Reflection of Skemp's article

My first stop is the realization that there are two ways of understanding mathematics. The reason why the emphasis in the Current mathematics reform movements endorses inquiry-based, guided on the side by instruction grounded in constructivist pedagogy, is intertwined to the relational understanding of mathematics content. The example of the two school teams playing with each other and the different meaning of the term football explained important paradigm shift to math instructional approach. The other case requires a further clarity but can only come from the self-confident learner as many do avoid asking and ends with the notion that maths is complicated. “What is the area of a field 20 cm by 15 yards?” The reply was: “300 square centimeters”. He asked: “Why not 300 square yards?” for a clear answer, the introduction of another rule is needed.
The second STOP is the fact that instrumental mathematics is in place due to circumstances such as congestion of the syllabuses, examinations and job requirement of performing given tasks. Most teachers learned the same way, should have been part of the reasons the author stated. This is perhaps the clearest indication that something is wrong, and indeed very wrong, with the situation. It is not hard to blame education for at least a share of the responsibility; it 's hard to pinpoint the blame, and suggest new remedies. The article is easily developed quite well for understanding. I wholeheartedly agree with the points given and would like to know when the article was written to connect it with the rising moments of lesson study approach. Also how the instrumental approach come to be the order of the day.