The mathematical disposition of structural engineers

Journal for Research in Mathematics Education

Volumn 38, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 477-506

  Gainsburg, Julie ^a  

^a CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Attitudes; Ethnography; Mathematical modeling; Problem solving; Social factors

Indexed keywords

EID: 36248988438     PISSN: 00218251     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. AutoCAD [Computer software]. (2007). San Rafael, CA: Autodesk.
2. Ball, D. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary school mathematics. Elementary School Journal, 93, 373-397.
3. Bissell, C., & Dillon, C. (2000). Telling tales: Models, stories, and meanings. For the Learning of Mathematics, 20(3), 3-11.
4. Boaler, J. (1997). Reclaiming school mathematics: The girls fight back. Gender and Education, 9, 285-305.
5. Boaler, J. (1999). Participation, knowledge, and beliefs: A community perspective on mathematics learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 40, 259-281.
6. Boaler, J. (2002). Learning from teaching: Exploring the relationship between reform curriculum and equity. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33, 239-258.
7. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
8. Bucciarelli, L. L. (1994). Designing engineers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9. Bucciarelli, L. L., & Kuhn, S. (1997). Engineering education and engineering practice: Improving the fit. In S. R. Barley & J. E. Orr (Eds.), Between craft and science: Technical work in U.S. settings (pp. 210-229). Ithaca, NY: IRL Press.
10. Burton, L. (1999a). Exploring and reporting upon the content and diversity of mathematicians' views and practices. For the Learning of Mathematics, 19(2), 36-38.
11. Burton, L. (1999b). The practices of mathematicians: What do they tell us about coming to know mathematics? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 37, 121-143.
12. Burton, L. (2004). Mathematicians as enquirers: Learning about learning mathematics. New York: Kluwer Academic.
13. Carraher, D. W., & Schliemann, A. D. (2002). Is everyday mathematics truly relevant to mathematics education? In M. E. Brenner & J. N. Moschkovich (Eds.), Everyday and academic mathematics in the classroom (pp. 131-153). Reston, VA: NCTM.
14. Charmaz, K. (1983). The grounded theory method: An explication and interpretation. In R. Emerson (Ed.), Contemporary field research (pp. 109-126). Boston: Little Brown.
15. Cockcroft, W. H. (1982). Mathematics counts: Report of the committee of inquiry into the teaching of mathematics in schools. London: The Stationary Office (HMSO).
16. Committee for Economic Development. (2003). Learning for the future: Changing the culture of math and science education to ensure a competitive workforce. New York: Author.
17. Cooper, B., & Dunne, M. (1998). Anyone for tennis? Social class differences in children's responses to national curriculum mathematics testing. The Sociological Review, 46, 115-148.
18. Davis, P. J. (1988). Applied mathematics as social contract. Mathematics Magazine, 61, 139-147.
19. Davis, P. J., & Hersh, R. (1981). The mathematical experience. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
20. de la Rocha, O. (1985). The reorganization of arithmetic practice in the kitchen. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 16, 193-198.
21. Ernest, P. (2004). Images of mathematics, values and gender: A philosophical perspective. In B. Allen & S. Johnston-Wilder (Eds.), Mathematics education: Exploring the culture of learning (pp. 11-25). New York: Routledge Falmer.
22. ETABS (Version 8.0) [Computer software]. (2003). Berkeley, CA: Computers and Structures, Inc.
23. Ferguson, E. (1992). Engineering and the mind's eye. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24. Forman, S. L., & Steen, L. A. (2000). Preface section 2: Bringing school and workplace together. In A. Bessot & J. Ridgway (Eds.), Education for mathematics in the workplace (pp. 83-86). Boston: Kluwer Academic.
25. Frankenstein, M. (1997). In addition to the mathematics: Including equity issues in the curriculum. In J. Trentacosta & M. J. Kenney (Eds.), Multicultural and gender equity in the mathematics classroom: The gift of diversity, 1997 Yearbook (pp. 10-22). Reston, VA: NCTM.
26. Freudenthal, H. (1978). Weeding and sowing: Preface to a science of mathematical education. Boston: D. Reidel.
27. Gainsburg, J. (2003). The mathematical behavior of structural engineers. (Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, 2003). Dissertation Abstracts International, A 64/05, 1570.
28. Gainsburg, J. (2006). The mathematical modeling of structural engineers. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 8, 3-36.
29. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
30. Graham, R., Wescott, T., & Kluck, B. (2001). What is engineering judgment? Machine Design, 73(9), 174.
31. Greeno, J. G., & Middle School Mathematics Through Applications Project (MMAP) Group. (1997). Theories of practices of thinking and learning to think. American Journal of Education, 106, 85-126.
32. Grigg, N. S. (2000). Demographics and industry employment of civil engineering workforce. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 126, 166-124.
33. Gutstein, E. (2003). Teaching and learning mathematics for social justice in an urban, Latino school. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34, 37-73.
34. Hall, R. (1999). Following mathematical practices in design-oriented work. In P. Ernest (Series Ed.) & C. Hoyles, C. Morgan, & G. Woodhouse (Vol. Eds.), Rethinking the mathematics curriculum: Vol. 10. Studies in Mathematics Education Series (pp. 29-47). Philadelphia: Falmer Press.
