FTHD2018 – CALL FOR PAPERS. Deadline: 3 June 2018.


Dear colleague,

the next important date is allmost there. The deadline for abstracts is in next Sunday June 3, 2018. 

You can send Your abstract using the webpage

https://www.lyyti.fi/reg/fthd2018cfp
and attached LaTeX-template.

I hope to see you in August in Tampere!

With best regards

Heikki

Ps. Please, join our Telegram group @fthd2018. E.g. conference pictures will be delivered from this source online.

Source: Email from Heikki Orelma <heikki.orelma_AT_tut.fi>, 29 May 2018.

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under conferences

One response to “FTHD2018 – CALL FOR PAPERS. Deadline: 3 June 2018.

  1. ciopongu

    these invitation are very important for us and our appear as in case of prof dr mircea orasanu and prof drd horia orasanu as followed as CONSTRAINTS OPTIMIZATION and non holonomic problem used often by prof dr Constantin Udriste or Holomorphic problem developed by prof dr mircea orasanu in many situations and so that Curriculum for schools in England and Wales, just as any future changes to the school curriculum will imply corresponding changes for teacher education. Following a systematically orchestrated campaign from right wing pressure groups throughout the 1980s, political intervention in the school curriculum reached a high point at the Conservative Party conference in 1988, with the famous statement from Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher:
    Children who needed to count and multiply were learning anti-racist mathematics – whatever that might be.
    It was in such a climate that the proposals were put to the Secretary of State for Education, Kenneth Baker, on the composition of the mathematics curriculum. These proposals stated that it was unnecessary to include any ‘multicultural’ aspects in any of the attainment targets. This position was supported by arguing that that those proposing such an approach with a view to raising the self-esteem of ethnic minority pupils and to improving mutual understanding and tolerance between races, were afflicted with an attitude that was ‘misconceived and patronising’. Tooley’s (1990) support for such a position and his associated critique of arguments put by those in the mathematics education community he labelled as ‘multiculturalists’ is both misleading and flawed in several respects. He misleads by his mischievous suggestion that the ‘multiculturalists’ wished to dictate to teachers: e.g. he asserts that ‘the failure to ‘compel “multicultural” examples’ is not ‘a great handicap’ of the National Curriculum. In fact the pressure at that time was in precisely the opposite direction and compulsion was never part of the agenda of the so-called ‘multiculturalists’ in the first place. In his reflections on this context Woodrow (1996) has pointed out that the concerns of teachers, following the Swann Report and the tragedy leading up to the MacDonald report, have been dissipated as a result of the introduction of a National Curriculum in which there is ‘no internationalism … no celebration of a pluralist culture and no sense of diversity’. Tooley also creates a false dichotomy between those teachers ‘who prefer to raise the political consciousness of their pupils, rather than their mathematical attainment’. Can it not be the case that teachers of mathematics can do both? Is there not a case to be made for considering the contribution teachers of mathematics might make in terms of citizenship and democracy?
    Set against this background it is not surprising that the debate around issues of social justice and equal opportunities in the classroom came to whither on the vine during the last decade in England and Wales. Further it is not surprising that schools are now seen, by the African and Caribbean Network of Science and Technology (ACNST), to be failing black pupils in the ‘status and power’ subjects of science, mathematics and technology (Ghouri, 1998b). It does seem that Tooley’s (1990) expectation that the National Curriculum proposals ‘have the potential to tackle that problem’ of underachievement has proved to be unfounded. Rather the ACNST research points towards the lack of role models for young black people e.g. ‘black British scientists’. It does seem that Tooley is also mistaken in his view that the use of exotic stereotypes such as the San people of the Kalahari desert is an appropriate and sufficient level of response to this problem.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s