See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/344275389

EXPLORING TRANSFORMATIVE PEDAGOGY IN TEACHING MATHEMATICS

Preprint · September 2020

CITATIONS READS
0 17

3 authors:

Indra Mani Shrestha Bal Chandra Luitel

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Binod Prasad Pant

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Transformative STEAM Education Research View project

Multi-Paradigm Research View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Indra Mani Shrestha on 07 November 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

EXPLORING TRANSFORMATIVE PEDAGOGY IN TEACHING MATHEMATICS

Indra Mani Shrestha, Bal Chandra Luitel, Binod Prasad Pant

Kathmandu University School of Education, Hattiban, Lalitpur, Nepal

Email: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

This paper is based on the first author’s auto/ethnographic inquiry into pedagogical

practices based on his MPhil dissertation. The second author being the dissertation

supervisor has played a facilitative role in developing the structure and content of the paper

while the third author has provided critical comments and inputs on overall aspects of the

paper. Various research studies show that teaching mathematics has been a challenging task

for many teachers in Nepal. Based on our experience, most of the mathematics teachers

including the first author are found struggling for improving their pedagogical skills to

provide students with meaningful (authentic, empowering, justifiable and inclusive) learning.

In so doing, instead of looking into their ‘inner-selves”, they oftentimes wander around the

outer world seeking the better (and the best) possible pedagogical approaches. In this

orientation, as an auto/ethnographer, the first author narrates his stories on pedagogical

practices to examine his traditional teacher-centric pedagogical practices and explore the

transformative pedagogy as student-centric pedagogy. The study helped him improve his

pedagogical practices and envision a synergy of teacher-centric pedagogy and

transformative pedagogy in his professional life-world. Therefore, this paper aims at sharing

the research context, theoretical position, methodology, and reflection and lessons learned.

This paper is developed from the perspective of the first author’s experience using the first

person “I”.

Keywords: Auto/ethnography, transformative pedagogy, student-centric pedagogy,

teacher-centric pedagogy, meaningful mathematics learning

Shrestha, I. M., Luitel, B. C., & Pant, B. P. (in press/2020). Exploring Transformative Pedagogy in
Teaching Mathematics. Mathematics Education Forum Chitwan, Nepal.
 2

Introduction

Various research studies (e.g., Luitel, 2009, 2013; Pant 2015; Shrestha, 2011, 2018,

2019) show that teaching mathematics has been a challenging task for many teachers in

Nepal due to culturally decontextualized mathematics education that excluded cultural

capitals of Nepali students. Despite its relevance in students’ lifeworlds, contextualized

teaching and learning has not been the priority of school education of Nepal (Wagle, Luitel,

& Krogh, 2019). Based on our experience as teachers, teacher-educators and researchers,

most of the mathematics teachers including the first author are found struggling for

improving their pedagogical skills to provide students with meaningful (authentic,

empowering, justifiable and inclusive) learning. In so doing, instead of delving into their

‘inner-selves”, they oftentimes wander around the outer world seeking the better (and the

best) possible pedagogical approaches. In this orientation, as an auto/ethnographer who

writes about culture via one’s own experiences of others, the first author narrates his own

stories of pedagogical practices to examine his traditional teacher-centric pedagogical

practices and explore the transformative pedagogy as student-centric pedagogy. Therefore,

this paper is based on the first author’s auto/ethnographic inquiry into pedagogical practices

based on his MPhil dissertation and beyond. The second author being the dissertation

supervisor and the third author being a critical colleague both have played their facilitative

roles in developing the structure and content of the paper by providing critical comments and

inputs on overall aspects of the paper. The paper is developed from the perspective of the first

author’s experience using the first person “I”.

The Context of My Mathematics Teaching

My journey of traditional teacher-centric pedagogical practices (e.g., chalk-and-talk,

algorithmic problem solving, etc.) started in 1993, and it continued until my enrollment in a

master’s study in mathematics education in 2007. After that, as an MEd student, I started to

Shrestha, I. M., Luitel, B. C., & Pant, B. P. (in press/2020). Exploring Transformative Pedagogy in
Teaching Mathematics. Mathematics Education Forum Chitwan, Nepal.
 3

critically reflect on my past through different lenses of transformative pedagogy as student-

centric pedagogy (e.g., constructivist, collaborative, problem-solving, inquiry-based, activity-

based, project-based, etc.) (Shrestha, 2011). Since then, I gradually realized that my

pedagogical practices were guided by a renowned old ‘positivistic’ paradigm that separates

the knower (e.g., students) from the known (e.g. knowledge) (Grundy, 1987). I was inclined

more towards administering students through the teacher-centric pedagogy to make them able

to achieve better grades under the controlled and managed environment.

Moreover, my teacher-centric pedagogy was guided by Habermas’ technical interest

(Habermas, 1972), and my mind-set was influenced by Freire’s (1970) banking concept of

education.

For Habermas, the technical interest gives rise to instrumental knowledge. To

construct it, a human being as a researcher (e.g. a teacher) sets a possible hypothesis

(assumption) and makes some predictions. After that, the hypothesis is tested through a series

of experiments (e.g., teaching and learning activities) and observations using empirical rules

and laws under the controlled and managed environment (e.g. classroom, activities) and

verified based on the results. Finally, the verified knowledge is established as an instrumental

knowledge, which, in turn, gives rise to an instrumental action, meaning that a teacher, for

example, assumes it as a universal knowledge and acts upon students using the same

technical rules to achieve the intended learning outcomes. In this situation, the teacher acts as

an authoritative knowledge transmitter and students become passive recipients of the

knowledge.

