The demand side learning theory focuses on the individual and on individual inner experience.  As such, demand side learning must be individualized far beyond what teaching to standardized tests supports.  In economic terms, demand side requires that each consumer knows his of her inner self and is able to resist advertising. 

The demand side economic theory [1] I am proposing is based on the individual's power to see through negative cultural programing.  In the same way as supply side economic theory [2] has developed models about supply chains and economic decisions, the demand side theory must be eventually supported with models about intentionality and behavioral origins.  Compare 3,050 Google hits for "supply side economic theory" with 270 hits for "demand side economic theory". The Goggle results indicate the relative under-development of demand side theory as compared with supply side theory.  Keynesian economic theory is clearly insufficient to model the inner experience of individuals.  Even though Keynesian economics is considered demand side, the theory developed based on Keynes work is about government policy.  In my use of the term, "demand side" is means the aggregated influence of informed human intent.  The key word here is "informed".

Demand side learning was first applied to the notion that software markets will eventually respond to open source software. Demand-side learning refers to the incentive to learn how to use and modify free software as opposed to buying conventional software. [3] A proposed reuse model automates “Open Source” to create, manage and distribute software through an IP Exchange. [4] The IP Exchange is an electronic marketplace that treats contextualized components like physical goods in virtual supply chains.  Both supply-side and demand-side economics are enabled so that point of transaction has the capability to provide mark to market accounting and knowledge of real time markets to the user.  Mark to model accounting paradigms are also easily available within this transaction space. Within this new transaction space economic mechanisms may drive a new economic based on a balance between supply side and micro-Keynesian based demand side. Using elements of demand side learning, monetization occurs through micro payment reuse of components.  *<*>

However, such monetization is not restricted to software and may be applied to educational processes and to elements of social networking and collective intelligence.  The application of demand side theory to the teaching of freshman college mathematics is proposed by Prueitt. *<*> Specifically, it is supposed that actual long term comprehension of a few topics does provide an ability to demonstrate skill on standardized tests. 

We are holding the thesis that the recognized failure in mathematics education, and in education in general, is manifest in the unfortunate practice of teaching to the skill level.  The long term development of stability mechanims do us a great dis-service in this specific instance. Over time, mechanisms develop that maintain faculty communities in K-12 and in colleges who do not expect to teach comprehension *<*>. These mechanisms further degrades the quality of the American community of scholars.  (Kapeller, 2007)

Demand side learning theory asks about the biological mechanism involved in learning or not learning human knowledge. (See Appendix A of Bridge Program White Paper *<*>)

Experience is one part of the causality of the self.  Inner experience is shaped by self efficacy, and in many cases this sense of one's self has been shaped by poor and/or incomplete learning experiences in K-12.  A general theory is developed by Prueitt on the biological mechanism involved in preserving efficacy and in causing positive shifts in self-efficacy in cases where an acquired disability is present. (see*<*>)  This theory and a systems based analysis of the nature of college, K-12 and university administration is being used to support the political argument stated in the Bridge Program White Paper.  (see*<*>)

Specifically, a new inner experience is to be shaped by the provision of clear and complete knowledge of the foundations of arithmetic, set theory and algebra.  Providing this enhancement during or before the freshman year of college may alter the inner experience of the student about the natures and value of mathematics. 

The provision of this knowledge requires a Socratic type learning environment.  This environment was partially provided to around 100 freshman students during the Fall semester 2008.  The issues arising during this semester is examined as an substrate model, comparing the supply side theory and demand side theory of learning. (see*<*>)  The purpose of this examination is to prepare for the lifting of the pedagogy to a web based system designed to support a national bridge program.  (see*<*>) The critical unsolved problem is manifest in very low class attendance rates, a problem that begins to be addressed in note 24 *<*>.

