Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.
|
|
|
|
Ideology in place of brain
Posted:
Jan 3, 1999 3:55 PM
|
|
I must agree with Jack that I still don't get it. I am confused for a
couple of reasons.
First, I am confused because Jack keeps skirting around the request of
the names of "(a) number of constructivist ideologs (who) have
challenged the thesis that thinking actually takes place in a
concrete, material brain and that the process of thinking is formed
by, and, dialectically, also forms and changes the brain." I just
wanted a few references because his claim is so different from what I
am familiar with. I would imagine if I say some followers of Lenin
believe this or that, and if that statement is in conflice with Jack's
understanding of Lenin's ideas, he would want to know my sources.
This request is somewhat irrelevant to his main idea [I would imagine
he can make the same argument if people who make such a claim are
Marxists, for example], but, nevertheless, I am curious what his
sources are.
Second, I am confused how he equates the claim calcuation is waste and
the idea that thinking takes place somewhere other than in our brains.
Perhaps a part of the reason is that this first claim is made without
any context. For example, I think there are plenty of HS science
teachers who would favor stuents using calculators as they engage in
some experiments. So, perhaps Jack is implying that there are people
(allegedely constructivists?) who do not believe in teaching any
arithmetic in younger grades. Then, again, this comes back to the
question of who those people are. [I know there are many people who
say that the goal of mathematics education should not be just
re-creating poor imitations of $5 calculators. Agreeing with such a
statement, however, does not mean that learning arithmetic is
unimportant in every context.]
Perhaps implicit in my request is a question, "Is there really such
(constructivist) math educator???" I know many constructivists (and
those who do not label themselves as such), for example C. Kamii, who
argue against teaching (imposing) specific computational algorithms,
and instead, encourage helping children to create their own methods.
But, that approach seems to be very different from saying 'calculation
is waste' or 'thinking doesn't take place in our brains.' In fact,
those people usually encourage children to use their own ability to
reason/think. So, in order to help children master the basic facts,
they would want children to use their own strategies, like 6+7 is 13
because 6+6 is 12 and one more. I don't know why such an approach is
the same thing as 'thinking doesn't take place in our brains.'
There is no question brain research is very important for math
education. I think we need to understand more about how our brains
work, and I really don't know any constructivists who disagree.
Tad Watanabe
|
|
|
|
