Joe Niederberger posted Jun 21, 2013 4:44 PM: > > Wayne Bishop says: > >Yet we come down diametrically opposed on > this issue. Weird. > > I don't understand this assertion. Which parties are > diametrically opposed on which issue? > > Thanks > Joe N < I believe Professor Bishop may have been referring to the undersigned (GSC) as the party being (he supposed) opposed diametrically to him in many ways despite (as a young student; much like Professor Bishop), having transformed his feelings of boredom about/loathing of math to one of keen interest in it. [I'm not certain whether it was the opposition or the likeness to him that he considered to be 'weird'].
(Refer my post dt. Jun 20, 2013 10:08 AM - http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=9141273, in which I had recounted how a sensitive and nurturing teacher during my early school days had helped me change my loathing of math to what later became a quite intense interest in it (which still continues; but which is now subordinated to my interest in 'systems', in particular 'societal systems', 'learning systems' and the like).
Actually, I suspect it will also be discovered on deeper thought about it that the philosophy underlying the altered attitudes to math and math learning will be found to be not all that 'diametrically opposite' or as 'weird' as Professor Bishop has supposed it to be. The main issues I am in strong opposition (to Haim, Robert Hansen, Professor Bishop and their cohorts and consorts) are that:
i) I strongly believe that ideas like "PUT THE EDUCAITON MAFIA IN JAIL" and "BLOW UP THE SCHOOLS OF EDUCATION" will NEVER help us achieve anything positive in regard to the state of public school education (or any education) in the US (or in India). (Even as jokes, they are rather poor jokes).
I am also strongly of the belief that children should be ENCOURAGED to learn math - and that they should NOT be PUSHED to do that: i.e., the teaching profession needs to develop strategies that would promote 'ENCOURAGEMENT' rather than 'PUSHING'.
ii) I too believe, like Professor Bishop, that the 'schools of education' are NOT doing an adequate job of teacher training - though they do seem to *try* to follow some of the ideas implicit at i) above (without being very successful in actually doing so). I am, however, of the opinion that Professor Bishop and his cohorts and consorts know equally little about how to ensure that the 'schools of education' will perform adequately.
iii) To a great extent, I am FOR enabling students towards 'rigor' in their critical and mathematical thinking processes. I have often expressed my reservations at the 'quality of critical thinking' on display at most discussion forums (including, often enough, at Math-teach). I believe, however, that the 'traditionalists' don't at all know how to accomplish the needed rigor. Nor, for that matter, do the 'progressivists'.
(There are probably other differences as well, but I'd guess the above outlinesd some of the main differences.
(My entire approach arises from the the basis of development of a sizable number of 'OPMS models' for the Mission "To improve the state of education" [in the USA; in India;wherever]. Brief information about OPMS and the modeling processes in it is available at the attachments to my post heading the thread "Democracy: how to achieve it" - http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=2419536 . My approach is developed largely from the seminal contributions to systems science of the late John N. Warfield, about whom I have often written here).