Every pupil around the globe has a particular favourite subject, whether it is English, history, biology, or something else. Depending on location and culture, some of these subjects are more popular than the rest. The ease of teaching them varies to some extent, yet across the board, one subject is notoriously difficult to teach and is the titleholder of the most unpopular: mathematics. Mathematics most effortlessly discourages motivated students and betrays the skill of even a trained pedagogue. No subject is more straightforward yet more laborious to teach – a notion stemming from the core of mathematics in the guise of a paradox.
Mathematics is very distinguished from its companion sciences. For instance, one can confidently say biology describes interactions and development of life, chemistry studies reactions between molecular compounds, and physics formulates the evolution of space and time. But what about mathematics? Every other science studies our world, fixating on particular fields with substantially common functionalities. The aims of science are truth and objectivity, and the most reliable method of achieving these paramount objectives is through quantification. Operating with numbers and deriving quantitative results introduces this new concept of our interest. It is a helping tool that can be applied to any study. However, what happens when one strips away the application? Mathematics is comparable to a mesh that threads all of these studies, so the question of what use is the bare mesh itself naturally arises, and it is quite a significant question. Maths in its pure form is naked logic, abstract and devoid of application. If mathematics is pure logic, and logic is straightforward by its very concept, one would think it is facile to teach – just connect the dots but with the avail of quantities.
It is true; maths, in concept, is indeed as simple as connecting the dots. There is nothing convoluted about its purpose. Admittedly, mathematical derivations and calculations become complex from certain strata onward, but the growth of rigour presents itself in every conceivable skill. The complexity is not the issue – gaining and retaining one’s interest is. Most young pupils do not comprehend the deeper significance of mathematics, nor is it taught from the start. They are drowned with very specific corollaries that are seemingly pulled out of thin air and are expected to abstractly operate with them with a certain calibre of understanding. It is no wonder that children lose interest in mathematics and frequently pose the classic question, “when will I ever use this in the real world?” while learning quadratic equations or partial fraction decomposition. The question is rarely “when is it ever used in the real world?” because the meaning of mathematics is not commonly taught. According to a 2015 study by the U.S. Department of Education, a survey conducted on randomly selected high school students revealed that 88% of the participants hated maths, and only 6% actually liked it, with pedagogy being cited as one of the prevailing reasons for this appalling statistic. Another 2017 study by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute showed that out of 2,006 randomly sampled students, 34% of respondents chose maths as their least favourite subject, which is almost 2.5 times more than the percentage for the second most chosen least favourite subject. Mathematics is utilised ubiquitously in every STEM related profession imaginable – from physics and engineering to medicine, statistics, population modelling, and far beyond. Every single concept from every secondary school maths class is used widely around the globe for an unimaginable plethora of purposes. Thus, the question, “when is it ever used in the real world?” can be answered in an indefinite number of ways.
Truly, maths is highly utilitarian, but that is not the sole reason to learn it. Numerous people pursue STEM careers. However, most people do not, and the complex equations that plagued their studies decades ago have no use in the majority of their lives. As such, the question becomes more broad – why learn mathematics if it is not related to one’s life pursuit? The answer is the paramount reason to learn this beautiful science – it teaches logical thinking. It is ideal for this matter due to its supreme and unparalleled consistency. At its core, mathematics concerns progressing from an initial proposition to a solution through thorough logical derivations. The logic involved is bare, represented with operations on numbers and variables, which themselves are abstractions of numbers. Within these logical proceedings, one is forced to utilise accessible resources for each step, proof for the absence of flaws and inconsistencies, and create coherent transitions between subsequent statements. Otherwise, the solution will not be reached. In essence, this describes logical thinking in general, and such thinking is imperative in any field of pursuit. Logic is arguably the cardinal subject and even purpose of general school, and nothing compares to mathematics for the role of delivering it.
However, an improper execution of delivery is a very proper execution of one’s joy. In the majority of classes, the connection between logic and mathematics is not made clear, and instead students plod through a dense soup of obscure rules without knowing why they are obliged to follow PEMDAS in the first place. The solution is not to introduce maths blandly, as a bland impression quickly turns into a dead one. Mathematics has to be introduced as something wonderful that threads our entire universe and all of humanity’s scientific progress. Doing mathematics should feel satisfying, as at its core lies reason itself, which every person strives to master. The most efficient way to help mathematical education is to pull the most out of this satisfaction and demonstrate the wonders that mathematics conjures. Most of the truly awe-inspiring pieces of mathematics are relatively modern, so it would not be a loss to show students a simplified breakdown of what lies on the frontier of mathematics.
Leave a Reply