Existing Misunderstanding of Mathematics - Essay Example

Question The book written by Paul Lockhart illustrates the existing misunderstanding of mathematics in the society. In this book the writer brings examples of some contemporary educational realities. He starts by arguing that children do not get the chance to hear music nor to know how to play it. In spite of this experience the teachers still hold high expectations on the children perform well in writing the music in sheet form (Lockhart 2). Lockhart goes on to cite the example of painting class for the 7tht grade students. They do not get to know how to paint practically but the teacher expects them to perform well in the theory part. The writer compares the ordeal underwent by these discipline to that facing mathematics in the contemporary world. The teachers have oriented there students towards believing that cramming formulas is the only best way to pass mathematics. The students do not get the chance of knowing the various dimensions since they only have to substitute the given values in the formula. Lockhart argues that the belief inflicted by the teachers is what makes the student perceive mathematics as no art. Lockhart presents a conversation between Simplicio and Salviati who go on to stress about the failure of the teachers to make mathematics easy to their students (Lockhart 6). The conversation brings a reader to realizing that the teachers only require the students to master the techniques without considering the context and the whole process. The failure by the standard mathematics curriculum triggers Lockhart to propose the relivening of aesthetic in mathematics as the only way to promote the love for this subject. He disapproves the so called “ladder myth” associated with the contemporary mathematics. The ladder myth makes students to concentrate only on the theory part without considering how the structures of the questions came to be; consequently diminishing the art nature. The writer concludes by proposing a standard school mathematic curriculum whereby lower school math students consist of the explanation about the origin of various mathematics aspects. The last part of the curriculum is Calculus. Question 2 I agree with Lockhart’s view that the curriculum has fabricated the real mathematical model to a sculpture that scares the students away. The contemporary mathematics education has forced the students to go direct into mastering the techniques and not appraising the real context and process (Lockhart 4). This design acts as the basis for the witnessed failure by most students to embrace the existence of mathematics. Most of the students get scared at the first view of a “long formula”, such as that for calculating surface area of a cylinder (2?r2 + 2?rh). The teacher requires the students to master this formula otherwise they will not get the right answer. This has acted as the most surprising part of the modern education. As stated by Lockhart, the curriculum, teachers included, do not understand that the students need to get a broader perception about the context implied. Lockhart’s comparison of math to art proves strong since the involved teacher could have broken the surface area of a cylinder as the sum of the surface area of the two circles (at the top and bottom) plus that of the area of the triangle (2?rh). Considering the nature of math teaching, the educators should be fully responsible for making math interesting to the kids. The educators have failed in recovering the need for studying and embracing math. The curriculum accentuates that the only expectation from math education is to perform well in the subject while living out the need for real knowledge useful in the long run. It orients the students to believe that cracking the exams is the basis for studying math. The educators need to realize that the math students are just like other human beings who usually become at ease with something they can relate to. As asserted by Lockhart, they should consider making math curriculum be practical and relevant to the kids’ experience. This situation applies to any other art classes which usually require the students to analyze the context. However, history classes are more of already exiting facts which the students need to retrict themselves to mastering; otherwise they would fail. Indifference to other art classes which require student to model a given scenario, history classes are more of facts which cannot be modified. One of the most memorable occasions which I can relate to Lockhart’s assertion is when I had a problem of distinguishing between a convergent and a divergent river. At first, before consulting my Geography teacher I had to master the two terms, something which made fail in a related question which required to name a river type. It was easy for me to confuse between the two terms since I did not understand their context. Visiting the teacher made me realize that this was the cheapest trivia ever when he told me that I just need to understand the meaning of the stem words (diverge and converge). “Diverge” bring the image of things moving apart while “converge” for different things moving towards one direction hence describing the nature of the two rivers. Question 3 It is true that the difference between “problems” and “exercise” serve in illustrating the diminishing love for students. Exercise makes the students to use the specific technique as directed by the curriculum, while not understanding the real context. They forget about understanding how the whole situation relates to their daily lives. “Problems” allow the student to understand how math relate to their everyday encounter consequently prompting for easier understanding (Lockhart, p. 9). However, Lockhart conflicts himself when he says that there is no actual mathematics in the classes. If it is true that there is not true mathematics in classes then teachers are not in a position to remedy situation, as he claims. I believe that true mathematics exist within the teachers, who are in the classroom. They just need to change their perception in teaching mathematics through forgetting about the techniques and focusing on the context. In this perspective, I think the K-12 is not necessary for the students since the whole change depend on the willingness of the teachers. Even with the present curriculum, the teachers can still formulate ways of driving the children to the required context. Work cited Lockhart, Paul. A Mathematician's Lament. New York, NY: Bellevue Literary Press, 2009. Print. Read More