On the minimal requirements empowering a demand side practice

In a college setting, the foundations of college mathematics may be provided in two four week workshops. *<*>  The assumption is only that each individual student will give a new pedagogy a chance, attend the workshop three, or five, hours a week.  No prerequisites are assumed.  What is assumed is that the individual's knowledge about mathematics has been acquired in such a fashion as to fracture that knowledge into isolated memories, most of which are not easily accessed.  *<*> 

However, a number of common resources are useful.  These are listed at the bottom of a short position paper.  (see*<*>)  The issue of college provision of proper classroom writing boards, chalk or dry eraser, came up as a critical limiting factor during the fall semester of 2008.  An extended analysis of this limiting factor is available in private notes. 

The assumption, that the pedagogy will be given a chance, is directly challenged by the practices of many administrations in under-served colleges and community colleges.  These practices, and the need to alter them, is the primary political argument for a national bridge between high school and college with original focus at under-served colleges and community colleges.  (see*<*>)

We have six cases studies, which may be reviewed under private non-disclosure agreements. These cases studies show an entrenchment in practices that are deemed sufficient but are in fact holding the next generation of students from realizing the potential that college should allow realized. 

The reasons why these practices persist is immediately linked to

1) the accommodation of the social belief that "these" students cannot learn the standard curriculums and thus that a means to pass through must be found so that "these" students may earn college degrees.

2) the social belief that the failed system will not and can not be changed

3) in some cases, but not in all, actual financial constraints can not or are not being overcome. 

The reasons why college administrative practices entrench are organized in these three categories; (1) related to beliefs about the students, (2) related to beliefs about the institution, and (3) financial constraints. The system preserves the status quo in unusual ways, as our detailed analysis of chalk board unavailability shows. 

Skills and comprehension

The demand side's initial focus is on notation and theory.  This focus is a key differentiator between supply side and demand side learning, since the supply side does focus on skills and reduces the student's exposure to the underlying theory.  It is true that even under a supply side theory, a few students seek the theory and orient to the mathematical sciences, but most are expected to master skill only.  The quandary is that persistent mastery of skills without knowing the theory is virtually impossible, a point supported by extensive research that is commonly ignored by standardized testing companies.

In the demand side viewpoint, the student is assisted in gaining sufficient knowledge so that applications and examples may be made up by the student. 

The presentation of the lifting pedagogy to students was advanced by teaching the following notation. 

Let P    = {  notation, theory, application } = { a _i | i = 1, 2, 3 }. 

and let

C  = { topics in the standard curriculum in Chapter }  = { t _i | i = 1, 2, . . . n }.

A blank paper presentation starts with a set of topics that may be used to "cover" the entire curriculum.  Notation and theory for each topic is developed by the student, and then the student makes up examples in the form of standard type exercises.  The ability to make up one's own exercises indicates a high level of comprehension. 

The design of the web based version of the lifting strategy was also advanced.  The ideal web based system will also have a linkage or mapping between the cross product of C and P,

C  cross  P = {( t _i , a _j ) |  i = 1, 2, . . . n;  j = 1, 2, 3 }

and the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics K-12 focus elements.


From National Bridge Bridge White Paper (see*<*>)

Supply side tacitly asserts that most students need not and can not gain this depth of knowledge.  The system is supplying what is needed, from the system's point of view. Most students are not interested, except in passing the class.  The supply side assertion seems proper based on cultural expectations and the commonly held viewpoints of many professors.  The evidence seems clear.  Students are most often not motivated and are even agnostic about freshman mathematics.  The college administration may respond to this over time by accommodating the supply side view and disguising the actual outcome metrics.   Accreditation organizations in turn accommodate the disguised metrics.  The system hids the fact that it is broken. 

The demand side conjectures that students have acquired a learning disability due to poor instruction in middle school and high school.  This disability may be framed in terms of the nature / nurture debate * <*>  and may be overcome using the lifting pedagogy.

Need for Transformational Pressure

Our experience in the classroom shows that the common institutional assertion serves the interest of a system that supplies textbooks and enrolls students in colleges and universities; social institutions that are largely unprepared to teach the enrolled students.  We assert that self accreditation has failed to bring these institutions to task on this point.

One of the political objectives of the second school is to bring public light to this issue.