Download of the Manifesto in word
Download of the Manifesto in pdf
50 Years of C I E A E M
Where we are and where we go
"Manifesto 2000 for the Year of Mathematics"
PART I: Where we are
Origins and aims of CIEAEM
Since
its foundation in 1950, the International Commission for the Study and
Improvement of Mathematics Teaching (CIEAEM, Commission Internationale pour
l'Etude et l'Amélioration de l'Enseignement des Mathématiques) intended to
investigate the actual conditions and future possibilities for changes and
developments in mathematics education in order to improve the quality of
teaching and learning mathematics. The annual meetings (rencontres) which are
the essential means for realising this goal are characterised by exchange and
constructive dialogue between researchers and educators in all domains of
practice. In its work, the Commission follows the spirit and the humanist
tradition of the founders of CIEAEM. The founders intended to integrate the
scientific goal to conduct research in mathematics education with the main goal
to improve the quality of mathematics education. By a new mathematics education,
they wanted to achieve a society where people were able to use mathematical
reasoning and tools in order to act rationally and think critically as citizens
and as future scientists. A humanistic view on mathematics education should be
developed which guards against technocratic attitudes as well as ideological
blindness.
Early
CIEAEM meetings mainly brought together European mathematicians and mathematics
teachers from secondary schools with a presupposed common interest and
background in mathematics teaching in order to share views, experiences and
intentions for the improvement of mathematics education.
From "Math Moderne" to "Mathematics for All"
The
mathematicians Artin, Dieudonné, Papy, and Servais were the leading figures of
the Commission in the 60s and early 70s. They pleaded for modernising
mathematics teaching and a complete reconstruction of school mathematics "from
kindergarten to university". The debate within CIEAEM shifted towards the
reformulation and reorganisation of the mathematical content of the curricula or
guidelines according to the main ideas and main methods of the "Math
Moderne". Their ideas became very influential in the European and
international discussions of the "New Math Movement", and their papers
have been published in major publications of UNESCO and OECD. But they also
raised very controversial debates within CIEAEM, in particular when it became
obvious that political reforms mostly consisted in superficial changes in
terminology, without consideration of the new demands of mathematics, the new
social contexts, and the new conditions of learning and teaching.
In
the late 70s and 80s, presidents of CIEAEM like the Polish mathematician and
mathematics educator Anna Sofia Krygowska, the Italian pedagogue Emma
Castelnuovo, the Canadian mathematics educator Claude Gaulin and the Dutch
mathematician Hans Freudenthal, set very a different focus for CIEAEM. They
tried to end the "noble isolation" of mathematics and of mathematics
education and its orientation towards pure mathematics only, and to connect
mathematics education closer to other sciences, to the social reality and to the
social mathematical practice. It is due to their initiatives that the themes of
CIEAEM-meetings were formulated and perceived more and more transdisciplinary
and interdisciplinary: "Mathematics for All" became a programmatic
demand. At the same time, CIEAEM-meetings grew to a big international forum.
The
changing conditions for teaching and learning mathematics by extending
compulsory schooling, and the increase of school population in advanced
secondary education raised a growing interest in research in mathematics
education. The influence was noticeable in the themes of and contributions to
CIEAEM-meetings. CIEAEM became more attractive to not only a European, but also
a broader international audience: for colleagues from non-industrialised and
socialist countries, and also more and more for primary and secondary school
teachers. Since the 80s, the number of participants and the diversity of
countries represented at CIEAEM increased and the relevance of the themes and
the quality of presentations and discussions, in particular the collaboration
between practitioners and researchers at CIEAEM meetings, improved substantially.
Ups to 400 participants from about 35 countries from all continents of the world
now consider CIEAEM-meetings as important and prominent events.
Developments
in mathematics education as a scientific discipline and reflections within
CIEAEM changed the topics and subjects of themes for the meetings, the research
fields and the debates. Shifting from a concentration on content and
methodological questions in mathematics education themes later addressed broader
epistemological, psychological, sociological and technological problems. Among
those the conditions of the educational environment (interaction, evaluation,
and assessment) and the problems in connection with newly developed technologies
and their effect on content and on the learning and teaching environment of
schooling received a major emphasis.
