A

nt re fe if

pe ha

or f

ur C

ic r

um ul

g ai cr r By ye dw

Curriculum A Different Shape for

Why teach Math?

craig dwyer

I could quote talks (Benjamin 2009, Rosling 2009) about how our society is entering a new phase of economic evolution that requires its citizens to be not only aware, but literate in the language of statistics and statistical analysis. But I wont. I could cite academic articles (Renert, 2011) on the notion of transformation for sustainability and environmental education through studying large numbers and chaos mathematics. But Im not going to. I could introduce (more than likely remind) the audience of the mathematics that exist all around us in the natural world (Devlin, 2005), from the curve of a birds flight to the mathematical efficiency of the bees honeycomb. But I dont want to. I might discuss how young infants have an incredible ability to determine quantity (Gopnik, 2011), or the research behind it suggesting that mathematical understanding is a lived, embodied experience (Lakoff, 2000). But I will not. I could regal you with stories and anecdotes about the beauty and aesthetics of the mathematical language and the quest for knowledge (Singh, 1997). But, no. I might introduce you to the ways that math is fun, creative, and driven by a sense of play and curiosity (Lockhart, 2012). But, I am not opening that closet. I could also get into critical pedagogy mode and rant about how our current system of math education is used as a societal sorting mechanism (Volmik, 1994), or how it the banking metaphor permeates the written curriculum (Freire, 2000), or how we are failing our kids by framing mathematics as a series of steps to follow rather than a source of inquiry and creativity (Lockhart, 2012). But I have decided not to travel down that path. The truth is, these are all great reasons to teach math, and I am sure that each one of them has a rich base of academic writing and research to support an end of term research paper such as this. And, I am sure many of my classmates will write great papers using these ideas as jumping off points for deep and meaningful investigations into the meaning of this thing we call Math Education. I look forward to reading those papers, but instead, I want to play with an idea. I want to play with shapes. 2

Curriculum A Different Shape for

The Shape of Curriculum

craig dwyer

Straight - it may go from point A to point Z (with lots of stops along the journey) and progress it a very linear way, like a set of stairs, each step connecting it to the next. In this view of learning (because isnt that what curriculum is about, learning?), the output is the sum of the previous inputs, and the learner progresses along the path until 4 they have learned all of the sums. Once they reach the highest point on 2 the graph, they are deemed to have succeeded and are ready to move on 0 to the next node and continue the climb. In our world of benchmarks and standards, curriculum has been treated as a rigid edifice with fixed associations (each node leads to the next), suggesting an assumption with its Euclidean roots and exemplified by the often used utterance the basics (Davis, 2006). You learn the basics and then proceed to the next node in the linear path through a pre-ordained sequence of concepts and content. These nodes are decided by a committee in an office, with the help of scholars and experts. Spiral - this view of curriculum is a little bit different than that of a straight line at first glance. This time, there is a sense of folding back, revisiting or reviewing previous nodes. The purpose of this movement back instead of away (as suggested by the straight line) is to allow the learner ample opportunity and time to practice and build on foundational concepts. Through this rebuilding, the knowledge of the concept becomes stronger and understanding is enhanced through repeated practice. The progression of topics is still linear and logical (and decided by the same people in the same office) but with the value added benefit of revisiting. A Feeling of Discomfort Yet, is this how learning happens? These models are based on a couple of assumptions. First, that all the concepts previous to our place on the line are learned. If we look at the straight line, this becomes very troublesome, since we must assume that after two weeks of teaching probability (because the curriculum is so crowded that us practicing teachers dont have time to spend more than that) that the learner is comfortable enough with the concept of probability to proceed up the line. However, as anyone who has ever tried to learn something can attest, it isnt that simplistic. That is where the spiral comes in. Now, we have an opportunity to revisit the concept and further strengthen the idea. The next question is how often do we revisit, and is that enough? If we are on a point in spiral (say in the light gray section near the top) we are again working on the assumption that the dark black areas at the bottom are learned. Yes, the spiral loops back, but it is limited by its lineness, and after a certain number of revisits, it ceases to loop back and makes the assumption that this material has achieved the status of learned, or mastered. To me, it appears that this model is a line, albeit it a slightly curved line. Yet, it is still a line. Davis (2008) recounts the story of Krista, a teenage girl who was diagnosed by the education system as having a mathematics learning disability, and her remarkable recovery into a strong mathematics student at the high school level. On reading the account, my thought was, the spiral got away from her. As she proceeded through her math instruction, it seems that the revisiting of concepts was not working optimally, and she was operating in the black section, when the curriculum assumed she should be operating in the light gray section. It is my assertion that the way we view the shape of curriculum is vital to how the curriculum is enacted and embodied. In order for our curriculum to evolve into a more holistic and child centered artifact, our sense of shape needs to be re-imagined.

