Date: Oct 14, 1998 8:22 AM
Author: William J. Larson
Subject: Re: stop teaching shifting & stretching?

OK, my post produced a lot of response.  Everyone said "NO."
Several were excited. So I'd guess I'd better respond to the responses.
I've just switched over to a text that uses graphers (They arrived late
from =

the publisher) and a rather complicated equation was presented in the tex=
(f(x) =3D (x -2)^(1/3) + 3) as it appears in the grapher screen without
explanation. =

I immediately launched into A "start with x^3, which you know, reflect,
shift, =

voila!" routine. But then afterwards wondered why the text had not. =

Fine I agree with the consensus. I'm very happy to teach shifting, etc.
But let me ask a broader question. The invention of calculators meant th=

we did not have to teach slide rules. The invention of scientific
meant that we did not have to teach log & trig tables. We now must teach=

(& exercise) grapher use, so something (at least in principle) must go an=
hopefully can go. What is it? Hopefully enough can go that I can add =

something eg. matrices that I have never had time for. No such luck?

Bill Larson

> At 01:54 PM 10/12/98 -0400, William J. Larson wrote:
> >Since my calculus students will have graphers, is it the =

> >consensus that I should stop teaching my precalculus =

> >students such tricks to aide graphing as shifting & stretching
> >functions and symmetry? I'd love to stop teaching this, because it
> >would free time for other "essential" topics, which I do not
> >get to.
> >
> >Bill Larson
> >Geneva

> --------------------------------------------------------------

Wayne and I must both be slow. I don't get the joke either. =

And I have to agree that if it isn't tongue in cheek, it's scary.