Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
My point is that we need not describe relationships in algebraic terms,
i.e. as formulae, in order to describe them in quantitative terms, and
that there is a middle ground, a quasi-quantitative way of describing
relationships that allows a certain rigor, but may be approachable to
more students, than the abstruse (to some) short hand of algebra.
Bob's comment motivates me to compare this to what has been often said
here about physics. I have occasionally asked, playing the Devil's
advocate, "Why do we think physics courses are good for everyone?" This
rouses physics teachers to respond "To deny students the joys and values
of physics is unconscionable and unthinkable."
But, by advocating no more than quasi-quantitative instruction in physics,
aren't we denying students the joys and value of learning mathematics as a
powerful conceptual language? Aren't we passing up an opportunity to show
them examples of the power of mathematics as a thinking tool? Why do we so
easily accept that "Some students won't grasp mathematics above the
rudimentary level, so why force them to do it?"