Responding to Peter Duveen's post of Aug 17, 2012 3:53 AM (original pasted for reference below my signature):
1. The name is "Chandy", not "Chandry".
2. I can agree with practically all the rest of your contentions (with some slight modifications).
3. Apart from that, if you would do me and yourself the favour of glancing at the true story told in my post to which you may be responding and subsequently if you could consider** trying out the suggestions in it - we may then be able to have a fruitful conversation. (**Or explain to me why you do not wish to so consider).
a) (for him): "To enhance my knowledge of all topics of my math syllabus and THEREBY to improve, very significantly, my results in my math exams"; and
b) (for yourself): "To enrich, very significantly, --- (name's) knowledge of math". UNQUOTE
Peter Duveen posted Aug 17, 2012 3:53 AM: > Bob, Chandry, this is what I am getting at. > > It seems to me that calculus is placed on a pedestal > as something unachievable by the masses. But looking > at it, I see a lot of material in the calculus that > could be approached by students on a sixth or seventh > grade level. If they can graph a straight line and a > parabola, they are game for calculus, at least some > calculus. > > The second point is teaching to the test versus > enrichment. The question may be how can one jump > start or help to kindle a person's intellectual > curiosity. This will depend partly on the students > interests, partly on his innate intelligence, and > partly on the assets of the teacher/instructor/tutor, > and the assets of the school (computers, laboratory > equipment, etc.). > > Each case is different, and each teacher is > different. There is a lot of trial and error > involved. I doubt very much that, in spite of all the > "research" being done, one will ever systematize a > method for teaching that is 100 percent effective and > efficient. There are too many variables involved.