Abstract
The historico-genetic principle has been advocated continuously, as an alternative one to the traditional deductive method of teaching and learning mathematics, by Clairaut, Cajori, Smith, Klein, Poincar$\'{e}$, La Cour, Branford, Toeplitz, etc. since 18C. And recently we could find various studies in relation to the historico-genetic principle. Lakatos', Freudenthal's, and Brousseau's are representative in them. But they are different from the previous historico- genetic principle in many aspects. In this study, the previous historico- genetic principle is called as classical historico- genetic principle and the other one as modern historico-genetic principle. This study shows that the differences between them arise from the historical views of mathematics and the development of the theories of mathematics education. Dewey thinks that education is a constant reconstruction of experience. This study shows the historico-genetic principle could us embody the Dewey's psycological method. Bruner's discipline-centered curriculum based on Piaget's genetic epistemology insists on teaching mathematics in the reverse order of historical genesis. This study shows the real understaning the structure of knowledge could not neglect the connection with histogenesis of them. This study shows the historico-genetic principle could help us realize Bruner's point of view on the teaching of the structure of mathematical knowledge. In this study, on the basis of the examination of the development of the historico-genetic principle, we try to stipulate the principle more clearly, and we also try to present teaching unit for the logarithm according to the historico- genetic principle.
