Survey posted 2000-09-12 16:16 by Andy Selle.

Contribute ideas to surveys by sending a mail to survey@ticalc.org.

I definately believe that calculators should be used. Obviously not in gradeschool when learning the basics, but afterwards definately. I think alot of people get jealous because some of us are smart enough to actually write programs that will do the work for us. I'm thinking if you're smart enough to write the program to do your work than you probably know the material pretty good. Life Learned Lesson Work Smarter, Not Harder --United States Marine Corps

I think they should be used for Algebra II and higher, but never for lower math classes when all they do is hurt your ability to do math.

P.S. Thanks for finally getting a new survey!

I agree. Some ppl program equations into their calcs 'cause they're lazy. I think that's cheating, but graphing calcs should be used in Algebra 2 and higher.
-Sowby

That's the way it is in my school in Quebec, Canada. I think it's works great, however, for someone who is in the lower grads and wants to skip by, TI-83 turn good skills to ruin. -Sean, age 14

I agree fully with you. I am a freshman in Pre-Calculus, but in my Honors English Class, another guy starts bragging about his TI-86, when he is just in Algebra I. It really makes me mad.

The key here is using calculators -appropriately-. On one hand, I agree that basic math skills are good, but on the other, I'm hard pressed to think of a situation where anyone (in real life, not school) will need to use trigonometry, calculus, or even geometry, without a calculator. I could see teaching basic algebra without a calculator (though the 8x series, where x < 9, doesn't do algebra anyway) but beyond that, calculators all the way. (Teaching these kids how to rearrange data in a machine readable format is going to be a serious job skill in years to come, calculators or not.)

Here at the University of Missouri-Rolla, they force us to by a $180 HP-49G our freshman year (which I still haven't opened the box for), and then the don't allow us to use them on our test/quizes becuase they have a CAS. Granted in my calc I class here we (just) got to derivatives, and you don't really need a calculator for those, but then what the point of requiring HP's best when we aren't allowed to use even TI's worst?

I agree, appropriately is the key word. Students today are much more "visual" in the sense that they have been raised in front of a television set, many times if they can"see" what is happening they are able to understand mathematics concepts better, therefore are able to apply them better and also have a better retention. Graphing calculators, when used appropriately, are an excellent learning tool. Another point is with the increased emphasis on data analysis, these learning tools can assist greatly in development of statistics related concepts. Finally, when coupled with the CBL, used in modeling and understanding motion, etc., they are a very affordable and effective tool. When I use them at the Algebra I level, I am selective in choosing how I instruct with them. At any level, I reserve the right as a teacher to say when graphing calculators are used on some tests.

Well, I say how about we only use calculator in Pre-Calculus and higher?

well untill you get the pre-alg no calcs should be allowed, in pre-alg a 4func (well sqr root) should only be permitted. when you get past alg 2 sci and graphing should be allowed. the key to this only use a calc to complete task you have mastered.

I agree. If you can't do the basic stuff in maths, whats the point in using a calculator? I've fogoten my calculator on many occasions, yet I've still passed my tests.

In MY high school (yeah, yeah) my math teacher outlawed the use of the TI-89 and 92 in any of his class. Not that they can't be used at home of course, but over the past week I haven't been near as lazy doing my Advanced Math homework! Its done with an 86, but I do have to agree with my teacher that using a calculator is fine, if the calculator isn't doing all the problems FOR YOU!!

here's my entirely lower-case theory:
math is a tool. math has always been a tool.
think of something like a hammer- the hammer does the same job as a nail gun, and just as accurately, but it is slower and more inefficient. once the nail gun came along and was developed and perfected, certain professions that previously depended on the hammer as the fastest and best way to drive a nail saw what was to be gained with the use of a nail gun. such are the calculators, and i feel the parallel is visible enough that i need not point it out.
in my math class, whenever a new skill is taught, i usually whip up a math program for the subject and use it on the homework, and the test if possible. like a carpenter, i can use the hammer because i know how the nailgun works; my progs have taught me the math.
i feel that if a student has the mean to possess the tool then s/he is entitled to use it. step by step work for a pupil possessing a ti 83+ is misinterpretting the reason we take math; if there is a way for the calculator to do the math for a student, the student learns by looking up the steps needed to make the calc do the work. i suggest we embrace these powerful tools as the relievers of drawn-out step by step equations and every other single thing they can do.
as a closing note, i would like to point out one thing:
we put a man on the moon using slide rules. while this is certainly a testament to the ability of the hammer to do the job, who would NASA have killed to get a ti 82? 89? the piece of crap computer that composed this miniscule document? they would embrace the nailgun.