Curriculum A Different Shape for

Three Different (but complementary) Metaphors

craig dwyer

I would like to present three different metaphors for looking at the shape of curriculum differently. Each metaphor suggests a different way to view, as Aoki (2005) suggests, the lived curriculum. The first is suggestive as to how the curriculum moves, or simply, how the content of mathematics is approached. The second is a guide for how the student mentally approaches the journey of curriculum, and how they view their own lived experience as an agent who is inside of it (and who it is ultimately intended for). The final is a reconceptualization of the role of the teacher, and how the teacher can use the first two metaphors to provide a path (a line) for the student to progress on their journey. Another way to view these three models would be to think of them as knowing, learning, and teaching.

Knowing Mathematics as Highly Connected Ideas

Davis and Sumara (2006) suggest that curriculum may better be viewed in terms of nested, or scale free networks. They propose that this reframing changes the main question forming the curriculum from What is foundational? to What are the highly connected ideas?. In turn, the structure of a curriculum would from a directed movement through topics tohave to be transformed a study of neighborhoods of concepts - that is, according to the structure illustrated in figures 3.5 (a scale free network) and 3.6 (Weak links in the network), rather than the currently ubiquitous line. (Davis and Sumara, 2006)

What is a scale free network? And how it is associated with curriculum? I begin my thinking with an idea from William Doll Jr, who suggests that a curriculum should have no preset beginning, rather the beginning is the moment that enables collectives to plunge into the context and enables a matrix of connections to emerge (Doll, 2005). In this view of curriculum, we dont have a place where we start, but an idea that we start with. The resulting flow, and the connection that the learner makes will determine the path of the learning engagements. If we apply this idea to what Davis and Sumara are suggesting, then the neighborhoods of concepts is what drives the directionality (or shape) of the curriculum. Fractal geometry offers a different perspective on curriculum. The history of math (and in the grander web of connections, Western thought) can be traced through the metaphors related to Euclid's geometry of the plane (Davis, 2005). Its notion of right has been questioned and is being questioned by researchers from the New Sciences of complexity and chaos. Related to this, it brings into vision a perspective of the term normal, which has had a pervasive effect on education philosophy and policy (Davis, 2008). These ways of viewing math (and education as a whole) are not coherent with emerging sensibilities that are evident in current day math and science. As we learn more and more about how the world is non-linear is nature, is it not time for our curriculum to emerge as well?

