<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Computers Are Not A Natural Medium For Doing Mathematics, Ctd.	</title>
	<atom:link href="/2013/computers-are-not-a-natural-medium-for-doing-mathematics-ctd/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>/2013/computers-are-not-a-natural-medium-for-doing-mathematics-ctd/</link>
	<description>less helpful</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 May 2014 14:36:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: dy/dan &#187; Blog Archive &#187; The SRI Report On Khan Academy: Helpful, Not Transformational		</title>
		<link>/2013/computers-are-not-a-natural-medium-for-doing-mathematics-ctd/#comment-1478806</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[dy/dan &#187; Blog Archive &#187; The SRI Report On Khan Academy: Helpful, Not Transformational]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2014 18:34:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=17564#comment-1478806</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] obvious superiority of computers. My alternative hypothesis is that teachers simply know better, that computers aren&#039;t a natural medium for lots of math, that teacher lectures and assessments have lots of advantages over Khan Academy&#039;s lectures and [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] obvious superiority of computers. My alternative hypothesis is that teachers simply know better, that computers aren&#039;t a natural medium for lots of math, that teacher lectures and assessments have lots of advantages over Khan Academy&#039;s lectures and [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Peter Smyth		</title>
		<link>/2013/computers-are-not-a-natural-medium-for-doing-mathematics-ctd/#comment-1043058</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Peter Smyth]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Oct 2013 21:59:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=17564#comment-1043058</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[While ultimately math is done in the head, physical and other representations can be an important part of the process, whether with diagrams in game theory or pattern blocks used in the early grades or exploring functions with a graphing calculator. Fractal geometry grew out of the representations possible on computers. 
Doing math includes thinking about and exploring representations.
That&#039;s where I see technology, computers, as a natural part of doing math.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While ultimately math is done in the head, physical and other representations can be an important part of the process, whether with diagrams in game theory or pattern blocks used in the early grades or exploring functions with a graphing calculator. Fractal geometry grew out of the representations possible on computers.<br />
Doing math includes thinking about and exploring representations.<br />
That&#8217;s where I see technology, computers, as a natural part of doing math.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Howard Phillips		</title>
		<link>/2013/computers-are-not-a-natural-medium-for-doing-mathematics-ctd/#comment-995574</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Howard Phillips]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Aug 2013 00:12:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=17564#comment-995574</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[There seems to be a lot of confusion about the meaning of &quot;doing math&quot;.  I have been &quot;doing math&quot; for at least 50 yrs now, as pupil, student, teacher of math, statistics, control engineering and more, and math is &quot;done&quot;in the head.  Then it get written down somehow.  A large amount of which is screwed up and thrown away.  A computer with suitable software is able to do some of the algebra and a lot of the geometry, but in the end the useful bits have to be collected together for presentation purposes.  I have been writing computer programs for math and engineering for many years, and my conclusion is that the goal posts keep moving!
Have a look at www.mathcomesalive.com , my site, with three programs that you may find useful.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There seems to be a lot of confusion about the meaning of &#8220;doing math&#8221;.  I have been &#8220;doing math&#8221; for at least 50 yrs now, as pupil, student, teacher of math, statistics, control engineering and more, and math is &#8220;done&#8221;in the head.  Then it get written down somehow.  A large amount of which is screwed up and thrown away.  A computer with suitable software is able to do some of the algebra and a lot of the geometry, but in the end the useful bits have to be collected together for presentation purposes.  I have been writing computer programs for math and engineering for many years, and my conclusion is that the goal posts keep moving!<br />
Have a look at <a href="http://www.mathcomesalive.com/" rel="nofollow ugc">http://www.mathcomesalive.com/</a> , my site, with three programs that you may find useful.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Amy Wolff		</title>
		<link>/2013/computers-are-not-a-natural-medium-for-doing-mathematics-ctd/#comment-995033</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Amy Wolff]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Aug 2013 19:48:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=17564#comment-995033</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Hi, Dan,

