The Philosophy of Mathematics Education
Ethnomathcmatics vs abstract mathematics: There is a conflict between the location of
mathematics in the world of the student's experience, and the need to teach theoretical
mathematics to provide the powerful thinking tools of abstract mathematics. This
parallels the conflict between socially embedded and relevant applications of
mathematics and academic mathematical structure and theory. A number of authors
have pointed to the dangers of a restricted 'ghetto' curriculum (Dewey, 1966; Layton,
1973; Abraham and Bibby, 1988; Jones, 1989). Indeed Gramsci (1971) argues that the
narrow cultural experience of working class children is an obstacle to the development
of abstract and critical thought. The problem is to move from socially or concretely
embedded mathematical situations to their theoretical content, without the loss of
meaning and the switch into a new, disconnected realm of discourse. However,
observations in Johnson (1989) suggest that these negative outcomes are common,
even in the planned move from practical to formal mathematics within a single
classroom.
There is no way to avoid these conflicts. They have to be recognized and
addressed in any public educator curriculum.
2. A Critical Review of the Model of Ideologies
A tentative overall model of the ideologies underlying the mathematics curriculum in
Britain has been presented in both philosophical and socially located terms. It is
critically reviewed in this section, beginning with a consideration of its weaknesses.
A. Criticism of the Model
Arbitrarily joined philosophies, values and groups
The first criticism of the model is that of arbitrariness in the selection of the primary
component types, their links, and their identification in each of the five ideologies.
This has some foundation . The model is speculative and inter-disciplinary, drawing
together elements of philosophy, psychology, sociology and history, both in and out
of mathematics education. Whilst the constituent parts are well grounded in different
theoretical disciplines. the overall S}11thesis is admittedly conjectural. Consequently no
finality is claimed for1he list of components in the model, which are joined together by
associations of plausibility rather than logic.
Simplifying assumptions of the model
The model, of necessity, depends on many simplifying assumptions. It is assumed that
a single ideology and interest group maintains its identity over the course of time
treated, despite the large-scale changes in knowledge, society and education. Within
each group different segments may form, band together in alliances, dissolve, or break
214
The Philosophy of Mathematics Education
Ethnomathcmatics vs abstract mathematics: There is a conflict between the location of
mathematics in the world of the student's experience, and the need to teach theoretical
mathematics to provide the powerful thinking tools of abstract mathematics. This
parallels the conflict between socially embedded and relevant applications of
mathematics and academic mathematical structure and theory. A number of authors
have pointed to the dangers of a restricted 'ghetto' curriculum (Dewey, 1966; Layton,
1973; Abraham and Bibby, 1988; Jones, 1989). Indeed Gramsci (1971) argues that the
narrow cultural experience of working class children is an obstacle to the development
of abstract and critical thought. The problem is to move from socially or concretely
embedded mathematical situations to their theoretical content, without the loss of
meaning and the switch into a new, disconnected realm of discourse. However,
observations in Johnson (1989) suggest that these negative outcomes are common,
even in the planned move from practical to formal mathematics within a single
classroom.
There is no way to avoid these conflicts. They have to be recognized and
addressed in any public educator curriculum.
2. A Critical Review of the Model of Ideologies
A tentative overall model of the ideologies underlying the mathematics curriculum in
Britain has been presented in both philosophical and socially located terms. It is
critically reviewed in this section, beginning with a consideration of its weaknesses.
A. Criticism of the Model
Arbitrarily joined philosophies, values and groups
The first criticism of the model is that of arbitrariness in the selection of the primary
component types, their links, and their identification in each of the five ideologies.
This has some foundation . The model is speculative and inter-disciplinary, drawing
together elements of philosophy, psychology, sociology and history, both in and out
of mathematics education. Whilst the constituent parts are well grounded in different
theoretical disciplines. the overall S}11thesis is admittedly conjectural. Consequently no
finality is claimed for1he list of components in the model, which are joined together by
associations of plausibility rather than logic.
Simplifying assumptions of the model
The model, of necessity, depends on many simplifying assumptions. It is assumed that
a single ideology and interest group maintains its identity over the course of time
treated, despite the large-scale changes in knowledge, society and education. Within
each group different segments may form, band together in alliances, dissolve, or break
214
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..