Curriculum A Different Shape for

craig dwyer

Viewing curriculum as a scale free network brings with it a host of other necessary metaphors and affordances. First, the movement of information is more efficient because the nodes are closer together (Davis and Sumara, 2005). In a linear, or even a spiral model, one set of conceptual understandings may be quite distant from another. In order to retrace your steps along the line, jumping back must occur. This process of jumping back 4 also steps over other nodes, ignoring them 2 altogether, until the teacher finds the desired node. After the jumping back has been completed along 0 a line, we then must jump forward, again skipping over important ideas in the name of staying on the line to keep up with an already crowded curriculum. This disjointed approach to teaching conceptual understanding will have two major effects; a) it is incredibly teacher centric, forcing the teacher to continually jump from space to space in order to help the learner keep up with the line in order to be at the appropriate (normal?) node. And b), by jumping over nodes to get to the desired node, the teacher is missing an opportunity to strengthen the links between concepts. If mathematical understanding can be viewed as highly connected ideas, the linear line or spiral does not connect those ideas in a way that allows the complexity of math to be revealed to the learner. If we think instead of a mathematics curriculum as a scale free network, the efficiency of such a system is obvious. Instead of jumping back, we are connecting back (which is a much shorter journey). In the connecting back metaphor, we can find out way back through the related concepts, stopping along the way to revisit the concepts that support and sustain the overall web. Where the spiral model suggests that we revisit concepts as we travel upwards on the line, it gives no directionality as to how to get to those concepts without jumping back through everything previous to it. A scale free network on the other hand, gives a more detailed and efficient path for the teacher, while at the same time providing opportunities to revisit with intention concepts that were previously covered. This makes we wonder what Davis was doing when he helped Krista. He was not jumping back and revisiting concepts as he saw necessary, but rather tracing these highly connected ideas back through their nodes, strengthening the links as he went. While they met and worked on these highly connected ideas, the entire web may have grown tighter, and this idea of tightness enabled Krista to flourish and succeed. Rather than filling in the blanks on a line, was he not making the entire web more robust and dynamic? The second major affordance of viewing curriculum as a scale free network is that the entire network is able to withstand shocks to the system because there are no nodes that are too critical to the global functioning of the system (Davis and Sumara, 2005). In the case of a mathematics curriculum, if a student is not achieving coherence in a certain node, the related nodes around it will help the whole system from falling apart. Phrased specifically, if a student is struggling with concepts of adding integers, but is understanding the concept of a numbers on a line, then the former will act as a support to the later. The lack of coherance can be retraced via its related nodes. The point is, that in this scale free model, gaps dont break the whole system down, while in the line model, these gaps may prove to be detrimental to the overall understanding of conceptual mathematics as they are assumed to be known. These assumptions may very well be the reason that so many students drop out of mathematics study. 5

Curriculum A Different Shape for

Finally, it is important to note that the purpose of viewing curriculum in this manner is not only about creating a logical set of mathematical concepts that the teacher can draw on. The most important affordance of it, in my opinion, is not the structure, but rather how the structure is viewed, felt, and experienced. When the subject is seen as a series of highly connected ideas, rather than a straight linear line, it is more accessible. Teachers, and students, are going to need new metaphors for how they view their approach to the discipline. The metaphors of progressing along a line, or climbing up stairs, or building knowledge upwards, are not going to harmonize this this model (the fact that our school systems are numbered with grades from 1-12 and children are grouped into groups of the same age does not make this any easier). New ways of viewing teaching and learning mathematics are necessary. It is ironic to note that traveling along a scale free network and all of its related concepts is very linear. You travel a line to get to a node to get to a line to get to a node. In the end, lines are useful, even necessary, but how we use them is vital.

craig dwyer

Learning as a Zen Journey

Maxine Greene has developed a metaphor of curriculum as a map (Greene, 1975). If we look at this from the perspective of a scale-free network, the visual of a map is easily seen and felt. However, as anyone who has traveled knows, there are many types of maps. I am immediately struck with two such images of maps from own embodied experience. The map given to me during a package tour to Taiwan, and a map I purchased from a small road side kiosk in Amsterdam. The difference for me speaks volumes about the varying conceptualizations of the curriculum as map metaphor. The map from Taiwan had bright red lines telling me where to go and what to do. In a sense, this map was similar to the view of curriculum as a line. It was pre-planned, and gave me all the directions I would need to enjoy myself according to the specifications of the map-maker. It was complete with suggested times and how long it would take to go from point A to point B. Conversely, the map I purchased in Amsterdam was a summary of different neighborhoods in the city and what each area was known for. It did not suggest anything, it merely presented the city as it is, and allowed me to roam and find destinations that I felt were interesting. In the realm of education, the map we provide for teachers and students is more akin to the package tour map. By not allowing students and teachers to explore the map of curriculum, a sense of line is created. The students are shepherd through a series of content and engagements that are pre-planned and decided by an invisible hand from a curriculum office. I would like to develop a different sense of viewing the map of curriculum. Jie Ye (2009) refers to the package tour map as a dead map and its counterpart as a living map. This echoes closely what Aoki has to say about the lived curriculum. Ye further develops this living vs. dead map metaphor to re-conceptualize how we interact with our maps as a zen journey. William Doll has called his own journey from student to teacher to curriculum theorist as a path stumbled upon (Doll, 2009). It is this sense of wandering that I would like to draw out, and not because it is a beautiful and poetic way of viewing the world, but rather because it affords a more creative imaginative way of viewing the world. Instead of being forced to go on a journey planned by someone else, why not stop where you wish to and enjoy the scenery? 6