I wanted to point out that although it is not intuitive to use Shift + 6, for example, to write an exponent, Wolfram&#124;Alpha with its free-form linguistic capabilities eliminates this problem and even helps teach users the proper inputs. Also, since version 8, Mathematica has incorporated Wolfram&#124;Alpha&#039;s free-form linguistics in its programming
environment, as noted in the blog post below:
http://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2010/11/the-free-form-linguistics-revolution-in-mathematica

Teachers can also reference Step-by-step math solutions (a feature of Pro) by visiting here:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/pro/step-by-step-math-solver.html

Best,


Amy Wolff
Wolfram Research]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi, Dan,</p>
<p>I wanted to point out that although it is not intuitive to use Shift + 6, for example, to write an exponent, Wolfram|Alpha with its free-form linguistic capabilities eliminates this problem and even helps teach users the proper inputs. Also, since version 8, Mathematica has incorporated Wolfram|Alpha&#8217;s free-form linguistics in its programming<br />
environment, as noted in the blog post below:<br />
<a href="http://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2010/11/the-free-form-linguistics-revolution-in-mathematica" rel="nofollow ugc">http://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2010/11/the-free-form-linguistics-revolution-in-mathematica</a></p>
<p>Teachers can also reference Step-by-step math solutions (a feature of Pro) by visiting here:<br />
<a href="http://www.wolframalpha.com/pro/step-by-step-math-solver.html" rel="nofollow ugc">http://www.wolframalpha.com/pro/step-by-step-math-solver.html</a></p>
<p>Best,</p>
<p>Amy Wolff<br />
Wolfram Research</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: George Bigham		</title>
		<link>/2013/computers-are-not-a-natural-medium-for-doing-mathematics-ctd/#comment-993946</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[George Bigham]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Aug 2013 16:02:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=17564#comment-993946</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I recently took the Machine Learning class at Stanford through Coursera which is the kind of class I hope to prepare my HS students for.  In that class the prof always introduces ideas, explains, and &#039;prototypes&#039; in written or pre-typed math notation.  Written math notation or simple 2-d graph sketches are very useful to learn from at the theoretical level.  The work on the computer is only done later for what you would expect a computer to do: compute.  

I guess the moral of the story is that doing hand written math to get an understanding of concepts is best, even for the most tech advanced.  The power of computers come into play when we apply these concepts to particular data.  Unfortunately many people confuse math with computation, but computation is just the often messy and tedious by-product of applied math and it can now be passed on to the computers.  

So I think it is best to leave hand written math as the first medium, especially at lower grades.  Once students get to a level where they can apply the abstract concepts to big numbers or excessive computations, they should turn to the computers.  Basically I think computers should just be used as glorified calculators because if computer science professors still prefer hand written math to introduce and justify concepts, math teachers can too.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I recently took the Machine Learning class at Stanford through Coursera which is the kind of class I hope to prepare my HS students for.  In that class the prof always introduces ideas, explains, and &#8216;prototypes&#8217; in written or pre-typed math notation.  Written math notation or simple 2-d graph sketches are very useful to learn from at the theoretical level.  The work on the computer is only done later for what you would expect a computer to do: compute.  </p>
<p>I guess the moral of the story is that doing hand written math to get an understanding of concepts is best, even for the most tech advanced.  The power of computers come into play when we apply these concepts to particular data.  Unfortunately many people confuse math with computation, but computation is just the often messy and tedious by-product of applied math and it can now be passed on to the computers.  </p>
<p>So I think it is best to leave hand written math as the first medium, especially at lower grades.  Once students get to a level where they can apply the abstract concepts to big numbers or excessive computations, they should turn to the computers.  Basically I think computers should just be used as glorified calculators because if computer science professors still prefer hand written math to introduce and justify concepts, math teachers can too.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Jen		</title>
		<link>/2013/computers-are-not-a-natural-medium-for-doing-mathematics-ctd/#comment-991697</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jen]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Aug 2013 01:08:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=17564#comment-991697</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&lt;strong&gt;Mr. Steve&lt;/strong&gt;:

