Apr 6, 2013
Dialog Internasional 7 Pendidikan Matematika
Math, Math Education, Math CultureThe current issue for "Focus on Mathematics and Pedagogy" is now online. Please see http://distance-ed.math.tamu.edu/newsletter/newsletters_new.htm#current_issue Thanks. don
G Donald Allen:
Marsigit, Sorry to disagree, but pure mathematics and pure mathematicians have very little influence on math education, formal or informal. Of course mathematicians, not research mathematicians, often serve on curriculum revision and re-design committees, at both the state and federal levels. What they mostly recommend is an adherence to rigor and correctness in mathematics instruction. The curriculum is mostly fixed. What is changed from time-to-time is the set of priorities, the order and grade level for new topics, and the scope of the testing.
Most university math educators believe substantially on current pedagogical theories to educate their students. This is mollified by their personal and experiential beliefs on how best to engage and teach their students. This is where the idea of "Folk Math Education" resides. It would be an interesting research topic to determine just how this is done, and most importantly what math ed students take away from their instruction. After all, this is how they will teach. Another factor is to consider just how much educational theory teachers apply in their courses. Like many of us, I believe many experienced teachers use methods that they feel best resonate with their students and "Get The Job Done."
As well an important factor is to consider the constraints placed upon the teachers as to what curriculum they teach and how they teach it. This includes the use of calculators, group learning, the relative importance of high stakes testing, and student self-reliance.
Overall, pure mathematical considerations are out of the teaching game vis-a-vis methodologies used today.
Marsigit Dr MA:
Donald: That is. The problems of primary and secondary math teaching are coming substantially from the points containing in your notions " (pure) mathematicians often the serve on curriculum revision and re-design committees, at both the state and federal levels. What they mostly recommend is an adherence to rigor and correctness in mathematics instruction.".
My question to pure mathematician is about their legitimation to serve, revise, and recommend curriculum for primary and secondary math teaching? This is what I called as intervention to other subject. If they talk about their own math teaching in University, there will not be a problem. If they are doing research in primary and secondary math teaching, it will be good. As you know that such activities as you stated e.g. serving, revising and recommending the primary and secondary curriculum have very-very huge impacts at the implementation in primary and secondary math teaching learning processes. My Further question is, if they force to do so, then what is really their motive? I suspect that pure mathematician perceive primary and secondary math educ as the best area for doing their business.
Further, I also wish to say that most of pure mathematician lack of understanding on philosophical, theoretical, psychological ground of primary and secondary math education. As I also put a concern on your notions " The curriculum is mostly fixed. What is changed from time-to-time is the set of priorities, the order and grade level for new topics, and the scope of the testing. Most university math educators believe substantially on current pedagogical theories to educate their students. elements containing in your notions " These notions indicate a problematic understanding and vision of primary and secondary math. I totally disagree with your last notions.
Five Guiding Principles of Mathematics Education It's high time we put grand ideas back into mathematics curricula.
Article link: http://www.eimacs.com/blog/2012/08/algebra-is-not-the-problem-part-2/.
Marsigit, I do not understand that you say "Wholemovement it is not enough to construct math concepts; and constructing math concepts is not enough to construct their life." I agree that reduction to simplify is a problem. We usually eliminate context, thus removing meaning and limiting usefulness. Reduction creates missing-information. Are you saying because of the simplicity of the circle form it is limited in contribution, and what information is missing that is necessary to extend or construct mathematical concepts is also missing in math education to develop full math understanding? By saying " the smallest dimension" are you talking about the beginning levels of math education? Please explain.
The circle is indeed a simple figure. You can draw pictures of it or fold it. For at least 5000 years we have been drawing pictures, a reduction of information with intent to clarify. There is a huge bias to drawing the circle with no experience in folding. Until we have given serious time to explore folding circles we have no idea about the real contributions to math education. From a limited experience of 23 years of folding circles I would say there is less math contrivance, being more direct and accessible, than all the centuries of drawings. That is not to downplay human achievement in developing math concepts.