Curriculum A Different Shape for

The dead map of curriculum is compelled by a strong need for closure and certainty (Ye, 2009). As a society, our concept of accountability and standards for education dictates that we need to know where the student will be when they finish their studies. Like a shoe factory, we need to be sure that each shoe leaving the assembly line is uniform and consistent. This is historically where the term grading came from, as it was borrowed from shoe factories by Oxford scholar William Farish in the late eighteenth century and applied to his model of education (Hartmann, 2000). There must be a final product, and it must meet a certain grade. Instead, a living map of curriculum is more akin to a journey. Here, instead of treating of students as cartographers, as Ye (2009) argues, we treating them as explorers. In a living map of curriculum, we are changing the focus from the final product of schooling to the ongoing process of learning. So, what does this have to do with zen?

craig dwyer

One of the key tenets and focus of zen is a clearing of the mind through meditation, a sense of living in the now, and being one with the world. Mediation to achieve enlightenment. Part of this process is a very strong emphasis on viewing the world with an open imagination and a creative disposition. When a student sees the world imaginatively, they can begin to make connections and view the world through a variety of eyes. This range of meaning in perception is key, and it echoes what Davis (2008) has to say on opening the space of possibilities. Daniel Pink (2004) also calls for a new way of being with the world, one that puts creativity and imagination on top of the list of essential skills needed for a world that is changing rapidly and cannot be predicted. What would education look like if students were encouraged to roam the curriculum, stopping to taste the local delicacies and let the scenery bath over them? I believe it would look similar to a scale free network. A student would stop, say the concept of prime numbers, explore, challenge, question, and re-imagine the concept. Then, when the student was ready, they would keep going on their journey, taking what they have learned from Prime Numbers with them back on the road to the next concept. Within the scale free map of the mathematics curriculum, they would have freedom to wander. The focus would shift from having to know everything at the node, to knowing where you are in the grander web. This is connection making. It allows students to create their own maps, to put down their own markers (Ye, 2009). It suggests to students that they are in charge of their journey, and they are free to be explorers. This sense of curriculum is similar to meditation, focusing on the world around you, and living in it with a sense of imagination and creativity. Yet, at the same time, it is very controlled. The teacher has a copy of the map, they know the landscape. This is a wonderful idea to suggest, but questions remain on its practicality. I have been accused of being an idealist, and it is an accusation I do not deny. For this to work, not only do we have to re-create our sense of curriculum, and transform our sense of student experience of learning within it, but we also need to re-define the role of the teacher. 7

Curriculum A Different Shape for

Teaching as Improvisation

craig dwyer

Davis (2004) recounts the multiple conceptualizations of teaching through the history of western thought. Over time, as our conception of knowledge has evolved, so has our conception of what the role of the teacher is. From teaching as drawing in to a religious community, to teaching as instructing in the rationalist sense, to teaching as conversing from an ecological perspective. Our view of teaching has evolved along with our views of nature and knowledge. If the emergence of the new sciences of chaos and complexity are seen as yet another evolution of our conception of knowledge, then what does that mean for the role of the teacher in our systems of education? Using a backdrop of complexity theory, I would like to argue that teaching can be thought of in terms of improvisation. In this section I will compare it to the art of stage improvisation, but the same ideas can easily be applied to Jazz, painting, and other forms of art. Many theorists have compared a learning system (a classroom, for example) as a complex system (Davis and Simmt, 2003) or using the elements of Chaos (Doll, 1993). For the sake of simplicity and not having to recount the entire field of complexity and complex adaptive systems (as many articles on the topic are wont to do), instead I will assume my reader has a sense of these matters (because, lets be honest Elizabeth, I am writing this for you, and I know you do!) and get onto the metaphor. First, I will present an image that will help orient our discussion.

