
Re: MathTeachers? > action
Posted:
Mar 27, 2013 11:52 AM


Re: GSC's "NOW: if an adequately representative listing of these misunderstandings and errors were to be made, then I believe an 'action plan' could be constructed that could help a great many teachers in their 'mission' of helping students understand 'exponential growth'. "
Agreed, wholeheartedly, but a bit myopic. The broader need is to: (1) scan ALL corecurricular topics for purposes of identifying those whose prevailing ("normal") curricular treatments commonly are difficult for students to personally digest as mathematical common sense; (2) mathematically determine alternative mathematical developments that are more comprehensible to more students; and (3) post those alternatives on a (MKTE) webipedia devoted to Mathematical Knowledge for Teachers' Education.
The (MACS) Project for Teaching and Learning Mathematics As Common Sense now is striving to spark such an initiative. Professionals who are interesting in collaborating on the project should contact me, directly.
Cordially, Clyde
  From: "GS Chandy" <gs_chandy@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 11:40 PM To: <mathteach@mathforum.org> Subject: Re: MathTeachers?
> Dave Renfre posted Mar 26, 2013 1:40 AM (GSC's remarks interspersed and > follow): >> Danielle T wrote: >> >> http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=8748356 >> >> > Hello....I am currently a pre service math teacher >> working on >> > my masters...I'm working on some lesson plans about >> exponential >> > growth... I was curious from your experience... >> What are some >> > of the common misunderstandings and errors you find >> your students >> > have with learning exponential growth? >> >> Did you grade papers for the math department when you >> were an >> undergraduate or tutor other students for extra >> money? If so, >> think about the kinds of mistakes you saw most often >> and how >> you might go about preventing them. What about the >> errors >> you saw your classmates make when you took high >> school >> algebra 2 and precalculus? >> >> Offhand, the most common conceptual errors I can >> think of >> (algebraic procedural errors, of course, are obvious >>  x^2 >> times x^3 is not x^6, etc.) is not fully realizing >> the rapidity >> of growth of exponential functions and incorrectly >> interpolating >> exponential behavior (e.g. the midpoint of 2^4 and >> 2^8 >> is not 2^6). For the rapidity of exponential growth, >> an >> example I often used was that about 42 foldings of a >> sheet >> of paper results in a (theoretical) folded thickness >> equal >> to roughly the distance from the Earth to the Moon. >> [Every >> 10 foldings results in very nearly a 1000 factor >> increase, >> > An excellent  indeed a DAZZLING  example indeed! >> >> due to the fact that 2^10 = 1024 is almost 1000. >> Hence, >> 40 foldings results in a 1000*1000*1000*1000 = 10^12 >> factor >> increase, so 42 foldings results in a thickness of >> about >> 2*2*10^12 = 4 trillion times the thickness of a sheet >> of paper, >> and it's not hard to show that this is roughly the >> EarthMoon >> distance.] >> >> See the attached .pdf file handout for more ideas. >> >> Dave L. Renfro >> > There's much useful material there, responding onpoint to Danielle T's > request  "What are some of the common misunderstandings and errors you > find your students have with learning exponential growth?" The connection > of exponentials to logs should obviously always be explored. > > The .pdf is excellent, I'm certain it would be most helpful indeed for > teachers as a reference work to help bring home to students the importance > of the exponential function (which is often lost sight of, see below on > Albert T. Bartlett). > > In particular, your suggestions to Danielle T about exploring through > recalling the kind of mistakes she saw while grading papers etc, should be > very useful indeed. > > Clyde Greeno has provided a number of useful observations relating to the > mechanics of teaching about the exp. functions, in particular its relation > to the graphic behaviour of the log functions: >> >> 1) reasons for the graphic behavior of the >> 10logfunction [meaning >> logsub10 = logbase10] >> 2) all other poslog functions are posmultiples of >> the 10log function ... >> & conversely (graphically); >> ln(x) is roughly 3log(x) >> 3) The "a^x" formula is conceptually difficult to tie >> to the alog(x) >> formulas. As an intermediary, instructional >> alternative to "a^x", also use >> aexp(x) ["exponential, basea" or {expsuba}(x)] >> 4) all posbase exponentials are horizontal >> distortions of 10exp(x) >> 5) e^x is roughly 3exp(x) [i.e. expbase3 (x)] >> 6) transformation effects of the parametric families >> entailed in >> a[logsubb](xh) +k and in a[expsubb](xh) +k >> 7) why not negbase logs & exps? why not base1? why >> not base0? >> > Each and all of these do deserve elaboration  even if the exigencies and > constraints of time in the class prevent the teacher from going through > all of the above, it is important that the teacher actually has all of > this as 'necessary background'. > > Doubtless there are other issues that could also lead to misunderstandings > and errors as well. > > NOW: if an adequately representative listing of these misunderstandings > and errors were to be made, then I believe an 'action plan' could be > constructed that could help a great many teachers in their 'mission' of > helping students understand 'exponential growth'. > > This 'action plan' would come out as one or more models (specifically, > Interpretive Structural Models, ISMs) showing how, for instance, > "UNDERSTANDING OF 'Item A' would enable (or contribute to) the > UNDERSTANDING OF 'Item B'" and so on and so forth > > (The models are constructed using the transitive nature of the > relationships "ENABLE", "CONTRIBUTE TO", "HINDER" etc, etc). > > Such an exercise would, when adequately developed, provide a useful > graphical picture for learning (and teaching) purposes. > > [Bob Hansen  if he is still present with us these days  may usefully > note that these models discussed are 'related to' but are NOT the same as > the PERT Charts that he keeps bringing up. (The PERT Chart is predicated > on the "PRECEDENCE" relationship, which is not terribly useful to help us > understand 'system behaviour']. > > Now, MOST IMPORTANTLY, while the math teacher appropriately focusses on > the whole variety of issues involved in respect to the 'mechanics of > enabling students to understand (and how to use) the exponential function > in a variety of ways', I believe it is also most important that the > teacher keeps in mind Albert T. Bartlett's profound observation: > > "... the greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to > understand the exponential function"  > > This 'shortcoming' seems to have been something 'genetically inbuilt in > our psyche. How than to bring home to students the overwhelming > importance of this function? > > I must confess that (probably because of my own inadequacies and possibly > also because of the way it was taught/ presented to us) it was actually > years and years after I had studied the exponential function in some > detail during my engineering math courses that I actually began > understanding something of the real importance of the exponential function > in human history (in the sense of Bartlett's observation). I observe that > we in general are STILL failing to understand its importance and profound > significance hin human history (though we do, admittedly, know a fair bit > about its mechanics). > > It's a sobering moment indeed when we realise that all of human existence > (and the existence of much other plant and animal life on this planet) is > so closely tied to our understanding/lack of understanding of this > function: our success/failure as a species will depend on this > understanding!! > > GSC

