zlacker

[return to "Big Calculator: How Texas Instruments Monopolized Math Class"]
1. dwohni+Ic[view] [source] 2019-11-26 16:31:06
>>lewisf+(OP)
As far as I can tell the TI graphing calculators are riding entirely off of mind share/familiarity, both among students and teachers, and teaching materials, which reinforces the former. Specifically textbooks and teacher training all use TI graphing calculators. Presumably tests are therefore made with the capabilities of a TI graphing calculator in mind.

CollegeBoard actually has a wide range of calculators it allows for the SAT (https://collegereadiness.collegeboard.org/sat/taking-the-tes...), but very few test takers take advantage of this.

TI graphing calculators are based on sufficiently old hardware that it is probably faster to emulate a TI calculator on something with the power of a Raspberry Pi. Indeed an open source third party emulator already exists (https://github.com/CE-Programming/CEmu). Does anyone know what the legality of selling a calculator that is a dedicated emulator of a TI graphing calculator (not just an online one like Desmos, but a purpose-made physical calculator that does nothing else)? I'm curious why this hasn't already been done before.

EDIT: I mean a dedicated emulator that can do nothing else but be a graphing calculator, e.g. not something on a smartphone.

◧◩
2. dboreh+Qk[view] [source] 2019-11-26 17:13:33
>>dwohni+Ic
I have two high school age sons. They attend the same school. I bought graphing calculators for both. One told me Casio was ok. The other said the school requires TI. Go figure..

Software emulations on smart phone are not permitted due to school rules about mobile device use in class. Also they aren't allowed for tests due to the potential for cheating. Of course you can cheat by storing extra info in a graphing calculator but they don't seem to have thought of that..

◧◩◪
3. oefrha+Dq[view] [source] 2019-11-26 17:45:31
>>dboreh+Qk
Back when (and where) I grew up calculators were hardly ever used in math classes and completely forbidden in exams. I later went the IMO route and obtained a degree in mathematics; neither required a calculator.

I still fail to understand why the hell graphing calculators are required for some high school math curriculum.

◧◩◪◨
4. gtk40+Qs[view] [source] 2019-11-26 17:58:08
>>oefrha+Dq
Statistics is taking a larger and larger part in many math curricula and is quite aided by the use of a graphing calculator. The AP Stats coursework and exam also assumes you will have one.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. oefrha+qv[view] [source] 2019-11-26 18:10:54
>>gtk40+Qs
To learn and demonstrate understanding of statistical concepts, no calculator is required. In fact calculating and graphing by hand are great for learning. To bridge the gap to the real world, a computer, however crappy, with Excel installed, however outdated, is infinitely better. (Not that I endorse Excel, it’s just the most common tool among the general public.)

I happen to be a physicist too and while I’m not an experimentalist, I’ve been through plenty of experimental training, and have participated in real world data analysis projects. Never once have I seen any physicist doing any statistics with a graphing calculator (I did see a few when I taught undergrads mostly from other departments, so there’s that).

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. pietro+vz[view] [source] 2019-11-26 18:33:49
>>oefrha+qv
Perhaps you can learn without a calculator, but these timed statistics tests do not function without one. Do you really expect people to do repetitive operations on even n=10 datasets when they only have an hour? You can’t use Excel (because it’s on more capable PC that you can use to cheat).

At the end of the day, if you want to remove the calculator from the statistics classroom you probably also have to remove the standardized test.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. jrockw+Qd1[view] [source] 2019-11-26 23:09:14
>>pietro+vz
You can always make problems with steps that involve "easy" numbers. My experience with high school math was that if you wrote 1.414 when the answer was sqrt(2), you got the problem wrong. So I am not sure what the calculators added, really.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. edflsa+ng1[view] [source] 2019-11-26 23:33:55
>>jrockw+Qd1
If the answer is ugly, always try squaring it or dividing by pi to see if you get something that looks rational.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
9. jrockw+hA1[view] [source] 2019-11-27 03:44:53
>>edflsa+ng1
Yeah, it's amusing how often that works. I remember taking the amateur radio exam which involves some path around impedance and power. The answers were always in the form of 0.5, 1, 1.414, 2. It's always 1.414 (or 0.707, its close cousin).
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦
10. oefrha+PD1[view] [source] 2019-11-27 04:38:50
>>jrockw+hA1
The ham radio exam is a joke (at least for the technician class in the U.S.). Just a bunch of multiple choice questions from a public question pool. I literally went through the pool twice before my exam and got a perfect score, although I hardly knew how to install and operate radios. (I just needed the license to be able to remotely operate a radio telescope.)
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧
11. jrockw+KY2[view] [source] 2019-11-27 18:21:58
>>oefrha+PD1
If I recall correctly there is no math until you get to Extra. But I agree that the questions are trivial and the multiple-choice format makes it even more trivial.

I am honestly shocked that there are any operators that aren't Extra class.

[go to top]