EDCP 342A- Reading Response on Richard Skemp's Instrumental vs. Relational article.

Hello Everyone!

The following three things made me stop and re-read or think a little as I was reading the article:

1) "there are two effectively different subjects being taught under the same name, 'mathematics'" (Page 6). I had to re-read this sentence in order to make sure that I read what I think I read because it is a very strong statement to make in an article as such. After reading the rest of the article I believe that it is not fair to consider two different ways of teaching as two different subjects being taught. It gives off an impression that one of the 'subjects'is right and the other has to be wrong; or both are wrong since they are complete different subjects. It would be fair to call it two different teaching styles being taught.

2) "It is easier to remember" (Page 9), under the category of the advantages of relational learning. I had to stop at this sentence as I was not sure if I fully agree with what is being said. From my personal experience as a tutor and an assistant teacher at an independent school, it really depends on the student whether they find the instrumental method to be easier or the relational method. I dealt with a student who was not willing to hear a word when it came to relational learning while he did great when he was taught instrumental learning.

3) "That relational understanding of a particular topic is too difficult, but the pupils still need it for examination reasons" (Page 11). This was one of the reasons that were given by teachers in regards to avoid relational learning in their classes. I had to stop here and think to myself that this reasoning is valid, however, there is more to this reasoning which cannot be overlooked. The students learn basic math starting kindergarten with their numbering and addition and subtraction later on. The learning in math periods that happen in most elementary schools to my knowledge is all instrumental. The students are taught that 2-2=0 but no 'whys' are asked or answered. In this case, a high school teacher in grade 8 cannot simply introduce a new method of learning math because the students are used to learning math in a particular way that is the instrumental learning.

In the end, Skemp says towards the end of the article that, "nothing else but relational understanding can ever be adequate for a teacher" (Page 11). I somewhat disagree with this statement as I believe that both instrumental and relational learning are equally important. Depending on the type of the student, the class setting and overall circumstances, either of these two types of learning should be applied. If a student has difficulty focusing on deeper issues, perhaps instrumental learning is the best way of learning for him. However, I believe that it is important to fall in love with mathematics to learn mathematics. It is fully up to the student which method helps him/her fall in love with mathematics easier and quicker. In case of instrumental learning being one's favorite way of learning will eventually make him/her eager to know all the answers to all the 'whys' he/she may have. Whereas, in case of relational learning being one's choice of learning method, they already made a wise choice by choosing the hard way of learning that comes with better rewards.