I don’t spend time pondering percentages, wondering if this response will take on average 23% more space than the previous question and then allot it 23% more white space on the page.

Maybe this is sloppy design on my part. Maybe lack of room frustrates my students. But if questions require anywhere close to the same amount of space, I tend to just grant ’em equal and trust my students to flip over the page as required.

If precision on this one is a priority, as it seems to be w/ Jonathan, you two are doing right by your personal codes of design conduct. Which, after first having a personal code, is probably the most important thing.

Hope you stop by again.

During summer school this year, I used a much more consistent design for a daily sheet that had a space for the problem of the day, mental math, etc. Perhaps this is better?

I’d like to hear your thoughts.

I’d love for a (completely separate) pythagorean discussion to take place. But this is not the thread. Maybe I’ll start something.

The rest, I dunno, feels like a lot of teacher preference. The question, “Can I split these up?” pops into my head way more often than, “Can I join these up?” I prefer simplicity and clarity for my students’ sake, even when it draaaawwws things out.

And, yeah, I probably should’ve spaced these out to account for the length of response.

I know we can talk about form – that’s the nature of this post. The boxes for kids to write in, they seem tight. What do you intend them to write in the “Triangle” column? Would the teacher need to explain this?

Is #2 really a question? Maybe you should tell them in #1 what they should find. And if it is a question, where should they write the answer? #3 & #4 appear to be a single item divided into two. Is there a reason?

The spacing is very consistent. Should the spaces really be equal for items that need long response, short response, and no response? You’ve beaten visual “slosh,” but have you created cognitive slosh in its place?

I have questions about the sheet’s content, but for another time.

I mean, if we’re talking about tech within learning, I’ve been kind of a jerk in the past, stubbornly resisting complication.

If we’re talking about tech within teaching, though, I’m afraid I don’t see it as quite the pollutant you do. I’m not saying a teacher ain’t worth nothin’ without technology but the opposite is hardly true.

i.e., my projector lets me put large images in front of my students’ eyes. My laptop lets me sequence them. This is nothing but great.

i’ve read quite a bit more of your stuff than you seem to think.
(this is a complement to you, as i expect you realize).

try this: if you change your message,
you’ll lose, if not your audience, your reason
to be speaking in the first place.

i signed on as a math teacher and became
however good i am at it now over the course
of a longer period than i like to think about.
meanwhile, a lot of math departments have committed
(e.g.) to require students to buy “graphing calculators”.
the curriculum is adjusted accordingly.
this not only does nothing to make my job easier,
it takes time (and student interest) *away*
from what is necessarily a very limited budget
to begin with. so too with, as far as i can see,
pretty much any other computer application.

not only do i not *want* to help the profiteers
that have hijacked the academy to sell their products,
i’m not even *qualified* to do so since i can
never get the doggone things to work in the first place.
what i *can* do, and still very often get a chance to do,
is get students to understand more mathematics by talking
with them about mathematics. not something our
society values a whole lot, i’ll admit, but still:
the product that the college actually goes out and sells.
switching in some bloody demos, no matter how well-prepared,
is bait-and-switch and i resent it.

i’m never going to be much interested in selling.
speech & presence & suchlike variables …
heck yes. i’ve put in a lot of time working on ’em
and hope to continue to improve my skills
over the whole rest of my working life.
bring a computer into the deal, though,
and you’ve *changed the subject*.
part of the gospel i preach is:
*you* can do this … with paper and pencil.

you just seem to take it for granted that
high-tech *has* to be part of the picture.
i guess that’s what all the rantage has been about.
this has been a very *harmful* assumption
in math ed in my opinion (a well-informed
and carefully considered opinion, i’ll go ahead and add).

there’s a good chance that this misrepresents
*your* opinion; if so, maybe i’ve chosen
an even worse place to do this ranting
than i assumed a moment ago. or maybe not …
after all, i must have hoped to find at least
*some* chance of a sympathetic reading …

anyway. thanks for your kind attention.
i’ll leave you alone for at least awhile now
(but i’ll be watching). yours in the struggle. v.

oh, p.s. :
i’m not nearly so sure as you seem to be
that the guy in the hotdog will miss his audience …