Strong
links between scientific knowledge and craft wisdom in CIEAEM
Since the beginning, creating links between scientific knowledge and craft wisdom and reinforcing the collaboration of mathematics education research and practice have been at the heart of CIEAEM and not a mere by-product. This is what distinguishes the organisation from other and is reflected in all of its work and at all the meetings. Currently, however, in many countries there is an increasing polarisation between practitioners and researchers and mathematicians and mathematics educators. Politicians find this an attractive situation and take advantage of it by using the division to minimise academic "interference" in their agenda for education, for example in furthering back to basics approach. In response to TIMSS and economic globalisation, there is a tendency to want to standardise curriculum across groups of countries based on economic grouping in order to compete with each other. CIEAEM can be and should take a very strong position to help improve both, the quality of mathematics teaching and learning as well as the research in mathematics education. In this way it can also help to protect other academic organisations from anti-intellectualism permeating into governmental policies on education.
Peculiar Features of CIEAEM
The
particularity of CIEAEM can be best described by addressing four distinctive
characteristics: the themes of the meetings, the specifically designed
activities on the meetings, the composition of the group of participants, and
the two official languages used in parallel in all activities: English and
French. Various forms of working and deliberate and secured support in foreign
language provision to all participants by the Commission allow to facilitate and
effectively realise the exchange and the debates at the meetings and to connect
individual and collective contributions into long-term co-operation. In the
friendly and exciting atmosphere of CIEAEM meetings many common projects have
started and were encouraged and continued beyond the meetings.
-
Themes of the Meetings/ Les Thèmes des Rencontres
Each
meeting of CIEAEM is organised around a commonly agreed theme addressing
generally important or especially relevant problems. Prior to the conferences,
themes are outlined and substantiated by related aspects in form of discussion
papers or basic texts, together with proposals for sub-themes and questions to
be worked on prior to and during the meeting.
-
Working Groups/ Les Groupes de Travail
The
major constituent of the meetings are the working groups which bring
together teachers, teacher educators, and researchers from various institutions
working in the fields of mathematics, history of mathematics and education,
psychology, sociology and philosophy. Working groups focus on a specific sub-theme
or on relationships among sub-themes, reflecting the collective and commonly
shared input; they allow participants to follow up issues in-depth, to go into
details and to create links between experiences and research questions.
Discussions, exchange of experiences, problems, and views are prepared in form
of individual and collective presentations or workshops. Animators who ensure
language provision and mark new questions, research desiderata or proposals for
common projects and practical experiments to be presented at the end of the
conference direct the working groups. The working groups are the "heart of
the conference".
-
Plenary Lectures/ Les Plenières
The Invited Plenary Lectures serve as a commonly shared input to the meeting
as a whole and to the discussions in the working groups. According to the
preferences, research areas and experiences of the speakers they offer a special
"bouquet" of approaches to the theme. Speakers are chosen from within
CIEAEM as well as from outside, reflecting diversity in views and perspectives.
-
Individual and Collective Presentations/ Les Présentations Individuelles et
Collectives
Individuals
or small groups of participants are invited to contribute to the theme of
meeting or to a sub-theme by an oral Presentation by presenting their
ideas, their research work and their experiences with others. Pertinent and
significant research links to the theme of the meeting should be demonstrated.
Relevant case studies that offer specific potentialities are particularly
welcome. Presenters involve, whenever appropriate, their colleagues in questions
or even short activities for the participants.
-
Workshops/ Les Atéliers
The Workshops represent a more extended kind of contributions prepared and
organised by individuals or small groups: they focus on concrete activities and
encourage active participation by working in groups or individually on provided
materials, problems, or particular and concrete questions in connection with the
sub-themes.
-
Forum of Ideas/ La Foire des Idées
The Forum of Ideas offers the opportunity to present case studies,
systematically documented learning materials, and recent research projects as
well as current ideas or debates which are not directly related to the theme or
sub-themes. The forum of ideas is often located in an exhibition room.
