Lockhart's Lament response

My interpretation of the central message of this article is that we have stripped Math of its beauty and mystery in our current curriculum and I definitely agree. It struck me to think about all the meaningless nomenclature and symbols we teach students that distract from the point of Mathematics. It would be so much more valuable to engage students in the human experience of problem-solving through Mathematical thinking. There is so much beauty in Math and students are missing out on the process because we are teaching them to follow formulas and a set of steps. 

I think Math does differ from poetry, music or visual arts in that it is not accessible for everyone to appreciate. Anyone could listen to a symphony and experience some awe at what they are hearing however, there needs to be a foundation of knowledge to appreciate the beauty of Math. I don't think we can swing the pendulum to an open curriculum where students just follow their curiosities, but we can definitely teach Math as art and discovery while including fundamental skills. I would also argue that Math sometimes does behave as a science in how it solves certain problems.

I think the idea of relational knowledge is related to what Lockhart is saying but it seems Lockhart's view is more radical. Lockhart thinks we have been distracted from true Mathematics by textbooks and a need for a structured, efficient curriculum.  Lockhart wants to go beyond relational thinking and have students create/discover the relationships!