For Freire, the banking concept of education treats students as empty vessels to be

filled with knowledge – like financial transactions in banks. The teacher is all-in-all in

depositing information as knowledge in students’ empty minds through narration, talk,

lecture, practice, etc. so that students can withdraw it whenever they need, for example,

Shrestha, I. M., Luitel, B. C., & Pant, B. P. (in press/2020). Exploring Transformative Pedagogy in
Teaching Mathematics. Mathematics Education Forum Chitwan, Nepal.
 4

during exams. Thus, the banking concept of education limits the students’ actions to

receiving, filing and storing knowledge.

In this context, I portray an anecdote on my teacher-centric pedagogical practices

guided by Habermas’ technical interest and Freire’s banking concept of education, followed

by one more anecdote that reveals how I realized that becoming a successful teacher-centric

pedagogue was my false consciousness.

Establishing Teacher-Centric Pedagogy as My Principal Pedagogy

When I started my journey of mathematics teaching in 1993, I had not received any

degree or training in mathematics teaching. I was a fresh mathematics teacher who graduated

with science and mathematics background. That’s why; I had no option other than recalling

how my teachers taught me at different levels of my formal education. And that was the

teacher-centric pedagogy. I assumed teacher-centric pedagogy as the most effective teaching

approach to teaching mathematics. I then began to teach mathematics as a strict teacher using

different teacher-centric pedagogies such as chalk-and-talk, repeated practices, rote-

memorization, algorithmic problem solving, use of predefined formulae, laws, rules and

procedures, etc. within the four walls of the classroom. I continuously deposited

mathematical knowledge in my students’ minds, and gradually, the students began to score

better grades in exams. The headteacher and parents were impressed by my teaching

approaches. I became a brilliant mathematics teacher for my students, their parents and the

school, which made me realize that the teacher-centric pedagogy was the most effective

pedagogy. That’s how the teacher-centric pedagogy became my principal pedagogy.

Embodied knowledge. I as a novice researcher developed a research hypothesis (i.e.

teacher-centric pedagogy as the most effective pedagogical approach to teaching

mathematics.), tested it through a series of experimentations (i.e. classroom practices),

observed how it worked (i.e. learning processes), analyzed and interpreted the results (e.g.

Shrestha, I. M., Luitel, B. C., & Pant, B. P. (in press/2020). Exploring Transformative Pedagogy in
Teaching Mathematics. Mathematics Education Forum Chitwan, Nepal.
 5

marks, grades) and hence verified that the teacher-centric pedagogy was the most effective

pedagogical approach to teaching mathematics.

As a teacher-centric pedagogue, I was a transmitter of mathematical knowledge, and

my students were passive recipients of that knowledge. In that, the students would put all of

their focus on me. I would talk, narrate and explain the ideas, concepts and procedures using

chalk on the whiteboard within the fully controlled and managed environment (e.g.

classroom, activities, learning, etc.). The students would honestly and quietly listen to me and

copy my texts from the whiteboard. Moreover, I would control and manage students’ learning

as if I was the ultimate source of knowledge. In this context, the students would learn

independently and make decisions based on my instructions. I would entertain a quiet

classroom and obedient students so that I wouldn’t have to worry that the students would

miss my important points. Most importantly, I deposited the mathematical knowledge in the

minds of the students so that they could draw it whenever they needed, e.g. during tests,

exams, etc. I was considered as the most successful teacher-centric pedagogue.

Moments of Realizing My False Consciousness

At the beginning of my teaching, I was not able to accept other’s worldviews and

change my style as a content-transmitting teacher. Yet, I recall an event of 1995 when I was a

mathematics teacher at a private school in Kathmandu. A textbook writer (and a curriculum

expert as he introduced himself) conducted a one-day workshop on “Teaching Mathematics

Using Materials” in the school. I was the only person to oppose his pedagogical approach and

complain to the headteacher that this approach could not help students score marks in the

exams as the questions would not be asked on how to solve problems by using materials.

However, after I joined for a master’s degree, I learned various mathematics courses

on teaching, curriculum and assessment. The groundbreaking ideas of a teacher as a

facilitator, reflective practices in teaching, critical pedagogy, etc. gradually challenged my

Shrestha, I. M., Luitel, B. C., & Pant, B. P. (in press/2020). Exploring Transformative Pedagogy in
Teaching Mathematics. Mathematics Education Forum Chitwan, Nepal.
 6

style as a content-transmitting teacher, and hence I gradually realized that it was my false

consciousness (i.e. wrongly held perspective) that teacher-centric pedagogy was an ultimate

and effective approach to teaching mathematics. I also came to realize that the reason I was

considered as a successful teacher was due to my sincere efforts to make my students ready

with the routine problems of the textbooks for the tests and exams. Instead, the student-

centric pedagogies could help students learn mathematics meaningfully by developing the

competence in both “procedural and conceptual knowledge” among students through group

work, project work, interaction, dialogue, and inquiry (Rittle-Johnson, & Schneider, 2015).

However, I had still encountered some problems in translating such pedagogies into the

benefits of students. I was in search of possible answers to the question “How could I

improve my pedagogical practice?”. Though I had encountered transformative learning

(Mezirow, 1991) during my master’s study, I was not fully aware of its practical implications.

