It was a very interesting and exhausting reading. I was surprised by Lockhart's energy in that article.
I agree that the way we construct the curriculum or the way we perceive math education is making a lot of kids who could be passionate about math to find it boring. I personally didn't find math class that boring, but I totally see that boredom in many students.
There was a lot of questions and objections in me as I read, but most of time they are addressed later in the article. I think overall there were a lot of things I didn't emotionally relate with him, but his arguments were still convincing to me. Just as an example, I don't think I find as much as enthusiasm in mathematical problem as Lockhart find; while I think the satisfaction I find in learning and using "rigorous" mathematical language is more than what Lockhart's would expect. But that satisfaction, indeed, might not be about mathematics, but rather about linguistic?
I really appreciate that he provided a very clear image to how math should be "taught" if we perceive math in his way - that there's no such a thing called a teaching method, but just a honest relationship. I really enjoy this idea, since I'm more interested in relationship building rather than comparing different teaching method.
I also found his whole point about how a "mathematical problem" is crucial very inspiring, including his argument of technique in math should be learned in context. I think that is something we can try to incorporate in teaching. Apparently it's not likely that we can have the students to work on a single problem for days or weeks, but it should be possible to try to expose students with more "context".
----
Comparing with Skemp, Lockhart's criticism towards instrumental teaching of math aligned with Skemp. And very interestingly they both wrote about analogy of music class taught in "math style".
Hey Sissie! I can tell you’ve really sat with this reading — you’re not rushing to agree or disagree with Lockhart, and that makes your reflection feel genuine. What stood out most to me is how you describe finding satisfaction in the rigor and language of mathematics. That’s such an honest and original take. Lockhart tends to frame beauty as creativity and chaos, but you remind us that there’s also beauty in precision, in expression, in communicating an idea clearly. That’s worth chasing further — how might that view shape the kind of math experiences you want for your students?
ReplyDeleteYour comment about teaching as an honest relationship really lands. You don’t sound interested in “methods” for their own sake; you sound interested in connection — in seeing students, listening, and building something real. That’s a strength, and it’s something that can easily get lost in curriculum or assessment talk. You could dig deeper into what honesty in that relationship actually looks like. Is it about transparency? Vulnerability? Mutual curiosity? There’s room to explore that.
I also like that you’re already thinking about context — you know we can’t all run Lockhart-style weeks-long investigations, but you’re looking for small, meaningful ways to make learning more authentic. That’s exactly the kind of thinking that moves ideas from philosophy into practice.
During your practicum, try to notice how (or how they might not) teachers create honest learning relationships in mathematics classrooms — how they build trust and make space for uncertainty. Reflect on moments where rigor supports understanding and when it begins to feel restrictive. You could also experiment with giving structure more context, helping students see not just how mathematics works, but why it’s meaningful.