Survey posted 2000-02-27 20:36 by Andy.

Contribute ideas to surveys by sending a mail to survey@ticalc.org.

finally, a poll that will actually be close...
personally I voted no: the point of a test is too test your math skills not your calculator skillz :)

And, of course, there's a difference between "skills" and "skillz." :)

--BlueCalx

well, Nick you got skillz and skills :)

:)

Such as spelling skills and zbellleen skillz

Mi zbellleen skilz R peter tan al ov U!!!!!!!!!!!!

Agreed...although I really expected it to be a lot further in the 'yes' direction. I'm terrible at math, but since I don't "Get" most of the stuff beyond relatively simple algebra, a calc doesn't help me much.

I disagree. Any regular moron can sit and take pencil to paper and figure out an algebra problem. Standardized tests shouldn't test this, but instead they should test a student's reasoning abilities. After all, reasoning is a lot more important in the real world cause if you don't know how to even begin solving a problem or work through it then nothing can help you, not even an expensive calculator. So I think before we point the finger at the calculators we should take a look at our testing practices. I will admit, however, that a calculator's power can be abused and measures should be taken so as not to let people slip through the cracks in the system without learning the basics.

What they should do is divide tests into sections, where in one part you can't use a calc (or maybe just not a graphing calc) and the other they should let you use any calc (or supply 89's to be fair) and give problems that even the calc can't compleatly solve (like rationalizing denominators (with variables, on the 89), or problems with logrithms (other than ln) that want a symolic answer, and lots of word problems. Or they could make someone take a test on everything the calc can do before they allow it to be used (by that person) on tests.

Two Problems

1. Where will the money come from to buy every student a 89 for the test?

2 It won't help them if they don't have any previous exposure to a graphing calculator before the test.

1. where will they get the money?
1. You don't need it for every student, have one class take it at a time (or 1 student). If you still don't have enough money, just increase Bill Gate's taxes by a couple hundred million :)

2. Have the teachers have graphing calculators in the class (so all students use it)

1. Where will the money come from to buy every student a 89 for the test?

Good Point. If my school applied for well-fare, they'ed probably get it.

2 It won't help them if they don't have any previous exposure to a graphing calculator before the test.

Most students (in my school, at least), couldn't give a darn about graphing calculators. (Cant tell the Diff between a TI-92+ and a TI-2550 (circa 1970's))

My math teacher tried to teach the math classes how to program the 82's and now they all hate her.

That idea makes no sense: you wish to provide a calculator only on problems for which the calculator is uselsess. Hmmm...

if you could read, Isaac, you'd see the post said can't completely solve, not useless. (in other words, you need the calculator, but also math knowledge)

Let's see: a non-calculator section followed by a calculators-allowed section that still requires thinking. Good idea, but the College Board thought of it first (AP Calculus)

Ever since I stopped using my TI-89 (link port broken) and used my TI-86 I noticed a great increase in my math grades. That's probably due to the fact that I have to do alot more thinking when I don't have a CAS.

I don't know how to divide, and I'm in precalc with my ti-89. I'm sure glad I get to use it on tests, but it's really not fair that, on problems where you're supposed to solve an equation for a variable, I can just enter it and get the answer. I voted no.

If they ban CAS, why not just ban BASIC as well?

Beginners All-Purpose Symbolic Instruction Code...

I made a program in BASIC that basically did 95% of the test for me, I defended it by saying that I had to know how to do it to program it. My math teacher agreed with me. It's a shortcut and a time saver, this is the 00's man! :)

Exactly. It's simple to write programs in BASIC that can help out like that. I slapped together a simple program on the 89 that gives you sine, cosine, tangent, secant, cosecant, and cotangent of any number. It works great since the calc doesn't have the cot, sec, and csc functions built in.

-Fil

If I remember correctly:

sin^(-1)=csc
cos^(-1)=sec
tan^(-1)=cot

You have to be careful with the notation. sin^-1(x) is different from 1/sin(x).

You're missing the point, if he made the program he had to know how to enter cot sec csc stuff in.

Why do you need a program just to find a reciprocal?