The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

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

Math Forum » Discussions » Inactive » comp.soft-sys.math.mathematica

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Easy to get the audio out of sync with the graphics (Repost)
Replies: 14   Last Post: Apr 26, 2013 11:08 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Richard Fateman

Posts: 1,539
Registered: 12/7/04
Mathematica-assisted learning was .. Re: Speak errors (was Re:
Posted: Apr 25, 2013 2:51 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 4/24/2013 3:16 AM, Murray Eisenberg wrote:
> See interspersed responses:
> On Apr 22, 2013, at 3:10 AM, Richard Fateman <> wrote:

>> 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".

> Simple solution: let students use the computer for all exams, too. (I've done that.)

Finding a room with (say) 350 computers, all running (say) mathematica,
all DISconnected from the internet to avoid collusion, (etc) presents
certain physical and electronic problems.
>> 2. On average they learned "no less" than students in the control group
>> not using computers. But "no more" either.

> What, exactly, does that mean? By what standards is this being judged?

I think there are a number of peer-reviewed papers in this area; I
recall one that had to do with a "modern algebra" type course.
Or this report (1991) regarding calculus and Mathematica

and how students performed in a physics course, it found

" a nonsignificant difference in the mean grades of the two groups "

E.g., when comparing with a conventionally taught control group, does
the comparison test asking

what-if questions that require simulation or calculations, etc.,

beyond the normal capabilities of paper and pencil?

I think the comparisons are generally with control groups that were
being taught the same material but without "benefit" of computers. It
seems to me that comparing the two groups of students on their ability
to write programs would not be pertinent to the question of whether the
two groups learned (say) calculus equally well.

If you are making the point that you think that students gain something
by learning to write program for computers, generally, that is something
I agree with. However, there is scant evidence that introducing
computers into a conventional course improves learning of that
conventional course material. You can accuse the instructors of
lacking imagination, or the students of lacking in ambition, interest,
curiosity, or the curriculum specifications of lacking in flexibility,
or the testing process bogus, or the selection of control groups wrong,
or any other hypothesis that you can come up with to invalidate the
published results. But other than the anecdotal comments from students
who really liked (but some hated...) the course, what can you do?

I'm all in favor of technological aids to teaching that work. Finding
them is not so easy. Proving that they work is hard too. Evidence that
consists solely of anecdotes from enthusiasts doesn't count. Making neat
demos is fun for the instructor, but that's not the question here...


Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.