This week I am reviewing the 50th edition of the math education journal For the Learning of Mathematics. The grey cover of the journal has the simple titling of the journal all in lower case, with a large 50 taking the majority of attention on the page. The table of contents immediately tells the reader that the journal touches on a broad number of topics. The 11 articles focus on topics from ethnomathematics, word problems (from our own Susan Gerofsky), international viewpoints, what appears to be, at first glance, a creative writing piece (Under the Banyan Tree by Tahta) and more. There are even two articles that take a more meta-level approach, discussing the journal itself (Reflections on FLM by Higginson, and The "Spirit" of FLM by Lee).
The journal itself is formatted with two columns of text and paragraphs barely being indented. This gives the familiar 'wall of text' feel that so many academic journals take. Furthermore, in the 47 pages of the journal there are only two pictures (both in the ethnomathematics article), one photocopy of a page of a book, and two mathematical doodles at the ends of articles that don't quite fill up a page. The articles do not have abstracts, which might lend one to more informally read through the journal, rifling through it more casually instead of simply head-hunting particular research interests.
One of the last pages in the articles is a page-long 'Suggestions to Writers' which is very telling of the journal's stylings. It details that math education should be "interpreted to mean the whole field of human ideas and activities that affect or could affect the learning of mathematics." This tells the reader that FML has a very broad range of publications which can take many forms, but which all focus on the learning of mathematics. "It is a place where ideas may be tried out and presented for discussion" tells the reader that FLM is on the forefront of mathematics education, welcoming change and fresh ideas. It is this last line that, to me, really sells the journal. I want to read a journal full of articles that hope to shed light on new, and maybe controversial areas within math education. I want to read articles from a variety of sources and FLM even supports "informal research, especially from the classroom."
It's amazing how similar your interpretation was to mine and Jubilee's. It's surprising that the journal hasn't changed more in its years. I suppose it still fills a need, and if it ain't broke...
ReplyDeleteI was interested in your notice of the creative writing piece - i'd be curious to read it as we don't normally think of creative writing as having a place in education journals (particularly not math education journals). It's interesting to see how people are creative with Math, and I would wonder what light a creative piece would shed onto math education.
I too agree with David that FLM has not changed much over the last 100 issues. From reading your response, it seems as if the "Suggestions to Writers" has not much update either. This could be because the nature of FLM is the same and its goals have not altered since its inception. FLM can truly pride itself of the varied and many views on mathematics learning from a wide range of sources. I also agree with you that FLM is capable of shedding light on and instilling aspiration within the readers. FLM's humble physical appearance has absolutely no bearings on inspiring the intended audience. This journal is well put together for (mostly) secondary and post-secondary mathematics educators.
ReplyDelete