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

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

At about Algebra II you really need a good graphing calculator. But even then you still need to be able work things without one. Our teacher gives our class two parts to a test. One for a clac and one you cannot use a calc on. I think this is the best way to go.
- Luke

for that class, ANY graphing calc is good. I know people who had a TI-82, TI-81, or a TI-80. They all came by fine.

I voted no because when you take AP test and SAT 2 in some classes you have to do a math and don't get to use your clac.

why would anyone need calculator for the SAT test, it is baby math anyways, in fact who needs the SAT test, it only cost money and gives nothing in return. I don't know why I wasted my time with it.

> I don't know why I wasted my time with it.

Because it was a college entrance requirement?

What about in other classes? english, history...?
Mostly, for taking notes(on a 89 ro 92,+)
or, for games?

Do you know how many WPM I have with my 89? Something like 2! The 89 was not meant for typing! Maybe the 92, but not the 89.

in my world history class some students use a calc for the test, hummm... i wonder why
some day the teacher will learn

My pre-calc teacher lets me use a 92+ in class and on tests. The real key, though, is that the user has to want to learn. I only use 'solve' for long tedious things that I already understand. I mostly just use the 92+ for its symbolic capabilities.

My chemistry teacher on the other hand, only lets me use a scientific calculator because he doesn't want people typing the answers in on their calcs and giving them to other students.

-Sean

What really (bathroom action) me off, is when students know less about calcs than teachers! IT ISN'T supposed to be like that! DAH!

TNK

I have a side note to add to my original comments.

The purpose of learning math, without a calculator, is to teach the student how the world works. Math is the basis for all things - especially science and technology. Where would people have been today, if Newton didn't know how to factor because he had used a calculator in his early school years? Where would the space program be if NASA engineers had skipped dividing?

Just a thought by me.


Dark Ninja

We already know where NASA would be without decent math. Remember the Mars lander crashing because they forgot to perform the 1 foot(30 cm/1 foot)(1 meter/100 cm)= meter conversion?

Actually, the conversion they forgot was 1 lbf = 4.45 N

btw, a foot is 0.3048 m.

I thought they forgot the ft/meter conversion as well, but I don't remember the event that well.

Being in the field, I remember a bit more about it than most here probably do. The unit conversion mistake was only one problem with the project, but it was probably one of the most publicized. In case you didn't know, the contract between NASA and who was it, Lockheed-Martin?, did state that all numbers would be supplied with metric/SI units. The problem is the engineers who continue to use English system units despite pretty much the entire scientific community using a metric system. Yeah, they should have converted them to meet contract requirements, but if they were using metrics to begin with they wouldn't have needed to convert. (OK, maybe that's a minor dig at engineers, but really, why do you use a system no one else in science does?) Anyway, calculations of the type they tend to need have to be very exact and the people on the project not calculating actual numbers probably only know a ballpark result. This is probably why it wasn't caught -- NASA assumed the numbers were in metric units as the contract stated they would be and the numbers were close enough to what they estimated they should be, so no one really though much of it (until much later when the bigger problems arose). As I recall, addditional problems with the mission were that it was underfunded, understaffed, and people were so convinced that they could do the whole thing "faster, better, cheaper" that they weren't willing to admit they couldn't do it successfully under the conditions they had. NASA planned to make some revisions to their program after the results of the investigation into the project failure. If anyone's interested, try looking in Science and/or Nature magazine from around the time this was big news; as I recall they had some articles on the topic.
--
James Marshall
marshall@astro.umd.edu
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~marshall

we would be out of the solar system if he had graphing calcs. see in order for him to have had one tech. would be a lot more advanced and he would have been able to make better use of his time to do more work. if i go back in time im give him a 89 and s load of batteries

Well, as a lot people have said calculators, i think, aren't for lower math (alg. I and below). The point of those classes is to learn how equations and formulas work, this cannot be accomplished by just by hitting a few buttons, or maybe not even by programming it once. I didn't get a calc of any kind until Algebra I, and that was just a TI-30x, I just got my 83 plus last year in Geometry. My school highly reccomends a graphing calc for our Algebra II/Trig class, and they're required for Pre-cal and up. So, I voted not sure because that question is vague.

Love that Anime!

yeah, i got my ti-34 in pre-alg and have been using it until the middle of the year in alg2. And i only got my ti-83plus in the mid of alg2/trig cuz the ti34 had taken such a beating that the plus key wouldn't work anymore. Now that i'm in trig, my teacher still doesn't even require a graphing calc. he just says it'd be really helpful. I've actually only used the graphing part of the graphing calc a few times. And that was in the polar graphing chapter in alg2.

I believe that having a graphic calc my be easier for some kids that have visualization problems, you know, like variables. Most of the people I know bought theirs because of Algebra II, and use it for absolutely nothing! In our books, there isn't one problem in there a TI-30X couldn't solve. Sure, it'd take more time, but isn' that the real reason why some schools don't want you using calcs in the first place, because they want you to show your work? Of course the 89 and the 92's "solve(" function is a bit gratuitous when it comes to begin lazy, but some equations can't be solved with a simple solve. I know that because I have both an 89, a 92+, others, and I hardly use them for math, I use them strictly for programming. This is beside the point. You should be able to use calcs in school, but only for certain queries that, in a human brain, would take over two minutes to calculate.

Question could've been clearer... I voted yes cause I was just thinking in relation to classes that actually need graphing calculators such as Algebra, Trig, and upwards...

I voted yes, and I mean yes for all classes kindergarten and up. I am in my third year of college, and i have used a calc all the way except in trigonometry. students will still learn math if they use a calculator, they will just be able to advance much faster. They will be able to start algebra in grade school if they weren't wasting time with the basics. The basics are important, but just because a calculator is used, it does not mean the student does not learn the concept.

I remember teachers spending much time having kids learn and memerize multipication tables when it would have been easier to just give us calculators. After a student has punched 7 * 8 into a calculator 20 times they will begin to remember it is 56. All through college the teachers have said go ahead program the equations into your calculator before the test, cause they knew if some one was going to take the time to type them in, they would end up memorizing in the process.

In foreign countries like Japan kids are given a calculator at a very young age, and their students are much better educated.

EXACTLY!!!!!
Its only the idiots who don't listen in class that have trouble!!!
FINALLY!!!!!!!!! SOMEONE WITH THE SAME OPINION AS ME!

Yeah, when I type in equations before a test or make a program for a type of porblem, I learn the equation in the process. Even after a year of not touching the equation I still remember it cuz I typed it in.

I don't think most kids should be given calcs in grade school. Memorizing the multiplication tables without a calc does help in that it can teach discipline. I also knew a lot of kids who would never learn just by punching in the numbers on the calc. I guess it depends on what kind of class you have. If a teacher can see that the majority (99.99998766237765998%) of the class has memorized the mult tables, then sure, give 'em the calc. But if the class is struggling, the calc would only hurt them. If they can't memorize them by staring at a piece of paper then a calc isn't going to help them. In Japan it is different though. Japan's school system is a lot more disciplined than the U.S.'s so the kids are probably told to memorize the mult table at an early age so they can then use the calcs a little earlier.