Hmm. I agree with the recent comment that phys-l needs some new threads. I
started writing this note quite a while ago, but never completed it to my
satisfaction. Here it is anyway.
A few months ago there was some discussion on the merits of "sophisticated
calculators," which I take to mean the likes of the now-ubiquitous TI-83
graphing calculator. (generically, the GC)
One of us (Ludwik) related his trials in getting started with a GC, and
commented how hard it was to learn to program. If it's this hard for an
instructor, what will students get from it?
The discussion that followed gave some good advice, in particular that
starting with programming is not a very good way to learn the calculator.
Learning instead to perform the sorts of tasks a student would do in analyzing
a physics lab is much more effective. I'll add that the quality of the written
materials for GC and the CBL in particular are rather variable. One popular
book on physics and CBL that comes with programs is infamous for buggy code.
I do want to respond to the general assertion that "my kids can't do xyz
without a calculator, therefore calculators are evil." This conclusion is
short-sighted, and is a result of a too-narrow view of learning modes.
To me, a statement like that from a student is a priceless teaching
opportunity. As an instructor you've just been given a chance to show a
student another way, at a moment when the student is particularly receptive.
Jump on it and be glad, not upset. Welcome the device that made the moment
possible.
A related assertion is sometimes made that all physics problems must be done
symbolically first, then with numbers if really necessary. (hence graphing
calculators are evil as they encourage numerical thinking).
One of the reform Calculus books (Hughes-Hallet) uses what it calls the "rule
of three." Any new idea must be explored graphically, symbolically, and
numerically. The teaching isn't complete until all three are explored. The
order in which the three tools are used should be varied. The intent is to
reach as many of the students as possible with their various learning styles.
But how many modes are used in solving a typical physics problem by the
typical instructor?
Different students will be comfortable with different approaches, and will use
their preferred mode unless told to do otherwise. GCs allow students to choose
a numerical or graphical approach in addition to the symbolic approach
preferred by most physics instructors. Great! We have more tools available,
and we can now compare the results from different modes of solution. Again,
more teachable moments, more teaching opportunities.
All that seems like a Good Thing to me.
_ __________________________________
John E. Gastineau john@gastineau.org KC8IEW
900 B Ridgeway Ave. http://gastineau.home.mindspring.com
Morgantown WV 26505 (304) 296-1966 voice (304) 296-5035 fax
USA