To set the stage I suggest reading Wieman, C. (2014). The similarities between research in education and research in the hard sciences. Educational Researcher, 43(1), 12-14. This is an opinion essay but to my mind quite insightful.
Liljedahl, P. (2005). Mathematical discovery and affect: The effect of AHA! experiences on undergraduate mat…
To set the stage I suggest reading Wieman, C. (2014). The similarities between research in education and research in the hard sciences. Educational Researcher, 43(1), 12-14. This is an opinion essay but to my mind quite insightful.
Liljedahl, P. (2005). Mathematical discovery and affect: The effect of AHA! experiences on undergraduate mathematics students. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 36(2-3), 219-236.
[The original doctoral thesis is also worth reading to understand the origins of Peter's motivation.]
Liljedahl, P. & Sriraman, B. (2006). Musings on mathematical creativity. For The Learning of Mathematics, 26(1), 20-23.
[These were the early ideas]
Liljedahl, P. (2010). Noticing Rapid and Profound Mathematics Teacher Change. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 13(5), 411-423.
[Somewhere along the way the importance of changing teachers' beliefs alongside their knowledge and practices became a focus.]
Liljedahl, P. (2011). The Theory of Conceptual Change as a Theory for Changing Conceptions. Nordisk Matematikkdidaktikk, 16(1-2), 101-124.
[This was important for identifying the theoretical framework that would be at the heart of his next set of endeavours - conceptual change theory.]
Liljedahl, P. (2014). Approaching Professional Learning: What teachers want. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 11(1), 109-22.
[This is a good paper which could explain the development and popularity of the BTC framework in later years. This is less about the evidence for BTC than understanding the audience for that work]
I will recommend to Peter that he add a link to the BTC book website to the supporting literature. I would not expect 'strong' evidence for at least another century or so :-) as it becomes more organized and systematic in its approach.
The BTC phenom is typical of the current educational landscape in North America in which marketing and over hyping of educational celebrity / influencers / ideas are part of the current zeitgeist.
So I would say the evidence is EARLY and PROMISING rather than WEAK...BUT our culture wants things now (amazon/netlfix/on-demand effect) and with a guarantee.
Thank you for all this! I reviewed most of those papers (albeit briefly) while searching for evidence to support BTC. I understand your point that it explains his trajectory, which is not unimportant (and he writes about the AHA research in the 2016 paper and in the book). But what I was looking for was something along the lines of what he provides for vertical whiteboards -- explanations of how we know that they are more engaging. That's what I'm not seeing in these papers, though I think he's making claims that the evidence is there.
But the student theses are new to me, so I'll take a closer look at those.
I hear your point about the state of math edu research, but I don't know if this is about math edu specifically. There is a lot of terrific qualitative research that comes out of education departments, I don't think this work is representative of math edu as a research field. (It is representative of how math edu consultants and speakers talk, though.)
Yes the 'grey' literature...sometimes overlooked. I think the first toolkit has likely the strongest support, the third maybe the least BUT are pragmatic extensions that are consistent with the ideas. The point is about ed research in general and better made by Wieman - we're still in the messy mucking about phase, though less messy than say 30 years ago.
To set the stage I suggest reading Wieman, C. (2014). The similarities between research in education and research in the hard sciences. Educational Researcher, 43(1), 12-14. This is an opinion essay but to my mind quite insightful.
Liljedahl, P. (2005). Mathematical discovery and affect: The effect of AHA! experiences on undergraduate mathematics students. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 36(2-3), 219-236.
[The original doctoral thesis is also worth reading to understand the origins of Peter's motivation.]
Liljedahl, P. & Sriraman, B. (2006). Musings on mathematical creativity. For The Learning of Mathematics, 26(1), 20-23.
[These were the early ideas]
Liljedahl, P. (2010). Noticing Rapid and Profound Mathematics Teacher Change. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 13(5), 411-423.
[Somewhere along the way the importance of changing teachers' beliefs alongside their knowledge and practices became a focus.]
Liljedahl, P. (2011). The Theory of Conceptual Change as a Theory for Changing Conceptions. Nordisk Matematikkdidaktikk, 16(1-2), 101-124.
[This was important for identifying the theoretical framework that would be at the heart of his next set of endeavours - conceptual change theory.]
Liljedahl, P. (2014). Approaching Professional Learning: What teachers want. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 11(1), 109-22.
[This is a good paper which could explain the development and popularity of the BTC framework in later years. This is less about the evidence for BTC than understanding the audience for that work]
Some of the 'evidence' is also in his student theses eg. Allen (2017). https://summit.sfu.ca/item/17584
Pruner (2016) https://summit.sfu.ca/item/16614
Wells (2009). https://summit.sfu.ca/item/9750
McGregor (2018). https://summit.sfu.ca/item/17982
I will recommend to Peter that he add a link to the BTC book website to the supporting literature. I would not expect 'strong' evidence for at least another century or so :-) as it becomes more organized and systematic in its approach.
The BTC phenom is typical of the current educational landscape in North America in which marketing and over hyping of educational celebrity / influencers / ideas are part of the current zeitgeist.
So I would say the evidence is EARLY and PROMISING rather than WEAK...BUT our culture wants things now (amazon/netlfix/on-demand effect) and with a guarantee.
Thank you for all this! I reviewed most of those papers (albeit briefly) while searching for evidence to support BTC. I understand your point that it explains his trajectory, which is not unimportant (and he writes about the AHA research in the 2016 paper and in the book). But what I was looking for was something along the lines of what he provides for vertical whiteboards -- explanations of how we know that they are more engaging. That's what I'm not seeing in these papers, though I think he's making claims that the evidence is there.
But the student theses are new to me, so I'll take a closer look at those.
I hear your point about the state of math edu research, but I don't know if this is about math edu specifically. There is a lot of terrific qualitative research that comes out of education departments, I don't think this work is representative of math edu as a research field. (It is representative of how math edu consultants and speakers talk, though.)
Yes the 'grey' literature...sometimes overlooked. I think the first toolkit has likely the strongest support, the third maybe the least BUT are pragmatic extensions that are consistent with the ideas. The point is about ed research in general and better made by Wieman - we're still in the messy mucking about phase, though less messy than say 30 years ago.