Ethnomathematics in Practice

Abstract

In this paper we elaborate on the difference Bishop made between mathematics with a capital M and mathematics with a small m. The relation between M and m is far from clear and, confronted with the task of teaching mathematics, the problem only sharpens. In the first section (Ethnomathematics) we give a brief presentation of the critical role of mathematics. We make clear that we should be conscious of the institutional aspects of mathematical learning and teaching. Mathematics education always takes place in an institutional context, e.g. the school context. The point is that mathematical learning or thinking is contextual in any living culture; it lives and develops and is used in a particular cultural context. We make a plea to consciously and explicitly seize and actively practice these different world views, to have pupils attain a level of comprehension and sophistication. This practice should be an ingrained part, implicitly or unconsciously, of the curriculum of mathematics. In the second section (Empirical Facts) we offer some suggestions about the practical use of ethnomathematics in the classroom, taking as a starting point examples of field research among the Navajo Indians (in the U.S.) and among the Turkish ethnic minority (in Belgium).