SCORPION

I take at the face value the fact that Edwards' book has been used in the circles far removed from the art of or the need for drawing (nursing schools, corporate seminars). When you teach creativity as a stepping stone for drawing, you teach a skill that can be applied elsewhere, even outside the classroom. This leads to a criteria for evaluation of the current math instruction methods. Does anything taught in the math classroom prepare students to face aspects of reality not directly related to math? Students who have taken B. Edwards' course have also learned to see the world differently and to better use their mental powers. Is this true of math instruction? Unfortunately, I think, not. Even more so when math instruction emphasizes the "real world problems": most of these problems are dull and have limited utility anyway. It appears possible to learn drawing for drawing's sake and acquire a more universal skill along the way. It should be possible to perform the same feat in math classrooms. I assume math instructors would be proud to be nurturing their students' imagination.

One of the arguments against New Mathematics was that its heavy formalism had little to do with how mathematicians really work. Humanistic Mathematics presents it in a humane way with a human context. One aspect of which is how the real mathematicians do it. No, not every one was born to become a mathematician, but that is besides the point. Future biologists dissect worms and frogs in biology labs as do future engineers and literary agents. Without creativity and imagination mathematics would not be possible. As Edwards' experience demonstrates (see also books by E. de Bono), these skills can be taught. I suspect that good math instruction should foster students' creativity in a deliberate manner and as a part of curriculum.

(The article is an adaptation of a 1998 MAA Online column Modes of Thinking.)

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Alexander_Bogomolny