35. Harris, M. (1991). Looking for the maths in work. In M. Harris (Ed.), Schools, mathematics and work (pp. 132-144). New York: Falmer Press.
36. Henderson, K. (1999). On line and on paper: Visual representations, visual culture, and computer graphics in deign engineering. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
37. Hoyles, C., Noss, R., & Pozzi, S. (2001). Proportional reasoning in nursing practice. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32, 4-27.
38. Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and refutations: The logic of mathematical discovery. New York: Cambridge University Press.
39. Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 29-63.
40. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life. New York: Cambridge University Press.
41. Lave, J., Smith, S., & Butler, M. (1988). Problem solving as an everyday practice. In R. I. Charles & E. A. Silver (Eds.), The teaching and assessing of mathematical problem solving: Vol. 3. Research agenda for mathematics education (p. 61-81). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, & Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
42. Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. M. (2003). Foundations of a models and modeling perspective on mathematics teaching, learning, and problem solving. In R. Lesh & H. M. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching (pp. 3-33). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
43. Lubienski, S. (2000). Problem solving as a means toward mathematics for all: An exploratory look through a class lens. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31, 454-482.
44. McClain, K., & Cobb, P. (2001). An analysis of development of sociomathematical norms in one first-grade classroom. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32, 236-266.
45. Moschkovich, J. N. (2002). An introduction to examining everyday and academic mathematical practices. In M. E. Brenner & J. N. Moschkovich (Eds.), Everyday and academic mathematics in the classroom (pp. 1-11). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
46. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
47. National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. J. Kilpatrick, J. Swafford, & B. Findell (Eds.). Mathematics Learning Study Committee, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
48. Noss, R., Hoyles, C., & Pozzi, S. (2002). Abstraction in expertise: A study of nurses' conceptions of concentration. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33, 204-229.
49. Parkin, J. (2000). Engineering judgment and risk. London: Thomas Telford.
50. Petroski, H. (1994). Design paradigms: Case histories of error and judgment in engineering. New York: Cambridge University Press.
51. Popkewitz, T. (2004). The alchemy of the mathematics curriculum: Inscriptions and the fabrication of the child. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 3-34.
52. Povey, H., & Burton, L. (2004). Learners as authors in the mathematics classroom. In B. Allen & S. Johnston-Wilder (Eds.), Mathematics education: Exploring the culture of learning (pp. 43-56). New York: Routledge Falmer.
53. Radford, L. (2000). Signs and meanings in students' emergent algebraic thinking: A semiotic analysis. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 42, 237-268.
54. RAND Mathematics Study Panel. (2003). Mathematical proficiency for all students: Toward a strategic research and development program in mathematics education (MR-1643-OERI). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
55. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. New York: Academic Press.
56. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1987). What's all the fuss about metacognition? In A. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Cognitive science and mathematics education (pp. 189-215). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
57. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334-371). New York: Macmillan Publishing.
58. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1994). Reflections on doing and teaching mathematics. In A. H. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Mathematical thinking and problem solving (pp. 53-70). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
59. Scribner, S. (1984). Studying working intelligence. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Its development in social context (pp. 9-40). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
60. Siegel, D. (1999, November). NRC withdraws proposed limitation on "engineering judgment." Engineering Times. Retrieved August 20, 2005, from http://www.nspe.org/etweb/linrc-99.asp
61. Smith, J. P. (2002). Everyday mathematical activity in automobile production work. In M. Brenner & J. Moschkovich (Eds.), Everyday and academic mathematics in the classroom (pp. 111-130). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
62. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. (1998). Report on mathematics in industry. Philadelphia: Author.
63. Stevens, R., & Hall, R. (1998). Disciplined perception: Learning to see in technoscience. In M. Lampert & M. L. Blunk (Eds.), Talking mathematics in school: Studies of teaching and learning (pp. 107-149). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
64. Taylor, S., & Bogdan, R. (1998). Introduction to qualitative research methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
65. Vick, S. G. (2002). Degrees of belief: Subjective probability and engineering judgment. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers Press.
66. Zevenbergen, R. (2000). Preface section 4: Research methods for mathematics at work. In A. Bessot & J. Ridgway (Eds.), Education for mathematics in the workplace (pp. 183-187). Boston: Kluwer Academic.