Please forward this note to anyone who might be interested in
discussions about educational remediation
Dear colleagues,
I have been reviewing materials on educational remediation,
and have started to design some grant proposals and scholarship related to
methodology, curriculum, objectives and theory.
My work on this subject is placed on my web site at:
http://www.ontologystream.com/beads/QuestionOfAccess/AQA.htm
I have been involved during the past decade on the development
of advanced information technology (mostly for government agencies). My interest is in leaving that profession
and returning to my work on educational theory and practice.
In 1994 I did write a NSF grant proposal for funding to
establish methodology based on the theory that I had developed. The proposal was viewed as being outside of
typical efforts in mathematics education.
I have one year of graduate coursework on the mission of higher
education, but my primary work has been in the theoretical foundations of human
knowledge representation; including the foundations and history of
mathematics.
The key "professional" problem, with my 1994 NSF
proposal, is that my theory - one based on immunological theory - suggests that
the individual student, having remediation needs, develops an acquired learning
disability because of the methodology and practices as experienced by the
student during his/her K-12 years.
No one likes institutional criticism, unless this criticism
if very well presented and unless there are very clear guidelines so that the
institutions can respond to the criticism. This need to address the
institution's concerns has to be presented up front and first.
My new presentations recognize individual functional
restrictions on attention and cognitive focus, and there are many of these
restrictions. For example, attention
deficits have real experiential and neurological origins. The experiential origins may include
experiences not related to classroom teaching practices.
What might be the institutional impact from a successful
theory of learning? What if almost all
high school students were comfortable with their awareness about the
foundations of mathematics and abstract thought?
The only way to talk about this potential social reality is
to have specific cases where students and faculty have found the theory and the
consequent methodology and curriculum successful. What happens to arithmetic and algebra instruction if students
more easily master the skills assumed to be the target of this instruction?
The development of a clear understanding of the origins of
attention deficit disorders and other categories of cognitive limitations can
be made, and made part of a professionally acceptable foundational theory for
remediation.
Mastery of curriculum not previously seen by the student is
the key to my methodology.
The benefits from this approach are two fold:
1) Social acceptance:
The student is faced with a positive social reality; that of mastering
something not attempted before.
2) Use of novelty:
The theory underlying my pedagogy about educational remediation stems
for a study of immune system response to habituated stimulus.
Given a semester, or two, of focused scholarship on the
relevant literatures; and teaching experience; I believe that I can place my
work into a professional form acceptable to mainstream mathematics education. I
note that a “remediation” course is not the only place where my work might be
applied, as almost all of our students have some fear of failure in learning
mathematics curriculum.
I hope that a College will accept my request to join the
faculty for a short period of time (one year).
The short period of contemplation and teaching will help my effort in a
number of ways.
My objective for the Fall of 2006 is the development of two
books, one at the graduate mathematics education level and one to be used as
arithmetic remediation (in high school or the freshman year).
Dr. Paul S. Prueitt
Taos, New Mexico
703-981-2676 (cell)