In this very insightful and erudite opinion piece in the NYT, Andrew Hacker asks questions about the oft-repeated view that learning mathematics is indispensable for high school and college students. he cites very interesting facts that for the US, the difficulty in mastering the mathematics curriculum is a leading cause of failure to matriculate. He therefore makes the sensible view that for all its unquestioned utility for students, the mathematics curriculum is too dense and acts as a barrier to educational attainment for students.
The author's sensibly questions the design of the curriculum and the abstract concepts conveyed in trigonometry, calculus and algebra. While it may be impolitic to mention, he demonstrates that for most students, most of the abstract concepts are unlikely to be used after graduating from school. For most colleges, mathematical ability is called upon even for courses in which it has no direct relevance such as history and art merely to screen out a large number of applicants. He wonders instead why the curriculum has not been designed to demonstrate clearly the applications of these subjects in a way make them more understandable and readily usable for students. In particular, he suggests that subjects such as "machine tool mathematics" are not only likely to hold the interest of students but are more effective in sharpening the cognitive capability of students to apply them.
The most potent part of his argument is that by insisting in mass education of students in a dense and dry curriculum, the schools, colleges and nations are misapplying scarce skills. This piece leaves it to designers of education curriculum in mathematics to design them in ways that catch the interest of students without generating massive failures. To my mind, mathematics is too important for education managers to give up on most of society. the graphic that accompanies the story shows that young scholars do not want to drown in numbers.
No comments:
Post a Comment