it is moved aside, becomes part of the m
ing for the learner of the mathematical content taught.
2. Any content has to be supported by the pupils' previous knowledge. But t
old knowledge can turn into an obstacle to the constitution of new conceptio
even though it is a necessary foundation. But more often than not, to overcome
obstacle is part of the construction of the meaning of the new piece of knowled
For this reason, following Bachelard (1938), we call it an epistemological obst
Before searching for hypothetical good didactical transposition-even if w

suppose that an optimal one exists-we must describe its function, answering
question: How can the didactical transposition be characterized so that we c
predict which meanings it might allow learners to construct?
AN EXAMPLE OF THE DESIGN OF A DIDACTICAL SEQUENCE:

THE SUM OF THE ANGLES OF A TRIANGLE
I illustrate this approach to research on mathematics education with an ex

taken from my own field of research, which is that of problems related to the
ing and teaching of mathematical proof (Balacheff, 1988a, 1988b, 1988c). I
ent in detail the construction of a didactical process designed to allow pu
formulate a conjecture and then to prove it; I then present one of the re
obtained.
It is well known that pupils have great difficulties in learning what a mathemati-
cal proof is. Very often, teachers and researchers mention the insufficient logical
maturity of pupils together with their lack of awareness of the necessity for proofs.
To some extent I agree with these statements, but our probldmatique leads me to
go a bit beyond these remarks to address the following questions:
1. What is a mathematical proof for mathematicians as professionals, and what

is it as a content to be taught? What is a mathematical proof as part of the mathe-
matical activity within the classroom?
2. On what basis can pupils construct a meaning for the notion of mathematical
proof?
3. What are the contexts in which mathematical proof can appear as an efficient
or relevant tool for solving problems pupils have recognized as such?
I will here concentrate on the last question. Since it is usually forgotten that as
children, pupils are logical enough to cope with most of the problems they encoun-
ter in everyday life, this problem is often discussed as a linguistic/formal gap be-
tween the logic of common sense and mathematical logic. But this probl"matique
misses a key point: Mathematics, unlike everyday life, is concerned with theory.
The key word in mathematics is rigor; in everyday life it is efficiency. That means
that the teaching process should allow for this shift in pupils' interest from being
practitioners to becoming theoreticians (Balacheff, 1987).
Thus, to raise the problem of proof in the mathematics classroom, we need to
shift to pupils the responsibil

a statement has first to be re
speculation but that pupils c
in knowing whether it is tru
fiednot by an injunction of t
from a debate among pupils
Our study of the character
the construction and analysi
old discover, formulate as a
measures of the three angle
Outlines of the Situation
Pupils' conceptions of the n

the larger the triangle, the
this conception, the value o
manipulations, are doubtful,
insofar as results like 182' o
and (b) the pupils will be left
bein, 1982) and the authority
Let us try to solve this didac
of the pupils in order to lea
conception-and then to cope
identify four main constrain
1. It is not possible to tell th

will be to establish that the
destroy the problem, becau
conjecture; the student know
example of one of the basic
2. The validity of the measu
establish the conjecture shou
the pupils on their own and
proof that is acceptable to th
3. The situation we design s
tions between the size of a t
it is from the contradiction b
around 180' that the conject
4. We should provide the c
toward the construction of
contract in which the pupils
This is possible only if they h
of the conjecture itself.
It is under these constrain

designed. Note that the follo
lem I have formulated. What is important is the relationships betwee

cal analysis and the construction of this didactical process.
Conditions for the Genesis of a Conjecture
It is possible to ask the pupils to measure the three angles of a tr