But, after my enrollment in MPhil study in 2014, I gradually realized that transformative

learning would work effectively in mathematics education, in which constructivist and

critical perspectives empower both teachers and students to examine their beliefs and values

to construct knowledge through critical self-reflection (Mezirow, 1991; Shrestha, 2018). I

affirmed that I wouldn’t be able to make any difference in students’ learning process until

and unless I change my belief system (Pant, 2015). Then, I began to practice the student-

centric pedagogies (e.g. constructivist, collaborative, problem-solving, inquiry-based,

activity-based, project-based, etc.) informed by transformative learning in school and

university teaching.

As a teacher, the temporary problem with me was due to the entry of the

transformative pedagogy into my long-practiced teacher-centric pedagogy. Transformative

pedagogy refers to a student-centric pedagogy combining the elements of constructivist and

critical pedagogy that empowers students to critically examine their beliefs, values, and

Shrestha, I. M., Luitel, B. C., & Pant, B. P. (in press/2020). Exploring Transformative Pedagogy in
Teaching Mathematics. Mathematics Education Forum Chitwan, Nepal.
 7

knowledge to develop a reflective knowledge base, an appreciation for multiple perspectives,

and a sense of critical consciousness and agency (Khedkar, & Nair, 2016, p. 1; Nagda, Gurin,

& Lopez, 2003). As I began to practice transformative pedagogy, I earned many sweet and

sour experiences while integrating it into my teacher-centric pedagogy. While bringing

students into the process of transformative learning, I also faced many challenges, for

examples, making them realize their mistakes and accept the new learning methods, engaging

them in collaborative learning, etc.

Above all, there were mainly two issues in front of me: Why did the teacher-centric

pedagogy oftentimes guided me despite being aware of transformative learning? In what

ways the transformative pedagogy helped me teach mathematics to provide students with

meaningful (authentic, empowering, justifiable and inclusive) learning? These issues led me

to conduct my MPhil research entitled “My Pedagogical Sensitisation Towards Holistic

Mathematics Education: A Practitioner’ Inquiry”.

My research aimed to examine my traditional teacher-centric pedagogy and explore

the transformative pedagogy that contributes to my transformation from the teacher-centric to

transformative mathematics teacher to provide students with meaningful (authentic,

empowering, justifiable and inclusive) learning. More specifically, I was interested in

collaborating with my students to develop and implement a synergistic transformative

pedagogy through critical self-reflection by integrating the teacher-centric pedagogy into the

student-centric pedagogy.

The Context of School Education in Nepal

Working as teachers, teacher-educators and researchers in the field of mathematics

education, we three authors have realized that one of the major problems in school education

in Nepal is to bring mathematics teachers into the process of transformative learning due to

the culturally decontextualized mathematics curricula that have excluded our cultural capitals

Shrestha, I. M., Luitel, B. C., & Pant, B. P. (in press/2020). Exploring Transformative Pedagogy in
Teaching Mathematics. Mathematics Education Forum Chitwan, Nepal.
 8

(Luitel, 2009, 2013; Pant, 2015; Shrestha 2019). All the Nepali schools have been following

the centrally prepared curricula prescribed by the Curriculum Development Centre (CDC)

that is borrowed from the British-India education system (Luitel, 2013). Despite giving space

to the local curriculum in the education system, the CDC itself prepares the central

curriculum and hands it over to the local authorities, which becomes a showcase in the local

schools’ libraries.

The home-schooling and Gurukula education system based on the eastern knowledge-

traditions have been gradually disconnected from mainstream education once the Rana

regime took over and established Durbar School as the first formal school in Nepal (Pradhan,

2020). The educational reforms since then brought only the cosmetic changes in the curricula

restricting both teachers and students within the four walls to teach and learn the prescribed

contents within the given time, and the students became so instrumentally robotic-like that

they couldn’t face the challenges in their life after their graduation. Moreover, over time, the

education system in Nepal gradually became a victim of the borrowed curriculum in the name

of globalization. And hence, our education system gradually fell into the trap of the neoliberal

political agenda of labour market that always trapped both students and their parents within

the milieu of securing good grades using the standardized tests and exams (Wagle, Luitel, &

Krogh, 2019).

Though there are altogether 35,055 public and private schools in Nepal (National

Education Policy - 2076 B. S.), with the growing number of schools, the quality of education

hasn’t yet gone up in the same ratio. Instead, the education system still focuses on quantity

because of the centrally prepared culturally decontextualized curriculum (Luitel, 2013). It

seems that transformative education is not in a priority in school education. Because of such

malpractices, teachers, students and parents are motivated to give major priority to scoring

better grades in exams with the falsehood of securing students’ future. That’s why; the

Shrestha, I. M., Luitel, B. C., & Pant, B. P. (in press/2020). Exploring Transformative Pedagogy in
Teaching Mathematics. Mathematics Education Forum Chitwan, Nepal.
 9

teacher-centric pedagogy has long been in existence in the education system of Nepal despite

putting efforts into reforming education.

In this context, we three authors have realized that mathematics education is also

victimized within such culturally decontextualized school education due to culturally

decontextualized curriculum, pedagogy and assessment (Luitel, 2013; Pant, 2015; Shrestha

2018). Most falsehood assumption is that school mathematics is taken as the best scoring

subject for securing students’ place in science and technology streams after graduation

instead of taking it as life itself. Due to this, it is very difficult to convince both the students

and their parents that mathematics learning is to become a real-life problem-solver. Yet, the

teacher-centric pedagogy is still prevailing, thereby neglecting or subordinating the

transformative pedagogy as a student-centric pedagogy in teaching and learning of

mathematics in schools of Nepal.

