Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Replies: 74   Last Post: May 6, 2017 4:32 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 GS Chandy Posts: 213 From: Bangalore, India Registered: 4/3/17
Posted: May 2, 2017 2:45 PM

> Lou Talman, as quoted by Robert Hansen in his post dt.
> 2-May-2017:
> "I've watched students in a Calc I course use
> technology to discover, for
> themselves, the First Derivative Test. They wouldn't
> have done so if they
> hadn't been guided to produce a lot of
> graphs---something that there would
> not have been time for if not for their computers.
> That technology wasn't
> "pedagogically inert" at all. It provided exactly the
> tool they needed in
> order to construct and examine a lot of examples
> within a short amount of
> time. Those folks will never forget the First
> Deriative Test; they think
> they invented it."
>
> Robert Hansen's response:
>
> No doubt, plotting a graph with a computer beats
> plotting one by hand any day, unless, like in the
> case of arithmetic, the point isn't just the
> arithmetic, but the insight gained by learning
> arithmetic. We didn't seem to have an issue with the
> instructor drawing the graph of a function on the
> board, adding some key tangents, and seeing the
> application of derivatives to curve tracing and
> critical points. Something that took a lot less time
> than setting up a lesson plan with computers.
>
> But by calculus, we already had quite a bit of graph
> sense, didn't we. In those days, when we wanted a
> graph, and it wasn't in a book, we had to draw it.
> And I drew quite a few graphs, traced quite a few
> curves, and even identified quite a few critical
> points. Before calculus.
>
> Back to the issue of inertness. Student group A
> learns the first derivative test via direct
> instruction, with the instructor illustrating the
> point on the board, talking to it, and discussing it
> with the class. Student group B learns the first
> derivative test through a guided discovery exercise
> using computers and graphing.
>
> Either, group B could have just as easily learned the
> topic via direct instruction, as did group A, or,
> group B was not as prepared as group A, correct? And,
> unless we are talking a month of graphing exercises
> with much variety, I am saying that group B is no
> more prepared after the guided discovery than they
> were before it. In fact, it is group A doing the
> discovery, on top of all their preparation. Not group
> B. But there probably are some students in group B
> who are prepared and will discover, and some students
> in group A who are not prepared and will not
> discover.
>
> Illustration can be useful, but taken too far, it is
> like a poison. It replaces insight with something
> artificial, like the way carbon monoxide binds with
> hemoglobin, taking up the spot where oxygen was
> supposed to bond.
>
> I have not seen any situation where technology,
> beyond practical issues, like lighting, replacing the
> mimeograph, providing word processing, etc, have a
> positive effect on preparation. Either it is used in
> a manner that you don't even notice (the good way),
> or too much, with results that are artificial.
>
> Bob
>

GSC:

I see HUGE (YUUUUGE??) confusions in Bobert Hansen's response, much of which could quite easily be removed by the construction of a couple of 'systems models'. The underlying issue is that these models would need to be constructed by 'the confused person' him-/herself, else the confusion is not likely to be removed.

It's like this: The learner does need to open his/her mind and exercise it him-/herself, else learning will not occur, confusions will not be removed. This is as true in learning arithmetic, or calculus, or systems modeling.

I observe that Lou Talman has made what is probably the best response to such confusion:

QUOTE
This is even more tortured than your usual logic.
UNQUOTE

Suggestion: A couple of quite simple systems models (specifically, Interpretive Structural Models) could help very significantly in removing much of the 'tortured logic'.

Date Subject Author
4/19/17 kirby urner
4/22/17 kirby urner
4/22/17 Robert Hansen
4/22/17 kirby urner
4/22/17 Robert Hansen
4/23/17 kirby urner
4/23/17 Robert Hansen
4/24/17 kirby urner
4/23/17 Louis Talman
4/24/17 Steve Eilertsen
4/25/17 Robert Hansen
4/25/17 Louis Talman
4/28/17 kirby urner
4/28/17 Robert Hansen
4/28/17 kirby urner
4/28/17 Bishop, Wayne
4/29/17 kirby urner
4/28/17 Robert Hansen
4/29/17 kirby urner
4/29/17 Robert Hansen
4/30/17 kirby urner
4/30/17 Louis Talman
4/30/17 Louis Talman
4/29/17 Carleton Washburne
4/30/17 Robert Hansen
4/30/17 Louis Talman
5/1/17 kirby urner
5/1/17 Robert Hansen
5/2/17 kirby urner
5/1/17 Robert Hansen
5/2/17 Louis Talman
5/2/17 Carleton Washburne
5/2/17 Robert Hansen
5/2/17 Louis Talman
5/2/17 GS Chandy
5/2/17 Louis Talman
5/2/17 Robert Hansen
5/2/17 Robert Hansen
5/2/17 Robert Hansen
5/2/17 GS Chandy
5/2/17 Robert Hansen
5/2/17 Robert Hansen
5/2/17 Louis Talman
5/2/17 GS Chandy
5/2/17 Robert Hansen
5/2/17 Louis Talman
5/2/17 GS Chandy
5/3/17 GS Chandy
5/3/17 Bishop, Wayne
5/3/17 GS Chandy
5/3/17 Robert Hansen
5/3/17 kirby urner
5/3/17 Robert Hansen
5/3/17 Louis Talman
5/3/17 Bishop, Wayne
5/3/17 GS Chandy
5/3/17 Carleton Washburne
5/3/17 Robert Hansen
5/3/17 Robert Hansen
5/3/17 GS Chandy
5/3/17 Carleton Washburne
5/3/17 Robert Hansen
5/4/17 kirby urner
5/3/17 Carleton Washburne
5/3/17 Robert Hansen
5/4/17 GS Chandy
5/4/17 Carleton Washburne
5/4/17 GS Chandy
5/4/17 Carleton Washburne
5/5/17 GS Chandy
5/6/17 GS Chandy
5/6/17 kirby urner
5/6/17 GS Chandy
5/6/17 GS Chandy