Comments on: Article on Tech-Enhanced Learning http://teachertabletpc.com/2007/05/06/article-on-tech-enhanced-learning/ Teachers using TabletPCs Sat, 11 Apr 2009 11:54:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: Isaac http://teachertabletpc.com/2007/05/06/article-on-tech-enhanced-learning/comment-page-1/#comment-280 Isaac Mon, 07 May 2007 15:54:51 +0000 http://teachertabletpc.com/2007/05/06/article-on-tech-enhanced-learning/#comment-280 I agree that it's largely a linguistic device. When juxtaposed directly with 100% participation (and especially in the context of a broadly underinformed article), it did jump out at me. I agree that it’s largely a linguistic device. When juxtaposed directly with 100% participation (and especially in the context of a broadly underinformed article), it did jump out at me.

]]> By: Randal Baier http://teachertabletpc.com/2007/05/06/article-on-tech-enhanced-learning/comment-page-1/#comment-279 Randal Baier Mon, 07 May 2007 14:23:37 +0000 http://teachertabletpc.com/2007/05/06/article-on-tech-enhanced-learning/#comment-279 The phrase "increased exponentially" is a legitimate rhetorical device in this case. Of course, you're correct, but I think you know that you're consciously being technically correct. OK, I get it, you're a secular Luddite. If you have 100 students in a fixed population, and every year you get 1 or 2 students that increase their skills, then you have an "arithmetic" increase. Or logistic maybe. Fair enough. If, however, you notice that 2 kids gains new skills, then 4 the next year (or term), then 8, and so on, then it's fair to say it's "exponential," or maybe "geometric," which also works. It's like acceleration, the growth is noticeably different for each period of time. I think the phrase works quite well in this case. It's a use of language, not "real" mathematics. Agreed, unlike lemmings and scabies, you can't drop back to a small population. But that's not the way a phrase like this is used -- it's meant to highlight the effect. The phrase “increased exponentially” is a legitimate rhetorical device in this case. Of course, you’re correct, but I think you know that you’re consciously being technically correct. OK, I get it, you’re a secular Luddite.

If you have 100 students in a fixed population, and every year you get 1 or 2 students that increase their skills, then you have an “arithmetic” increase. Or logistic maybe. Fair enough. If, however, you notice that 2 kids gains new skills, then 4 the next year (or term), then 8, and so on, then it’s fair to say it’s “exponential,” or maybe “geometric,” which also works.

It’s like acceleration, the growth is noticeably different for each period of time. I think the phrase works quite well in this case. It’s a use of language, not “real” mathematics.

Agreed, unlike lemmings and scabies, you can’t drop back to a small population. But that’s not the way a phrase like this is used — it’s meant to highlight the effect.

]]>