Theoretical Position

As a teacher, a teacher-educator and a practitioner-researcher, after a long journey in

identifying well-known theories of my field, I became well aware of the notion that there is

no ‘royal road’ to transformative pedagogy, and also hold a view that grand theories of

teaching and researching may not be appropriate in developing myself (and teachers) as a

change agent (Pant, Luitel, & Shrestha, 2020). Hence, I believed in the locally developed

theory that could serve the needs of my ‘self’ and ‘other-selves’ (e.g., students, teachers,

parents, school head, etc.) in my study. In this context, I carefully chose Transformative

Learning Theory (Mezirow, 1991) and Living Educational Theory (Whitehead, 2008), both

of which could serve my own as well as my participants’ needs throughout the study.

Transformative Learning Theory provided me with the new ontological,

epistemological and axiological grounds in research that advocate research as a means for

transformative learning (Pant, 2019). Ontologically, it helped me shape my ‘being’ by

Shrestha, I. M., Luitel, B. C., & Pant, B. P. (in press/2020). Exploring Transformative Pedagogy in
Teaching Mathematics. Mathematics Education Forum Chitwan, Nepal.
 10

integrating different worldviews into my worldviews so as to transform my ‘being’ into my

‘becoming’ through critical self-reflection. Epistemologically, my ‘instrumental knowing as

being’ was transformed into ‘communicative knowing as becoming’ through transformative

learning theory so that axiologically I could widen my horizon of knowing as a synergy of

instrumental knowing and communicative knowing for promoting transformative pedagogy.

Living Educational Theory guided me in researching and answering a question of the

kind ‘How do I improve what I am doing?” with the implications that include the generation

and sharing of a valid explanation of my educational influences in my own learning

throughout the study. Whitehead (2008) explained that a living theory is an explanation

produced by individuals for their educational influence in their own learning, in the learning

of others and in the learning of the social formation in which they live and work.

Moreover, both theories helped me examine my teacher-centric pedagogy and explore

the new transformative pedagogy throughout the study.

Research Methodology

I used two key research paradigms, namely, interpretivism and criticalism within

transformative research informed by multiple realities (ontology driven by relativist) and

subjective knowledge (epistemology: knower and subject create understanding) (Denzin, &

Lincoln, 2005).

Interpretivism helped me as a researcher understand phenomena (“making sense of

the world”) by looking through other’s eyes, abandoning the attempt to explain behavior

through measurements or general rules based on a cause-effect scheme (Di Martino, & Zan

2015). As an interpretive researcher, I was guided by constructivist epistemology to unfold

my subjectivity in shaping the process of the inquiry and hence generated context-based

understanding of people’s thoughts, beliefs, values and associated social actions (Taylor, &

Medina, 2011).

Shrestha, I. M., Luitel, B. C., & Pant, B. P. (in press/2020). Exploring Transformative Pedagogy in
Teaching Mathematics. Mathematics Education Forum Chitwan, Nepal.
 11

Criticalism helped me raise my critical consciousness (Brookfield, 2000) and enable

me to practice ‘deep democracy’ (Kincheloe & McLaren, 2000) which involves identifying

and transforming socially unjust social structures, policies, beliefs and practices (Taylor, &

Medina, 2011).

I used an auto/ethnography as a research methodology. Auto/ethnography is an

approach to research and writing that seeks to describe and systematically analyze personal

experience to understand cultural experience (Ellis, Adams, & Bochner, 2011). Moreover, I

employed the auto/ethnography to explore and discover my position as a researcher in the

research space. While so doing, I challenged my personal biases, positioned my research to

make sense to a wider audience and had a greater impact on them. Rather than using auto

(self) and ethnography (culture or other) as a dichotomy, I used a slash (/) to represent both

autobiography and ethnography and hence embraced dialectical thinking to explore many

permutations between auto and ethnography (Taylor, & Taylor, 2019).

Further, within auto/ethnography as a research methodology, I used writing narratives

as a method of inquiry which helped me understand experience through collaboration

between researcher and participants over time in a place or series of places, and in social

interaction with milieus (Clandinin, & Connelly, 2000). The aim of using narrative inquiry

was to invite readers to go on a voyage with the researcher, one in which researcher (s) and

readers would be discovered and making something together (Bochner, 2014). Moreover, the

narratives are so verisimilitude to the personal-professional life-worlds of readers that they

are deeply engaged in finding their positionality concerning the social and political contexts

portrayed by the researcher. Finally, their positionality potentially influences their

understanding of their personal-professional life-worlds.

Being an Auto/Ethnographer in the Field

Shrestha, I. M., Luitel, B. C., & Pant, B. P. (in press/2020). Exploring Transformative Pedagogy in
Teaching Mathematics. Mathematics Education Forum Chitwan, Nepal.
 12

For an auto/ethnographer, the research field indicates the contexts and places in the

stories of the researcher. As an auto/ethnographer, I had two roles – an autobiographer and an

ethnographer. As an autobiographic researcher, I narrated my personal and professional lived

and living experiences and contradictions as my data. While as an ethnographic researcher, I

deeply involved myself in the research field (school) with my students as key research

participants and other research participants (parents, teachers, headteacher) to extract their

lived and living experiences and contradictions as my data. I conducted the study at a private

school in Kathmandu with the students of grades IX and X and collected data using informal

conversations and interviews in the classrooms, corridors, canteen, ground, etc. wherever

comfortable. I also interacted with parents, colleague teachers and headteacher. I collected

field notes, took photographs and videos, used cell phone and social media (e.g. Facebook),

which were later transcribed into journals, and critically reflected on my role as an

auto/ethnographer throughout the research process.

