After reading about the autonomous and ideological frames, I was interested to see what the Mathematic curriculum would look like in all of this. If you take a light glance, maybe you would think there is a spec of the ideological model showing, a small sliver of hope. Sadly that is not really the case, as math is rooted almost entirely in the autonomous framework. Just the idea of linear ideas, the ways we count, the examples we use, and even the format of lessons and units in math, generally, it is very much rooted in first world culture. This is not just looking at the way we teach it, and how the literacy of the subject is judged. Going back to our first post, there are fundamental things rooted in commonsensical ideas that might not be common sense outside of the average Canadian/American classroom. I saw a tweet from Mike earlier this year, and he did an excellent visual breakdown of it:
— Michael Cappello (@41mikes) March 20, 2017
So when I look at the subject of mathematics, and am told to compare it to these two frames, Mike’s image should represent my response fairly well. Mathematics is a very western subject, and the way and what we teach in the modern day is fundamentally rooted in western ideas. You can compare it to different cultures, as this picture compared it to Indigenous worldviews, and it is very much different, the biggest and most interesting difference being the ability to be fluid, and constantly changing in your content. That idea of fluidity doesn’t always flow well in the more traditionally based math teachers! So of course, the autonomous model is what is prominent in math, and I am not even sure if we can argue much about the ideological model being part of math. We have come to believe that math is a politically neutral course, and when you are teaching it you are supposedly culturally neutral, when in reality you are so rooted in western culture that you are blind and oblivious to it.