The circle image has origin in observations in the outline of spherical objects. The circle disc is the transformational compression of a spherical object; the only form that demonstrates undifferentiated unity, Wholeness. To start with less than Whole is to limit ourselves to a reduction. Reflected in the first fold of decompressing the sphere/circle is the action of compression itself, revealing seven qualities that are observable that I call principle since they happen first.
Starting with the WHOLE the first MOVEMENT creates DIVISION showing DUALITY forming TRIANGULATION. These five qualities refer to the mechanics having everything to do with fundamental pattern formation and development of symmetry. The next two are principles of relationship. There is CONSISTENCY between each part and the movement of the whole, and there is a DEPENDENCY of each part to the whole, which is the determination of the interrelationships between all parts.
Through observation I am constructing a set of principles based on the qualities inherent in the first movement of a form that displays complete self-referencing and self-organization. From that standpoint I would call these principles universal as they include fundamental aspects of every level of math concepts and life formation. They are quite different that the five principles first sighted in this discussion, and I can think of no greater "grand idea" to put back into math curricula than folding circles. I ask much of mathematicians in thinking about unity as the context that has been eliminated from the units use in constructing math.
I agree there are many stages of growth in understanding math from the concrete to formal to the imaginative theoretical. These universal principles do not change from level to level. The methods and tools we use at each level do change to accommodate difference in growth.
Marsigit Dr MA:
Bradford: Your explanation is wonderful. Inevitably, we both simultaneously are reflecting each of our works. Our reflections covers math, educ, and even philosophy. I also have experiences work with the circles; though it was in the case of doing math and not up to specifically learn it as wholemovement. I think your wholemovement is something more intensive and extensive. And they are useful for the learner to find out its principles.
As we know that, as I said before, in the epistemology of math, we have phenomenological approach consist of ABSTRACTION and IDEALIZATION. Abstraction is a double sided tool for human being to be able to survive. One side is the most powerful; and the other side is the most dangerous. It is the most powerful because no aspect of human being is free from abstraction. Why? Abstraction is reduction. Reduction is choices. So you are to be chosen by God to born in this world.
Meanwhile, abstraction is reduction. And reduction is simplification. And simplification consists of ELIMINATION. That I said to be very dangerous for us (math teachers) if they do not use it appropriately. You can imagine, how someone feel devastated if one or some aspects of her/his life to be eliminated. That's why I put a highly concern on this aspect in order that the adult peoples (math teachers) do not easily eliminate students' character in teaching math. So in order the learner do their best in learning math (also in your wholemovement) as well as in their life, they should have a highly skill in using abstraction.
The opposite direction of abstraction is EXTENSION and generalization (idealization). Life, math and your wholemovement, consists of abstraction and extension simultaneously. So I found, the ancient Greek prescription, that the best method to live, learn math and wholemovement is by employing abstraction and extension simultaneously. In a daily language, I say it as "to translate and to be translated"; in geometrical representation, it is as a CIRCLE i.e. your wholemovement.
Therefore I further found that a certain circle, with its characteristic you searched, has only related with a SPACE, as you have shown many forms of the results of folding the circles. This reflects only ONE HALF of the REAL WORLD. And the other one half is that your wholemovement should be related with TIME. May you feel strange to the last term; but if you are to communicate and interact with young students, it is inevitable that they are always related with TIME.
So then I have a suggestion for you that in order you are able to improve the dimension of your wholemovement, you should put in it the element of TIME. It will be very clear because there is no movement when there is no time. Ultimately, I then have a very clear picture on your future work to not just employ the CIRCLE; but also extent it into the WORLD OF SPIRAL. This is really the nature of HERMENEUTICS of life, hermeneutics of learning math, hermeneutics of wholemovement, and hermeneutics of EVERYTHING.
It is still related to the theme of this discussion, and so I proudly wish to say that THE PRINCIPLE OF MATHEMATICS EDUCATION IS THE HERMENEUTICS OF ITS ASPECTS.
Hope something to be clearer. Thank's