Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

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


Math Forum » Discussions » Courses » ap-calculus

Topic: Re: Electronic Math (was: new member)
Replies: 0  

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List  
Wayne Bishop

Posts: 4,996
Registered: 12/6/04
Re: Electronic Math (was: new member)
Posted: Jul 13, 1998 9:46 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

--=====================_53767052==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 12:55 PM 7/9/98 -0400, LnMcmullin@aol.com wrote:

>The point is that graphing calculator (or computer) should be there. It's
>another way of seeing things (or, if you're the teacher, showing things).


The second statement is certainly true. The first is not a logical
consequence
of the second.

>You can teach a better math course with one, than
>without one. You can learn more with one, than without one.


This is completely illogical. Faith statements are appropriate in church,
political rallies as well, maybe company pep-talks, but not in mathematics
education. Show us the evidence - not tests designed to require them, of
course, that's stacking the deck - conceptual calculus tests of say 15 years
ago in which students now do better because they have learned more.

Wayne.
----------------------------------------------------
>In a message dated 98-07-08 17:32:29 EDT, Doug Mitchell writes:
>
><< I too agree that there are many instances in which the graphic
> calculator makes the point perfectly. However I am not convinced that a
> graphic calculator can provide reliable understanding that a negative
> exponent implies a reciprocal function. Comparing the graph of x^-5 with
> the graph of 1/[x^5] seems too artificial; of course they give the same
> graph. But _why_ does one imply the other. >>
>
>It's not that a graphing calculator (or computer) is the best way every time
>on every problem for every one. Sometimes it's the best way; sometimes it

just
>another log on the fire; sometimes it just sort of ho-hum. And often for a
>class full of kids its all these on the same example.
>
>And of course all of the above goes for a standard lecture and for a
>cooperative learning lesson and so on.
>
>The point is that graphing calculator (or computer) should be there. Its
>another way of seeing things (or, if you're the teacher, showing things). You
>can teach a better math course with one, than without one. You can learn more
>with one, than without one.
>
>
>Lin McMullin
>Ballston Spa, NY
>

--=====================_53767052==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
<font size=3>At 12:55 PM 7/9/98 -0400, LnMcmullin@aol.com wrote:<br>
<br>
&gt;The point is that graphing calculator (or computer) should be there.
It's<br>
&gt;another way of seeing things (or, if you're the teacher, showing
things). <br>
<br>
The second statement is certainly true.&nbsp; The first is not a logical
consequence of the second.<br>
<br>
&gt;You can teach a better math course with one, than <br>
&gt;without one. You can learn more with one, than without one.<br>
<br>
This is completely illogical.&nbsp; Faith statements are appropriate in
church, political rallies as well, maybe company pep-talks, but not in
mathematics education.&nbsp; Show us the evidence - not tests designed to
require them, of course, that's stacking the deck - conceptual calculus
tests of say 15 years ago in which students now do better because they
have learned more.<br>
<br>
Wayne.<br>
<x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</x-tab>----------------------------------------------------<br>
&gt;In a message dated 98-07-08 17:32:29 EDT, Doug Mitchell writes:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;&lt;&lt; I too agree that there are many instances in which the
graphic<br>
&gt; calculator makes the point perfectly. However I am not convinced
that a<br>
&gt; graphic calculator can provide reliable understanding that a
negative<br>
&gt; exponent implies a reciprocal function. Comparing the graph of x^-5
with<br>
&gt; the graph of 1/[x^5] seems too artificial; of course they give the
same<br>
&gt; graph. But _why_ does one imply the other.&nbsp; &gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;It's not that a graphing calculator (or computer) is the best way
every time<br>
&gt;on every problem for every one. Sometimes it's the best way;
sometimes it just<br>
&gt;another log on the fire; sometimes it just sort of ho-hum. And often
for a<br>
&gt;class full of kids its all these on the same example. <br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;And of course all of the above goes for a standard lecture and for
a<br>
&gt;cooperative learning lesson and so on.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;The point is that graphing calculator (or computer) should be there.
Its<br>
&gt;another way of seeing things (or, if you're the teacher, showing
things). You<br>
&gt;can teach a better math course with one, than without one. You can
learn more<br>
&gt;with one, than without one.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;Lin McMullin<br>
&gt;Ballston Spa, NY<br>
&gt; </font></html>

--=====================_53767052==_.ALT--





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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.