歐爺 asked in 社會與文化語言 · 7 years ago

求內容的重點1

Written materials can be examined as subjective scheme and as an objectively given structure. When examining textbook materials as subjective scheme, the interaction between an actual reader and the textbook is the focus of attention. In fact, an underlying assumption in NSF's call for new curriculum materials was that they could be an impetus for change in mathematics teaching and learning, a notion that has gained popularity in recent mathematics education liter- ature, which focuses on the textbook as subjective scheme. Although not all current literature on discourse in mathematics classrooms has focused on the textbook as subjective scheme in particular, many authors have exam- ined to what extent teachers' classroom discourse is (or is not) aligned with the goals of the mathematics Standards. In an important and relevant book from science education, Edwards and Mercer used discourse analysis to show how "progressive" elementary science teachers exerted an "overwhelming dominance over all that was done, said and understood to be correct". In fact, the authors showed how the teachers overly controlled the development of "common knowledge" in the classroom; that is, the teachers, through the particular language forms they used, tightly controlled "what became joint versions of events and joint understandings of curriculum content". Edwards and Mercer attributed this control to a set of characteristics and limitations that the educational process works within, including the socializing function of education, the separation of formal education from the contexts of everyday life, and the implicit basis of much classroom activity and discourse.

Update:

As I discuss later, it is plausible that some of these educational processes impact the development of curriculum materials, too. In this article, rather than focus on curriculum materials as a subjective scheme, I view written materials as objectively given structure.

Update 2:

That is, the structure and discourse of the written unit-not what happens when an individual (i.e., the teacher or student) interacts with it-is the focus of this analysis.

Update 3:

This emphasis allowed me to focus on the potential of the textbook materials for supporting or undermining the ideological and epistemological goals of the Standards on discourse described earlier.

Update 4:

The majority of analyses of mathematics textbooks as an objectively given structure have focused on mathematical ideas, their forms of representation, and their organization for student learning.

Update 5:

Some exceptions to the trend of only analyzing mathematical ideas in mathematics textbooks can be found in Dowling's sociological analyses, McBride's postmodern analyses, and Seah's analyses of values, as well as those cited elsewhere in this article.

Update 6:

As this diverse set of analyses of mathematical texts show, there are many different ways to examine mathematics texts as an objectively given structure. As such, I do not claim that the analysis reported here is the only possible inter- pretation of the text I examined.

Update 7:

Each of these viewpoints highlights something interesting about mathematical texts. The analysis I report here focused on yet another important dimension of mathematics texts: the language that was being used.

Update 8:

Although you cannot read culture directly from language, language does indirectly index particular kinds of dispositions, understandings, values, and beliefs; language acts as a socializing tool.

Update 9:

It is through the examination of language patterns in textbooks that ideological and epistemological issues can be scrutinized.

Update 10:

I argue that the mathematics education research community (and, in particular, curriculum developers and publishers) needs a heightened awareness of language choice.

Update 11:

In this way, I align myself with Burton and Morgan, who believe that "becoming critically aware, through analysis of text, of how it fashions and influences meaning can only enhance one's written communication".

1 Answer

Rating
  • Favorite Answer

    這是這整篇文章的翻譯:

    書面材料可以檢查主觀計劃,並作為一個客觀的給定結構。在審查教科書材料作為主觀的方案,實際的讀寫器與教材之間的相互作用是人們關注的焦點。事實上,在美國國家科學基金會的號召,新課程教材的基本假設是,他們可能是在數學教學和學習的動力變化,已經獲得了普及,在最近的數學教育公升ature ,其重點是教科書作為主觀方案的概念。雖然不是所有的現有文獻的話語在數學課堂一直專注於教科書的主觀計劃,特別是許多作家都有考試,獨立非執行董事,以教師的課堂話語是(或不是)什麼程度的數學標準的目標相一致。從科學教育的重要和相關的書籍,愛德華茲和默瑟用話語分析來說明如何“進步”小學科學教師施加了“壓倒性優勢超過一切的事成就了,說和理解是正確的” 。事實上,作者展示了如何在教師過分控制的在課堂上“常識”的發展;也就是說,教師,通過他們使用的具體語言形式,嚴格控制“什麼成為了事件和課程內容的理解關節的關節版本” 。愛德華茲和默瑟將此歸因控制的一組特性和限制的教育過程中的作品,包括教育的社會化功能,正規教育,從日常生活的情境的分離,和許多課堂活動和話語的隱含基礎。

    正如我在後面討論,我們有理由認為一些教育過程的影響課程教材的開發,太。在這篇文章中,而不是專注於課程教材作為一種主觀的方案,我認為是客觀的給定結構的書面材料。

    也就是說,寫單位沒有的結構和語篇當一個人(即教師或學生)互動與它 - 這是分析的重點會發生什麼。

    這種重視讓我把重點放在課本材料支持或破壞準則對前面所述的話語意識形態和認識論目標的潛力。

    廣大數學教科書作為一種客觀的給定結構的分析主要集中在數學思想,其表達形式,以及其組織為學生的學習。

    一些例外情況只有在分析數學教科書數學思想的趨勢可以在Dowling的社會學分析,麥克布萊德的後現代主義的分析,和值佘的分析,以及那些在這篇文章中引用其他地方找到。

    由於這種不同數學文本分析的集展示,也有很多不同的方法來研究數學文本作為一個客觀的給定結構。因此,我並不認為此報告的分析是唯一可能的跨pretation我檢查的文字。

    這些觀點突出一些有趣的關於數學文本。分析我在這裡報告側重於數學文本的另一個重要維度:當時正在使用的語言。

    雖然無法直接從語言閱讀的文化,語言確實間接索引特定種類的性情,認識,價值觀和信仰;語言作為一種交際工具。

    它是通過語言模式的考試教材,思想和認識論的問題都進行審議。

    我認為,數學教育研究團體(和,特別是,課程開發商和發行商)的需要所選擇的語言認識的提高。

    就這樣,我使自己與伯頓和摩根,誰相信“成為它如何時尚和影響意味著只能提高一個人的書面溝通極為清楚,通過文本分析。

    Source(s): (那個...本人的國文不是很好如果需要大意的話我再補充~~謝謝)
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.