Moreover, I collected stories as data associated with my pedagogical practices in

which my subjectivity such as my thoughts, feelings and observations was a way of

understanding the social contexts. In so doing, I interpreted the collected stories to make

meaning out of them. Therefore, my data are the textual representation of my subjective

experiences that helped me explain and critique the social contexts and phenomena associated

with my pedagogical practices and envision the pedagogical possibilities in my professional

life-world.

Practicing Transformative Pedagogy

It could be any day of the chilly winter season in 2017. As a transformative

practitioner-pedagogue, I was inside the classroom of Grade X to facilitate students in

mathematics learning at 6 AM. I was about to start the lesson, two students (brother and sister

by relation) entered the classroom. After having a few conversations with them about their

Shrestha, I. M., Luitel, B. C., & Pant, B. P. (in press/2020). Exploring Transformative Pedagogy in
Teaching Mathematics. Mathematics Education Forum Chitwan, Nepal.
 13

late arrival, I started the class with a short video of about 10 minutes. The topic was

“Conceptualizing cone through visualization and making them by the paper-folding method”.

After watching the video, all the students worked collaboratively in groups to make cones.

Twenty-four students were divided into five groups with five students in each of four groups

and four in one group based on students’ learning ability, caste and gender. At the end of the

one-hour session, I assigned them to make cones at home and bring them the next day.

The second-day class was focused on deriving the formulae of surface area and

volume of a cone. For that, I demonstrated the procedures of deriving the formulae using

video, paper folding and cutting method, and drawing the figures on the whiteboard. Finally,

I derived the formulae as follows: In a cone, r stands for the radius of the circular base, l and

h for the slant and vertical heights respectively.

The cone (Fig. II) is made from a part of a circle (Fig. I), which is the curved surface

of the cone. When that part is divided into ‘n’ number of equal right-angled tringles (OAB,

ABC, ACD, … and so on) (Fig. III), each is infinitesimally small, then the sum of the areas

of all the triangles gives the curved surface area of the cone. As the area of one triangle = half

× base × height, then the area of ‘n’ triangles = n × half × base × height = n × half × b × l =

half × nb × l = half × C × l, where nb equals the circumference C of the circular base of the

cone. Hence, the curved surface of the cone = half × 2πr × l = πrl, where C = 2πr. As the

area of the circular base = πr2, the total surface area of the cone = area of the circular base +

curved surface area = πr2 + πrl = πr (r + l)

Shrestha, I. M., Luitel, B. C., & Pant, B. P. (in press/2020). Exploring Transformative Pedagogy in
Teaching Mathematics. Mathematics Education Forum Chitwan, Nepal.
 14

Next, to find the volume of the cone, I played the video demonstrating the cone as

one-third of a cylinder. After that, I derived the formula on the whiteboard. As the volume of

the cylinder is πr2h, the volume of the cone is one-third of πr2h. In the end, I assigned them to

write all the procedures of deriving the formulae of surface area and volume of the cone in

their workbook and submit it the next day.

The most interesting event was that the two students again came a little late than the

earlier day. I allowed them to enter the classroom after having a few conversations with them.

The third-day session was focused on finding the surface area and volume of their

cones. For that, I assigned them to take the measurements of r, l and h and tabulate them.

They worked collaboratively in their groups and calculated the surface area and volume of

their cones based on their recorded measurements. In the end, I assigned them to do their

work fairly on their workbook and submit it the next day.

Not surprisingly, again the two students came in the middle of the class, but this time,

I kept them outside of the class for a while so that the dynamics of the class wouldn’t be

disturbed. After about a couple of minutes, I interrogated them and allowed them to join their

groups.

On the fourth day, they solved the problems of the textbook. However, I also assigned

some contextual problems from their real life-worlds. One contextual problem was as

follows:

Assume that your mother has got a problem while pouring oil from the packet into a bottle.

One day, your mother asks you to make a conical funnel with a cylindrical pipe at its bottom.

If you are given a thin metal sheet of size 30 cm × 20 cm. Develop a model using a paper

folding method and measure the surface area and volume of the cone. Note that the minimum

part of the sheet as possible should be wasted.

Shrestha, I. M., Luitel, B. C., & Pant, B. P. (in press/2020). Exploring Transformative Pedagogy in
Teaching Mathematics. Mathematics Education Forum Chitwan, Nepal.
 15

All the students developed their models and submitted within a couple of days. One of

the students demonstrated his model in the classroom as follows: He first folded the paper

(Fig. I) into half along PN to get two rectangles FANP and PNBE (Fig. II). Then, he folded

each of these two rectangles FANP and PNBE diagonally along ND and NC to form two

squares ANMD and NBCM in such a way that AN and NB coincided each other exactly

along the middle line MN and the points A and B coincide each other at point M. The two

rectangles ABCD and DCEF so formed (Fig. II) were cut out along DC. The rectangle DCEF

was then converted into a cylindrical pipe (Fig. IX). For this, with N as the centre and AN

(NB, AD, NM or BC) as radius, a semicircle was drawn using a compass (However, his

father used local tools – an iron nail tied at one end of a thread and a colour pencil at the

other end) (Fig. VI). He then cut out the parts to get a semicircle (Fig. VII), which was

converted into a cone (Fig. VIII). Finally, he inserted the vertex of the cone into the cylinder

and marked the circumference. He then cut out the vertex of the cone along the mark to make

a hole and adjusted the cylindrical pipe to form the required conical funnel (Fig. X).

