[MATHEDCC] Graphing Calculators

David McLaren (dmclaren@email.menet.net)
Wed, 9 Jun 1999 00:03:38 +0100

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_006C_01BEB20B.86B13F60
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

RWW Taylor has written:

"Which is more fundamental: that there _is_ such a thing as "Algebra 1" =
and
"Algebra 2", or that a society should educate its citizens according to =
current
principles, practice, and technology? Once paper and pencil became cheap =
enough
we started educating our children to the limits of our understanding =
with this
new tool, starting at as early an age as feasible, and the curriculum
structures followed. I would expect that symbolic calculators will =
become
staples of tomorrow's classrooms starting even in elementary school, and
students will be routinely performing calculations with them that would =
boggle=20
anyone today except for us (lucky?) mathematicians."

What I find interesting about this far from unusual comment is the =
absence of any acknowledgement of the learner's role. How do young =
people learn mathematics? How should such knowledge (?) relate to the =
activities, expectations, and understandings of teachers. The history of =
the "modern math(s)" movement and of its ally - the drive for =
behavioural objectives - should suggest caution. A mathematics =
curriculum which ignores the developmental needs of learners will end in =
disaster - as we have already seen. It is a pity that our knowledge of =
how children develop mathematical understandings has not kept pace with =
the rate of technological (and marketing) development.=20
The debate must begin with the needs of learners and with mathematics.

David McLaren,

------=_NextPart_000_006C_01BEB20B.86B13F60
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">

RWW Taylor has written:
 
"Which is more fundamental: that there _is_ such a thing as = "Algebra 1"=20 and
"Algebra 2", or that a society should educate its citizens = according to=20 current
principles, practice, and technology? Once paper and pencil = became=20 cheap enough
we started educating our children to the limits of our=20 understanding with this
new tool, starting at as early an age as = feasible,=20 and the curriculum
structures followed. I would expect that symbolic=20 calculators will become
staples of tomorrow's classrooms starting = even in=20 elementary school, and
students will be routinely performing = calculations=20 with them that would boggle
anyone today except for us (lucky?)=20 mathematicians."
 
What I find interesting about this far from unusual comment is the = absence=20 of any acknowledgement of the learner's role. How do young people learn=20 mathematics?  How should such knowledge (?) relate to the = activities,=20 expectations, and understandings of teachers. The history of the "modern = math(s)" movement and of its ally - the drive for behavioural objectives = - should suggest caution. A mathematics curriculum which ignores = the=20 developmental needs of learners will end in disaster - as we have = already seen.=20 It is a pity that our knowledge of how children develop mathematical=20 understandings has not kept pace with the rate of technological (and = marketing)=20 development.
The debate must begin with the needs of learners and with=20 mathematics.
 
David McLaren,
------=_NextPart_000_006C_01BEB20B.86B13F60-- **************************************************************************** * To post to the list: email mathedcc@archives.math.utk.edu * * To unsubscribe, send mail to: majordomo@archives.math.utk.edu * * In the mail message, enter ONLY the words: unsubscribe mathedcc * * Words in the Subject: line are NOT processed! * * Archives at http://archives.math.utk.edu/hypermail/mathedcc/ * ****************************************************************************