My vote was yes. Oh, it is very true that, as many noted, one can do almost any maths in their head and 89’s cause brain rot if misused but beyond school is the ‘real world’ where maths knowledge hovers between little and none ... // And it is because of the calculator many come to any interest in maths. Realistically maybe it is not IF but which one. [By example .. Prior to middle school the ‘Explorer’ type calcs ... less the step by step reduction of fractions as kids need to learn to factor.] But let me suggest that just because someones parents can afford an 89 is NO reason for an 8th or 9th grader to be slinging one of them. // Please note I am very dependent on my 34 and 85, I am envious of those who state they have prodigious mental abilities in maths ... even believe a few of them.

There is, however, one major flaw in that logic. If someone is only once or twice introduced to the "hammer" and all the rest of their life use the "nailgun" that someone ELSE created, they would soon forget the hammer as usless and no longer be able to efficiently use it. However, if this person designed their OWN nailgun, then they would never forget how they hammer works because it is an integral part of the design.
What this all boils down to is that, yes, you are correct in theory, but horribly unfounded in practice. Face it, how many people do you know that, given the option, would create their own program using their math and calc skills rather than simply download one somebody else convienently made for them? 4, 5, maybe even 6 or 7?
My point is that people are just too lazy for advanced calculators and should first focus on their math skills and then can they trust themselve with calculators.

This is precisely why:
a) I program all the math/science programs on my calc (i can also ensure that they use accurate data and algorithms for the same reason), and
b) I have stopped uploading programs of this nature to sites. It is not to hoard my programming abilities and my programs; rather it is to not make me liable for augmenting someone else's mathematical/scientific ineptitude.

I think that if someone wants to have a program to do some easy thing in math/science, they should take the initiative to learn the applicable programming language and write the program(s) themselves, rather than leeching from those that know how to do stuff like this. Many of the first-world countries are becoming so indoctrinated in computers that it will likely be practically necessary for everyone to know some programming language to graduate from high school or equivalent. Otherwise, there will be an elite group of technology haves and myriads of technology have-not minions. Now I must do my AP calc BC homework.

eofpi and the unimatrix's 45.59985035114 cents

YES, good points all. thank you for responding to my post, it warms the cockles of my heart. i never distribute my programs for those very reasons.
hey you, one up, did you get my point that math is a tool and i think that math for those not interested in math has been replaced by the calculator. by the way, i am only addressing your points as you did and also by the way, i have an 83+. i encourage fellow 83+ owners to learn to program, and i show them how to use things like the equation solver and the test menu. i don't tell them what to do, i show them how. they invariably (pardon the pun) make their own programs. i encourage exploring their calcs.
i feel lame because this post is mostly bragging, but i needed to point out that math is a tool and you don't need to know certain things if you have anything upwards of an 81. i bring my calc every single day and i always teach someone something and i always learn something. i am, however, interested in matrices, and what math they are capable of solving. anyone with info, please email me at iloveyourdogtoomuch@hotmail.com and thanks again.
jeremy

When it comes to programs, I only build my own, and I only use my own, for reasons of accuracy and precision. My programs my make no sense to another person, but the inclusion in my program of "latitudes" and "departures" with trigonometry is a great help in understanding.
I have also memorized all 112 elements just from programming them into my 83, 83+, and 89.

What about elements 113-118? They do exist (well, 116 is only theorized to exist, but the rest have been found):) Check the URL above if you doubt this statement.

eofpi and the unimatrix's 45.59985035114 elemental cents

I was referring to the UIPAC accepted elements, and even there, there are only 109- while yes, 110 to 118 are believed to exist, they are not yet accepted as elements yet.

