17 of 17 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
How to teach math to community college students, September 6, 2002
This review is from: How to Teach Mathematics (Paperback)
This book has been a tremendous help to me to identify some of the problem areas on my teaching. Mistakes I have made in the past with ideas about why I made them and how to avoid them. I am new to teaching math but not to teaching in general and the thoughts laid out in this book can be applied to most any field of teaching.
I would HIGHLY recommend this book to anyone teaching in a community college. You have the widest and most difficult range of students in the education business, but they are all there to learn. Do whatever you can to make your efforts effective!
I would love to see much of this material presented in a workshop for adjunct faculty.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
15 of 16 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A fantastic book for the beginning mathematics teacher, September 23, 2001
This review is from: How to Teach Mathematics (Paperback)
The author's focus is on college teaching, but is also readily applicalbe to high school or other secondary teaching. Chapters include fundamentals such as how to lecture and other pedagogical ideas, to extremely practical items such as writing and grading tests and tutoring. Many ideas are presented for immediate adapting/absorbing into your own teaching framework. Being a high school calculus teacher, I was entertained by the glimpse this book provides of a college or university teaching situation. This book is readily available from the American Mathematical Society at ams.org.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
17 of 21 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Fairly useful, March 16, 2009
This review is from: How to Teach Mathematics (Paperback)
This book is fairly useful, but I want to comment on some things that annoyed me.
Krantz is critical of teaching substantial applications such as Kepler's laws and predator-pray systems in calculus classes, for this reason:
"How will you test them on this material? Can you ask the students to do homework problems if their understanding is based on such a presentation?" (pp. 29-30)
The direction of implication is deeply alarming: by *assuming* the mode of examination, Krantz *infers* what material is to be taught. Apparently he does not see a problem with this.
Here is an example where Krantz is trying to teach us how to "answer awkward questions in a constructive manner":
"Q: Why isn't the product rule (fg)'=f'g'? The answer is not 'Here is the correct statement of the product rule and here is the proof.' Consider instead how much more receptive students will be to this answer: Leibniz, one of the fathers of calculus, thought that this is what the product rule should be. ... Because we have the language of functions, we can see quickly that Leibniz's first idea for the product rule could not be correct. If we set f(x)=x^2 and g(x)=x then we can see rather quickly that (fg)' and f'g' are unequal. So the simple answer to you question is that the product rule that you suggest gives the wrong answer. Instead, the rule (fg)'=f'g+g'f gives the right answer and can be verified mathematically." (p. 17)
Krantz's answer is worse than the dummy answer he is trying to improve upon. It perpetuates the highly misleading myth that "the language of functions" has some mysterious power to make insights appear. This is nonsense. Leibniz's error was due to haste and negligence, not a lack of the talismanic power of "the language of functions." He grasped the counterexample just as well as we do.
And how is Krantz's "that formula is wrong, this is right" any better than the original "here's the right one, and here's the proof"? In fact, it is much worse, since if the student did not already know that his formula was wrong and the other one right he could not even have asked the question in the first place.
My answer to the question would be as follows. The calculus is not a game of formulas so one should not expect to find the right answer by such considerations. The misunderstanding (fg)'=f'g' stems from thinking of (fg)' as a string of symbols rather than the idea that it represents. What is this idea? We can think of it like this. fg is the area of a rectangle with sides f and g. (fg)' means d(fg)/dx, the rate of change of this area with respect to x. So let's say that x changes by dx. What happens to the rectangle fg? The sides increase by df and dg respectively, so the change in area is (df)g+(dg)f+(df)(dg). The last term can be neglected since it is infinitely small compared to the others. Dividing by dx then gives the answer.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No