Before reading this morning's TIPS Digest I had already prepared in my
mind the opening of my reply to an anticipated response from Stephen along
the following lines:
Mea (partly) culpa. I misread some of Stephen's remarks. I spend most of
Sundays away from home, and I dashed it off my message in
07 10:54 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: [tips] Re: Why I pull my hair out grading statistics assignments
So, I should not expect college seniors and graduate students to
multiply 2.5 x .20 x .80 in their heads? Or, if I get them started by
saying, 2.5 x .20 =
So, I should not expect college seniors and graduate students to
multiply 2.5 x .20 x .80 in their heads? Or, if I get them started by
saying, 2.5 x .20 = 0.5, they should still be reaching for their
calculators to figure out half of .80? (Oops, I forgot--they don't
recognize that 0.5 is one-half
Hi
James M. Clark
Professor of Psychology
204-786-9757
204-774-4134 Fax
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 28-Jan-07 1:11:00 AM >>>
Tell the truth, how long has it been since you actually carried out a
long division with pencil and paper?
As just as one illustration of the possible importan
There are so many fallacies in "contrarian" Stephen Blacks response on
TERC that I scarcely know where to begin. (Sorry Stephen!):
> Back when we were in school, tiny and cheap calculators were science
fiction. We _needed_ those algorithms. We don't any longer, now that we
have those really nea
I wrote the message below before reading Stephen Blacks 18 January
posting, which Ill respond to separately.
Reference:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr1qee-bTZI
Re the TERC approach to teaching elementary mathematics: One of the
arguments against the "standard" methods (aka "traditional" meth
Michael Scoles said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr1qee-bTZI
And the responses have been predictable. Time for a contrary opinion.
True, what Ms McDermott complains about does have some merit. The math
textbooks she describes, particularly the one which spends its time on
geography (!), see
topher D. Green [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sat 1/27/2007 3:21 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: [tips] Re: Why I pull my hair out grading statistics assignments
Ken Steele wrote:
>
> I think the difference is doing it "in your head" vs.
> paper-a
Ken Steele wrote:
I think the difference is doing it "in your head" vs.
paper-and-pencil. I think all of us would rely on a cluster-like
method if we had to multiply two 3-digit numbers in-the-head but, if a
pencil and paper was available, would resort gratefully to the
standard algorithm.
I think the difference is doing it "in your head" vs. paper-and-pencil.
I think all of us would rely on a cluster-like method if we had to
multiply two 3-digit numbers in-the-head but, if a pencil and paper was
available, would resort gratefully to the standard algorithm.
Ken
Christopher D
l, ID 83605
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
teaching: intro to neuropsychology; psychopharmacology; general; history and
systems
-Original Message-
From: Christopher D. Green [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sat 1/27/2007 9:25 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: [tips]
versity
Plymouth NH 03264
-
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 11:00 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: [tips] Re: Why I pull my hair out grading statistics assignments
T
Michael Scoles wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr1qee-bTZI
Truth be told, I use something like the cluster method in order to do
complicated multiplication problems in my head. Still, that's no reason
not to teach the standard algorithm.
Chris
--
Christopher D. Green
Department o
That was excellent! Thanks Michael!
Annette
Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology
University of San Diego
5998 Alcala Park
San Diego, CA 92110
619-260-4006
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Original message
>Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 00:57:28 -0600
>From: "Michael Scoles" <[EMAIL PROTE
14 matches
Mail list logo
