This is true, but its especially prevalant and destructive in mathematics.
For example, a restricted list of some essential classes:
English or Language Arts.
Mathematics.
Science.
Social Studies.
Foreign Languages.
I could make an argument that its just as destructive in science. Aside from that, the rest are barely harmed by rote memorization vs proper thought. In spite of this, we find more creative thinking in those that would be harmed less by rote memorization.
I’d say languages are the most rote taught in this list, and with good reason because that’s how you get fluent. Starting with simply understanding your native language through nothing but hearing repetition as a baby, then learning to read, write and spell. You learn how grammar really works much later and maybe get to appreciate literature, poetry, etc.
Learning a foreign language is similarly rote, except you’re generally taught the grammar rules from the outset. When I was trying to teach myself German I made the mistake of getting way too caught up in trying to understand the rules and not enough just practicing with people. I don’t recommend it. If you want to be fluent, just drum it into yourself.
As for the article, it makes some interesting points, but goes way overboard IMO. Comparisons to art and music seems like a false equivalence to me. They are entirely creative subjects, whereas maths is a tool and a language. The author argues that maths is an art, but I disagree. There is a certain beauty to the fundamental relations in numbers, particularly with things like trigonometry, but those relations have right and wrong answers.
For instance, the internal angles of a triangle (in Euclidean geometry) add up to 180 degrees. This can be demonstrated in visually in various ways which is probably a better way to engage children than just learning it as a fact, however it is still a fact.
Or the author’s own example of a triangle in a box. He starts off saying this:
The first thing to understand is that mathematics is an art. The difference between math and the other arts, such as music and painting, is that our culture does not recognize it as such.
And then for all his talk about playing around with his imagination, he goes on to derive a formula, the
correct formula:
A = 1/2 b h
Music and painting don’t have right or wrong answers, it’s about expression. That’s the difference.
Also I see the conventions of how it’s written more like spelling is to a language than stave notation is to music. If you need to communicate what you’ve done, or understand what someone else has done, it’s much easier if everyone agrees on how it’s written.
The author appears to be a pure mathematician, interested in maths for its own sake. He suggests that children are taught to discover it on their own. I can see some merit in that up to a point, but maths is also a tool and can be a means to an end.
From an engineering perspective I could argue that another way to engage children is to put more emphasis on using it to solve practical real world problems. For example teaching calculus with examples of distance, velocity and acceleration. That can also require thinking about what you’re doing more than rote learning as well as making maths less abstract.
Some interesting points, but he kind of ruined it.