!

127!

Somewhere way back in the beginning of the year, I posed a question that I thought would take me to interesting places: How does a classroom centered in mathematical habits of mind foster mathematical agency? It has certainly taken me many interesting, and sometimes seemingly unrelated, places. I have explored the formation of mathematical identity, taken a critical look at epistemology and knowledge, and challenged deeply held definitions of mathematics. What seemed like tangential explorations at the time now seem to be inextricably related to the issues of mathematical habits of mind and the mathematical agency of students. Perhaps this shouldnt be surprising since we can only know our own experience and mine has been steeped in trying to make sense of agency through questioning identity, knowledge, and power. Regardless, my aim here is to return to the question I posed way back at the beginning of the year, not to conclude, but rather to leave a trace of where my thinking is now as I continue to make sense of these complex issues. Epistemology and Agency As a theory of knowing, I believe radical constructivism rests on a simple, but revolutionary, premise. All of what we might call human knowledge is no more than a mental construction that has proven viable in our realm of existence. In that way, one might even consider the theory as post-epistemological. We can never know things or the world as it is and, instead, can only form models and representations that seem to be reliable in our experience. ! 129!

Furthermore, we can never have access to the knowing of another person but can try to create a sense of mutual agreement, a state of intersubjectivity in which we conjecture that we have reached a shared view of our experiences. In his preface to Of Grammatology, Gayatri Spivak (1974) uses the ideas of Nietzsche (1887) to make what I think are important connections between this post-epistemological framework and the power/agency of an individual: The human being has nothing more to go on than a collection of nerve stimuli. And, because he or she must be secure in the knowledge of, and therefore power over, the world (inside or outside), the nerve stimuli are explained and described through the categories of figuration that masquerade as the categories of truth (p. xxii). I think people might interpret this quote in many different ways, particularly because Nietzsches ideas are bound up in his theory of a humans will to power. I believe one of his fundamental messages is that humans crave power. While I dont know that I agree with that, I choose to see in his words the message that to have freedom to make sense of our experience is fundamentally empowering. Although subtle, I think that is an important distinction for me, one that makes the connections to agency more apparent. We must be free to act, to have agency, in making sense of our experience. ! 130!

Why Teach Math? Our current education system is very nearly the exact opposite of freedom. We have identified mathematics as an existing body of knowledge and it is perceived as a sort of singular, supreme way of knowing the world. Anyone who considers closely the constructivist framework will notice that there are epistemological issues here. Yet, to even begin to address the question of why teach math, we must start by operating with some definition of what math is. For now, I would like to set aside epistemological hang-ups and discuss the issue by taking our school mathematics standards as a rough definition of mathematics. You hear lots of reasons why we should teach math. From my experience, some of the more common ones have been that it teaches critical thinking skills, it is important for careers in math and science, it is important for innovation, it is important for the future of our economy, it is important for the United States to stay competitive in the global marketplace, and others. From my own experience as a student of mathematics and again as a teacher of mathematics, I have a strong sense of doubt that the school mathematics standards (particularly at the secondary level) are somehow correlated with any of these measures. There has been research done that suggests there is a lack of evidence that school mathematics somehow teaches critical thinking skills (Star, 2013). There is also research that suggests exposure to school ! 131!

mathematics, even at the collegiate level, does not prepare students for the demands of jobs even in the specialized fields of math and science for which they were studying (Mayo, 2013). It seems all of the claims about the purposes of teaching math are a way to justify that people somehow need this cherished commodity of mathematics, a claim that I would strongly argue against. Nietzsche has suggested that purposes and utilities are merely signs that a will to power has become master of something less powerful and has in turn imprinted the meaning of function upon it (Nietzsche, 1887). To claim that mathematics has a purpose in the lives of others is to claim that we somehow know what defines mathematics and that this way of viewing the world is superior and more powerful than the ways of another. All of this points to the intertwining relations of knowledge and power (Foucault, 1980). My experiences with Ben, Andrew, Dyson, Makai, and many other students along my journey have shown me that to name an outcome or some knowledge in advance often results in us pushing towards that and, in doing, taking from them the opportunity to find their own way. It results in us listening for certain ways of thinking rather than listening to their ways of thinking. Our push towards those goals is further strengthened when we believe that this mathematical knowledge that we have identified serves some purpose in their lives. It represents a prescription towards which they must become like instead of living in the freedom to simply become (Friere, 1970). ! 132!

Mathematics as Habits of Mind It seems I must finally attempt to answer my own question: How does a classroom centered in mathematical habits of mind foster mathematical agency? My research has led me to consider that mathematical habits of mind might serve as an attempt to redefine/un-define mathematics. Habits of mind depart from a stance on what constitutes mathematical knowledge and repositions mathematics as an act, a never-ending process of coming to know. This seems to restore a sense of agency to the individual by valuing the ways people know and experience their world and recognizing that way of thinking as mathematics. It reminds us to value individual ways of knowing over the discipline of mathematics that we have named, assigned purpose, and allowed to impose a sense of superiority. In some ways this conclusion leaves me unsettled. Earlier I wrote that we must define mathematics before we can even attempt to answer the question why teach math. Im beginning to think that this is a definition we should never attempt to construct and why teach math a question we should, therefore, free ourselves from asking. I would like to borrow words from Foucault, when he was asked if Marxism is a science: If you really want to know, the fault lies in your very determination to make a science out of Marxism of psychoanalysis or this or that study ! 133!

it is surely necessary to question ourselves about our aspirations to the kind of power that is presumed to accompany such a scienceWhat types of knowledge do you want to disqualify in the very instant of your demand: Is it a science? Which speaking, discoursing subjects which subjects of experience and knowledge do you then want to diminish when you say: I who conduct this discourse am conducting scientific discourse, and I am a scientist? (p. 84-85, 1980). When we craft a definition of mathematics, we set parameters that determine what counts as mathematical knowledge and activity and, as a consequence, create a binary opposition in which certain ways of thinking are validated and others are excluded. Perhaps even habits of mind serve as a definition of what mathematics is? My attempt has been to un-define mathematics as much as possible, but I am still left wondering about my efforts. Regardless, in an attempt to write I must settle here for now. Still, it seems a healthy conclusion because I believe that mathematical habits of mind are part of who we are. They seem to be the ways that we all, as humans, naturally make sense of our experience. We are constantly experimenting, making and testing conjectures, seeking regularity, and striving to create generalizations based on patterns. In this way, they do not pose some definition of mathematics that attempts to exclude particular ways of thinking and being. They are not an attempt to teach, train, or elevate the thinking of another. We dont need to teach these habits, but I do ! 134!

feel we must start to recognize that they are only some of the ways in which we are all mathematical. Early on I defined agency as the willingness or perceived ability to act. So, I believe that a classroom that is centered in mathematical habits of mind fosters mathematical agency by inviting students to act and by creating a space where their ideas, their actions, and their selves can be validated as mathematical. Freed from the confines, pressures, and purposes of replicating sanctioned ways of thinking and being mathematical, students can just be.and recognize that their being is mathematical.

135!