Shrestha, I. M., Luitel, B. C., & Pant, B. P. (in press/2020). Exploring Transformative Pedagogy in
Teaching Mathematics. Mathematics Education Forum Chitwan, Nepal.
 16

Embodied Knowledge. There is an interesting story behind the late arrival of the two

students in the morning class. Upon interaction with them separately, the girl told me that her

brother always bothered her if streetwalkers would tease her while coming to the school early

in the morning. That’s why; he would always insist on moving her faster together with him.

But she wanted to walk alone at her own pace. When I interacted with the boy, he told me

that she would always walk slowly and hence they were late in the class, and upon suggesting

her to move faster in his pace, she would start a verbal war with him. They blamed each

other. I was in a dilemma who was right. For this, one day I talked to their younger sister

studying at grade VIII in the same school. The reality was revealed. Moreover, the male-

dominant attitude was common in their family, which was later confirmed by their father

when I indirectly talked to him on the report-card distribution day. After that, I again talked

to the boy and tried to convince him to allow her to walk alone at her own pace to respect her

right to grow independently. My attempt worked and both started to come to the school on

time but one after another. This was evidence that teacher’s counseling helps resolve the

problems of students. However, during my retrospective teaching era, I had malpractice of

punishing students by keeping them outside the classroom and even sending them back home,

which I completely quitted as soon as I began to practice the transformative pedagogy.

Regarding the model preparation, the student shared his story behind it. He told me

that his father had a small factory in which such household utensils were made, and he took

the help of his father to develop the model. This is a piece of evidence that students can bring

their cultural capitals in the classroom.

This is an example of my transformative pedagogy in which I used student-centric

pedagogies such as activity-based, inquiry-based, collaborative, problem solving, etc. with

the help of concrete materials and technology. During the learning process, all the students

actively participated in the activities, had interaction with each other, raised questions to each

Shrestha, I. M., Luitel, B. C., & Pant, B. P. (in press/2020). Exploring Transformative Pedagogy in
Teaching Mathematics. Mathematics Education Forum Chitwan, Nepal.
 17

other, reflected critically on their activities and learned to solve real-life problems. Moreover,

they gradually became aware of their own bad habits and the malpractices of their friends,

teachers and school. Regarding me as a transformative practitioner-teacher, I had to work

harder than ever to control and balance my egocentrism – a kind of habit that always made

me feel that I was the ultimate source of knowledge upon which all the students should

depend. I gradually learned to welcome critical questions of my students and to fairly reply to

them. But it was very difficult to bring the school management into the transformative

learning process. The headteacher and the managing director were especially very offensive

towards me, because they would think that the students, parents and teachers had started

raising voices against the unjust structures and malfunctioning of the school. Nevertheless,

my students kept on raising their voices against such injustices politely with teachers in the

classroom and with the school management.

Sometimes, I would present myself aggressively upon students’ extreme reactions and

unmanageable noisy classrooms. But later on, some of them would come to me and made me

realize my mistakes. I then would apologize for my mistakes in the classroom. In this

situation, I would oftentimes critically reflect on my mistake to realize it. Even today, some

students still share with me via Facebook messenger their experiences about how I would

motivate them for learning and raising their voices against socially unjust phenomena and

structures.

Transformative pedagogy is a praxis-oriented student-centric pedagogy that plays a

major role in bridging between theory and practice by engaging both teachers and students in

critical self-reflection. Moreover, various transformative pedagogies such as constructivist,

collaborative, problem-solving, inquiry-based, activity-based, project-based, etc. can be

effectively implemented in teaching mathematics only when a teacher can raise the critical

consciousness of self and students as well through critical self-reflection. Further, critical

Shrestha, I. M., Luitel, B. C., & Pant, B. P. (in press/2020). Exploring Transformative Pedagogy in
Teaching Mathematics. Mathematics Education Forum Chitwan, Nepal.
 18

discourse is a major element of transformative pedagogy that illuminates both teachers and

students to take the right action against their oppressive elements (e.g., status quo,

egocentrism, hegemony, neocolonialism, etc.) through consensual understanding. Therefore,

the transformative pedagogy is committed to bringing about personal and social

transformations in teachers and students by establishing a dialectical relationship between

teaching and learning of mathematics.

Reflection and Lessons Learned

As an autobiographer, I reflected on my past experiences of pedagogical practices

while as an ethnographer, I reflected on my immediate practices after the actions were taken

during the study in the field. Both the roles taught me lessons that contributed to improving

my pedagogical practices and envisioning the pedagogical possibilities in my professional

life-world.

The process of my transformation from teacher-centric pedagogue to transformative

pedagogue was not an easy task for me. I was oftentimes dragged into the realm of teacher-

centric pedagogy because it was my comfort zone where I didn’t have to work for planning

the teaching-learning activities as everything was set in my mind. But while using

transformative pedagogy, my most challenging situation was when I had to accept my

students’ critical feedback and comments. Practicing critical self-reflection to raise

consciousness was not an objective reality that could be measured in number. Rather, it was a

subjective reality that I accepted and denied throughout the study. Nevertheless, my

prolonged and deep engagement in the process of transformation helped me fight against my

disempowering forces, especially my egocentrism, and hence I was able to accept the

transformative pedagogy as a part of my professional life-world.