Also, if you refer to your aforementioned webpage, there is a hole in your theory. Traditionally, three-letter symbols referring to the element's name are used to signify an element which is not official- hence we had unillquadium, unillhectium, unillseptium, and unilloctium for quite some time before elements 104-108 were confirmed.
Such is the case here. There is a strong case for 110-120 existing, but the evidence is not yet sufficient for UIPAC to assign them an offical name and symbol.
Anyway, I was merely referring to how building a program can actually enhance knowledge of materials, not asking for an argument on the legitimacy of the periodic table ;).

Elements 112, 114, 116, 118 do exist. Elements 113,115,117,119,120 are theorized to exist. I have the periodic table partially memorized.

Once again, allow me to reiterate- if an element has a three-letter symbol, it is, according to UIPAC, only theorized to exist. While the status of 110, 112, 114, 116, and 118 may change at the next meeting of UIPAC, as of now, they are officially only theories.
By the way, this is getting way off topic.8-)

here's my massively overdue entirely lowercase response:
the comment to which you replied twice was intended to be largely a light ribbing, with only a minor hint of suggestion that you might want to include them. i was unsure if you were aware of their (theorized) existence, and felt that someone should inform you in the event that you did not know. i was not intending for you to take it as a legitimate attack on the validity of your program, as i am quite sure that all data is as correct as possible, given the extensive amount of expertise (or at least a lot of chemistry acronyms and possibly buzzwords too (are there such things as scientific buzzwords, for that matter:)? )) you have presented above.

eofpi and the unimatrix's 45.599850351139 cents (must have been those shares of firestone stock that brought it down a bit j/k...actually its from checking the full decimal value produced by my 89)

Sorry, I was over-reacting a bit, no true offense taken or received, I hope. It's just that my chemistry professor and I had this long debate on the legitimacy of technetium, and when I saw that I was thinking, "What? This again??" and kind of took offense.
So in summary, sorry for overreacting, hope nobody took offense.
<grovel> I throw myself on the mercy of the court. </grovel>

Hear Hear!

ok first off - all of the progs i normaly use i have made my self so i know what it does and what the calc thinks i mean hence the -3^3=-27 made me think. also i have reverse engineered some off you ppls code to see how it works (k, dont get pyst, its in the concern of educaton).

how this effects the hammer
1st use the hammer, c how the hammer works
2nd get someone elses nail gun and take it apart (hopely able to put it back together) and investigate it.
3rd build your own gun
4th use it

At most colleges, a TI89,92+ is required for Calculus I and beyond. This was not a problem for me, since I've had a TI-89 since 9th grade for PreCal. I have learned all the Calculus I and I'm in Calculus II, and doing well in math. This might not have a point, but colleges must agree that a high calculator is important for learning the material, not typing in equations.

They don^t do all the work for you, thy just give you the answer. YOU do the work. I do however agree that AMS is just too powerful. But differenciating between an 89 and a 92+, just because the 92+ has a keyboard...That^s cheap. So if your teacher allows 89^s but not 92+^s, smack them!

Often the AMS can make solving the problem easier, even when all work must be shown. This is because once one knows what the starting and ending steps are, it is easier to piece together the work in between. The "Pretty Print" also helps when doing complex calculations, such as those found in calculus-based physics, when a lesser calculator would require tons of nested parentheses to have a nonambiguous calculation. Now I must do the aforementioned physics:)

eofpi and the unimatrix's 45.59985035114 "Prettily Printed" cents

oh yeah, im going to go around my school smacking math teachers, and lets not forget the smacking we have to do to the creators of the SAT.

yes yes, i know what he means

Yeah I agree, Algebra II really could use a graph calculator(And of course a regular one). Most of my teachers in my school are so dumb to tell the difference between a TI.92 and a casio generic. So my friends and I abuse our rights to using so called TI 30's on mega mega amounts of steriods and mind altering drugs for that matter. (What will those crazy guys at TI think of next?) Oh and by the way!


