Page 424 - Cultural Studies of Science Education

33 “What Is Ours and What Is Not Ours?” 399

“I have already expressed my urgent comment. The second one is the way you have
written the course learning objectives, which are vague and not measurable. For example,
how can you measure understanding? Again, we have internalised “behavioural objec-
tives” as a fundamental aspect of teacher education. Please be mindful of this. As far as
other comments are concerned, I will send a written copy of them. But pay attention to
following the foundation of mathematics education as a basis for designing your teacher
education program. And, it has been our identity as most of the teacher education depart-
ments use foundationalism as the orienting framework of mathematics education.”
“Thank you for your precious time, Sir. It is my pleasure talking to you over the
phone. By the way I will send our mailperson today or tomorrow to collect your
written comments. Thanks once again. Bye.”
I play a diplomatic language game. Indeed my “thankyou” to Dr. Authority is
not for his comments but for his agreement in ending the conversation. But one
question keeps on popping into my mind: How to transform the identity of our
teacher education program from foundationalism to non/foundationalism?
***

“Being Here: Let Us Question the Indubitable Foundation!” –
Persuading Through Heart and Mind

Dear Dr. Authority
I am writing this letter to share my perceptions about your view of the foundation
of mathematics education. I hope that this open letter can be a helpful means for
elaborating my critical views about your notion of the foundation of mathematics
education, thereby offering an inclusive vision for incorporating both of our views in
sofar as they help develop visions for contextualised mathematics teacher education.
Our conversation depicted in the story indicates that you seem to regard the founda-
tion of mathematics education as an indubitable and unchangeable framework only
through which we can develop a mathematics teacher education program. My recent
reviews of literature suggest that foundationalism is a tendency to hold the view that
(a) all knowledge arises from non-inferential knowledge or justified belief (Fumerton
2005), (b) “knowledge must have a foundation and that the rest of what is known must
rest on (i.e., derive its justificatory status from) that foundation” (Aikin 2007, p. 579),
(c) “epistemically basic beliefs must be certain, incorrigible, or infallible” (Hopp
2008, p. 196), and (d) the only way that we can sufficiently justify our beliefs or
knowledge is to show how they depend on or rest on or arise from some basic beliefs
(or “foundations”) that do not need justification and are beyond scepticism (Carr
2006). Are you thinking along these lines? Or do you have a different definition?
Aftermath of a big quake
Person 1 asks,
Was the foundation not strong enough?
Person 2 says,
The foundation was too strong and rigid
Person 3 opines,
A flexible foundation could minimize the damage