-
The Constitution and the Newsletter of CIEAEM/ La Constitution et le Bulletin de
la CIEAEM
Since
1992, CIEAEM has established an additional means for the communication among
Commission members: the publication of a Newsletter for internal discussion.
This opened up a forum for written exchange of problems and of questions to be
dealt with, of policy-statements, and various kinds of interesting ideas e.g.
themes for future meetings. The language of the Newsletter is English and French.
Since 1996 CIEAEM has an officially agreed constitution and since 2000 a legal
status as a non-profit organisation for the study and improvement of mathematics
education.
-
The composition of the group of CIEAEM-participants
CIEAEM-meetings
are a working place where teachers and researchers debate and collaborate
intensively in an engaged and stimulating climate. Continuous exchange of
research work, practical experiences and views around real problems and crucial
themes raise critical and constructive discussions on developments in research
in mathematics education as well as in educational policy and practice in
schools and teacher education institutions. Practitioners and researchers are
treated as equal partners in this collaboration. CIEAEM emphasises that links
between research and practice have to be re-constructed continuously by mutual
efforts, and that changes in mathematics education have to be nourished by both,
practice and theory, by critique and transformation of practice as well as
critique and application of research into educational development.
Developing
"Mathematics for All" and "Mathematical Literacy"
In
this "Manifesto 2000", we wish to address new (and old) policies
concerning mathematics education in various parts of our world: We aim at an
agenda for future activities rather than a balanced account of achievements and
limitations of mathematics education. What are the strategies in research and
practice that support developing and providing essential and appropriate
teaching and learning opportunities, that ensure access to all levels of
institutionalised schooling in the elementary, secondary, tertiary sector of
education and in non-academic adult education? How to create appropriate social
conditions to establish a teaching and learning practice guided by principles of
social justice and equity? In what follows, questions and ideas are raised which
might guide future work
Recovering
awareness and support of the democratic society
International
comparative studies like TIMSS have raised public debates about school
mathematics and prompted a loss of social appreciation, distrust and accusations.
This more recent trend adds to the old critique complaining that education and
employment system do not match. Another critique denounces insufficient learning
opportunities and a lack of transparency of the assessment system that
particularly concerns mathematics as the prominent means of selection in the
educational system. In fact, the role of mathematics in society is constantly
changing: for the society as a whole mathematics is more and more influential
and powerful, for the individual at the same time it becomes much less
"visible".
The
transition of mathematics education from an elite orientation to a mass
education, first politically celebrated as the democratisation of education and
a success of the social justice movements of the 60s and 70s, today is
discredited. It is considered with suspicion, disgust and accusation. This led
to a loss of social recognition of mathematics teaching and contributed to the
prevailing notion of education as a social burden, a social cost. Education is
in danger of being no longer perceived as a public duty or vital public service.
The effect of mass education on various economic and social issues, and
institutional responses to external needs and demands are very controversially
discussed. In the public discourse, education institutions are not only expected
to make provisions for an ever growing number of traditional students - although
under conditions of reduced budgets - but also to a wider variety of people from
all age groups and in different stages of life. Apart from changing labour
market demands for new, extended or upgraded qualifications, education
institutions are scrutinised more often than in previous decades in terms of
their contribution to local, regional, national and even global social and
economic needs. Public service, technology transfer, wealth distribution,
solutions to various problems, production of a highly qualified workforce,
reduction of inequality ... to name but a few of the multitude of expectations
and demands.
-
How to regain social recognition of mathematics education as a social task and a
public service? How to develop public involvement and participation in
mathematics education? In many countries, non-formal and non-academic adult
education is a strong force for democratisation and change, how to support these
activities?
-
How to gain systemic change which is not restricted to just formalised
structural change, but occurs on the level of meaning and culture, of social
justice commitments? Is there a chance to regain the support of extra-institutional
agents for change such as parents, peer groups, employers or others? Should that
influence be counter-balanced? Can we better address particular problems and
consider the poor and non-industrialised countries? How to build and share
democratic competencies, but avoid cultural imperialism?