Oh and for all you lost Ti86 uses out there heres a good program. Paul Novello's wIN 98 Hacked.(Yes it's due to my workings) If you want to freak out your friends give them this. E-mail me at Blackcode220@hotmail.com) E-mail me anything you feel like (no pron, yeah you know what I mean.)

Parker756@aol.com heres Paul Novello's e-mail. Just for legal reasons.

yes...legal reasons...

WHAT?!?!?!?!?!
YOU TRAITOR!!
I like my Ti89!

I think they should. This topic is not all about TI's or is it? It said calculators not TI's. I'm in AlgebraI. WHere i live it is REQUIRED that you have a TI-83+. We're talkin bout 7th grade algebra I! But anyways back to the topic. I think calculators should be allowed. Whenever i went to shcool and got the list of suplies i need it always said CALCULATOR so im use to it. THe calculator actually helped me get to Algebra. NOT sayin a calculator is my best friend but still. Thats all i think.

P.S. Please accuse the spelling an stuff. I dont like to check my spellin!lol

Your school system appears to be strange if they *require* you to have a TI-83+ for the class. I remember taking Algebra I on the most advanced track available at my school at the time (I was in 8th grade at the time), and we were not even taught how to do basic stuff on the calculator until mid-May, and school got out at the end of the first week of June that year. I brought in my 83 which I had won at a math competition earlier in the year, and my teacher was utterly perplexed as to why I would do this. I figured, "I own the calc already, so why not use my own, instead of one of the school's?"

I agree that calculators should be permitted in all classes from Pre-Algebra on up, given that they meet the following restrictions (using TI calcs for graphing calc examples):
* everything below Pre-Algebra: at most, a 4-function calc
* Pre-Algebra through Algebra I: 4-function/scientific calc
* Geometry, Algebra II, and Pre-Calculus: z80-based TI-8x calculator
* Calculus/{AP,IB} Calculus: TI-86 or TI-89 (although most people appear to generally do fine with a TI-83+)
* higher math (note: this is just a blatant guess, as I'm in AP Calc BC now): TI-89/TI-92+

To be fair to those arguing against me, I am quite aware of the dangers of calculator addiction (I started to fall into that quantum singularity of incompetence, but have since recovered) and feel that noone should be put in a situation where calculator dependence is either likely or assured. I hate it when people who are a) too immature to learn how to use the calc and/or b) the ignoramuses who just buy a calculator for games.

Also, I think there should be a competence test administered before a student can bring a calculator to school, and, depending on his/her score, would be permitted to bring a calculator up to a specified complexity. Example (in percents):

* 99-100%: TI-89/TI-92+ (likely to only be the math team nerds (before you start flaming me, I'm one too!) who wouldn't become calculator-addicted anyways, or would recover on their own)
* 90-98%: TI-86
* 80-90%: TI-83+
* 70-80%: TI-83/TI-85
* 60-70%: TI-82
* 50-60%: TI-73/TI-81
* 40-50%: scientific calc
* 30-40%: slide rule
* 20-30%: four-function calc
* 10-20%: abacus
* 0-10%: (retake exam)

I sincerely hope that this comment doesn't fall into the "excessively long" category, for I feel that the entire comment (okay, well almost the entire comment) is relevant to the topic of the survey, the comment being replied to, or both.

eofpi and the unimatrix's 45.599850351139 cents

Don't forget statistics (83 or 83+)

I've gone all the way through cal3 with only a TI-83. Now I'm in DiffyQ and my prof doesn't even allow calcs (at least his test today was easy).

btw, what was your reason for placing the 83 and 83+ in different categories?

If I remember correctly, I wrote that under pressure from my parents to get offline, so I did not have the opportunity to think everything all the way through. Stats would probably fall into the same category as Calc.

I chose to place the 83 and 83+ in different categories because of the capabilities of flash oses and flash apps.

eofpi and the unimatrix's 45.599850351139 cents

I agree in believing that calculators should be allowed in math classes for High School on, but their use should be limited. Some students in my Calc III class are using TI-89s to automatically calculate integrals when they should be working them out by hand only using calculators to CHECK their answers.