Re: Speak errors (was Re: audio)

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg130573] Re: Speak errors (was Re: audio)*From*: Murray Eisenberg <murray at math.umass.edu>*Date*: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 00:02:44 -0400 (EDT)*Delivered-to*: l-mathgroup@mail-archive0.wolfram.com*Delivered-to*: l-mathgroup@wolfram.com*Delivered-to*: mathgroup-newout@smc.vnet.net*Delivered-to*: mathgroup-newsend@smc.vnet.net*References*: <17744967.14121.1366277874273.JavaMail.root@m06> <kl0arj$l43$1@smc.vnet.net> <20130422071048.E1C5A6AF5@smc.vnet.net>

See interspersed responses: On Apr 22, 2013, at 3:10 AM, Richard Fateman <fateman at cs.berkeley.edu> wrote: > Historically, experiments at higher educational levels to introduce a > computer algebra system into a math course have resulted in consequences > like this: > 1. Students, on average, resented having to learn "something else" (i.e. > using computer program) that wasn't "on the final". Simple solution: let students use the computer for all exams, too. (I've done that.) > 2. On average they learned "no less" than students in the control group > not using computers. But "no more" either. What, exactly, does that mean? By what standards is this being judged? E.g., when comparing with a conventionally taught control group, does the comparison test asking what-if questions that require simulation or calculations, etc., beyond the normal capabilities of paper and pencil? --- Murray Eisenberg murray at math.umass.edu Mathematics & Statistics Dept. Lederle Graduate Research Tower phone 413 549-1020 (H) University of Massachusetts 413 545-2838 (W) 710 North Pleasant Street fax 413 545-1801 Amherst, MA 01003-9305

**References**:**Re: Speak errors (was Re: audio)***From:*Richard Fateman <fateman@cs.berkeley.edu>