On Jul 2, 2007, at 8:51 PM, Greg Goodknight wrote:
> >>> Better late than never. >> >> Well, I don't know about you, Greggie, but calculators were rather >> pricey when I was in my early 20s. By the late 1970s, a scientific >> calculator was affordable, so I got one. > And what science were you studying then?
I was taking a stats course in early '78, then a two-course sequence in the clinical psychology department (taught by a guy from statistics). The first was a more thorough version of the basic course I'd taken the year before. The second was on research design. We used a book by Box, Hunter, & Hunter that drew mostly from industrial examples, making it a bit rough for most, if not all, of the students.
> >> It's impossible for you not to be snide, I know, but you say the >> most ignorant things trying to be clever, it's really remarkable. >> The above is a good example, of course, but what follows is even >> better. > > By the mid 70's even nice HP's were affordable, but the liberal > arts types generally didn't bother with them.
At that particular juncture, my funds and my needs were modest. > > Before getting the HP, there was the Pickett log-log that I still > have, hanging on the wall above my computer.. You see, those of us > getting Science degrees in the sciences actually had to crunch > numbers on a regular basis, and spending $150 for a calculator was > a reasonable expenditure. Before then, it was do the heavy lifting > and then borrow an HP-35/45/55 from an early adopter with more cash > than I had, and at least at my school, they were lent freely. > > However, even in 1972 the overpriced HP-35 was significantly > cheaper than the trumpet I bought in 1970.
I''m sure that's hugely interesting to someone. But my point is that your "late than never" crack was both gratuitous and stupid. > >>>> In any case, what are your thoughts about the recommendation >>>> about "guess and check" as an approach here, with or without the >>>> calculator as a tool? >>> ahhh, it was "guess and check" that was to be the gotcha. >> >> Right, Greggie. I read Wayne's mind and KNEW he would point to the >> web site he did (even though I'd never been to that site before. >> Then, cleverly, I "trapped" him by asking his opinion. > C'mon, your disingenuity is showing. This was always meant to be > all about "guess and check", wasn't it?
Do you shoot or smoke your narcotics of choice? It never crossed my mind. Had Wayne not pointed us to the site he did, I doubt the question would have arisen. But then, if you check back to what started the whole square root algorithm topic, he mentioned that his approach used estimation skills. Since I know from experience with students and teachers that estimation skills are at best unpredictable for many, I then posted a method that didn't depend on that. It's generated the usual silence. I think it's got a lot of interest because it continues the generalization some of us (at least those interested in teacher education, pedagogy, etc.) would like to see teachers (and their students) make about how the operations of multiplication and division build on addition and subtraction, respectively, and the standard algorithms "compress" the process through the use of place value. The algorithm I posted does the same thing.
> >> >> Are you the densest, most asinine putz in California, or does that >> title belong to some other ignoramus in the MC/HOLD camp. > Well, I wonder if that meets the standard of Drexel's use policies. > Any guesses?
You're pathetic. > >>> How is that "guess and check" different from the guess and check >>> inherent in long division? >> >> Did I say it was? Did I say it wasn't? I just asked Wayne (you >> aren't secretly the same guy, perchance, or has he contracted you >> and Ed to answer for him?) what he thought. You understand the >> words "what are your thoughts on" don't you? > Once again, Mike, you can't control the list.
> Once you put something out, just anyone can jump in, and all too > often does. Do you see yourself in that sentence?
Do you see yourself in the toilet? > Tell you what, you keep out of any thread that doesn't specifically > invite you, and I'll be happy to do the same. Deal?
Who told you to stay out? I simply asked: a) are you now an official spokesperson for Wayne? and b) do you understand what I asked him? Apparently the answer to the latter is "no" and I don't really care at all about the former. Of course you get to reply to everything I post. You get to be as big of a schumuck as you choose to be. And then you get to complain about my behavior, raise childish questions about Drexel's use policies (tried to have me banned yet?), etc. The word "hypocrite" was made for you and your ilk.
What you don't do is talk about the math. Or the teaching of it. And that's all I was trying to do. Wayne opened a topic that interests me. Sadly, neither you, nor Ed, nor even Wayne himself seems interested in discussing it. That's obviously your choice, but it does speak to why this list is mostly worthless as a source for teachers and teacher educators. There are other lists, of course, and I post to the ones that interest me. Perhaps you do, too. > >>> >>> Can you see how that is different than the "guess and check" used >>> as a substitute for symbolic manipulation in the fuzzier algebra >>> curricula, which is the "guess and check" that is roundly (and >>> fairly) criticized by the MC/HOLD crowd? >> >> You mean, do I understand that the mindless RANDOM guessing >> process you folks invented to substitute for the same thoughtful >> process that problem solvers have used for centuries, is NOT the >> actual one reformers advocate? Yes, I do. It's sad, even pathetic >> that you folks can't deal with reality. You probably could >> actually do some good if you were to offer constructive criticism >> that didn't depend entirely or nearly so on distortion, >> exaggeration, straw men of your own invention, and outright lies >> and fantasies. Everyone would benefit. But you can't or won't. > I'll put that down as yes, the "guess and check" of the sqrt() > method and long division are essentially similar, arithmetic > estimations, and entirely different than the "guess and check" of > many NCTMish algebra treatments that substitute for symbolic > algebraic manipulations, but Mikey just can't handle that.
I'm sorry I won't concede your lies as truths. How unreasonable of me, isn't it? Again, you have no interest in discussing the math, just in being a douche. Your right as an American, of course. > > I have seen thoughtless and mind numbing successive approximation > lessons using the calculator, seemingly designed to maximize button > pushing, and it was in a curricula you've defended, Mike.
Since I don't defend any curriculum, but instead try to find their good points (for possible use) and bad, offer criticisms from a constructive perspective to their authors when it seems appropriate to do so, and neither prescribe nor proscribe any particular program (and if I did, I'd represent no one but myself in so doing), you're basically talking through your hat. I'm not a fan of what I've seen of Saxon. I have no firm opinion on Singapore Math, but am skeptical that it (or anything) would be a panacea. I remain of the opinion that teachers and teaching matter more than books, but since according to Ed, that's not of any interest to him or Wayne, and apparently not to you, either, I guess that when I try to reach people on here who might have been drawn by the NAME of the list in the hopes that there would be talk about . . . . teaching math!!! . . . well, I just have to live with the jackals.
As for what a lesson is designed for, that can only be judged by looking at how it was written. As to how it was implemented, that's a related but separate question. I realize those sort of distinctions aren't useful when your goal is to smash and burn, so don't bother thinking about them. > >> That's why I fight you and always will. > Ahh, so the making nice really was a feint, in bad faith. Not that > there was any doubt.
Did I "make nice" to you, Greg? I don't recall being that dense. My inquiry was to Wayne. It still is. As you told me so pointedly above, you were free to jump in and did. That doesn't mean my inquiry extended to you or my tone in asking Wayne a civil question apply to my distaste in dealing with you.
All your talk of feints and ploys and traps and secret motivations is an inescapable consequence of the way the self-proclaimed math warriors have approached this whole thing. But since you keep coming here, you really don't have much basis to bitch at me. You obviously get a great deal from your silly dueling. Talking or trying to talk about the teaching and learning of mathematics isn't it, however.