Commentary on the Chapter by Wolfgang Schlöglmann, “Mathematics Education for Adults: Can It Reduce Inequality in Society?”

Part of the Advances in Mathematics Education book series (AME)

Abstract

Adults, education, Bildung, inequality, lifelong learning, and mathematics are the key terms in the chapter written by Schlöglmann. In the 1990s, he was one of the pioneers that cultivated the borderland between mathematics education, adult education, and vocational education as a subfield of mathematics education research (see Wedege 2000). Together with Jungwirth and Maasz at the University of Linz, he conducted a large empirical study exploring “the state of mathematics education within the adult education system in Austria” (Jungwirth et al. 1995, p. 13). In this study, the authors made an important distinction between courses where mathematics is explicitly taught and courses where mathematical concepts and methods are used implicitly. In order to label the latter they constructed the term “Mathematikhaltige Weiterbildung” (translation: “Mathematics-containing continuing education”) presumably to remind people that mathematics in vocational training, as in the workplace itself, is integrated with other subjects and vocational competences. Elsewhere I claimed that within the scientific domain of mathematics education they paved the way for research on vocationally oriented adult education, where mathematics is an integral part (Wedege 2000).

Keywords

Mathematics Education Vocational Training Lifelong Learn Adult Education Mathematics Education Research 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bishop, A. J. (1988). Mathematical enculturation. A cultural perspective on mathematics education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ernest, P. (2004). Relevance versus utility: Some ideas on what it means to know mathematics. In B. Clarke et al. (Eds.), International perspectives on learning and teaching mathematics (pp. 313–327). Göteborg: National Center for Mathematics Education, NCM. Google Scholar
  3. Jensen, J. H., Niss, M., & Wedege, T. (Eds.) (1998). Justification and enrolment problems in education involving mathematics or physics. Frederiksberg: Roskilde University Press. Google Scholar
  4. Henningsen, I. (2008). Gender mainstreaming of adult mathematics education: Opportunities and challenges. Adults Learning Mathematics—an International Journal, 3(1), 32–40 (available 25.04.11 at www.alm-online.net ALM journal). Google Scholar
  5. Johansen, L. Ø. & Wedege, T. (Eds.) (2002). Conference proceedings ALM8 (available 25.04.11 at www.alm-online.net ALM proceedings).
  6. Johansen, L. Ø. (2006). Hvorfor skal voksne tilbydes undervisning i matematik? En diskursanalytisk tilgang til begrundelsesproblemet. [Why offer mathematical instruction to adults?] Doctoral thesis, DCN, Aalborg University, Aalborg. Google Scholar
  7. Jungwirth, H., Maasz, J., & Schlöglmann, W. (1995). Abschlussbericht zum Forschungsprojekt Mathematik in der Weiterbildung. Linz (Unpublished). Google Scholar
  8. Lindberg, L. (Ed.) (2005). Conference proceeding from ALM-11 (available 25.04.11 at www.alm-online.net ALM proceedings).
  9. Niss, M. (1996). Goals of mathematics teaching. In A. J. Bishop et al. (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics education (pp. 11–47). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Google Scholar
  10. Rubenson, K. (2008). OECD education policies and world hegemony. In R. Mahon & S. McBride (Eds.), The OECD and transnational governance (pp. 242–259). Vancouver: UBC Press. Google Scholar
  11. Skovsmose, O. (1990). Democracy and mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 21, 109–128. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Wedege, T. (1993). Fra kvalificering til dannelse. ‘Fleksibilitet’ som en progressiv dannelseskategori. [From qualification to Bildung: Flexibility as a progressiv Bildung category]. Dansk Pædagogisk Tidsskrift, 3, 135–143. Google Scholar
  13. Wedege, T. (2000). Technology, competences and mathematics. In D. Coben, J. O’Donoghue, & G. E. FitzSimons (Eds.), Perspectives on adults learning mathematics: Research and practice (pp. 191–207). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Google Scholar
  14. Wedege, T. (2004). Mathematics at work: Researching adults’ mathematics-containing competences. Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education, 9(2), 101–122. Google Scholar
  15. Wedege, T. (2010). Needs and demands: Some ideas on what it means to know mathematics in society. In B. Sriraman & S. Goodchild (Eds.), Relatively and philosophically E a rnest: Festschrift in honor of Paul Ernest’s 65th Birthday (pp. 221–234). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing. Google Scholar
  16. Wedege, T. & Evans, J. (2006). Adults’ resistance to learning in school versus adults’ competences in work: The case of mathematics. Adults Learning Mathematics—An International Journal, 1(2), 28–43 (available 25.04.11 at www.alm-online.net ALM journal). Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Malmö UniversityMalmöSweden

Personalised recommendations