On 7/9/07, Andrew Harrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <<SNIP>>
> I also hypothesize that some students who are capable of learning symbol > manipulation, but need practice, do well getting that experience in > algebra, and then are less overwhelmed taking geometry later by the > added requirement to have spatial intuition. > > As to the natural order of brain maturation for processing symbols vs > spatial relationships, I leave that to others. > > Andy Harrington Yes indeed. And I think many of us are making the point that students develop differently, such that they might use their strengths to address their weaknesses (with guidance from a teacher/mentor should they be lucky enough to have one). Lexical: algebra, computer programming, models, controllers Graphical: geometry, (interactive) views of models Going back and forth between the two, seeing how intensively lexical expressions, of polyhedra in terms of edge-connected vectors say, relate to purely geometric views of same (in a ray tracer, game engine or VRML viewer), is a way to help the brain mature I'd say. We're connecting the dots across the lexical and the graphical, building a bridge strongly anchored on both sides. This was a major theme in my presentation at Europython in Lithuania yesterday: http://controlroom.blogspot.com/2007/07/connecting-dots.html Kirby _______________________________________________ Edu-sig mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig
