Re: Paul Lockhart's book reviewed in the L.A. Times!

From: barkofdelight <barkofdelight_at_yahoo.com_at_hypermail.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:05:02 -0000

--- Rin wrote:

> On the one hand, I disapprove of math (having been traumatized by just such teachers throughout my education,....

One of Paul's points throughout the book is that what you
learned in school was really not "Math" but some strange
made-up subject *claiming* to be useful but really is not:

  How many people actually use any of this "practical math"
  they supposedly learn in school? Do you think carpenters
  are out there using trigonometry? How many adults remember how
  to divide fractions, or solve a quadratic equation? Obviously
  the current practical training program isn't working, and for
  good reason: it is excruciatingly boring, and nobody ever uses
  it anyway. So why do people think it's so important?

Real Math, says PL (& I agree), is about reasoning and
deduction, curiosity and creativity, not rote:

  In fact, if I had to design a mechanism for the express
  purpose of destroying a child's natural curiosity and love
  of pattern-making, I couldn't possibly do as good a job
  as is currently being done— I simply wouldn't have the
  imagination to come up with the kind of senseless, soul-
  crushing ideas that constitute contemporary mathematics
  education.

One analogy I use is this: Suppose you discovered that the
"English" classes taught today were entirely spelling and
grammar. Suppose they contained no reading of books or poetry.
Further suppose that students were not exposed to a library
or had any knowledge of any great writer. What would be your
reaction when they said to you, "Literature? Yuuck! A bunch
of memorization and drills and crap."?

[Paul uses similar analogies in Music and Painting.]

Bark!
Received on 2009-04-15 09:07:48