My autobiographical inquiry helped me examine my teacher-centric pedagogy guided

by the behaviorist learning theory. Moreover, such a teacher-centric pedagogy lies within the

Shrestha, I. M., Luitel, B. C., & Pant, B. P. (in press/2020). Exploring Transformative Pedagogy in
Teaching Mathematics. Mathematics Education Forum Chitwan, Nepal.
 19

centrally- prepared subject-centric curriculum in which a series of discrete tasks are

prescribed to perform for achieving the intended learning outcomes within a limited time. A

teacher is trained to transmit the information as knowledge to students as passive recipients

who reproduce the knowledge by following the teacher’s rule-following procedures.

Therefore, the knower (students) is detached from the known (knowledge). After learning to

reproduce knowledge through various ways such as rote-memorization and practice methods,

students become a master of instrumental knowledge which they have to apply in their real

world. In this context, a few so-called intelligent students can recall the learned knowledge

and become successful in applying it in their real-world while maximum students are left

behind and become unsuccessful in applying the learned knowledge in their real-world.

Overall, only privileged students are benefited while underprivileged students are gradually

detached from the mainstream of mathematics learning.

Moreover, my autobiographical inquiry helped me build a basis for exploring

transformative pedagogy. Subscribing to the teacher-centric pedagogical basis, my

ethnographic inquiry helped me explore transformative pedagogy in the research field. My

prolonged engagement in the field with my research participants (students, teachers, parents,

headteacher, etc.) in the whole academic session of one year taught me many lessons about

both teacher-centric and transformative pedagogies. The major lesson was that neither of

these two pedagogies single-handedly could serve the students’ needs and interests. Rather

both pedagogies co-exist in teaching to provide students with meaningful (authentic,

empowering, justifiable and inclusive) mathematics learning.

The auto/ethnographic study helped me integrate the stories of my research

participants into my stories, thereby generating emergent transformative pedagogy.

Moreover, I was able to find an observable distinction between teacher-centric pedagogy and

transformative pedagogy. In that, teacher-centric pedagogy always helped me follow subject-

Shrestha, I. M., Luitel, B. C., & Pant, B. P. (in press/2020). Exploring Transformative Pedagogy in
Teaching Mathematics. Mathematics Education Forum Chitwan, Nepal.
 20

centric curriculum (Schubert, 1986) under ‘banking model of education’ (Freire, 1970) to

(re)produce instrumental knowledge (Habermas, 1972) and procedural knowledge (Rittle-

Johnson, & Schneider, 2015) within the controlled and managed environment using rule-

following methods (Grundy, 1987). I always tried to bring a behavioral change in students by

continuously depositing knowledge in their minds and enforcing them to practice repeatedly

the same textbook problems until they knew. While, transformative pedagogy became the

praxis-oriented pedagogy that helped me develop curriculum as experience (Schubert, 1986)

with the active involvement of students, parents, school and community people through

consensual understanding to construct communicative and critical knowledge (Habermas,

1972) and conceptual knowledge (Rittle-Johnson, & Schneider, 2015) through critical

discourses and consensual understanding within the democratic environment. I always

encouraged students for problem-posing during interaction in a collaborative learning process

to co-construct knowledge (Vygotsky, 1978).

As a teacher, teacher-educator and researcher, the transformative pedagogy as

student-centric pedagogy helped me raise questions about my practices. My students were

also empowered through critical discourse during interaction in the collaborative learning

process of mathematics. Moreover, the study helped me raise consciousness in the students to

the maximum extent and in the school to some extent about exercising democratic values for

social justice through the transformative learning process. Above all, I envisioned the synergy

of teacher-centric pedagogy and transformative pedagogy in my professional life-world,

which empowered me to provide my students with meaningful (authentic, empowering,

justifiable and inclusive) mathematics learning.

References

Bochner, A. P. (2014). Coming to narrative: A personal history of paradigm change in

human science. USA: Left Coast Press.

Shrestha, I. M., Luitel, B. C., & Pant, B. P. (in press/2020). Exploring Transformative Pedagogy in
Teaching Mathematics. Mathematics Education Forum Chitwan, Nepal.
 21

Brookfield, S. (2000). The concept of critical reflective practice. In A. L. Wilson & E. R.

Hayes (Eds.), Handbook of adult and continuing education (pp. 33-49). San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in

Qualitative research. New York, NY: Jossey-Bass.

Di Martino, P., & Zan, R. (2015). The construct of attitude in mathematics education. In B.

Pepin & B. Roesken-Winter (Eds.), From beliefs to dynamic affect systems in

mathematics education. Exploring a mosaic of relationships and interactions (pp. 51–

72). New York: Springer.

Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., & Bochner, A. P. (2011). Autoethnography: An overview. Forum

Qualitative Research, 12(1) Art. 10. Germany: VS Verlag/Springer.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.

Grundy, S. (1987). Curriculum: Product or Praxis. Great Britain: The Falmer Press.

Habermas, J. (1972) Knowledge and Human Interests, 2nd ed. London: Heinemann

Khedkar, P. D., & Nair, P. (2016). Transformative pedagogy: A paradigm shift in higher

education. Proceedings of Third International Conference on Multidisciplinary

Research & Practice, December 16, 2016, pp. 332-337. Ahmedabad Management

Association, ATIRA Campus, IIM-A Road, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India.

