As I’ve been teaching math to students, I have always tried to sprinkle the history of math into my lessons. Yet, my current stance on the matter does not line up perfectly with Constantinos. Constantinos gives the impression that history of math should be its own class. That it should take up as much class time as the traditional math itself. This lends itself to criticism 07, that there is not enough time to teach both sides of math. History of math is a spice that enhances the traditional curriculum; a little goes a long way. When introducing the topic’s problem, framing it in a historical lens will foster further by-in from the students. After the introduction of a topic, I do not normally continue pushing the historical lens.
The number of examples
and resources provided by Constantinos is amazing. As I was reading, I created
a file with these alternative subjects. I am unsure if I will be able to fit
them into the pre-existing BC curriculum. If I find myself with pedagogical
freedom in my future, I will use these examples to further foster my student’s
growth.
Hi Evan, I appreciate your critical engagement with the text as you grapple with the practicality, and how this leads you to the metaphor of spices. I wonder about whether they need to be separated. Which historical contexts might lend themselves well to being an inquiry activity that "covers" particular curricular content?
ReplyDelete