Swetz describes the
origin of several modern pedagogical tools used in mathematics teaching. One
example of these is that of the instructor teaching to a neutral (the adjective Swetz used) student the information gained –
a discourse, as he puts it, where there is a two-way (or in some cases,
one-way) stream of information. Although
it originated as (what comes across as) an oral dialogue, it eventually became
recorded – at first, it was recorded in verse, and depended heavily on reader
intuition to solve (sometimes aided through the use of colour), and evolved
into a set of collected problems with detailed solutions.
There were two
comments in particular that Swetz makes. The first is the following:
“A collection of mathematical problems does not, in itself, preclude the
possibility of pedagogical designs. While some ancient texts may appear to be
merely collections of problems, those problems were carefully chosen and
through their conception and organization, attest to their author’s ability as
a teacher” (p. 77).
I found this
interesting, and it reminded me, as a beginning teacher, how often I used to
get bogged down by finding information to teach in a class – we were always
warned not to re-invent the wheel, as there was a wealth of information “out
there. While this may be true, sorting through all sorts of information takes a
long time. It also occurred to me that it would be difficult to have mere “collections
of problems”, because (I assume) there wasn’t as much collective mathematical
content as there is today. I imagine it would have been the author’s or teacher’s
personal research that they were sharing with their students.
The other quote that
caused me to think was the off-hand comment at the end of page 80, when Swetz
explains that authors of Babylonian, Chinese, and Italian pedagogical
background “were, quite simply, concerned teachers writing for the learning
needs of their students”. Beyond all the politics around the purchasing of
textbooks and cost of individual textbooks, which was my first thought,
re-reading the sentence narrowed my focus on “learning needs”. It is
interesting that so early into pedagogical development and sharing of
knowledge, there was already a determined “learning need”. What learning needs
did people have then? Who was it that needed to learn? I was under the
impression that only the social elite would have gone to school to learn
mathematics (but Socrates teaching a slave boy about doubling area in a
rectangle by manipulating its dimensions made me reconsider).