On 4/21/2013 2:17 AM, Clif McInnis wrote: > "On the larger issue, of getting kindergarten children to pronounce the numbers from 1 to 10. Uh, do you really need to use a computer? Running Mathematica?" > > Not meaning to disregard the top part of your post, however the last two questions are important to me. I would like to get your opinion as I see that you are a well cited author of over 1100 documents on the Mathematica site. > > I hope that I am interpreting your question correctly. I would say I hope a student would not need a computer to run the manipulate, and if I am under standing the way CDF's, such as those on the demonstrations project, work it could be run on a smart phone, a pad, or other such device, (w/o the player) that the student may be using while riding in the back seat of the car, or at other non-productive times. > > Now if the question addresses the only necessity of the pronunciation of numerals, then I would say that it would be a good addition to a demonstration that targets an age group that are multi-sensory, but I guess not a bsolutely essential. I would also hope that such an instructional method would only be supplemental to more personal , probably tactile-engaging, methods of presenting the concept. > > Reality, of 35 years teaching, says that there will be many students that will for whatever reason miss the point that numerals represent numbers, and come away with the idea that 3, whether written or spoken is two backwards c's stacked on top of each other. Given that as foundation on which we would like to build the rest of their mathematical understanding is it any wonder that by the time that they are ready to do more complex mathematics many become discouraged? > > I think that if this app can include audio, without disrupting the learning flow by showing x number of objects on the screen while speaking the number y, it would be more worthwhile to students in this age range. > .............
Historically, experiments at higher educational levels to introduce a computer algebra system into a math course have resulted in consequences like this: 1. Students, on average, resented having to learn "something else" (i.e. using computer program) that wasn't "on the final". 2. On average they learned "no less" than students in the control group not using computers. But "no more" either.
We are now wondering whether introducing computers will work for kindergarten students (in 2013) learning number shapes. Two significant changes. (a) much younger students (b) a different attitude toward computers/smart phones -- these having been ubiquitous.
Now I am hardly an expert in very early childhood education, but I have seen some games aimed at children. Your game sounds pretty boring, but I have seen something like it. Showing 4 ducks. Click on each one. Game says "4 ducks" and shows a "4". Another requires tracing out of the digits in the right directions of the strokes.
These are probably directed to children of age 3 with access to iPad or similar. Children of age 5 in the US who cannot count to 10 and/or think that 3 is two backwards C's stacked, are probably rare.
However, I am not actually >> objecting << to the educational experiment. At worst you will be exposing children to a boring game that they will simply not play.
What I am pointing out is that better software technology for all the parts needed is so readily available and cheap. Using Mathematica seems totally ill-advised. Possibly depriving kids of human contact -- Johnny, you have to learn your 3's. Sit in the back of the car and use the computer..
Just because something Could Be Done with Mathematica does not mean (a) it should be done with Mathematica. (b) should be done at all.