In today’s data-driven world, graphs are everywhere—from COVID-19 curves and economic forecasts to climate models and scientific discoveries. Yet in Nepal, many students graduate from high school unable to sketch or interpret even basic graphs. Why is this happening in a country striving to strengthen science and technology education?
Despite government efforts to improve the school mathematics curriculum, graphical reasoning—the ability to visualize and interpret mathematical functions through graphs—remains largely overlooked in classrooms, textbooks, and exams. Although the national curriculum introduces graphing from grades 9 to 11, students still finish school without the skills to confidently sketch or analyze trigonometric, logarithmic, or exponential functions.
Why? Because they’re barely asked to. This has created a troubling feedback loop: exams rarely include graphing, so teachers don’t teach it; textbooks don’t emphasize it; and students ignore it. As one high school student put it, “We don’t practice graphs. We just memorize formulas and solve examples from the book.” Another added, “Graphing questions are more difficult for me. Our education system does not focus on graphical problems.”
A particularly striking comment came from a Nepali student studying calculus at the University of New Mexico. After watching his American classmates confidently solve graph-based problems, he turned to his instructor and asked: “Dai, why do we get scared of graphs, while the American students feel so comfortable with graphical reasoning?”
That question gets to the heart of the issue: Nepali students aren’t being prepared to think visually—a skill essential for advanced math and STEM careers.
Two recent studies provide evidence. The first, titled “Examining the Graphing of Functions and Graphical Aspects in Nepal’s High School Mathematics,” analyzed curricula, exams, textbooks, and instruction. It found that only 5.5 percent of problems involved graphing, and just 1.1 percent required reasoning about graphs. Despite the inclusion of graphing in grades 9–11, most teaching focuses on symbolic manipulation, and grade 12 includes no graph-based tasks at all.
The second study, “Bridging the Gap: Understanding Students' Struggles with Algebraic and Graphical Representations of Functions,” found that students rely heavily on symbolic manipulation, memorization and often lack visual mathematical thinking. One student explained, “When asked to sketch a graph, I get confused because I learn steps, not shapes.” The problem, the study argues, isn’t ability—it’s the lack of exposure, support, and assessment that values visual reasoning.
Graphing isn’t just another math skill. It’s how we model disease spread, forecast economies, and make sense of climate data. Without it, students might learn to manipulate symbols but fail to understand what those symbols actually mean. This isn’t a minor issue—students entering college, both in Nepal and abroad, often struggle in STEM courses that assume they can graph and interpret functions visually.
Nepal can fix this with bold but achievable reforms:
- Include graphing questions in exams – What’s tested will be taught.
- Revise textbooks – Balance symbolic problems with visual ones.
- Train teachers in visual tools – Use platforms like GeoGebra and Desmos.
- Focus on concepts, not just computation – Help students understand, not just memorize.
- Invest in classroom technology – Make dynamic graphing part of daily instruction.
Students want to understand. They want to see what they’re learning. As one student wisely asked, “Why are we afraid of graphs when others aren’t?”
It’s time Nepal’s education system responded—not with more formulas to memorize, but with the tools and teaching needed to help students see the whole picture.
(The author is an associate professor of mathematics at the University of Utah Asia Campus. He received his PhD in applied mathematics from the University of New Mexico, USA, in 2019.)