(Dwyer and Craig, 2012)

Curriculum A Different Shape for

craig dwyer

Improv theatre is a place where true emergence takes place. Imagine two actors taking the stage, asking the audience for a place and noun, and then immediately starting into a play that will last for 30-45 minutes. Some days, it works and it is beautiful. Other days, it does not. What makes it work? How does a seamless looking play emerge from a few simple words and a few (well trained) actors? James (2009) suggests that the answer to the question lies in the characteristics of complex adaptive systems. She suggests that the underlying principles of improv theatre (the unwritten rules) allow complex and emergent forms to come into being.
adhere to the principles of improvisation, something When wethat is more intelligent and creative - and intelligently emerges organized - than any one of us could have planned. As with any good emergence, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. (James, 2009)

James (2009) presents seven characteristics of improv theatre that occasion emergence. I would like to apply those principles to the role of a teacher in a learning system. 1. Yes and... The teacher is interacting with the students. In the course of that interaction ideas are imparted from the teacher to the students, but also the other way, from student to teacher. In an improv approach to teaching, the teacher would accept the reality that the child is presenting and add something new to it, perturbing the system forward, expanding it, nor reducing it. While this addition of new information is continually happening across all levels in the system (teacher to student, student to teacher, student to student) it is drawing on and elaborating the systems diversity and redundancy. Each agent is adding new information, and the system is adapting to that new information. This is a change in vision for a traditional teacher-centered, where the teacher is seen as the head (centralized) node in the system and is the controller of knowledge. This forces teachers to view themselves as participants in the learning system, and requires that they remain open to emergent possibilities presented by all members of the collective. 2. Make everyone else look good. Instead of focusing on your own performance, this principle flips the notion of the competitive classroom on its head. Davis (2008) argues that the best way for a system to be collective is for each individual to act as individually as they can. What is missing is the notion of competitiveness. This would suggest that a rethink of our grading system is in order. If intelligence is distributed across a system, how do we assess a single agent within that system? How do make all students look good, while allowing their individual and collective identities to flourish? 3. Be changed by what is said and what happens. Renert (2010) calls for an open way of being with mathematics in order to work through the complexities of a classroom as a system. Each moment, new information come into the collective, and the teacher is often seen as a filter of that information. An awareness of our ourselves in this position is critical, as is the skill of listening. Davis (1996) offers a framework for listening in the math class, which may offer synergies with Renerts sense of openness. Evaluative Listening is what we do when we assess; listening for a purpose. Interpretative listening is what we do when we are looking at making sense of how a student is thinking. Hermeneutic listening is listening with an openness to the unexplored. If teachers are able to aware of their role, to be aware of how 9

Curriculum A Different Shape for

craig dwyer

they are listening as much as what they are listening to, then student ideas and co-creative conversation could transform the learning environment. The members of the collective would be constantly bumping up against each other (Davis, 2008) and as the structures of knowledge that are held by the agent dissipate, new structures will subsume the old and the system will grow. 4. Co-create a shared "agenda." This speaks to the collectivity of a group of learners, and all members of the collect being on the same page with the same goal; learning and growth. It is important to note that this cannot be a goal set by the teacher, or the state, or the curriculum, but must emerge from the collective. The shared agenda is something more personal, the ingredients that make the classroom tick. They go above standards and benchmarks, and instead speak to what is human in us. As Garrison (2009) suggests, the trickster teachers role is to show the students the cracks and holes and allow them access to infinite. Yet, you cannot just walk into a classroom and allow them access to the infinite. There needs to be trust, a sense of collectiveness (may I say love?) before you are ready to take that journey together. It is not a consensus on the agenda, which reduces, in a cocreation of the agenda, which expands. 5. Mistakes are invitations. Any teacher will attest to the power of mistakes in a learning environment. Plans go astray, new ideas emerge,and suddenly the class has gone in a new direction; a direction that is richer, more relevant, and more dynamic than the original plan. For this emergence to happen, the teacher needs to be mindful, and willing to abandon their plan (or reformulate it). If the teacher is neither, the emergence will be stifled. 6. Keep the energy going. This is the one section of James analysis that I must disagree with and a place where the metaphor fails. She says that you should not stop to analyze, criticize, or think about every mistake or decision that is made. For the emergent performance on the stage, I agree completely. In the classroom, these discussions are often a rich source of meta-cognitive learning. What does connect the stage and the classroom though is a sense of the redundancy versus diversity of the troupe/class. There needs to be much more in common in order for the shared culture to emerge. For a teacher, knowing when to stop and analyze is the key, and when to push on. Knowing when to provide the system with positive feedback (to amplify further) or negative feedback (the sense of recursiveness) is another aspect of complex systems that a teacher should be mindful of. It can allow the energy in the class to flow positively, or it can hinder the energy to flow into negative territory. 7. Serve the good of the whole. The whole is hard to define in education. It is much easier on the stage. However, Davis (2008) offers a helpful diagram, with the nested circles from the bodily systems up through to the Ecosphere. Each layer must be served, attended to, and reflected on. This asks the teacher to not focus on measurable outcomes such as test scores on grades, but rather to focus on the whole child, their environment, and the world in which we all live. All of these principles are relevant to the day to day life of a teacher. By framing teaching as a emergent process, that is subject to change, that grows and expands, and includes many different systems all interlinked and intertwined, the map of a scale free network of curriculum suddenly seems a little more plausible. The children are on their own zen journey, living and learning within boundaries of the scale free curriculum, and being followed by a teacher who is adapting to their every move, helping them move from node to node, helping them evolve and grow. At times it will be highly structured, and at other times it will be free flowing. It depends on the situation, and it requires a teacher who is mindful of their environments, and mindful of how learners operate within the learning system of curriculum. 10