Changing
social and political views about mathematics education
Mathematics
still is one of those school subjects that provoke strong feelings of anxiety,
aversion and incompetence. Pupils (and teachers) still dislike school
mathematics as a compulsory enterprise without significance for them. How can a
subject raise such strong emotions and block both, interest and ability to think
mathematically? Why is mathematics for a majority of pupils so meaningless and
difficult that they consider themselves as "mentally handicapped" in
mathematics, as doomed to failure? Mathematics still is associated with "giftedness"
by parents and pupils, by teachers and politicians, making it an exclusive
discipline. "Mathematical giftedness" or "talent", a
"natural" ability to think mathematically, and hence a "natural
interest" in mathematics then is obviously more often lacking than existing.
And this transforms mathematics into a particularly appropriate means of social
selection leading to increasing dislike and anxiety. Theories of mathematical
giftedness entail attitudes to teach mathematics in a school for all to the few:
only those that are gifted and "socially useful". For the sake of
identifying the gifted, more selection and individual differentiation in terms
of tests is justified, and the chances of collective learning experiences are
ignored or neglected. As long as a social focus on the "gifted"
persists, the majority will not be educated appropriately.
-
Should we keep the highly selective framework and methods of mathematics
education, but give up the privileged position of the subject as part of the
core of general education? Or do we seek to keep mathematics at the core of the
curriculum but find ways of teaching the subject to all students? How to
overcome the limitations of this dichotomy?
-
Can we still indulge or afford to conceive mathematics education as a special
education for some few, and make it compulsory for all? Can we permit that the
common learning of many pupils is hindered or even blocked by anxiety and
frustration?
-
The notions "mathematical ability", "individual differences"
and the "gifted pupil" are ideologically collective constructions,
based on convictions or prejudices, a possible vehicle of purpose and interest.
Moreover, the prejudice of "mathematical giftedness" readily
associates itself to other hereditary features such as gender and ethnicity –
how can we act against that?
-
Is the perception of excellence or high achievement in mathematics different in
different cultures, societies and communities, perhaps depending on class,
gender and ethnicity? Does it respect social awareness and political
responsibility? What are different strategies to counteract conflicts, lack of
justice and equal treatment in teaching and learning mathematics in the
classroom and in the school or broader society? What are the influences of
changing social environments on the attitudes towards mathematics, and on the
performance expectations of teachers and parents?
Teaching
and learning to live in a mathematised world
The goals of general education, (in particular of secondary education) have changed - from a universal education (Bildung) for an elite to an education for all. This change implies a shift in the perspective of mathematics education: it is predominantly concerned with those members of the technologically determined mass society who are affected by the increasing "mathematisation" of all social domains as "victims", as passive participants in a play designed by others. Mathematical abstractions and formalisations applied to social reality create formal systems and hierarchies, formal models or ways of argumentation that eventually become quasi-natural social rules. By transformation into technology, application and continuous use, these formalisations turn into representations of "natural" social order and "natural" patterns of social organisation, institutions and regulations - a formatting of the society by mathematics has taken place. Mathematics education has to provide understanding of the processes of "mathematisation" in society. And it has to create a critical judgement about it, transparency of the part of mathematics played in social conditions and enlightenment about the social use of mathematics. How can mathematics teaching and learning be presented not only as an introduction to some powerful ideas of our culture, but also as a critique of ideas and their application? Do we teach about how mathematics is used in our society? Do we sufficiently understand in what ways, society is becoming increasingly "mathematised"?
- Who benefits from and whose interests are served by mathematics education today - is there a major change compared to 50 years ago? Who defines the economical demands and on which basis of information and analysis? Which are the changing needs of the labour market in terms of qualifications in mathematics?
-
How to overcome the opposition of economic demands and social or pedagogical
needs: should mathematics education be considered as part of general education
or rather in a perspective of a professional training for some few?
