I take your point about the tools that students should be familiar with today if they are going to get serious about math and using it – I would add Mathematica to the list. At the same time, I think it’s important not to loose sight of the understanding and skills that underpin the effective use of these tools.

Even the most basic flip-phones have more processing power than the most powerful graphing calculators. Why does a TI-83+ still take 10 seconds to draw a simple sine curve?

Obviously students should be taught, and asked to demonstrate an ability to perform all types of math without the aid of calculators. My Calculus II (Integrals) course in college allowed no calculators at all on tests.

The point is though, that when physics/engineering students need a tool to turn to for calculations, do we want their native “calculator language” to be a pencil, slide rule, graphing calculator, or matlab? I think engineers that were hacking matlab since middle school will be much more effective over the next generation than those who were using 20-30 year old hardware.

My preferred scientific calculator app in the iPhone is the Free42, an emulation of the HP42S: http://thomasokken.com/free42/
Note free 42s emulation for PC, Windows Mobile phones and Palm. I used all the above…

And in high school, I had tables, slide rule and a 4-operation calculator. My first serious scientific calculator was an HP67, 2nd year at university, at the time where the other choice was a mainframe computer. Very useful to solve some problems in my EE classes.

http://historical.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=669&Lot_No=25368
http://www.downloadsquad.com/2009/07/20/how-powerful-was-the-apollo-11-computer/

Now in 2010 there seems to be a problem in revisiting the lunar surface, not due to a lack of computing power but of finance.

These calculators are what, basically early 1990′s technology (at best) that still somehow command a premium. These things have very low resolution monochrome screens and no backlighting. Look at what $100-$150 will get you in any other electronic device.

Furthermore, the TI 83/84 actually are missing many features found in other “obsolete” or lower powered calculators. For example, there isn’t really much more complex number support than the “i” on the keypad (as opposed to the complex matrix support on the TI 85/86), and they lack the pretty printing capabilities of the $15 TI 30XS.

http://www.hpmuseum.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/hpmuseum/forum.cgi?read=160609#160609

Update 1/13/10 – Link is now dead – will try and find out whether MoHPC have archived the thread…

I should be clear that I’m something of a “good” calculator affectionado – I love my HP 22S scientific calculator (although purists would turn their nose up at it for not using RPN!). But as you say, it’s how you use them that matters – and that means knowing their limitations!

I worry that children learn to plug numbers in and just accept what comes out – not knowing if it’s even in the right order of magnitude. I’m not comfortable using a program or routine if I don’t know what it does. How else do I know the limits and accuracy? How do I know I’m using the correct program/formula for what I want – some have very subtle limitations.

And the whole TI thing – I suspect there’s some profiteering going on there somewhere.

You touch on so many things – the joy of programming your own calculator, the frustration of working with inappropriate tools, the ever-shifting trends and fads in education (I also struggle with helping my kids with math that should be straight forward, because they are being taught convoluted methods), and the faint suspicion of profiteering in the education world…

Plenty of food for thought!

I think the class would have been better if it had been done with no calculators at all. They weren’t allowed on the tests anyhow.

My niece is having trouble learning multiplication in grade school. I would be happy to help her, but they have some new way of teaching multiplication that is more complicated than the standard method, in order to emphasize the use of the distributive principle. It seems that the “new math” is making a comeback. I think it’s fine to spend a little time explaining to children why the standard procedures for multiplication and division work, but forcing them to do it all in a highly theoretical manner at that stage isn’t really helping them in any way. I think it’s all part of the plot by textbook publishers to get schools to buy new textbooks every 2-3 years. If we keep teaching things by the same method, we won’t need to buy new books until they wear out. I’m hopeful that the efforts to develop open-source textbooks will put an end to this madness.

I’ve got to ask though, are you the sort of person that loves to play with gadgets, and do you use the graphing feature (as opposed to simply the other science calculator stuff) a lot?

There’s been concern now from people in industry and academia – and not just in the States – that kids are being taught how to pass exams, rather than actually do stuff! I suspect the prevalence of graphing calculators may possibly be a part of this problem!

I must confess, going off on a tangent, there’s something about crisp, fresh sheets of quality graph paper that the fanciest calculator doesn’t get close to touching!

This is a real problem when the actual process of using a particular calculator becomes part of the course requirement – especially as very few jobs later on will depend on this (and for those that do – how hard can it be to learn to use a calculator on the job?!). And as you say, it alienates parents who could otherwise help and encourage their kids to get into math.