I'm with you on the calculus part,
nerdanel, but as already stated, I'm one of the freaks who preferred geometry.
Prim - that's an interesting approach to algebra ... maybe I should try that. Sometimes when I program, I program exactly in that way ( bottom-up programming ) where I solve the bits that's most obvious first, and that starts a chain reaction that allows me to solve the whole thing in little bits, even though I started out being all
that the thing could be solved.
So hey, it should work with algebra, too. If I make the chunks small enough, it should be able to fit in my brain long enough for me to come to a solution, anyway.
vison,
I always found the "Find x" terminology strange. In Afrikaans, which is what I learned my math in, the terminology was "dissolve for x". In algebra problems, I would often wish the whole problem would just dissolve off of my page already, or I would ruefully think that I was actually very good at dissolving problems - by the time I was done scribbling a half page of math, the stupid equation was way less solved than it was when I started, so I obviously worked towards a dissolution, not a solution.
Prim wrote:I know my kids benefited from graphing calculators. Unlike a static book illustration, they could fiddle with the equation and see how the curve changed as a result. That's the kind of intuitive work that would have helped me "see" calculus instead of rote memorizing the relationships. I was never better than a "B" student in calculus, and that grade doesn't reflect the "hanging on by my fingernails" feeling I had the whole time.
*twins!*
I get what you say! How seeing the curve change would have helped, and especially that "hanging on by my fingernails" feeling even though my grades were not always as bad as I felt they would be.