Microteaching Lesson Plan

                                                              

Response to Battleground Schools

I found it interesting that debates about how math should be taught in North America have been repeating for over a century. The constant shift between focusing on basic skills and emphasizing understanding made me think that education reform is often more about ideology than actual learning. It feels like schools keep changing direction without really solving the core problem of how to make math meaningful for students.

I was also struck by how the New Math movement, which aimed to modernize math education, ended up failing because teachers and parents weren't ready for it. It reminded me that even a well-intentioned reform can't work if people don't fully understand or believe in it. Real change in education probably depends more on teacher support and communication than on new theories or curricula.

Lastly, I noticed how politics and media shaped public opinion during the Math Wars. What surprised me was that something as neutral as math became tied to ideas about authority, competition, and national identity. It made me realize that discussions about curriculum are never just about knowledge, they also reflect the values and power structures of the time.

Post Microteaching Reflection

To be honest, I started facing challenges with this microteaching from the very beginning when I was choosing the topic. I am actually more comfortable with things like table tennis or photography, but since those are not really classroom activities, I decided to choose magic instead. That choice brought two main difficulties. One was figuring out what kind of activities to do after teaching the trick. The other was how to tell if everyone had really learned it, because once the secret is revealed, any kind of test no longer makes sense.

Another question I kept thinking about was what it actually means to teach magic. Is it just about showing techniques, or is there something more meaningful behind it? I once read a book that explained the difference between teaching magic and simply exposing secrets. What makes a magic performance memorable is the mystery of not knowing how it works, and the most enjoyable part is the process of trying to figure it out. When someone tells you the answer right away, the magic suddenly loses its charm. That is the hardest part of teaching magic for me. I did not want to focus on tricks that rely on hand skills, but rather on the methods of deception in magic, such as how magicians lead people to make certain choices or shift their attention. However, I think I did not manage the timing and emphasis very well. Some people mentioned in their feedback that it was hard to follow the goal of the lesson, and I understand why. I wanted everyone to experience the idea first instead of being told directly at the beginning, but I probably did not highlight those key points clearly enough during the lesson.

Aside from that, most parts of my lesson went as I expected. I think this experience was very valuable because it helped me clearly see the gap between lesson planning and actual teaching. I really enjoyed the whole process, and I am very thankful to my group members. They gave me a lot of support and feedback while I was teaching, which made me feel encouraged and confident.

Response to Lockhat's Lament

After reading Lockhart's Lament, I really agree with his point that math should be about curiosity and creativity instead of just following rules. I like how he describes mathematics as a kind of art, and that part really stood out to me. I also don't agree with the idea that students should only memorize formulas or follow the exact steps shown in practice exams. When students only plug numbers into formulas, they lose the chance to actually think and see patterns. I think giving students space to explore and even make mistakes is what makes math meaningful.

But I don't fully agree with how strongly Lockhart dismisses the practical side of math. I understand his frustration with "usefulness" being overemphasized, but I still think connecting math to real-life examples or applications is beneficial for students. In my own experience, my professors and classmates often say that math is the foundation of all sciences. I actually developed my mathematical thinking by exploring how math connects to the fields I am interested in. I think that a physics student, a statistics student, and a computer science student would each look at the same math problem differently, and that to me is also part of the beauty of mathematics.

This also reminded me of Skemp's idea of relational and instrumental understanding. Lockhart clearly values relational understanding, knowing why something works instead of just how to do it. Both authors care about genuine understanding, but Skemp seems more balanced. He admits that instrumental understanding can sometimes help students build confidence or make progress, while Lockhart mostly rejects it. From my perspective, I find myself agreeing a bit more with Skemp's view.

Micro-teaching Lesson Plan