Here is a link to a neat article in the New York Times about a young non-mathematician who is making math fun, or at least, making the fun-if-ication of math her goal. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/18/science/18prof.html?_r=1&ref=education
I admire Ms. Hart, and certainly her intentions, as I have also aspired to such a goal.
But here is what I really took away from the article, and it was delightfully refreshing: What I especially appreciate is that neither Ms. Hart nor the Times, though they lament the too-frequent doldrums that a typical math class often is, purport to be able to change that with the typical suggestions of "group work," "investigations," and so forth. Because to me, so much of the richness of those types of activities can only really come when you've had a primer in the content. It's a little bit of the chicken-and-the-egg conondrum, but not entirely: you have to learn a little of the math to be able to explore it. I liken it to tinkering, really. My grandfather used to tinker with anything electronic. He knew enough of the gist of it to fiddle, and all his fiddling taught him more. Same for mathematics. Same, I imagine, for anything worth tinkering with.
So, thank you, Ms. Hart. You're right -- too many math classes are boring, dry, and miserable, and you're doing your part to show that math, in and of itself, need not be. And thank you again for not insisting that we can fix that with dog-and-pony shows instead of math classes.
Now, wouldn't it be wonderful if we could convince the curriulum gods to (a) slow down, so kids can study fewer concepts, but really learn them, and in slowing things down (b) build in some time to let us explore what is, really, the beauty and magic of mathematics?
Shouldn't that be part of any -- nay, every -- math curriculum?
