生命論に立つ数学教育学の方法論 : 自由で個性豊な算数・数学授業を目指して(ヒラバヤシ賞受賞論文)

概要

論文の詳細を見る
In the 50s of the Showa Era (1975-1985), on the basis of a scientific view of teaching and classes, learning objectives were classified and lesson planning was discussed in terms of its validity, reliability and objectivity. However, this development, contrary to its original purpose, led to "standardized classes" and a "choking atmosphere in class". According to the author, it is suspected that this result was caused by the fact that the scientific nature of classroom teaching was supplanted by one based on natural science. In fact, it is commonly accepted that according to a system-based approach, such a complex phenomenon as teaching and activity in a classroom should be formed through a "systemic-progressive" approach, not an "mechanical-technical" approach. In particular, as far as mathematics education is concerned, there are problems with teaching and classes that are based upon behaviorist theories. (1) Behaviorism-oriented classes originally derived from a "factory model" common in industry and its purpose is to develop the labor force. (2) Behaviorism-oriented classes are based on atomism, which results in the lack of the 'ability to apply', learning continuity and a strong dislike of mathematics. (3) Behaviorism-oriented classes do not fit the nature of mathematical activities (i.e., "continuous development of patterns from patterns"). (4) Behaviorism-oriented classes neglect the nature of human existence (i.e., they focus on "we", not on "I"). (5) The standards for classroom evaluation (i.e., generalizability, reliability, replicability, and so on) have been changing. In order to solve these problems, the present paper argues for the development of mathematical learning on the basis of teaching principles. This suggestion presupposes that mathematics education is a type of design science. Teaching principles, which are developed from various teaching-learning theories, are testified in real live classrooms. Thus, these teaching principles can be regarded as a set of hypotheses and also the sum of what has been learned by researchers, such as examples of whom are Piaget, Bruner, Dienes, Freudenthal, Dewey, and Vygotsky. Here are some examples of the teaching principles: genetic principle; operational principle; principle of activity; principle of dynamic interaction; principle of social learning; wholistic principle; principle of the spiral learning; principle of interaction of representation; principle of focus on central ideas; principle of progressive mathematizing. The structure of these principles is summarized by Wittmann (1998) as follows;In this paper, the author suggests that in accordance with these principles, decisions on how the Course of Study and virtual classes should be developed and evaluated must be left to those who are expert in mathematics education (i.e., scholars and teachers). This is because each expert has a different view of "mathematics", "mathematics education", and "children as learners". The fundamental nature of mathematical learning is freedom (openness).

著者

國本景亀
高知大学教育学部

生命論に立つ数学教育学の方法論 : 自由で個性豊な算数・数学授業を目指して(ヒラバヤシ賞受賞論文)

スポンサーリンク

概要

著者

関連論文

スポンサーリンク