-
Who defines competencies to be provided by mathematics education: politicians,
researchers, or teachers? If we recognise the fact that mathematics, by its
social use and technological development, has become more implicit and invisible
although more widespread as social and material technology, how is this
reflected in mathematics teaching? What are the role of researchers, the school,
and the teachers in these definitions of competencies?
- What kind of research in mathematics education may contribute to creating a new view of mathematics education practice? What impact can it have if the work of schools is more closely related to parents and assigns them an interventive role?
- Within schools, most, perhaps all, of the modelling processes dealt with seem to be actively and deliberately designed, developed and executed collectively and democratically, but is this the reality in our society beyond the school? How are pupils to be enabled to criticise models and modelling, including the formalised techniques that underpin so much of the use or abuse of mathematics in society?
-
How to make the society aware that mathematics education could promote
accountability and give full scope to a democratic vision to establish new forms
of social contracts, communications, and discourse? That it could help to
control decisions based on mathematical modelling? That it is crucial to
competently understand, judge, and actively counteract the replacement of
democratic political decisions by the mathematical and technological
expertocracy? That mathematics education is a powerful tool in basic democratic
virtues: to empower people to think critically and to adopt critical attitudes?
Within
a few years the discussion in mathematics education about modern information and
communication technology has changed completely: it has been overrun by the
evolution of reality. Viewing the omnipresence of technology from nursery to
nearly every area of life concerns for the "introduction to the use of
computers" and a "basic understanding of programming" has become
obsolete, use and understanding of its functioning have completely split. Now,
considerations to one part aim at modern technology as a tool to support,
facilitate, organise and rationalise learning and teaching. There are some
promising examples which show how to improve the management of information and
communication by new technologies for the students and teachers, to change roles
of students and teachers in multi-media applications, to integrate aspects of
distant education and virtual schools and universities, and to find new ways of
differentiation of content in the "normal" teaching and learning
mathematics.
With
respect to the curriculum, content matter can be extended to subjects too
complex for treatment in traditional instruction and in application and problem
solving a much more appropriate simulation of reality is possible. By far less
evident is how mathematics education should respond to the change going on in
the notion of reality itself: the blending of the real and the virtual worlds,
the loss of reliable discrimination of reality and its manipulation. A
tremendous problem emerges from the fact that the new technologies open up
unprecedented chances and risks in various fields like bio-technology and
military development, based on models and simulations beyond theoretical
comprehension and beyond the validity of existing empirical knowledge. No
attempts have been made so far to furnish reliable intellectual and moral basis
equipment to the coming generations that inevitably will have to deal with these
challenges.
-
How can the development and spread of new information technologies really give
better access to mathematical knowledge for all? How can technology empower
people to cope with problems of knowledge production, distribution, and
appropriate use?
-
What determines the goals behind the dissemination of new technologies: economic
or social interests?
-
If understanding of the social implications of the work of mathematicians and
scientists has deteriorated as they become only elements in a segmented
hierarchical system-like bureaucracy, how can lack of control be overcome?
-
How can a basic recognition of the reach and possible consequences of scientific
innovation be conveyed? Is optimism in this respect, as widely propagated, a
virtue or a crime? Can mathematics education do anything about it?
-
How do new technologies actually support the managing of information and
communication by students, the creating and using distance education and virtual
school and universities, new differentiation of content and organisation? How do
they change the role and interplay of students, teachers and multimedia means by
widespread use of technology?
-
If we have to acknowledge that technology brought into the Third World mostly
de-empowers people and continues their exploitation, how can mathematics
education help in this situation? What does it mean to educate for knowing
"what to do" instead of "how to do it" in mathematics? How
could mathematics education emphasise the development of more judgement and
wisdom than of particular skills?
Accepting
the obligations of globalisation
In
1985, CIEAEM already asked for an inclusion of social and political dimensions
within mathematics education, but it was at ICME VI in 1988, that for the first
time the social and political dimensions of mathematics education were
acknowledged by a broad international audience as a legitimate challenge, a
matter of world-wide consciousness and recognition. One important focus was on
analysing conditions and causes for the restricted teaching and learning
opportunities for pupils of certain minority groups defined by gender, class,
and ethnicity in industrialised countries; another one was the worrying fact
that the majority of young people grows up under conditions of poverty,
discontinuity and disruption in the non-industrialised world.
