Conclusion to Interdisciplinary Mathematics Education

Abstract

We summarise the progress made by the works reported in this book for the field of Interdisciplinary Mathematics Education. It is concluded that there is still much to be done in this subfield. In our original pre-ICME-13 assessment of the State of the art (Williams et al., 2016), we commented on key weaknesses in the field that research needed to address, and this book does address some of these, such as the clarification of the conceptions in the field and its theoretical bases; the different integrative and cross curricular practices studied in cases; and the policies adopted in schools breaking down disciplinary barriers. However, we can see clearly, that our work still has a long way to go in some of these areas, e.g. the literature reviews in the field need to be based in the theoretical, and conceptual work to produce effective systematic reviews; new fit for purpose measurement tools are desperately needed if systematic quantitative work is to be conducted for evaluations that can accumulate in meta-analyses; and case studies need to be clear about the phenomena they are researching. At repeated points in this volume interdisciplinarity has raised the question of meta disciplinary knowledge needed to work across disciplines. This was introduced previously in the State of the art, but only in its infancy. Disciplinary awareness becomes necessary in teacher education, in policies affording the integration of the curriculum, and in professional practices when disciplinary power has to be negotiated , and to become flexible in the greater good. But most important, we need to learn how to frame the curriculum, pedagogy and assessment for learners in ways that can encourage their own development of disciplinary awareness. It has been argued that disciplinary and interdisciplinary awareness involves knowing when not to use a particular discipline as much as when and how to do so: this is arguably