Lockhart's Lament

I agree with Lockhart's discussion on the lack of engagement in Mathematics education. This is something I have felt for a long time and have always tried to work practices into my classrooms that can change this tradition. What emphasized this point in my mind even further was the comparison he made of the teaching a formula for the area of a triangle and them moving on to an art class instructing students to colour in numbered regions with predetermined colours. We see often how this plays out in a Math classroom, but most rarely ever consider this a problem or an area that can be improved.

I disagreed with his point, “The saddest part of all this ‘reform’ are the attempts to ‘make math interesting’ and ‘relevant to kids’ lives.’ You don’t need to make math interesting— it’s already more interesting than we can handle!”

A large portion of math is purely technical and can get very boring. One of the most frequently asked questions in a Math class is “Will I ever need this? Why am I spending so much time on something I will never use?” I have found that whenever I was able to make a  connection between the concept being taught and real life scenarios, my students were always engaged and interested in the topic.

Like Spemp, Lockhart’s emphasizes the importance of relational teaching over instructional. He encourages teachers to move away from only the “what” and to start including more of the “why”.

 

What Lockhart is saying Math classrooms are like.

 

What he says they should be like.

Images generated by ChatGPT