[CedssypeEdids]

You should only be forbidden a computer aid up until you've demonstrated the ability to do what the aid does. As soon as you can do that, you should be allowed to use one as much as you want.

For instance, I would never hesistate to do an integral using a CAS, because I know how to algorithmically do that integral anyway - so there's no point in me actually working through the steps.

[mobiphones]

Originally posted by Theben
Apples and oranges. Either way they are only writing the paper, and still have to figure out what to write. The calc does their work for them, so there's no understanding of why a*b=c. I never used a calculator in school, although back then (80s) some kids were using them. Nonsense. Before calculators, we memorized multiplication tables and were taught the mechanics of doing calculations. Neither of those things teach you why a*b=c. And calculations are the "mechanics" of mathematics, just as spelling and grammar are the "mechanics" of writing. Mind you, I'm old fashioned enough to object to calculators in school, too (and don't even get me started on allowing calculator use during the SAT); but if we object to a machine telling a kid what 36*21 is, then why shouldn't we object to a machine telling a kid that "occasional" only has one "s," or when to use "who" and when to use "whom."

[markoiutrfffdsa]

Certainly the US doesn't have any problem producing students with superb math skills. MIT, Cal Tech, and CMU (take a bow, Kuci!)

Incidentally, I'm a math major, so this is particularly appropriate

[PrettyFifa12]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly

I'm curious -- would you make the same argument for a word-processing program? I actually don't know of any schoolchildren, at any age, who are still required to write out their homework by hand; my daughter was required to type on her work on a computer starting in the 6th grade. Arguably, students' mastery of penmanship, grammar, and spelling all suffer from having the word-processing crutch to lean on. Yet, while I see this argument about calculators all the time, nobody seems riled up about word processing. That's a very good point. Hand-written reports and essays don't look as nice as ones done on a word processor, but they do a far better job at teaching kids spelling - especially when you have programs with auto-correct features. As far as grammar goes, I don't see it as being as much of a problem, as long as that's not auto-corrected as well. I think kids could still learn grammar while using a word processor.

Penmanship is another good point. I'm afraid in another 10 years or so, the majority will have the writing skills of a medical doctor.

[tpJKhY8Z]

Yes

[Tij84ye]

Context is a good tool to help childern learn math. It simultaneously helps kids picture math problems, and shows why math is useful and/or important. However, it's important to separate the math from the other subjects for purposes of testing. Otherwise, it makes it more difficult (for the teacher) to determine if a child is having trouble with the math, or with the rest.

Having said that, it seems kind of alien to me to mix two subjects together like the way Soltz describes. When I learned math, it was separate from my other courses. We still used realistic examples for problem solving, but we didn't learn math at the same time, in the same class as the other subjects. In the courses where we did use math, such as physics, the math we used was math we had already learned. It worked for me, but then math comes naturally to me.

I would have to see a sample of one of these 'crossbred' textbooks before I make full judgement.