Ti-89

[iglak]

it honestly doesn't matter.

 

i took AP Calculus in highschool last year, and i had a Ti-89.

it made almost no difference, if any.

 

in the homework, you have to show your work.

in the multiple choice part of the AP test, you can't use a calculator for part of it, and another part you have to use a calculator. but in the part that you have to use a calculator, the questions are complex enough that you can't just punch in the numbers without knowing what you are doing.

in the long answer questions, you can use a calculator, but again, it is so complex that it makes little difference. and since you have to show your work in the long answers, you can't use the calculator to skip small parts without knowing what those parts are.

 

using any calculator helps you learn more than hinders it. i think that if you know how to use the calculator to answer the problems, you know how to answer the problems without one.

[jordan]

I'm struggling between two ideas. I see fafalone's idea of a seperate class for those who wish to learn the theory and those who don't (This might just appease my wish of learning math faster than I currently am without consideration for the benifits of all the other students). I also think that keeping everyone in the same class but teaching the theory from the beggining might help. When students are told to solve equations but not why they work, they

1) forget the ideas invovled in the concept quicker

2) struggle through concepts that include combinations of basic ones

It could very well just be me, but I take the time to learn why most math equations produce the correct answer, whether the teacher explains it or not. After I find my answer, I can remember and aply everything to it quicker and easier. Mabey this isn't the case for everyone, so let me know if I'm off on this idea. If everyone does find this true, mabey teching the basic theories would allow students to grasp more complex ones easier, thus calculators would be acceptable because the theory would be there.

[iglak]

jordan said in post #27 :

mabey teching the basic theories would allow students to grasp more complex ones easier,

i very much agree. there are some basic things i was missing in that class, and i still don't have any idea what they are, but i got the major ideas, and at least i passed

[jordan]

How much do you think you would have/will benifited, assuming your career goals, if you had learned all the theory behind what you were taught?

[VendingMenace]

You have failed to point out the advantage of knowing how to waste hours working of dif.eqs over knowing how to use a CAS to solve the problem in a few seconds.

 

who cares how fast you can get an answer if you don't understand fully what that answer means??

 

There is no point to shortening the amount of time required to obtain an answer you don't understand. If you want to get and answer and don't care how it is gotten, then hire a firm to do it for you. Then you don't even have to learn how to punch numbers.

[iglak]

jordan said in post #29 :

How much do you think you would have/will benifited, assuming your career goals, if you had learned all the theory behind what you were taught?

uhh... if someone could have figured out the basic things i was missing, i probably would have gotten a 4 instead of a 3 on the AP test (out of 5). it might have been the theory behind it, or it might have just been lack of practice. i think my teacher explained most of the theory behind most of it, but didn't start from the basics, just assumed we knew the basics (which we probably did, but he should have glanced over them).

[Dave]

I think career wise, it's going to enable you to adapt to new mathematical ideas a lot better if you have some understanding of the basic principles behind the mathematics you're doing. For example, with calculus in general, you should at least have some knowledge of how the ideas of limits work, and soforth.

[jordan]

Are talking specificly about a math-based career? The arguement is that if the career is not, then it doesn't matter if you know the theory. If your career is math related, then it should be obvious that you wish to learn the theory anyway.

[Ann_M]

The arguement is that if the career is not, then it doesn't matter if you know the theory. If your career is math related, then it should be obvious that you wish to learn the theory anyway. Are talking specificly about a math-based career? The arguement is that if the career is not, then it doesn't matter if you know the theory. If your career is math related, then it should be obvious that you wish to learn the theory anyway.

 

I disagee.

Whether or not your career is maths based, you should know the maths behind it. Maths is in every career, and all the answers you derive, have got a mathematical explanation behind it (which most people dont realise of).

I think understanding the concept of maths is essential, having a calc especailly ti-89 is detrimental, as it undermines all theories,and the techniques.

[jordan]

I agree entirely that ti-89 should not be used as the crutch they are, but there are still many careers in which the more advanced math is never seen or used. Mabey I don't realize it (like you said), so can you explain where you see it?

[Guest Zero]

Understanding the theory behind it is nin my opinion absolutely essential and neccessary. We don't see TI-89's figuring out the Grand Unified Theory do we? Not understanding how this works or why you are doing this is like doing something for nothing. You are working and you don't know why. I agree a calculator should be used in higher math courses particularly calculus but you should still understand why it works.

[fafalone]

See I think it should be the opposite. You should only be responsible for knowing all the little technicalities of mathematics if you're a math/physics major.

[MishMish]

Late to the party and have only reviewed this last page.

 

I will say much depends on the purpose of the education. If we are referring to teaching basic numeracy to third world women so that they may conduct a small business, I might be inclined to adopt the functional approach. I do not need to know how a car operates to drive, and while knowing something about computers would no doubt be of benefit get by for most of what I need or want as plug and play only.

 

That said, not having learned the theory, cast my vote for theory. Am still disappointed that having been able to divine my way through most of school no consideration was given to whether or not I understood what was doing (and no comment on calculators or Ti-89, we did not have them until college, including for basic calculus, and have no idea what Ti-89 is.) Was not until set theory finally accepted the reality of it. All a long time ago now, and have essentially been left with nothing for it.

 

Had I learned or been forced to learn the underlying principles instead I would not be in the same position. The specifics may have left my mind by this time, as they have anyway, but the underlying concepts would have remained.

[dryan]

I agree with Iglak,

 

I'm a junior in highschool, and we use TI-89s in PreCalc and above. In my Calculus class, we aren't allowed to use them on tests or quizes, and on homework we have to show work and the calculator wouldn't help much anyway.

 

We use calculator for:

Graphing, especially complex things like integrals,

Number crunching - when a decimal answer is needed,

Integrating, especially when you are doing volume created by a function around a horizontal or vertical line. The calculator can't set up those integrals anyway.

 

To tell the truth, I use the calculator more in AP Chemistry than in Calc BC.

 

I love the 89 because of "pretty print" - I can insure I've entered something correctly.

Also, I like the calculator to have the ability to solve equations and to integrate - it's a timesaver when I'm allowed to use it, like in the calculator section of the AP test. If you have students going to take the test, I'd say the calculator free response would be much harder if a student didn't have the 89. (On the calculator multiple choice, I barely used my calculator for anything but number crunching, though.)

 

For Algebra, Geometry, Trig, Stat(?) - I'd say the TI-83 is more than sufficient.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I use a TI-83, and I think it is suffient for pretty much anything I do in math. And what it doesn't do, you can do by getting a program off the internet and loading it on to your calculator.

[RunningManiac]

meeeeowww you guys are arguing it up, lol. I'm a student, I love my 89, all the programs, the functions, and especially the games which have gotten me through many a boring math class....But in reality, it didn't help me too much for the BC calc exam. I mean, the majority of the test is non-calculator, and the parts that you can use one, it doesn't really help you that much. So...it's balanced I guess...if you depend too much one it, you'll bomb the exam! Just desserts for the wicked, hehe.

[Dave]

It's banned in literally every exam I have to sit.

 

(Although most of my papers are non-calculator).

[7hor]

My 83+ Silver died on me, on to my trusty 89, but my professor might not let us use them on the last test

[fafalone]

It's banned in literally every exam I have to sit.

 

 

Pull the 89 hardware out and put it in an 83 case

[bloodhound]

the only calculator i have ever used , is casio fx-992s

 

very slim, powerful. and has a lot of functions. and has over 128 constants!! not that it really matters.

[Dave]

Not a big fan of the casio calculators, think the TI-89's UI is very nice.