Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.



Re: Electronic Math (was: new member)
Posted:
Jul 13, 1998 9:46 AM


=====================_53767052==_.ALT ContentType: text/plain; charset="usascii"
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 peptalks, 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 980708 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 hohum. 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 ContentType: text/html; charset="usascii"
<html> <font size=3>At 12:55 PM 7/9/98 0400, LnMcmullin@aol.com wrote:<br> <br> >The point is that graphing calculator (or computer) should be there. It's<br> >another way of seeing things (or, if you're the teacher, showing things). <br> <br> The second statement is certainly true. The first is not a logical consequence of the second.<br> <br> >You can teach a better math course with one, than <br> >without one. You can learn more with one, than without one.<br> <br> This is completely illogical. Faith statements are appropriate in church, political rallies as well, maybe company peptalks, 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.<br> <br> Wayne.<br> <xtab> </xtab><br> >In a message dated 980708 17:32:29 EDT, Doug Mitchell writes:<br> ><br> ><< I too agree that there are many instances in which the graphic<br> > calculator makes the point perfectly. However I am not convinced that a<br> > graphic calculator can provide reliable understanding that a negative<br> > exponent implies a reciprocal function. Comparing the graph of x^5 with<br> > the graph of 1/[x^5] seems too artificial; of course they give the same<br> > graph. But _why_ does one imply the other. >><br> ><br> >It's not that a graphing calculator (or computer) is the best way every time<br> >on every problem for every one. Sometimes it's the best way; sometimes it just<br> >another log on the fire; sometimes it just sort of hohum. And often for a<br> >class full of kids its all these on the same example. <br> ><br> >And of course all of the above goes for a standard lecture and for a<br> >cooperative learning lesson and so on.<br> ><br> >The point is that graphing calculator (or computer) should be there. Its<br> >another way of seeing things (or, if you're the teacher, showing things). You<br> >can teach a better math course with one, than without one. You can learn more<br> >with one, than without one.<br> ><br> ><br> >Lin McMullin<br> >Ballston Spa, NY<br> > </font></html>
=====================_53767052==_.ALT