&lt;blockquote&gt;Only a few out of the hundred said they used mathematical symbology at all. Most said they did it in imagery and figurative terms, and an amazing ~30 percent (included Einstein) were down in the mud pies. Einstein said ‘I have sensations of a kinesthetic or muscular type’. The sad part is that every child in the US is taught Mathematics and Physic through this channel (using mathematical symbols). They (mathemeticians/scientists) use this channel to communicate, not to do their thing.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

So why do we force them to go through a layer of symbols to understand concepts?&quot;

This hits on several of the themes here -- experts vs. beginners and doing vs. learning vs. communicating.  

Experts are saying this as experts -- however, were they taught mathematics using &quot;muscular&quot; methods or without symbology?  I&#039;m guessing that these sensations of math are WHY they are experts now -- it was a subject that to them is multi-faceted, fully engaging, in their brains and bodies in pictures and feelings.  What percentage of K-12 students have that level of engagement?

Was this the way that they themselves were taught K-12 level math?  Extremely unlikely.

Are these the ways that they communicate math to one another?  

The points made about learning basic skills of notation and not expecting students to learn two or more notations for one concept they have not yet grasped are key.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Mr. Steve</strong>:</p>
<blockquote><p>Only a few out of the hundred said they used mathematical symbology at all. Most said they did it in imagery and figurative terms, and an amazing ~30 percent (included Einstein) were down in the mud pies. Einstein said ‘I have sensations of a kinesthetic or muscular type’. The sad part is that every child in the US is taught Mathematics and Physic through this channel (using mathematical symbols). They (mathemeticians/scientists) use this channel to communicate, not to do their thing.</p></blockquote>
<p>So why do we force them to go through a layer of symbols to understand concepts?&#8221;</p>
<p>This hits on several of the themes here &#8212; experts vs. beginners and doing vs. learning vs. communicating.  </p>
<p>Experts are saying this as experts &#8212; however, were they taught mathematics using &#8220;muscular&#8221; methods or without symbology?  I&#8217;m guessing that these sensations of math are WHY they are experts now &#8212; it was a subject that to them is multi-faceted, fully engaging, in their brains and bodies in pictures and feelings.  What percentage of K-12 students have that level of engagement?</p>
<p>Was this the way that they themselves were taught K-12 level math?  Extremely unlikely.</p>
<p>Are these the ways that they communicate math to one another?  </p>
<p>The points made about learning basic skills of notation and not expecting students to learn two or more notations for one concept they have not yet grasped are key.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: pete capewell		</title>
		<link>/2013/computers-are-not-a-natural-medium-for-doing-mathematics-ctd/#comment-991155</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[pete capewell]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Jul 2013 23:09:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=17564#comment-991155</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Back to the OP, like Cal above I&#039;ve been doing almost all of my math for the last eight years on various (mostly pc/Windows) tablets. As a high school teacher, I wanted to save, edit, project and publish/share my solutions and lessons. You can see hundreds of these in Journal files and PDFs at our school math dept wiki http://mathsurgery.wikispaces.com./ As many contributors said above though, typing algebra is a such a pain, without stylus input to Windows Journal I just wouldn&#039;t have stuck with it.

But tablet computers have changed how I //do// math (and how I teach.)

I&#039;m much more likely to haul up Wolfram&#124;Alpha to check a result (or get a hint, now it will show some methods); I&#039;ll verify and illustrate a result in Geogebra or Cabri since I&#039;m already at the computer; I&#039;ll use animation, video or photography to explain including to myself. I might even do a simple bit of programming to search for particular results or counter examples. I&#039;ve used various online tools to rehearse routine skills to gain fluency and get rapid feedback.

Above all, as I am doing now, I&#039;m more likely to collaborate.

With pencil and paper, I think I was slower, more routine in my solution methods and relied more on following standard examples and doing standard problems.