giving specific reasons: The teacher asks each pupil to carry out the
to propose his or her result. The possible variety of the results h
meaning for the pupils with respect to their conceptions because
angles are different. I do not consider this a situation for action beca
provide the mobilization of the conceptions specifically related t
conjecture.
The following activity allows the pupils to discriminate, from the variation in the
obtained results, between what is due to the measurement and what is explained
by their conceptions. We confront the class with the computation of the sum of the
angles of a unique triangle. Each pupil gets a copy of the same triangle, and we
ask them to predict the sum of its angles. The predictions are recorded by the
teacher before the pupils start measuring and computing. We have proposed a tri-
angle large enough to activate the expected conceptions.
After this task has been completed two things are done:
1. Each pupil is confronted with his or her prediction and asked for a comment
about a discrepancy between the prediction and the result obtained. This request
should elicit a formulation of the possible conceptions underlying the prediction.
There is not necessarily a cognitive conflict, for as far as the pupil is concerned this
discrepancy can be regarded as unique for the chosen triangle. This situation for
action prepares for the coming of the conjecture.
2. The teacher represents the collected results on the chalkboard by means of a
histogram and then asks for comments. That leads to the problem of the determi-
nation of the exact value of the sum of the angles of a given triangle; it will appear
that measurement is not a reliable means to an answer.
Towards the Birth of a Conjecture
To raise the question of the invariance of the sum of the angles, we need to have
pupils measure the angles and compute the sum in more than one triangle. Because
the number of triangles manipulated will not be very large, the set chosen is very
important. Taking into account the pupils' conceptions, we use the shape of the
triangles as a didactical variable: Pupils are likely to focus on the size of the tri-
angle and the type of angle within the triangle. Thus we choose three triangles with
shapes, and contrast between these shapes, sufficiently unusual to challenge pu-
pils when they are asked to predict the sum of the angles (Figure 1).
The pupils work in teams of three or four, each team being asked to make one
prediction for each triangle before any measurement and computation. The debate
necessary to make a decision elicits the underlying conceptions and initiates the
construction of arguments for or against the assertion that the sum of the angles of
Figure 1. Triangles with contrasting shapes.
a triangle depends on its shape or on its size. Because of the social interaction, this
situation has the characteristics of a situation for decision.
After the task has been completed, each team is confronted with its prediction.
The teacher asks for a comment about a possible gap between the prediction and
the result obtained for each triangle. The teacher represents the set of results on the
chalkboard by means of a histogram and asks for comments. Issues concerning the
value of the sum of the angles for each triangle are discussed.
Actually, all that activity is not sufficient to ensure that the conjecture will be
formulated and recognized collectively by the class. Two possible cases should be
considered:
1. The sum of 1800 seems to be evident from a comparison between the predic-
tions and the results of the measurements. But some pupils may still assert that it
is because of the particular choice of triangles. In that event, the teacher challenges
the class to find a triangle in which the sum of the angles is quite different from
1800. The confrontation between the robustness of pupils' conceptions and the
difficulty in finding a triangle in which the sum of the angles is different from
180' leads to a formulation of the conjecture together with the problem of its proof.
2. The class supports the statement "The sum of the angles of a triangle is 180'"9
as a conjecture. But because an appeal to measurement has been dismissed, the
problem of constructing a proof on the ground of rational arguments can be stated.
Whatever the case, the situation now has the characteristics of a situation for
validation, because the class has the responsibility to produce a proof of the con-
jecture. The teacher stays aside; she or he has managed the situation but has never
offered any opinion about the validity of the results produced or of the conjecture.
Closure
To show that the sum of the angles of a triangle is 180', or to refute it, is now a
problem for the class. It is an open-ended problem for which there is no evidence
that pupils will find any solution within the time constraints of the traditional
school context.
We have then to consider possible scenarios for a conclusion:
1. The pupils agree on a proof of the conjecture. Then the teacher just has to
ratify it, provided that it is acceptable. If it is not acceptable, then there is a nego-
tiation to either reject it, suggest a modification of it, or even begin to develop
another proof.
2. The pupils do not agree on a single proof of the conjecture. Then the teacher
should manage the negotiation in order to accept some proofs and reject others.
3. The pupils do not find any solution. Then the teacher has the following alter-
natives: (a) to propose a solution that is consistent with the pupils' conceptions, the
strategies they unsuccessfully initiated, and the level of proof they have revealed
(Balacheff, 1988b); or (b) to propose that they admit the truth of the conjecture and
delay the production of a proof.
Even if the conjecture has not been proved by the pupils themselves, the knowl-
edge constructed throughout this sequence should be quite different from what
they might have constructed after merely observing some triangles and having a
proof presented to them. Here the proposition has been developed as a conjecture
by pupils on their own. It has been discussed and settled as a genuine problem.
Even if the production of a proof is now delayed, a real attempt has been made to
solve the problem. The proposal of the teacher has practical reasons but does not
rely on a priori principles pupils do not know. This situation for institutionaliza-
tion guarantees that what has been produced during the sequence is valid and is
genuinely considered as knowledge. It implies that pupils and teacher recover their
own place and responsibility within the teaching situation.
A Few Words About the Results Obtained
This didactical process has been developed in seven 7th-grade mathematics