Kincheloe, J. L., & McLaren, P. (2000). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research.

In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.,

pp. 279-313). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Luitel, B. C. (2009). Culture, worldview and transformative philosophy of mathematics

education in Nepal: A cultural-philosophical inquiry. Unpublished doctoral thesis,

Curtin University, Perth, Australia.

Shrestha, I. M., Luitel, B. C., & Pant, B. P. (in press/2020). Exploring Transformative Pedagogy in
Teaching Mathematics. Mathematics Education Forum Chitwan, Nepal.
 22

Luitel, B. C. (2013). Mathematics as an im/pure knowledge system: Symbiosis, (w)holism

and synergy in mathematics education. International Journal of Science and

Mathematics Education.

Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (2076 B. S.). National Education Policy -

2076. Singha Durbar, Kathmandu, Nepal: Author.

Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass.

Pant, B. P. (2015). Pondering on my beliefs and practices on mathematics, pedagogy,

curriculum and assessment (Unpublished MPhil dissertation). School of Education,

Kathmandu University, Lalitpur, Nepal.

Pant, B. P. (2019). An Integral Perspective on Research: Methodological and Theoretical

Journey of a Teacher Educator. In P. C. Taylor & B. C. Luitel (Eds.), Research as

Transformative Learning for Sustainable Futures: Global Voices and Visions (pp.75-

87). Brill Sense, Netherland.

Pant, B. P., Luitel, B. C. & Shrestha, I. M. (2020). Incorporating STEAM pedagogy in

mathematics education. Proceedings of episteme 8 International Conference to review

research in in Science, technology and Mathematics Education, January 3-6, 2020,

pp. 319-326. Homi Bhabha Centre for Science Education, Tata Institute of

Fundamental Research, Mumbai, India.

Nagda, B. (R.) A., Gurin, P., Lopez, G. E. (2003). Transformative Pedagogy for Democracy

and Social Justice. Race Ethnicity and Education, Vol. 6, No. 2. Taylor & Francis

Online. Doi: 10.1080/1361332032000076463

Pradhan, M. (2020). The fault in our system: Failure of exam-focused curricula. An article

published online on 28 June 2020 in Lokaantar Sanchar Pvt. Ltd. Website:

Shrestha, I. M., Luitel, B. C., & Pant, B. P. (in press/2020). Exploring Transformative Pedagogy in
Teaching Mathematics. Mathematics Education Forum Chitwan, Nepal.
 23

www.lokaantar.com. Retrieved from http://english.lokaantar.com/articles/fault-

system-failure-exam-focused-

curricula/?fbclid=IwAR0VTF3VP2QpObMTWnAfscytafdHQqavISa4jrd6o

GPeeYsUoLm7-TvTihI

Rittle-Johnson, B., & Schneider, M. (2015). Developing conceptual and procedural

knowledge in mathematics. In R. Cohen Kadosh & A. Dowker (Eds.), Oxford

handbook of numerical cognition (pp. 1102-1118). Oxford, UK: Oxford University

Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642342.013.014

Shrestha, I. M. (2011). My journey of learning and teaching: A trans/formation from

culturally decontextualised to contextualised mathematics education. Unpublished

dissertation for Master of Education (Mathematics), Kathmandu University, Nepal.

Shrestha, I. M. (2018). My pedagogical sensitisation towards holistic mathematics education:

A practitioner’s inquiry (Unpublished MPhil thesis). Kathmandu University School of

Education, Nepal.

Shrestha, I. M. (2019). Facilitating Culturally De/Contextualised Mathematics Education: An

Arts-Based Ethnodrama. In P. C. Taylor & B. C. Luitel (Eds.), Research as

Transformative Learning for Sustainable Futures: Global Voices and Visions (pp.75-

87). Netherland: Brill Sense.

Schubert, W. H. (1986). Curriculum: Perspective, paradigm and possibility. New York:

Macmillan.

Taylor, P.C., & Medina, M. (2011). Educational research paradigms: From positivism to

pluralism. College Research Journal, 1(1), 1-16. Assumption College of Nabunturan,

Philippines.

Taylor, P. C., & Taylor, E. (2019). Transformative STEAM education for sustainable

development. Proceedings of the Science and Mathematics International Conference

Shrestha, I. M., Luitel, B. C., & Pant, B. P. (in press/2020). Exploring Transformative Pedagogy in
Teaching Mathematics. Mathematics Education Forum Chitwan, Nepal.
View publication stats

24

(SMIC) 2018. Jakarta, Indonesia.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wagley, S. K., Luitel, B. C., & Krogh, E. (2019). Irrelevance of Basic School Education in

Nepal: An Anti-Colonial Critique on Problems and Prospects. Dhaulagiri Journal of

Sociology and Anthropology. Vol. 13, pp. 31-39. doi:

https://doi.org/10.3126/dsaj.vl3i0.24032

Whitehead, J. (2008). Using a living theory methodology in improving practice and

generating educational knowledge in living theories. Educational Journal of Living

Theories (EJOLTS), 1(1), 103-126. https://ejolts.net/node/80.

Shrestha, I. M., Luitel, B. C., & Pant, B. P. (in press/2020). Exploring Transformative Pedagogy in
Teaching Mathematics. Mathematics Education Forum Chitwan, Nepal.