Curriculum A Different Shape for

Some (not to) fleeting thoughts

craig dwyer

Instead of trying to conclude this paper with something profound that wraps it all up nicely, I would like to end with a couple of fleeting thoughts about the affordances, pitfalls, and wonderings about what a curriculum like this would entail. Conclusions are like ends, and I see no end in a scale-free network model of curriculum. The Math I am by no means an expert on the intricacies of mathematical thinking and learning. In order to properly map a curriculum like this and make a real artifact, I would need the model to be built in association with those that are more knowledgable than me. Ideally, I would love to see this done in a crowd sourced manner, with input coming from all over the world in different disciplines and from people with different backgrounds. The diversity of thought and the redundancy of thought would need to be mixed together, and a new curriculum would emerge. Paper is a Problem A curriculum like this would need to be web-based. I envision an online interactive format, where a teacher can see the links and weak links (Davis, 2005), move through them, zoom in and out of them, and get a larger picture of the curriculum as a network. As Dan Meyer has written, paper is a problem (2012) in this regard, and our current technologies offer much better ways of living in a curriculum such as this. Habits of Mind A curriculum such as this would be lighter on content that a standards based curriculum which tend to be heavier on computational methods, and heavier on conceptual understanding. The map itself would be concept based. For this, it would need a strong emphasis (the front matter if you will) on mathematical thinking and habits and mind. I suggest the habits put forward by Cuoco et al (1996) as a starting point for inquiry. Sexless I wonder how much a curriculum like this, pared down of all the content and just a map of mathematical conceptual understanding, would keep out the sexual, heteronormative, and capitalistic metaphors? Would this help to alleviate the bias, or would the bias still be introduced by the teachers? I have the same questions in regards to ethno-mathematics. Would this be a kinder curriculum (Mason, 2006). or lead to a more open way of viewing the discipline of math? I wonder. Teacher Knowledge of Mathematics It is very apparent that a teacher existing in this type of curriculum would need a very good understanding of the depth and breadth of curriculum (Ma, XXX). In order to help students investigate their own Zen journey through the curriculum, the teacher would need a solid understanding on the whole map. Not an expert understanding, but certainly more of a holistic understanding. An understanding of the connections between links would be of paramount importance.

11

Curriculum A Different Shape for

Mindfulness Teachers would need to be aware of the principles of complex adaptive systems in order to be mindful of how their learning system is constructing knowledge. Implicit is this would be an understanding of the mathematics class as a complex system (Davis and Simmt, 2003), of how collectives generate knowledge, and about the distributed nature of intelligence. It would be change the way teachers are trained, and it would change the way the job is approached administratively. Speed of Curriculum I am struck by a thought related to the speed of the curriculum. In the linear model, it is easy to understand where one should be on the map (your grade level). However, in a scale free model, the variable of time changes. Each node is not covered once, but rather repeated many times through-out the scope a students academic life. This changes our conception of time spent in a curriculum. It will require teachers, parents and policy makers to more comfortable with ambiguity. Documentation Teachers would need a new system of documenting learning from year to year. The onus would shift from a grade based mark, to something new and emergent. I would suggest a type of educational story telling, where the students journey is documented and recorded by the teacher and passed along to the next teacher. These stories would act as assessments, and they would also act as a history the students engagement with the subject. I am not sure how this would work, but it would be a drastic change from the current model, and would throw a real monkey wrench in the standardized testing model.