The
primacy of economic aspects in the development of non-industrialised countries
moulds their cultural development, education and mathematics education in
particular. International co-operation risks to unwillingly deepening
Euro-centred structures in education, thus carrying on cultural imperialism.
Given the ubiquity of poverty and violence in a major part of the world, can
co-operation in the field of mathematics education contribute anything to an
escape from this situation?
European
and international co-operation among education institutions has led to
comparisons of institutions and systems, and to some adaptation in structures
and contents, to enable exchange and recognition. Yet increasing co-operation
goes along with a new spirit of competition which is not necessarily helpful for
those at the lower end of the scale.
-
How can communities with different political, cultural, and social conditions
make ways to learn from each other more productively? What is required to
overcome Euro-centrism and cultural oppression in mathematics teaching and
learning, in the design of curricula, learning materials and learning
environments?
-
How can international co-operation more forcefully install partnership and
equity in the debate, instead of more of a one-way type of transfer? What has to
be done to make international exchange better match these requirements?
-
How can we find a balance of lending our aid to those who welcome it without
falling back to cultural imperialism? Would that imply a re-structuring of
co-operation?
-
What must be done to appropriately examine the impact of a transfer of ideas and
experiences for other cultures? Is it possible to incorporate such examination
in the modes of co-operation?
-
Is it possible to discuss ideological biases and the oppression of minority
groups in the same context as violence and poverty in the developing countries,
and would that approach promise elucidation on the phenomena?
-
What happens to cultural and social diversity by globalisation? Does
internationalisation of mathematics education and globalisation equally respect
the equity and autonomy of the partners in exchange and co-operation? What is
the impact of competition among and within mathematics education institutions?
Coping
with new claims of evaluation
In
an unprecedented disposability of knowledge about educational systems
world-wide, attitudes towards sacrosanct institutions, as national educational
systems used to be, more and more give way to economically inspired approaches
to education. Comparisons with other systems impose themselves; evaluation and
quality management become key words for re-organisation. Moreover, as a
counterbalance to globalisation and unification, a trend towards
self-containment and a (relative) autonomy of smaller, local or regional units
has emerged. In many countries, it is realised that the general steering of
education institutions has to shift from full state control to what has been
termed ‘remote control’. Institutions are expected to develop their own
profile and new mechanisms of budget allocation. In this context, not only new
approaches to institutional management and governance have to be and have
already been developed but also new instruments to increase quality and
performance and to achieve the agreed institutional goals. Evaluation became a
key instrument for governmental steering in the face of deregulation, more
institutional autonomy and a higher emphasis on accountability, involvement,
engagement and the development of corporate identity. Traditional models of ex
ante control of quality and peer review have frequently been exchanged for new
and more complex modes of quality assessment, assurance and improvement, often
involving external reviewers.
An
actual, most controversial debate concerns the quality of teaching and learning
mathematics. What are the criteria or methods of evaluating quality in teaching
and learning mathematics? Quality management proves to be more effective for
institutional management and administration in education than for issues of
teaching, learning and research. The effects of recent developments on the
structure and content of mathematical curricula can be described by a number of
trends which tend to be similar in many countries: assessing quality of
teaching, learning and research; attempts at definition of standards; a shift
towards learner orientation and assessment of learning outcomes, evaluation to
be more continuous, and attempts to upgrade good teaching in the value hierarchy
of academic reputation.
-
How to deal with measures of setting common standards, either by tests,
"world examinations" or by benchmarking in mathematics education? Do
we need "world-standards" and what is the benefit and for whom? Who
will be the winner and the loser if performance-based criteria and methods for
distribution of resources for teaching and research are generally applied?
-
Creation and application of new methods for the organisation and assessment of
teaching and learning mathematics such as modularization, diversity of access
and multiple exit points: is there any substantiated consideration of the
pedagogical effects implied?
