Results

Choice

Votes


Percent

Yes

370

59.1%


No

223

35.6%


I'm not sure.

33

5.3%



Re: Do you believe calculators should be used in all math classes?

William White

I definately believe that calculators should be used. Obviously not in gradeschool when learning the basics, but afterwards definately. I think alot of people get jealous because some of us are smart enough to actually write programs that will do the work for us. I'm thinking if you're smart enough to write the program to do your work than you probably know the material pretty good. Life Learned Lesson Work Smarter, Not Harder United States Marine Corps

Reply to this comment

2 April 2004, 15:50 GMT


Re: Do you believe calculators should be used in all math classes? (primer comentario)

Daniel Bishop
(Web Page)

I think they should be used for Algebra II and higher, but never for lower math classes when all they do is hurt your ability to do math.
P.S. Thanks for finally getting a new survey!

Reply to this comment

12 September 2000, 16:48 GMT








Re: Re: Re: Do you believe calculators should be used in all math classes? (primer comentario)

Cliff

The key here is using calculators appropriately. On one hand, I agree that basic math skills are good, but on the other, I'm hard pressed to think of a situation where anyone (in real life, not school) will need to use trigonometry, calculus, or even geometry, without a calculator. I could see teaching basic algebra without a calculator (though the 8x series, where x < 9, doesn't do algebra anyway) but beyond that, calculators all the way. (Teaching these kids how to rearrange data in a machine readable format is going to be a serious job skill in years to come, calculators or not.)

Reply to this comment

19 September 2000, 21:57 GMT











Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you believe calculators should be used in all math classes? (primer comentario)

Sharon Dailey

I agree, appropriately is the key word. Students today are much more "visual" in the sense that they have been raised in front of a television set, many times if they can"see" what is happening they are able to understand mathematics concepts better, therefore are able to apply them better and also have a better retention. Graphing calculators, when used appropriately, are an excellent learning tool. Another point is with the increased emphasis on data analysis, these learning tools can assist greatly in development of statistics related concepts. Finally, when coupled with the CBL, used in modeling and understanding motion, etc., they are a very affordable and effective tool. When I use them at the Algebra I level, I am selective in choosing how I instruct with them. At any level, I reserve the right as a teacher to say when graphing calculators are used on some tests.

Reply to this comment

29 September 2000, 20:36 GMT








Re: Not Exactly!!

everclearskatepunkgeek

here's my entirely lowercase theory:
math is a tool. math has always been a tool.
think of something like a hammer the hammer does the same job as a nail gun, and just as accurately, but it is slower and more inefficient. once the nail gun came along and was developed and perfected, certain professions that previously depended on the hammer as the fastest and best way to drive a nail saw what was to be gained with the use of a nail gun. such are the calculators, and i feel the parallel is visible enough that i need not point it out.
in my math class, whenever a new skill is taught, i usually whip up a math program for the subject and use it on the homework, and the test if possible. like a carpenter, i can use the hammer because i know how the nailgun works; my progs have taught me the math.
i feel that if a student has the mean to possess the tool then s/he is entitled to use it. step by step work for a pupil possessing a ti 83+ is misinterpretting the reason we take math; if there is a way for the calculator to do the math for a student, the student learns by looking up the steps needed to make the calc do the work. i suggest we embrace these powerful tools as the relievers of drawnout step by step equations and every other single thing they can do.
as a closing note, i would like to point out one thing:
we put a man on the moon using slide rules. while this is certainly a testament to the ability of the hammer to do the job, who would NASA have killed to get a ti 82? 89? the piece of crap computer that composed this miniscule document? they would embrace the nailgun.

Reply to this comment

16 September 2000, 05:01 GMT











Re: Re: Not Exactly!!

bob

There is, however, one major flaw in that logic. If someone is only once or twice introduced to the "hammer" and all the rest of their life use the "nailgun" that someone ELSE created, they would soon forget the hammer as usless and no longer be able to efficiently use it. However, if this person designed their OWN nailgun, then they would never forget how they hammer works because it is an integral part of the design.
What this all boils down to is that, yes, you are correct in theory, but horribly unfounded in practice. Face it, how many people do you know that, given the option, would create their own program using their math and calc skills rather than simply download one somebody else convienently made for them? 4, 5, maybe even 6 or 7?
My point is that people are just too lazy for advanced calculators and should first focus on their math skills and then can they trust themselve with calculators.