I wonder if anyone else has found using computers to do math changed how they work?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Back to the OP, like Cal above I&#8217;ve been doing almost all of my math for the last eight years on various (mostly pc/Windows) tablets. As a high school teacher, I wanted to save, edit, project and publish/share my solutions and lessons. You can see hundreds of these in Journal files and PDFs at our school math dept wiki <a href="http://mathsurgery.wikispaces.com/" rel="nofollow ugc">http://mathsurgery.wikispaces.com/</a>. As many contributors said above though, typing algebra is a such a pain, without stylus input to Windows Journal I just wouldn&#8217;t have stuck with it.</p>
<p>But tablet computers have changed how I //do// math (and how I teach.)</p>
<p>I&#8217;m much more likely to haul up Wolfram|Alpha to check a result (or get a hint, now it will show some methods); I&#8217;ll verify and illustrate a result in Geogebra or Cabri since I&#8217;m already at the computer; I&#8217;ll use animation, video or photography to explain including to myself. I might even do a simple bit of programming to search for particular results or counter examples. I&#8217;ve used various online tools to rehearse routine skills to gain fluency and get rapid feedback.</p>
<p>Above all, as I am doing now, I&#8217;m more likely to collaborate.</p>
<p>With pencil and paper, I think I was slower, more routine in my solution methods and relied more on following standard examples and doing standard problems.</p>
<p>I wonder if anyone else has found using computers to do math changed how they work?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: pete capewell		</title>
		<link>/2013/computers-are-not-a-natural-medium-for-doing-mathematics-ctd/#comment-991134</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[pete capewell]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Jul 2013 22:40:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=17564#comment-991134</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Yup, looks like it.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yup, looks like it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: pete capewell		</title>
		<link>/2013/computers-are-not-a-natural-medium-for-doing-mathematics-ctd/#comment-991133</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[pete capewell]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Jul 2013 22:39:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=17564#comment-991133</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Just curious regarding earlier discussion about notation on computers, but does Wordpress support posts in LaTeX?

$latex e^x$

Worth a try?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just curious regarding earlier discussion about notation on computers, but does WordPress support posts in LaTeX?</p>
<p><img src="https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=e%5Ex&#038;bg=ffffff&#038;fg=000&#038;s=0&#038;c=20201002" alt="e^x" class="latex" /></p>
<p>Worth a try?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: wwndtd		</title>
		<link>/2013/computers-are-not-a-natural-medium-for-doing-mathematics-ctd/#comment-991094</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[wwndtd]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Jul 2013 21:07:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=17564#comment-991094</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I agree a lot with Aran Glancy&#039;s distinction between doing, learning, and communicating math (post #24). Computers are so good with the doing part. Students are supposed to be doing the learning part. The communicating part is, I think, the part you&#039;re looking at, Dan.

I&#039;m in a similar boat. While I don&#039;t usually teach math, I do teach chemistry. Computers are my bane when it comes to writing formulas and compounds. Besides superscripts, subscripts are also necessary, and if you&#039;re doing nuclear chem, then all four &quot;corners&quot; can be used. My students are still figuring out where to put which number and what&#039;s capitalized. If they also have to figure out exactly which keyboard strokes to do it, they&#039;ll be awfully frustrated.

I think the bottom line is, computers aren&#039;t much of a tool for learning if the students don&#039;t know how to use them.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree a lot with Aran Glancy&#8217;s distinction between doing, learning, and communicating math (post #24). Computers are so good with the doing part. Students are supposed to be doing the learning part. The communicating part is, I think, the part you&#8217;re looking at, Dan.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m in a similar boat. While I don&#8217;t usually teach math, I do teach chemistry. Computers are my bane when it comes to writing formulas and compounds. Besides superscripts, subscripts are also necessary, and if you&#8217;re doing nuclear chem, then all four &#8220;corners&#8221; can be used. My students are still figuring out where to put which number and what&#8217;s capitalized. If they also have to figure out exactly which keyboard strokes to do it, they&#8217;ll be awfully frustrated.</p>
<p>I think the bottom line is, computers aren&#8217;t much of a tool for learning if the students don&#8217;t know how to use them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
