>Koblitz goes on to say, "Computers reinforce the fascination with gadgetry, as
>opposed to intellect, that is endemic in American popular culture. <snip>
I was educated with no more than the slide rule, which course was probably
demonized when it was introduced in the 19th century. But I can remember when I
paid $500 for a programmable HP-25. All of 49 steps! I stayed up all night and
wrote a program which would factor integers.
I think some people do find technology fascinating, and always have.
But I did use some of the simple stuff I had learned in a fascinating course on
number theory to speed up the algorithm.
>Computers are generally used in the classroom in a way that fosters a
>Golly-Gee-Whiz attitude that sees science as a magical black box, rather than as
>an area of critical thinking. <snip>
This might happen when a math teacher tries to teach science. Much as we get
not-so-good results when a non-math trained person teaches math. (I know there
are exceptions to both rules - no offense to anyone, honest.) Of course we are
moving in an interdisciplinary direction - I think the technology requires that.
>He makes that point that the fetishization of computers by the media and
>educational establishment is a kind of Cargo Cult, and that it is quite
>possible, even preferable, to teach computer science without computers.
Depends on what you mean by computer science, which math teachers don't teach.
John von Neumann was one of the best math minds of this century, and was
fascinated by computer science. Computer science is replete with good
applications of proof, recursion, inductive proof, sequences and series,
numerical analysis... So if a student should become interested in how the black
box works, that student will ultimately be led to advanced study in mathematics.
But I can't imagine teaching computer science without computers. That's like
teaching race car driving at the soap box derby. Of course this is all out of
context, and Koblitz may have a valid point.
And I guess my point is that the new technologies can be interesting and
instructive even from a theoretical viewpoint.... Especially from a
theoretical viewpoint (maybe that's Koblitz' point).
So, if they are used in the right way they could generate interest in
advanced topics.
And I still have this nagging question in the back of my mind... If a TI-92
will do something, why would I teach a student to do it without the 92?
Philip Mahler
Middlesex CC
Bedford, MA
****************************************************************************
* 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/ *
****************************************************************************