Slashdot Mirror
Calculators vs. PDAs in the Classroom
TheMatt writes "CNN.com is reporting about a new conflict perhaps emerging in classrooms: calculators v. PDAs. The article talks about how TI seems to be making their latest calculator more PDA-like, while PDAs are gaining
TI-like functionality. A comment on current math education is this quote from the article:
"When you have circles and ellipses, there is no way you'd be able to do this without a calculator," Jarvis said. "It helps us visualize what we're doing." Were the compass and geometry uninvented?"
The compass and protractor are as obsolete as the sextant. If a kid graduates from school and doesn't know how to work a PDA, he's going to quickly learn how to work a deep fryer.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Paper and pen help you visualize what you are doing, a calculator which draws everything for you, just makes you think you did it. No-one needs these to learn mathematics, atleast not before doing their master's thesis in a university.
No kidding. I went my entire education (BA Chem) without once using a single graphing calculator. Now, In my spare time, I tutor college math: time and time again, my students have no true understanding of even the most basic of principles because they always had a computer to do it for them.
So now, If I tutor someone, I made them leave the calculator at home. Everyone to date ended up actually learning, rather than memorizing.
Burn Hollywood Burn
I'd always wondered how long it would be before the companies that produce software like Mathematica and Maple would port their software to PDAs. When I went to college at Rose-Hulman IT we were all issued notebooks which ran Maple and CAD software. We used Maple in all of our Calc classes and were able to use it on tests once we proved our ability to do that particular type of problem by hand first. The CAD software could have easily been on higher power workstations. If Maple had been on our PDAs it would have lowered the cost of going to the college by a few thousand dollars (high end notebooks were really expensive back in '95, and sometimes still are)
The main problem is that PDAs were nearly non-existant at that time, but today I can see PDAs like the iPaq doing a grand job of running some of this higher end math software.
Of course cheating would run pretty rampant with wireless transmitting of email and text, not to mention the ability to store files with crib sheets on them. I'm still not sure how our profs back in the day thought they were ensuring that we didn't cheat on our calc exams back then. I think it was more of a matter of honor than anything.
Duris MUD - The best pkill MUD. Ever.
"When you have circles and ellipses, there is no way you'd be able to do this without a calculator," Jarvis said.
Ok...I know a lot of people don't need to summon Euclidian geometry from memory in everyday life, but the image of a kid in geometry class learning an equation thats been around for over 1000 years, and saying that level of math is impossible without a {graphing calculator, PDA} really saddens me. Especially since geometry is usually taught an at honors level - meaning the kids taking geometry are supposed to be the smart ones, on the fast track to college, etc. It makes me think that with all the technology readily available, kids will stop thinking and imagining and innovating.
I remember being in school when the TI's started to become popular. My feeling then was that ok, I've done these equations by hand...I've got a good handle on how to do that, and sometimes its a real PITA, so maybe sometimes its better to use the automated functions here. I still think that way -- I CAN configure SAMBA by hand, but there's a nice graphical tool that automates it, so that's simpler for me now.
I just hope with all the automation tools and short cuts technology can provide, we're not engineering out the human quality of wanting to know how things work.
So how do you tell kids today that yes, you can live without the latest gadget, and that it is important to master the fundamentals before you learn all the shortcuts?
Someone once asked Einstein how many feet were in a mile. His response? "I don't know. Why would I clutter up my brain with stuff like that when I can look it up in any reference book in two minutes?"
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
Frankly, anyone who would regard referencing forumulae as cheating is a poor excuse for a teacher. Who cares? Let the student look up the damn formula, already, like real people do here in the real world.
The best mathematics teacher I ever had was strict as hell, but when she gave tests she let students bring a single 3x5 card filled up with anything they thought they might need. Formulae, tables, reminders, tips--anything you could fit on there.
She also held timed open-book pop quizzes. Her reasoning was simple: the more time you needed to spend looking things up the less time you'd have to actually do the math. That policy encouraged students to remember those things they used most often without forcing them to fixate on memorizing every random thing that might be conceivably needed. Both policies also give students some reassurance that a random oversight or memory glitch won't mean failing a whole test.
That's true, when you don't have a calculator you do tend to get better at doing it by hand. On the first day of Calc 2 my TI-85 was stolen, and I couldn't afford to buy a new one. So what was my only option? Do everything in my head, of course. I got damn good at visualizing integrals and differential functions in my head, and I never learned how to do it on a calculator. I went on to take the ACT and SAT without a calculator, and I think I did better without it. After all, pretty soon you get to the point where it takes longer to plug something into the calculator than it does to do it in your head. It all comes down to which you do more often. I'd rather be independent of the calculator.
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.