Advertisement

The Political Shaping of Mathematical Learning

  • Tony Brown
Chapter
Part of the Mathematics Education Library book series (MELI, volume 51)

Abstract

The realities of the previous generation clearly impact on the next generation. These realities can firm up in relation to familiar forms that can result in conservative modes of education centred on delivery of these forms. The making of mathematics in classrooms now can sometimes be seen as subservient to the forms created and then favoured by the previous generation, who had been making mathematics, according to their own particular image, in the circumstances they had faced. In such instances, mathematics is referenced and anchored to the last people’s models, thereby shielding the dynamic and analytical aspects of mathematical capabilities that might be invoked in the new conditions. In school education more generally, adjustments to knowledge are processed through successive curriculum models and wider educational infrastructure shaped according to the preferences of the day, ostensibly on a long march to “improvement” or to “raise standards”. Curriculums can be variously understood: as an outline of mathematical content; a guide to mathematical learning by children; a cynical ploy to make teachers and children more accountable according to a particular institutionalised account of mathematics; or, a reconfiguration of the discipline itself to meet contemporary needs, etc. The evaluation instruments used are often referenced to objects from earlier knowledge bases. The instruments of assessment carry with them the modes of governance to which we are subject. The acquisition of settled knowledge is easier to govern than a learning attitude centred in experimentation and critique. And the demands of governance can suppress new perspectives and temper intellectual responsiveness.

Keywords

Teacher Education Social Practice Classroom Mathematic Mathematical Content Mathematical Activity 
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. Adams, J. (2010). Risky choices: The dilemmas of introducing contemporary art practices into schools. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 31(6), 683–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson, D. (2007). Pedagogy against the state: Some remarks upon events of learning. ACCESS: Critical Perspectives on Communication, Cultural & Policy Studies, 26(2), 47–57.Google Scholar
  3. Bottery, M., & Wright, N. (1996). Cooperating in their own deprofessionalisation? On the need to recognise the “public” and “ecological” roles of the teaching profession. British Journal of Education Studies, 44(1), 82–98.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, T., & McNamara, O. (2011). Becoming a mathematics teacher: Identity and identifications. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Butler, J. (2005). Giving and account of oneself. New York: Fordham University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (2001). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  7. Strathern, M. (Ed.). (2000). Audit cultures: Anthropological studies in accountability, ethics and the academy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Taylor, P. (2010). Žižek and the media. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  9. Žižek, S. (1989). The sublime object of ideology. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  10. Žižek, S. (1997). The plague of fantasies. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  11. Žižek, S. (2006a). The parallax view. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Tahta, D. (1989). Take care of the symbols. Unpublished paper.Google Scholar
  13. Butler, J. (1997). The psychic life of power. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Foucault, M. (1997). Ethics: Subjectivity and truth. In P. Rabinow (Ed.). London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  15. Gabriel, M., & Žižek, S. (2009). Mythology, madness and laughter. Subjectivity in German idealism. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  16. Department for Education. (2010). The importance of teaching. London: The Stationary Office.Google Scholar
  17. Brown, T. (1987). Language interaction patterns in lessons featuring mathematical investigations. PhD thesis, University of Southampton.Google Scholar
  18. Presmeg, N. (2003). Ancient areas: A retrospective analysis of early history of geometry in light of Peirce’s “comments”. Svensk Förening för Matematik Didaktisk Forskning: Medlemsblad, 8, 24–34.Google Scholar
  19. Žižek, S. (1996). The indivisible remainder. An essay on Schelling and related matters. London: Verso.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Manchester Metropolitan University, Education and Social Research InstituteDidsbury, ManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations