Subject: RE: [MATHEDCC] Assessment
From: Stefan Baratto (sbaratto@earthlink.net)
Date: Fri Feb 11 2000 - 19:57:21 EST
Martha has hit the nail on the head.
I'd like to add slightly more to her statement. When asked to multiply two
decimal numbers, nearly every student in an Intro to Algebra course can do
this successfully (as long as the second one has one digit). For example,
8.6 * 0.2; they do the multiplication and get 172 and move the decimal two
places over to get 1.72 nearly every time.
I have yet to meet a (non-math major) college student (through Calculus, at
least) who knows, or can think through the question, why do you move the
decimal over?
The calculator isn't the problem.
Stefan Baratto, Chair/Faculty
Department of Mathematics & Science
York County Technical College
sbaratto@yctc.net
(207) 646-9282 x 214
On Wednesday, February 09, 2000 6:06 PM, Martha Haehl
[SMTP:haehl@kcmetro.cc.mo.us] wrote:
> O.K., I just had to jump in. The biggest fraud is not the use of a
> calculator. It is the failure to teach students to think. Teachers who
> make students write 1x2=2, 2x2=4, 3x2=6, etc. for 100 times and call that
> teaching are just as guilty of dumbing down education as teachers who
say,
> "Here's how to multiply 3 times 2. First punch in 3 then the times key
and
> the 2 key." Today as well as yesterday, there are teachers who challenge
> their students to wrestle with mathematical concepts and real
applications
> as well as learn basic skills, and there are those who think the ultimate
in
> education, particularly in the lower levels, is rote memory. Calculators
in
> the lower levels can enhance learning (while students learn to think) or
> they can be just another rote memory educational tool. The culprit is
not
> the calculator, it is the lack of expectation that a student can and will
> think, and interpret information and results.
>
> I require my Basic Math students to have and use calculators. However,
last
> semester, I gave 11 skills tests. On 8 of those students could not use
> calculators. On the ones where they could use calculators, they were
> getting a decimal approximation to the hypotenuse of a right triangle, or
> the circumference of a circle, or other problems where expressing the
answer
> in decimal form makes more visual sense. (What carpenter ever measures
and
> cuts a board to the square root of 7 feet?) Their answers had better
match
> what they determine makes sense from measurements and drawings.
>
> Martha
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: David Beach <DavidB@labette.cc.ks.us>
> To: 'Bob Leibman' <bleibman@io.com>
> Cc: <mathedcc@archives.math.utk.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2000 9:18 AM
> Subject: RE: [MATHEDCC] Assessment
>
>
> > Bob and Dorrit:
> >
> > My thought is that what they (k-12 ed) have accomplished is to help
create
> > students who can't think and who believe god is machine and machine is
> god,
> > who can't estimate, can't measure, and cannot think abstractly about
> > mathematics.
> >
> > The idea to keep pushing calculators down to lower and lower grades is
one
> > of the largest educational frauds ever perpertrated upon the american
> > public.
> >
> > DavidBeach
> > Labette Community College
> >
> > > ----------
> > > From: Bob Leibman[SMTP:bleibman@io.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2000 9:13 PM
> > > To: Alton Amidon; mathedcc@archives.math.utk.edu;
> > > DOhallaron@CHUCK.STCHAS.EDU; castagna_p@hotmail.com
> > > Subject: Re: [MATHEDCC] Assessment
> > >
> > > At 1:06 PM -0500 2/8/00, Alton Amidon wrote:
> > > >And the problem goes further. Our Community College graduates going
on
> to
> > > >a four-year college or university or often restricted in calculator
use
> > > in
> > > >higher level Mathematics, Science, and Engineering courses.
> > > >
> > > >Al
> > > >
> > > >Alton Amidon
> > > >P.O. Box 185
> > > >5049 Highway 306 South
> > > >Grantsboro NC 28529
> > > >252-249-1851
> > > >FAX 252-249-2377
> > > >
> > > >>>> "Paula >>>
> > > >Dorrit:
> > > >
> > > >This is one battle looming that I have not tackled. The high
schools
> > > tell
> > > >us that we are undoing much of what they have accomplished if we do
not
> > > allow
> > > >students to use scientific calculators on our placement tests. I
> concur,
> > > but
> > > >have not mounted the energy to fight this particular battle.
> > > >
> > > >Paula
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
>*************************************************************************
> > > ***
> > > >* To post to the list: email mathedcc@archives.math.utk.edu
> > > *
> > > >* To unsubscribe, send mail to:
> > > mathedcc-unsubscribe@archives.math.utk.edu *
> > > >* Archives at http://archives.math.utk.edu/hypermail/mathedcc/
> > > *
> > >
>
>*************************************************************************
> > > ***
> > >
> > >
> > > I know that I am going to sound like a reactionary, but I am
wondering
> > > just
> > > what it is that those who use calculators in their teaching think
that
> > > they
> > > have done and, therefore, what it is the those people at the next
level
> > > are
> > > "undoing."
> > >
> > > If the calculator is used to allow the student to learn through
> > > exploration
> > > and thus make the concepts being studied "their own" this is great.
If
> it
> > > permits them to handle a greater variety of problems without the
> > > restrictions of being limited to those which are easily done by means
of
> > > the algebra which we teach, that too is great.
> > >
> > > I wonder, however, why, at the end of the course, that same student
> should
> > > not be expected to do the simpler problems for which calculators are
not
> > > necessary with the same ease as those who did not have the benefit of
> > > learning with a calculator.
> > >
> > > I just noticed that the original comment was referring to scientific
> > > calculators rather than graphing calculators, but I think the same
idea
> > > holds - the computations involved would presumably be easy enough to
> > > reasonably expect hand calculation - or the answers would be such
that a
> > > reasonable estimate should make the correct answer clear.
> > >
> > > I say this on a day in which a reasonably bright student in
Elementary
> > > Algebra could not tell me what 6% of $100 is, could not multiply
> > > 0.06($100)
> > > because she didn't have her calculator - and wouldn't even try.
> > >
> > > Bob Leibman
> > > Austin Community College
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
**************************************************************************
> > > **
> > > * To post to the list: email mathedcc@archives.math.utk.edu
> > > *
> > > * To unsubscribe, send mail to:
> mathedcc-unsubscribe@archives.math.utk.edu
> > > *
> > > * Archives at http://archives.math.utk.edu/hypermail/mathedcc/
> > > *
> > >
>
**************************************************************************
> > > **
> > >
> >
> >
> **********************************************************************
******
> > * To post to the list: email mathedcc@archives.math.utk.edu
> *
> > * To unsubscribe, send mail to:
mathedcc-unsubscribe@archives.math.utk.edu
> *
> > * Archives at http://archives.math.utk.edu/hypermail/mathedcc/
> *
> >
>
************************************************************************
****
> >
>
>
>
************************************************************************
****
> * To post to the list: email mathedcc@archives.math.utk.edu
*
> * To unsubscribe, send mail to:
mathedcc-unsubscribe@archives.math.utk.edu *
> * Archives at http://archives.math.utk.edu/hypermail/mathedcc/
*
>
************************************************************************
****
****************************************************************************
* To post to the list: email mathedcc@archives.math.utk.edu *
* To unsubscribe, send mail to: mathedcc-unsubscribe@archives.math.utk.edu *
* Archives at http://archives.math.utk.edu/hypermail/mathedcc/ *
****************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Feb 12 2000 - 13:21:25 EST