craig dwyer

12

Curriculum A Different Shape for

craig dwyer

References
Benjamin, A. (2009, February) Arthur Benjamin: Teach statistics before calculus! [Video file]. Retrieved from: http://www.ted.com/talks/arthur_benjamin_s_formula_for_changing_math_education.html Rosling, A. (2009, June) Hans Rosling: Let my dataset change your mindset [Video file]. Retrieved from: http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_at_state.html Renert, M. (2011) Mathematics for life. For the Learning of Mathematics 31-1, FLM Publishing Devlin, K. J. (2005). The math instinct: Why you're a mathematical genius (along with lobsters, birds, cats and dogs). New York: Thunder's Mouth Press. Gopnik, A. (2011, July) Alison Gopnik: What do babies think? [Video file]. Retrieved from: http://www.ted.com/talks/alison_gopnik_what_do_babies_think.html Lakoff, G., & Nunez, R. E. (2000). Where mathematics comes from: how the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. New York: Basic Books. Doll, W. (2009) The Path Stumbled Upon, In Leaders in Curriculum Studies: Intellectual Self Portraits. Rotterdam: Sense Publishing Singh, S. (1997). Fermat's last theorem: The story of a riddle that confounded the world's greatest minds for 358 years. London: Fourth Estate. Lockhart, P. (2012). Measurement. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press Pink, D. H. (2006). A Whole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers Will Rule the Future. Riverhead Trade, rep upd edition. Greene, Maxine. (1975). Curriculum and Consciousness, in Curriculum Theorizing: The Reconceptualists by William Pinar (Ed.). Berkeley: Mccutchan Pub Corp. Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 30th Anniversary Edition. Continuum, 30th anniversary edition. Yu, Jie (2009). A Zen journey in the living map of curriculum. Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 6 (2) http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci <Access Date: November, 2012> Davis, B., Sumara, D., and Luce-Kapler, R. (2008). Engaging Minds. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, USA. Doll, W. (2005). Chaos, Complexity, Curriculum and Culture: A Conversation. New York: Peter Lang Publishing Davis, B. and Sumara, D. J. (2006). Complexity and Education: Inquiries Into Learning, Teaching, and Research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1 edition.

13

Curriculum A Different Shape for

craig dwyer
Pinar, Willam F. and Irwin, Rita L. (Eds.) (2005). Curriculum in a New Key: The Collected Work of Ted T. Aoki. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Volmink, J. (1994). Mathematics by All. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Cultural Perspectives on the Mathematics Classroom (51-67). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Davis, B. (2004). Inventions of teaching. Mahwah, NJ: L Erlbaum Associates Davis, B (1996). Teaching Mathematics: Toward a Sound Alternative. New York: Garland Davis, B., & Simmt, E. (2003). Understanding learning systems: Mathematics teaching and complexity science. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(2), 137-167. Doll, W.E. Jr. (1993). A post-modern perspective on curriculum. New York: Teachers College Press. James, M. (2009, Dec 14). Improv Theatre and Complex Adaptive Systems [Web log comment]. Retrieved from http://creativeemergence.typepad.com/the_fertile_unknown/2009/12/improv-theater-and-complexadaptive-systems.html Renert, M. In Esbjrn-Hargens, S., Reams, J., & Gunnlauson, O. (Eds.). (2010). Integral education: New directions for higher learning. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Garrison, J. (2009). Teacher as Prophetic Trickster. Educational Theory University of Illinois, 59-1, 67-83 Hartmann, T. (2000). Thom Hartman's Complete Guide to ADHD. Nevada City: Underwood Books Meyer, D. (2012, Sept. 18) {LOA} Hypothesis #2: Paper is a Problem [Web blog] Retrieved from http:// blog.mrmeyer.com/?p=15032 Cuoco, Al; Goldenberg, E. Paul; and Mark, June (1996). Habits of Mind: An Organizing Principle for Mathematics Curriculum. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 5, (4), 375-402. Mason, R. (2006). A Kinder Mathematics for Nunavet. In Curriculum as Cultural practice. University of Toronto Press Ma, L. Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics: Teachers' Understanding of Fundamental Mathematics in China and the United States (Studies in Mathematical Thinking and Learning.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

14