classrooms in France, two of which have been videotaped (Balacheff, 1988a). The
main result I would like to present is the one that is specifically related to our theo-
retical framework: the robustness of pupils' conceptions.
In all the classrooms observed, 180' appeared to be dominant right from the first
activity, but the pupils' measurements ranged from 160' to 260'. The pupils' pre-
dictions on the second activity confirmed the dominance of 180', but the range was
quite large: from 160' to 770'. For the measurement of the common triangle al-
most all pupils found 180'. That is possible only if the result of the measurement
has been corrected towards 180'. It might be proposed that it is possible to end the
didactical process at this point. The pupils seemed, from their behavior, ready to
accept as true that "the sum of the angles of a triangle is 180'." But in drawing such
a conclusion one would mistake conformist behavior for genuine knowledge. The
third activity evidenced th

the fact that the pupils we
rather different from 180 f
The debate among the pupi
initiated the construction o
the claim that a triangle co
very small. Only at this sta
called into question; the evo
been activated by the debat
The constructivist hypothes
brings to light the implica
existence of a conformist c
culties that characterize ef
teaching to progress despit
CONCLUSION
What I have presented gives an idea of the probldmatique and its relat
retical framework, on which are based what we in France call the reche
didactique des mathe'matiques. As I have tried to show, the key word
probldmatique is meaning. Some basic questions, which have not been co
in this article, are as follows:
*What mathematical meaning of pupils' conceptions can we infer from

vation of their behavior?
*What kinds of meanings can pupils construct in the context of mathematics

teaching?
*What is the relation between the meaning of the content to be taught and that of
the mathematical knowledge chosen as a reference?
*What determines the transformation of mathematics to constitute it as a content
to be taught? As a content taught?
*Beyond definitions, how can one characterize the meaning of mathematical
concepts?
This research is essentially experimental, which means that it relies on the ob-
servation of experimental settings specifically designed to answer precise ques-
tions. Our aim is to construct a fundamental body of knowledge about phenomena
and processes related to mathematics teaching and learning. The social purpose of
such an enterprise is to enable teachers themselves to design and to control the
teaching-learning situation, not to reproduce ready-made processes. This knowl-
edge should allow teachers to solve the practical problems they meet, to adapt their
practice to their actual classroom.
But for practical reasons this experimental approach is very difficult. Because
of time constraints, the observation of a sequence like the one about the sum of the
angles of a triangle can be done only one to three times a year. Given what teach-
ers are planning to do in their classroom, the period during which the e
can be conducted is quite short. Furthermore, to delegate others to do th
tion is very difficult, since at present it is not well known what must be sa
to allow other researchers to repeat an experiment. Let me emphasize t
the main obstacles we meet is the communication within our research co
That is strongly related to two essential open questions that concern r
mathematics teaching as a scientific domain:
1. What does a research result consist of? When we design a teaching exp
with respect to some mathematical content, the result is not the teachi
itself but the answer to the initial research question or a new formulation
the evidence of intrinsic links between pupils' behavior and some set o
whose control conditions the teaching process, or even the principles of
ing design.
2. What is a proof in our field of research?
Other types of research exist, for example, the observation of real teaching situ-
ations. This research is not as well developed in France as it is in other countries.
Such research must be developed because it will be of crucial importance in mak-
ing an effective relationship between research and practice. The confrontation and
the discussion of both types of research projects could be organized around a meta-
probldmatique about which I would like to add a few words as a conclusion.
During the observation phase of an experiment, facts and events are recorded
and then reported with an accurate description. But two major questions occur with
respect to observation:
1. Not all the facts are relevant to research in the didactics of mathematics. But
which ones are to be retained? On the basis of which criteria? Indeed the way rele-
vant facts are recognized is strongly related to the theoretical background of the
research. The discussion on this point could be organized around the concept of
didactical fact: Within a teaching process what facts are relevant for the purpose
of a didactical analysis? From what theoretical basis can the criteria for recogniz-
ing didactical facts be derived?
2. When a fact occurs at a given moment within the didactical process, it implies
that others have not occurred at that moment. That seems quite clear. But it raises
an important question for our research. Can we guess the set of possible didactical
facts to appear under certain conditions? This a priori analysis should be a meth-
odological principle for research based on observation. It leads us to discuss the
necessity of the occurrence of an event. For such an analysis we need a theoretical
background-some model to predict as precisely as possible, in a given situation,
what will be the pupil's behavior, the teacher's behavior, the interaction between
them, and so on. The meaning of an observed fact stems from both its occurrence
and the nonoccurrence of other possible facts.
Finally, research has not been completed, whatever it is, since we have not ex-
amined the problem of the conditions for its reproducibility. What kind of infor-
mation do we have to com

