It's not a problem for me if you're on board with the C-STEM approach, even if we rebrand a lot of what you called "math" to the "computer science" side of the fence. It's still logs, exponents, half life stuff, but we needed to use a Jupyter Notebook or something like that, in Mr. Urner's classroom. SageMath maybe?
Avogadro's number as a floating point Numeric type object in scientific notation will be one of several constants we keep kicking around (as in "going back to").
How much does one Avogadro's number (one mole) of Cesium-137 atoms weigh, in pounds?
If all of them are radioactive to start, in how many years will about half of them have discharged?
You're welcome to look it up on-line (no penalty for looking up facts about atoms versus memorizing the whole Periodic Table top to bottom).
CS-friendly needn't mean "math unfriendly". On the contrary, the CS emphasis on "type sense" as in "what type of object is this?
This question of type, as in "Integer? Vector? Quaternion?" is the same as "into what set does this object belong?"
I can't think of any math teacher objecting to a growing sense of "membership domains" ala
N < Z < Q < R < C < whatever letter we use for Quaternions (concentric number sets).
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 1:21 PM, Robert Hansen <email@example.com> wrote:
> Kirby wrote... > > "In other words, we want generic fluency with raising numbers to powers > and taking logarithms and science and engineering (S & E) topics featuring > exponential rates of change are where to develop those storylines, why > not? " > > This is exactly how my class did it in the 1970's. This is what I call > "technical" problems. Dolciani was full of them. This is what drives the > SAT problems. This is what my son does. The curriculums today are simply > too weak in the math to take this route. This is also what we are seeing in > Physics. The reason the students couldn't answer the problems wasn't the > clickers. It was the math. > > Bob >