Reply to this comment

17 September 2000, 18:29 GMT

















Re: Re: Re: Re: Not Exactly!!

everclearskatepunkgeek

YES, good points all. thank you for responding to my post, it warms the cockles of my heart. i never distribute my programs for those very reasons.
hey you, one up, did you get my point that math is a tool and i think that math for those not interested in math has been replaced by the calculator. by the way, i am only addressing your points as you did and also by the way, i have an 83+. i encourage fellow 83+ owners to learn to program, and i show them how to use things like the equation solver and the test menu. i don't tell them what to do, i show them how. they invariably (pardon the pun) make their own programs. i encourage exploring their calcs.
i feel lame because this post is mostly bragging, but i needed to point out that math is a tool and you don't need to know certain things if you have anything upwards of an 81. i bring my calc every single day and i always teach someone something and i always learn something. i am, however, interested in matrices, and what math they are capable of solving. anyone with info, please email me at iloveyourdogtoomuch@hotmail.com and thanks again.
jeremy

Reply to this comment

18 September 2000, 06:40 GMT





























Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not Exactly!!

Knight/Rocket

Also, if you refer to your aforementioned webpage, there is a hole in your theory. Traditionally, threeletter symbols referring to the element's name are used to signify an element which is not official hence we had unillquadium, unillhectium, unillseptium, and unilloctium for quite some time before elements 104108 were confirmed.
Such is the case here. There is a strong case for 110120 existing, but the evidence is not yet sufficient for UIPAC to assign them an offical name and symbol.
Anyway, I was merely referring to how building a program can actually enhance knowledge of materials, not asking for an argument on the legitimacy of the periodic table ;).

Reply to this comment

20 September 2000, 02:35 GMT



































Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not Exactly!!

Knight/Rocket

Once again, allow me to reiterate if an element has a threeletter symbol, it is, according to UIPAC, only theorized to exist. While the status of 110, 112, 114, 116, and 118 may change at the next meeting of UIPAC, as of now, they are officially only theories.
By the way, this is getting way off topic.8)

Reply to this comment

25 September 2000, 19:49 GMT








Re: Re: Re: Do you believe calculators should be used in all math classes? (primer comentario)

calcfreak901
(Web Page)

Your school system appears to be strange if they *require* you to have a TI83+ for the class. I remember taking Algebra I on the most advanced track available at my school at the time (I was in 8th grade at the time), and we were not even taught how to do basic stuff on the calculator until midMay, and school got out at the end of the first week of June that year. I brought in my 83 which I had won at a math competition earlier in the year, and my teacher was utterly perplexed as to why I would do this. I figured, "I own the calc already, so why not use my own, instead of one of the school's?"
I agree that calculators should be permitted in all classes from PreAlgebra on up, given that they meet the following restrictions (using TI calcs for graphing calc examples):
* everything below PreAlgebra: at most, a 4function calc
* PreAlgebra through Algebra I: 4function/scientific calc
* Geometry, Algebra II, and PreCalculus: z80based TI8x calculator
* Calculus/{AP,IB} Calculus: TI86 or TI89 (although most people appear to generally do fine with a TI83+)
* higher math (note: this is just a blatant guess, as I'm in AP Calc BC now): TI89/TI92+
To be fair to those arguing against me, I am quite aware of the dangers of calculator addiction (I started to fall into that quantum singularity of incompetence, but have since recovered) and feel that noone should be put in a situation where calculator dependence is either likely or assured. I hate it when people who are a) too immature to learn how to use the calc and/or b) the ignoramuses who just buy a calculator for games.
Also, I think there should be a competence test administered before a student can bring a calculator to school, and, depending on his/her score, would be permitted to bring a calculator up to a specified complexity. Example (in percents):
* 99100%: TI89/TI92+ (likely to only be the math team nerds (before you start flaming me, I'm one too!) who wouldn't become calculatoraddicted anyways, or would recover on their own)
* 9098%: TI86
* 8090%: TI83+
* 7080%: TI83/TI85
* 6070%: TI82
* 5060%: TI73/TI81
* 4050%: scientific calc
* 3040%: slide rule
* 2030%: fourfunction calc
* 1020%: abacus
* 010%: (retake exam)
I sincerely hope that this comment doesn't fall into the "excessively long" category, for I feel that the entire comment (okay, well almost the entire comment) is relevant to the topic of the survey, the comment being replied to, or both.
eofpi and the unimatrix's 45.599850351139 cents

Reply to this comment

28 September 2000, 06:57 GMT


1 2 3 4 5 6 7
You can change the number of comments per page in Account Preferences.