-
Do we have evidence that standards improve the learning of mathematics and what
is their impact on social and cultural conditions of learning? What kind of
mathematics is referred to in those standards? How do standards match the social
images of mathematics, and the social expectations and values of the use(rs) of
mathematics?
CIEAEM: An agenda for action
Over
the 50 years to which amount the activities of CIEAEM, mathematics education has
considerably developed towards a scientific foundation and understanding of its
subject, issues, and goals. During this period research occasionally tended to
more detached positions, at times turning strongly towards mathematics as a
science, or to psychology, and epistemology. The unique construction of CIEAEM
was meant to forcefully hold on course: the orientation towards a real and
concrete improvement of mathematics education. Bringing together researchers,
educators and teachers, research has not been allowed to go on for its own sake
only, and practitioners have not been allowed to indulge in simplistic
approaches. CIEAEM insists on research responsibility and on broadening the
horizon of practice.
Similarly,
mathematics education is going on in a tension of growing internationalisation
and national, regional, even local self-sufficiency. Spectacular international
projects make headlines, but their adaptation into regional structures is rarely
guided. Co-operation is announced, but eventually a spirit of competition is
created. A few may benefit from this type of project, the lower ranking majority
is more likely to draw the wrong conclusions from the outcome of such studies.
Here again the very structures of CIEAEM secure a different approach:
Internationalisation is not a single project or event, it is an on-going
process. In fact it is a prominent feature of CIEAEM conferences that a major
part of its members attend to the meetings continuously over many years, thus
guaranteeing a follow up of ideas, projects, and their transfer into practice.
International orientation is complemented by anchoring CIEAEM meetings in the
regional mathematics education scene of the places where they are arranged.
Careful preparation and substantial pre-structuring of the commonly adopted
theme bring together the international steering commission and the local
organising committee. An interesting regional audience is addressed, and often
participants join further activities of CIEAEM subsequently. Thus the
international scope of orientation is continuously linked to "home"
aspects of mathematics education. Competition within CIEAEM means the efforts of
organising committees to make every meeting more successful, more substantial,
and more memorable than the previous ones.
From
its history, CIEAEM is a European creation. However, the particular scheme of
CIEAEM has more and more attracted participants from less- or non-industrialised
parts of the world. Their views and concern occupy an ever-growing part of
CIEAEM activities and open up exciting – and worrying – perspectives to
mathematics education as a global enterprise. CIEAEM faces the dilemma to
exchange and share views, to offer aid and to co-operate in solutions without
imposing Euro-centred views, and without fostering cultural alienation. The
experience of CIEAEM is that mutual understanding, human and professional
esteem, and an honest and attentive discourse overcome these risks. Seriosity of
work, the "family"-character of meetings, and the continuity of
contacts have proved to be assets of CIEAEM.
We
recognise that the CIEAEM approach by its very structure forbids dramatic
performance in the public, which mainly make sensation. This, however, is more
likely to arouse political interest, and political action. So we strive for
strengthening our position otherwise.
- CIEAEM
wishes to actively promote (develop and make public) a research agenda in
mathematics education reflecting its roots in classroom practice. The agenda of
CIEAEM activities is to include a research framework that would make the
diversity of its participants a feature of strength; it also informs politicians
and policy makers of what their priorities should be.
- We wish
to inform, influence and support teachers, graduate students and researchers in
the selection of worthwhile topics for research in mathematics education. We
want to support those who apply for funds from government and non-government
agencies by providing them with a helpful framework for writing proposals.
- We wish
to inform discussions between mathematicians and mathematics educators using our
special practice-based approach. CIEAEM is to provide a mathematics education
contribution to debates on educational research. We wish to support the
establishing of mathematics education as a discipline that serves to critique
theory as well as to provide a contribution to practice.
- CIEAEM
wishes to develop new and powerful ways of communication among all engaged and
actively involved in important issues of mathematics education research and
practice and to offer a forum for debates and collaboration.