Commentary on Theories of Mathematics Education

<strong>Commentary</strong> 3 on Re-conceptualizing Mathematics Education as a Design Science 163
field. In these countries it can only be natural to agree to the importance of reconceptualizing
the field as a design science. We can contrast the claims made by Lesh
and Sriraman with traditions that value the craft of work—Japanese lesson study,
the Nordic didaktik tradition, Russian teacher experiments. And while psychology
and psychological research methods have been dominant within neo-liberal countries,
other disciplinary perspectives and methodologies have been widely used in
mathematics education research in other countries, including efforts in curriculum
development, design, and (non-reductionist) evaluation.
The logic of employment affects the enterprise of mathematics education and
by itself design science can only tangentially address the vexing problems created
by this logic of employment. Many neo-liberal countries face a serious shortage of
mathematics educators who are adequately educated in both the mathematics and
mathematics teaching. Poorly educated mathematics teachers are, arguably, a far
greater problem for student learning than the failings of mathematics education research.
Reconceptualizing mathematics education research, by itself, cannot address
the shortage of qualified teachers. In many countries the field also faces an acute
shortage of mathematics education teacher educators and researchers. Design science
cannot, by itself, address larger mathematics curriculum policy issues such as
politicians in neo-liberal countries who wish to legislate or mandate curricular goals
or assessment procedures. Simply, there are many problems facing mathematics education
that design science cannot address.
In addition, within neo-liberal countries that do not value craft, the enterprise
of educational research is hampered by the perception that educational research is a
soft science (Berliner 2002). In these countries the modest rise of prestige of teacher
educators in higher education has been tied to our publication of basic research
(Boote 2004). Typically, design fields—engineering, architecture, urban planning—
have lower prestige than the basic sciences, or even the social science and humanities.
How will our position in higher education be affected if we shift to design
science instead of basic science? Our ability to produce what seem like generalizable
knowledge claims gives us a modicum of credibility and prestige within higher
education; it is not difficult to imagine that a shift towards design science will diminish
our place in higher education.
While the design sciences may lack prestige within higher education, they gain
credibility with the consuming public. People outside of higher education are willing
to pay for the expertise of engineers, architects and urban planners. In turn,
that expertise with design creates the capital that is needed to fund research centers,
design competitions, and consultancies. Education and educational research,
by contrast, is funded almost entirely through public money and that money is often
very limited. While funding agencies do see mathematics education as a priority, it
is still a pittance when compared to the monies available to fund other field of basic
science and design science. A great deal of money is currently spent on curriculum
materials and training—mostly standardized textbooks, standardized tests, and
standardized professional development required for a de-skilled teacher workforce.
Finding ways to re-direct this money may provide a means of funding our design
science, but doing so will require a fundamental rethinking of the work of teaching.