ment, to observe the same
tal setting and of the facts
tion about the theory and
particularly in the case of
REFERENCES
Bachelard, G. (1938). La formation de l'esprit scientifique. Paris: Vrin.

Balacheff, N. (1982). Preuves et demonstrations au collbge [Proofs and demonstrations in hi
Recherches en Didactique des Math matiques, 3, 261-304.
Balacheff, N. (1987). Processus de preuve et situations de validation [Proof processes and
for validation]. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 18, 147-176.
Balacheff, N. (1988a). Une dtude des processus de preuve en mathematiques chez des leves d
[A study of proof processes in mathematics of high school students]. Th6se d'etat, Univ
seph Fourier, Grenoble.
Balacheff, N. (1988b). Aspects of proof in pupils' practice of school mathematics. In D. P
Mathematics, Teachers and Children (pp. 216-135) Hodder & Stoughton.
Balacheff, N. (1988c). Treatment of refutations.: Aspects of the conmplexity of a constructivist
of mathematics learning. Unpublished manuscript.
Boschet, F. (1983). Les suites num6riques comme objet d'enseignement [Numerical sequ
content to be taught]. Recherches en Didactique des Mathdmatiques, 4, 141--164.
Brousseau, G. (1981). Problemes de didactique des d6cimaux [Problems in teaching dec
cherches en Didactique des Math matiques, 2, 37-128.
Brousseau, G. (1986a). Theorisation des phInomnnes d'enseignement des mathematiques
tion of the phenomena of mathematics teaching]. These d'6tat, Universit6 de Bordeaux.
Brousseau, G. (1986b). Basic theory and methods in the didactics of mathematics. In P. F. L
pen (Ed.), Proceedings of the Second Conference on Systematic Co-operation Bemteen Th
Practice in Mathematics Education. (pp. 109-161). Enschede, The Netherlands: NICD,
Chevallard, Y. (1982). Un exemple d'analyse de la transposition didactique [An example of t
sis of the didactical transposition]. Recherches en Didactique des Mathematiques, 3, 15
Chevallard, Y. (1985). La transposition didactique [The didactical transposition]. Grenoble
Sauvage.
Close, G. S. (1982). Children's understanding of angle at the primarylsecondary transfer stage. Un-
published master's of science thesis: Polytechnic of the South Bank, London.
Douady, R. (1985). The interplay between different settings, tool-object dialectic in the extension of
mathematical ability. In L. Streefland (Ed.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference for
the Psychology of Mathematics Education. (Vol. II, pp. 33-52) Utrecht, The Netherlands: State
University of Utrecht.
Fischbein, E. (1982). Intuition and proof. For the Learning of Mathematics, 3 (2), pp. 9-18, 24.
Galbraith, P. L. (1979). Pupils Proving. Nottingham: University of Nottingham, Shell Centre for
Mathematics Education.
Grisvard, C., & L6onard, F. (1981). Sur deux r6gles impicites utilis6es dans la comparaison des
nombres d6cimaux [On two implicit rules used in comparing decimal numbers]. Bulletin APMEP,
340,450-460.
Izorche, M. L. (1977). Les rnels en classe de seconde [The real numbers at the tenth grade] (M6moir
de DEA) Bordeaux: IREM et Universit6 de Bordeaux.
Kilpatrick, J. (1981). Research on mathematical learning and thinking in the United States. Recherch
en Didactique des Mathdmatiques, 2, 363-379.
Laborde, C. (1982). Langue naturelle et ccriture symbolique [Natural language and symbolic writing
These d'6tat, Universit6 Joseph Fourier, Grenoble.
Nesher, P., & Peled, I. (1986). Shifts in reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 17, 67-80.
Perrin-Glorian, M. J. (1986). Repr6sentation des fractions et des nombres d6cimaux chez des dl6ves d
CM2 et du college [Representation of fractions and decimal numbers by pupils in CM, and hig
school]. Petit X, 10, 5-29.
Robert, A. (1982). Acquisition de la notion de convergence des suites numeriques dans l'enseignemen
supirieur [Acquisition of the notion of the convergence of numerical sequences in post secondary
school]. These d'dtat, Universit6 de Paris VII, Paris.
Vergnaud, G. (1982) Cognitive and developmental psychology and research in mathematics educatio
Some theoretical and methodological issues. For the Learning of Mathematics, 3 (2).
AUTHOR
NICOLAS BALACHEFF, Directeur de recherche CNRS, Laboratoire IRPEACS,CNRS, BP 167

