Would the statement
given above as my topic be classified analytic or synthetic? If it’s either of
the two, can it be “a priori” or “a posteriori” proposition.
As teachers, aspects of
our lives have to be within the domains of our profession, theoretically and
practically. Our mission is the same
throughout our teaching career, educating the child according to the various
school missions that we have in correspondence with the education mission as a
state. Consequently, within individual teacher’s intuition, there are
contradictions in their own contribution towards the mission and vision with
their own selves as teachers of mathematics. Apparently sharing the same
sentiments as Earnest,
Individuals’ conceptualisations of their lives
and the world about them are through a highly quantified framework. The
requirement for efficient workers and employees to regulate material production
profitably necessitated the structuring and control of space and time (Taylor
1911) and for workers’ self-identities to be constructed and constituted
through this structured space-time-economics frame (Foucault 1976). We
understand our lives through the conceptual meshes of the clock, calendar,
working timetables, travel planning and timetables, finances and currencies, ie
concept of insurance, pensions, tax, measurements of weight, length, area and
volume, graphical and geometric
representations, etc. This
positions individuals as regulated subjects and workers in an information
controlling society/state, as consumers in post-modern consumerist society, and
as beings in a quantified universe.
Accommodating all of the above, where do were stand as teachers of
mathematics? Why do we teach mathematics? What are the purposes, goals,
justifications and reasons for teaching mathematics? Realistically, probably
our concepts of the two key words teacher and mathematics have been at the tip
of an iceberg. As teachers we ought to continuously research our profession
subjectively and objectively. Developing ourselves professionally is
essential in the context of both as a mathematics teacher and for mathematics.
Considering Earnest (1991), five interest groups and their aims for teaching
mathematics, which are the: Industrial
Trainers {Acquiring basic mathematical skills and numeracy and social
training in obedience (authoritarian, basic skills centred)}, Technological Pragmatists {Learning
basic skills and learning to solve practical problems with mathematics and
information technology (industry
and work centred)}, Old Humanist Mathematician {Understanding
and capability in advanced mathematics, with some appreciation of mathematics
(pure mathematics centred)}, Progressive Educators {Gaining
confidence, creativity and self expression through maths (child-centred progressivism)} and Public
Educators {Empowerment of learners as critical and mathematically literate
citizens in society (empowerment and social justice concerns)}. Which of those do we individually belong to or
do we aspire to belong to?
We consider the concept of accountability
and sustainability. As teachers we
are accountable for our actions and responsibilities towards stakeholders of
the school. We ought to reflect upon every results feedback after an exam. It
is very important to reflect within our own epoche, how we have performed after
every academic year. Have we been honestly and righteously doing our duties to
God, let alone our own selves? It reflects our selves, who we are really and how
have we honestly been doing within this academic year. A show of contradiction
between our noumena and phenomena, the unseen real vs the unreal seen. Sustaining,
our students’ in all dimensions of life within the bounds of the school is an
important aspect of our responsibility as a member of a noble profession. We
will often be respected throughout our lives as provider of knowledge and
wisdom within the lives of our students. We are accountable and sustainer for
their knowledge regarding our subject content. Thus, as bapak mentions, we are
researchers, we will continue to research for better ways to teach, for simpler
notes to provide, and for our students’family and personal backgrounds, our
stakeholders and our own selves as teachers.
Thus, to answer the
question above, “Teachers are Researchers” are a posteriori analytic proposition. In my experience, we as teachers
are definitely researchers.
Reference
Ernest, P (1991). The Philosophy of Mathematics Education,
Studies in Education; Taylor & Francis; ROUTLEDGE FALMER.
No comments:
Post a Comment