Gustafsson, Lars

Valero, Paola

Wedege, Tine

English

lifelong mathematics education (1): Needs and constraintsTine Wedege1, Lars Gustafsson2, Paola Valero31 Malmö University; 2 NCM, Göteborg, Sweden; 3 Aalborg University, DenmarkTheme D: Mathematics for all: why? what? when?MotivationThe idea of lifelong learning is now supposed to structure education in the Nordic countries. The right and the obligation concerning education do not stop with childhood and youth but includes adult life. According to Rubenson (2001), “lifelong learning” was introduced by UNESCO in the late 1960s as a utopian-humanistic principle. Then it disappeared from the policy debate but reappeared in the late 1980s where the interest was based on an economistic worldview emphasising the importance of highly developed human capital and technology. From the late 1990s, it seems that a third generation of lifelong learning, an economistic-social cohesion view, is taking over. This trend emphasises active citizenship and employability as two equally important aims for lifelong learning – at least on the rhetoric level. In this scenario, politicians, researchers and teachers might give different answers to the question “why mathematics for all?” (Johansen, 2006).  Among these reasons we recognize the economy to be decisive at the political level: technological development at the labour market is the main reason for demanding mathematics education to all and, in this context, people’s everyday competences do not count as mathematics (FitzSimons, 2002). Mathematics is to a large extent invisible in people’s everyday life and they do not feel it relevant to study mathematics. One of the reasons is that people experience themselves as competent in their jobs without being aware of how mathematics plays a role in their activity (Wedege, 2000). Thus, mathematics education is experienced by the learners as a field of tension between felt needs concerning what one wants to learn – or has to learn – and various constraints from society and labour market (Wedege and Evans, 2006).Questions for discussionFrom the perspective of lifelong learning, the term “mathematics” comes closer to definitions of the necessary mathematical competence in people’s everyday life, and conceptions of “mathematical literacy” and “numeracy” are construed from different perspectives based on values and rationales of the stakeholders, as Jablonka (2003) has shown. Furthermore, in a study of mathematical literacy/numeracy it is possible to take a subjective approach starting with people's subjective needs (see FitzSimons, 2002; Wedege, 2000), and it is possible to take an objective approach starting either with societal and labour market demands or with the academic discipline (transformed into "school mathematics"). However, if you want to understand the affective and social conditions for people's learning processes in mathematics then you have to take both dimensions into account (Valero, 2002, Wedege, 2000). Thus, we propose the following two questions to be explored:1.	How is it possible to combine the subjective and the objective approaches in a study on mathematical literacy/numeracy?2.	How do we take into account the tension between people’s needs and societal demands in a concept of mathematical literacy/numeracy?Our point of departure is that any concept of mathematical literacy/numeracy, almost by definition, has to be construed on a basis of an idea of “mathematics for all”.organisation of the sessionIn the session we will invite participants to explore these questions based on a very short motivation for discussion. Conference participants will be invited to send an indication of their interest to participate in this discussion group session and send to the organisers their own papers/articles dealing with the issue of needs and constraints in mathematics education. Based on participants’ interests, we will plan a more detailed agenda for the discussion balancing between our motivation and the participants’ interests in the group. – For the participants also going to theme group “Lifelong mathematics education (2)” it will be possible to draw on the discussion from this group.REFERENCESFitzSimons, G. E. (2002). What counts as mathematics? Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Jablonka, E. (2003). Mathematical Literacy. In Bishop, A. J. et al. (Eds.), Second International Handbook of Mathematics Education 75-102. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Johansen, L. Ø. (2006). Hvorfor skal voksne tilbydes undervisning i matematik? (Doctoral thesis) Aalborg: DCN, Aalborg University.Rubenson, K. (2001). ‘Lifelong Learning for All: Challenges and Limitations of Public Policy.’ The Swedish Ministry of Education and Science European Conference: Adult Lifelong Learning in a Europe of Knowledge. Eskildstuna March 23-25. 2001.Valero, P. (2002). The myth of the active learner: From cognitive to socio-political interpretations of students in mathematics classrooms. In P. Valero & O. Skovsmose (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Mathematics Education and Society (pp. 489-500). Copenhagen: Center for research in learning mathematics.Wedege, T. (2000). Technology, Competences and Mathematics. I​n Coben, D.; FitzSi​mons, G.; O’Donoghue, J. (Eds.), Perspectives on Adults Learning Mathema​tics: Research and Practice (pp.192-209). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Wedege, T. and Evans, J. (2006). Adults’ resistance to learn in school versus adults’ competences in work: the case of mathematics. Adults Learning Mathematics: an International Journal 1(2), 28-43.

Llifelong mathematics education (1):needs and constraints

https://vbn.aau.dk/ws/files/14944182/Wedege_et_al

Llifelong mathematics education (1):needs and constraints

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

VBN