69131 Ecully Cedex, France

Towards A Problematique For Research On Mathematics Teaching

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Towards A Problematique For Research On Mathematics Teaching

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Towards a Problématique for Research on Mathematics Teaching

Author(s): Nicolas Balacheff

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

TOWARDS A PROBLEMATIQUE FOR RESEARCH

NICOLAS BALACHEFF, Laboratoire IRPEACS, CNRS

TWO BASIC HYPOTHESES, A PROBLEM, AND TWO CONSTRAINTS

Our theoretical framework is grounded on two hypotheses: The constructivist

1. Mathematical knowledge is a social knowledge. Pupils should make their own

2. The mathematics class exists as a community. The teacher has to obtain a

ELEMENTS OF BROUSSEAU'S DIDACTICAL THEORY

We consider the aim of teaching to be carrying pupils from their

be kept for further activiti

conceptions have not been t

I have suggested that pupils' unintended conceptions can be unders

1. Any content has to be embedded in a context in order to be teach

it has to be taken out of that context to exist as genuine mathematical knowle

Before searching for hypothetical good didactical transposition-even if w

AN EXAMPLE OF THE DESIGN OF A DIDACTICAL SEQUENCE:

I illustrate this approach to research on mathematics education with an ex

1. What is a mathematical proof for mathematicians as professionals, and what

shift to pupils the responsibil

Outlines of the Situation

Pupils' conceptions of the n

1. It is not possible to tell th

It is under these constrain

lem I have formulated. What is important is the relationships betwee

Conditions for the Genesis of a Conjecture

It is possible to ask the pupils to measure the three angles of a tr

Towards the Birth of a Conjecture

Figure 1. Triangles with contrasting shapes.

We have then to consider possible scenarios for a conclusion:

A Few Words About the Results Obtained

This didactical process has been developed in seven 7th-grade mathematics

third activity evidenced th

*What mathematical meaning of pupils' conceptions can we infer from

*What kinds of meanings can pupils construct in the context of mathematics

mation do we have to com

Bachelard, G. (1938). La formation de l'esprit scientifique. Paris: Vrin.

NICOLAS BALACHEFF, Directeur de recherche CNRS, Laboratoire IRPEACS,CNRS, BP 167

You might also like