Abstract
Is it possible to develop the content and form of mathematical education in such a way that it may serve as a tool of democratization in both school and society? This question is related to two different arguments. The social argument of democratization states: (1) Mathematics has an extensive range of applications, (2) because of its applications mathematics has a “society-shaping” function, and (3) in order to carry out democratic obligations and rights it is necessary to be able to identify the main principles of the development of society. The pedagogical argument of democratization states: (1) Mathematical education has a “hidden curriculum”, (2) the “hidden curriculum” of mathematical education in a traditional form implants a servile attitude towards technological questions into a large number of students, and (3) we cannot expect any development of democratic competence in school unless the teaching-learning situation is based on a dialogue and unless the curriculum is not totally determined from outside the classroom.
The social argument implies that we must aim at “empowering material” which could constitute a basis for reflective knowledge i.e. knowledge about how to evaluate and criticize a mathematical model, while the pedagogical argument implies that we must aim at “open material” leaving space for decisions to be taken in the classroom.
Will it become possible to create materials at the same time open and empowering? To answer this question we have to analyse the concept ‘democratic competence’, which can be related to ‘reflective knowledge’ characterized by a specific object of knowledge and a specific way of knowledge production. The ultimate aim will be to unify these characteristics in an epistemological theory of mathematical education.Footnote 1
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Notes
This paper is a revised version of \ldDemocratization and Mathematical Education\rd, R. 88-33 Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Aalborg University Centre.
References
D'AmbrosioU.: 1981, ‘Uniting reality and action: A holistic approach to mathematics education’, in SteenL. A. and AlbersD. J. (eds.), Teaching Teachers, Teaching Students, Birkhäuser, Boston/Basel/Stuttgart, pp. 33–42.
D'Ambrosio, U.: 1984a, ‘Socio-cultural bases for mathematics education’ (draft), UNICAMP, Universidade Estadual de Campinas.
D'Ambrosio, U.: 1984b, ‘On the socio-cultural context of science education: A rationale for ethno-science’ (draft), UNICAMP, Universidade Estadual de Campinas.
D'AmbrosioU.: 1985, ‘Mathematic education in a cultural setting’, International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 16, 469–477.
BishopA.: 1988, Mathematical Enculturation, Kluwer, Dordrecht/Boston/London.
Bjørneboe, J. and Nissen, G.: 1984, ‘Den taberproducerende matematikundervisning’, Uddannelse, No. 8, 469–479.
BlumW. et al. (eds.): 1989, Applications and Modelling in Learning and Teaching Mathematics, Ellis Horwood, Chichester.
BollerslevP. et al.: 1987, Flyv med, Gyldendal, Copenhagen.
ChristiansenB., HowsonA. G. and OtteM. (eds.): 1986, Perspectives on Mathematics Education, Reidel, Dordrecht/Boston/Lancaster/Tokyo.
Christiansen, B. and Walther, G.: 1986, ‘Task and activity’, in Christiansen, Howson and Otte (1986), pp. 243–307.
DieudonnéJ. A.: 1973, ‘Should we teach ‘modern’ mathematics?’, American Scientists 61, 16–19.
EllulJ.: 1964, The Technological Society, Free Press, New York.
FischerR. and MalleG.: 1985, Mensch und Mathematik, Bibliographisches Institut, Mannheim/Wien/Zürich.
‘Five Years IOWO’, Educational Studies in Mathematics 7, No. 3, 1976.
FreireP.: 1972a, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Penguin, Harmondsworth.
FreireP.: 1972b, Cultural Action for Freedom, Penguin, Harmondsworth.
MaassJ. and SchlöglmannW. (eds.) 1989, Mathematik als Technologie?, Deutscher Studien Verlag, Weinheim.
Mellin-OlsenS.: 1987, The Politics of Mathematics Education, Reidel, Dordrecht/Boston/Lancaster/Tokyo.
Niss, M.: 1984, ‘Kritisk matematikundervisning — nødvendig men vanskelig’, Unge Padagoger, No. 4, 21–29.
Niss, M.: 1989, ‘Aims and scope of applications and modelling in mathematics curricula’, in Blum et al., pp. 22–31.
NissM. and HermannK.: 1982, Beskœftigelsesmodellen i SMEC III, Nyt Nordisk Forlag Arnold Busck, Copenhagen.
SkovsmoseO.: 1985, ‘Mathematical education versus critical education’, Educational Studies in Mathematics 16, 337–354.
SkovsmoseO.: 1988a, ‘Mathematics as part of technology’, Educational Studies in Mathematics 19, 23–41.
Skovsmose, O.: 1988b, Reflective knowledge and mathematical modelling, R 88-13, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Aalborg University Centre.
Skovsmose, O.: 1989a, ‘Towards a philosophy of an applied oriented mathematical education’, in Blum et al., pp. 110–114.
SkovsmoseO.: 1989b, ‘Models and reflective knowledge’, Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik 89, 3–8.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Skovsmose, O. Mathematical education and democracy. Educ Stud Math 21, 109–128 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00304897
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00304897