Linda wrote,
> I think that school math is not decontextualized, but
> other-contextualized.
> I'm not meaning to play semantic games here, but think that there is a
> context school provides for math. I'm not sure what it is but it is
> probably something similar to school contexts for doing reading and
> "history." What if math, reading, science, social studies, and
> even PE, are
> not really subjects in school, but rather fodder for doing schooling, and
> doing schooling were in fact the point of school. The people who get that,
> and get good at doing schooling end up in graduate school. Hmmmm.
I can't agree more with you! I think that your point begs at least two
basic questions: why bother to teach xyz in school (what it's for?) and how
to teach it if we (who we, by the way?) agree on "why." As you very
correctly pointed out, the context of xyz taught in school (i.e., "learning
curricula," in term of Lave) is schooling itself. Paraphrasing Vygotsky, it
is a "genetic law" of learning that the institutional setting is the context
of learning. Right now it is sounds as a very depressing ( I know now that
not all people at xmca share this feeling about schooling). However I think
now we (i.e., those who feel depressed about mainstream schooling :-) know
that if we want to teach xyz we should focus on the context of learning --
the institutional settings (i.e., power relations, discipline regimes,
ownership for decision making). Maybe if we start addressing that the issue
of should or should we not teach calculus in schools will be resolved by
itself?!
What do you think?
Eugene
PS Sorry for being naughty -- it is Friday and our semester is almost over.
----------------------
Eugene Matusov
School of Education
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716
Office (302) 831-1266
Fax (302) 831-4445
email ematusov who-is-at udel.edu
Website http://ematusov.eds.udel.edu/
-------------------------