Easy to get the audio out of sync with the graphics (Repost)

[Clif McInnis]

This is an attempt to help Pre-Kindergarten and Kindergarten children learn about the numerals and numbers from one to 9. The problem is that this age group would be prone to just pressing buttons and it is easy to get the audio out of sync with the graphics. I have played around with Pause[different values] and Enabled->False/Enabled->True as well as SynchronousUpdating -> False. I was hoping that someone might be able to tell me whether I was on the right track; if there is a different function I should look at; or (most important) if what I am trying to do is not doable. I would also appreciate if someone could tell me a way to follow the flow of the way the code is read by the computer, that would give me an idea of where to best place Pauses, etc. (I want to thank John Fultz for contributions previously made to this manipulate.)
Thank You, Clif McInnis

Manipulate[
Pane[Column[{Text[
Row[If[n < 2, {Spacer[160],
Style[nnames[[n]], Bold, Large, Hue[RandomReal[]]],
Style[" Ball", Bold, Large, Green]}, {Spacer[160],
Style[nnames[[n]], Bold, Large, Hue[RandomReal[]]],
Style[" Balls", Bold, Large, Green]}]]],
Row[Table[Graphics[{
Darker[Green], Disk[],
Text[Style[numerals[[ r]], Orange, "Label", 48], {0,
0}]}], {r, 1, n}]
]}, BaseStyle -> {LinebreakAdjustments -> {1., 10, 0, 0,
10}}], {525, 300}],
Row[{Button[
" Start \n ", {n = 1,
Speak["lets count the numbers 1 to 9 out loud. One"]}],
Spacer[55],
Button[
"\[FilledLeftTriangle]\[FilledLeftTriangle] Start Over", {n = 1,
Speak["one"]}],
Button[
"\[FilledLeftTriangle] Less", {If[
n < 2, {n = 1,
Speak["Today we are just working on the numbers from one to \
nine."]}, {n -= 1, Speak[n]}]}], Spacer[10],
Button[
"More \[FilledRightTriangle]", {If[
n > 8, {n = 9,
Speak["Lets learn the numbers from one to nine before we go \
on."]}, {n += 1, Speak[n]}]}],
Button[
"All \[FilledRightTriangle]\[FilledRightTriangle]", {n = 9,
Speak["nine"]}]
}],
{{n, 9, " "}, ControlType -> None},
Initialization :> (
numerals = {"1", "2", "3", "4", "5", "6", "7", "8", "9"};
nnames = {"One", "Two", "Three", "Four", "Five", "Six", "Seven",
"Eight", "Nine"};

[debguy]

i think pausing is going to be easier

(wait a mandatory ammount of time after each press for audio to play)

as far as stopping audio in it's tracks while playing, i can't say if
it's build to do it or not. I'm not fully upgraded. i do know it's
possible to stop speach kit audio while playing.

[djmpark]

Clif,

I think your question is an important one for incorporating spoken phrases
into a dynamic presentation. But I wouldn't go straight for a Manipulate
statements but would prefer to do a simpler model.

But first I have complaints about the Speak function. It seems very
unreliable just with simple strings and one can waste a lot of time just to
get something intelligible. How do these two commands work on your computer?

Speak["two"]

Speak["You have chosen two as the number to be used."]

On my computer the first sounds great and the second awful. The "two" is
completely eliminated and the last word is clipped. It's another case of
WRI providing a facility that only works well on a few carefully selected
examples. Of course, there is all the facility for speaking Mathematica
expressions, but for custom dynamic presentations I would just be happy if
it would do a good job at annunciating simple sentences.

Here is a toy example. The user can choose 1 of three integers. Once a
choice has been made the SetterBar is disabled until a calculation is
performed. Then when the Calculate button is used a result is generated and
the SetterBar is again enabled. The Dynamic statement in the SetterBar uses
the extended form of the second argument of Dynamic. First a routine to
generate the spoken phrase:

spokenPhrase[n : (1 | 2 | 3)] :=
Module[
{basePhrase1 = "You have chosen ",
basePhrase2 = " as the number to be used."},
Speak[basePhrase1]; Speak[n]; Speak[basePhrase2]
]

Then the dynamic presentation:

DynamicModule[{n = None, choiceEnabled = True, actionDone = False},
Column[{
Dynamic@
SetterBar[
Dynamic[n, {None, (n = #) &,
Function[n, spokenPhrase[n]; choiceEnabled = False;
actionDone = False; Pause[3]]}], {1, 2, 3},
Enabled -> choiceEnabled],
Dynamic@
Row[{Button["Calculate", choiceEnabled = True;
actionDone = True;], Spacer[10],
If[actionDone, StringForm["The square of `` is ``", n, n^2]]}]
}](* Column *)
]


David Park
djm...@comcast.net
http://home.comcast.net/~djmpark/index.html

[Richard Fateman]

The audio etc subject line was sufficient to get me to try Speak[],
and I immediately found two serious errors.

{Speak[x*(x + b*(c + x + z))], Speak[x*(x + b*(c + x) + z)]}

show that Mathematica's Speak program is inadequate to distinguish
two distinct mathematical expressions.
SpokenString tells us they are the same but this is a lie:

{"x times the quantity x plus b times the quantity c plus x plus z",
"x times the quantity x plus b times the quantity c plus x plus z"}

oops.


The other is that Mathematica does not know how to pronounce the
A in A+B. What you really want is something like Hay plus Bee.

Not Ahh plus Bee.

Much of the solution to this speaking issue can be resolved quite
without Mathematica because (I suspect) common browsers are happy
to speak phrases, numbers, etc, directly from XML. See

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms717077%28v=vs.85%29.aspx

Furthermore, there are lots and lots of detailed specifications for
text-to-speech that are quite inaccessible in the current Mathematica
design.

Also for what it is worth, there are programs to utter mathematics (into
XML)
CORRECTLY. Fundamentally, one needs only a few lines of code to do
"in-order tree traversal" plus a bunch of data e.g. to pronounce Cos as
cosine, etc. To do a really bang-up job one should diddle with the
speed, volume, and such details as to maybe use SPELLING to pronounce
certain variable names.

The current program fails on the in-order tree traversal, apparently.

On the larger issue, of getting kindergarten children to pronounce the
numbers from 1 to 10. Uh, do you really need to use a computer? Running
Mathematica?

RJF

[Clif McInnis]

Debguy,
I have tried to work with pausing and the problem that I am encountering with pausing is that what ends up happening is the displaying of the disks is delayed and while the buttons are delayed they are not disabled, so it still allows that audio to become out of sync.

On Friday, April 19, 2013 12:15:00 AM UTC-5, djmpark wrote:
> Clif,
>
>
>
> I think your question is an important one for incorporating spoken phrases
>
> into a dynamic presentation. But I wouldn't go straight for a Manipulate
>
> statements but would prefer to do a simpler model.
>
>
>
> But first I have complaints about the Speak function. It seems very
>
> unreliable just with simple strings and one can waste a lot of time just to
>
> get something intelligible. How do these two commands work on your computer?
>
>
>
> Speak["two"]

> (* Sounds about right, almost said as if 'she' is asking a question*)

>
>
> Speak["You have chosen two as the number to be used."]

> (* "You have chosen (silence) as the number to be used" I tried this several
times*)
Speak["You have chosen three as the number to be used."]
(* In addition my computer "speaks" this phrase well. I had noticed
in doing another project that it had a problem with saying "two" (but thought that it was just 'her') and had just switched to "to".*)

>
>
> On my computer the first sounds great and the second awful. The "two" is
>
> completely eliminated and the last word is clipped. It's another case of
>
> WRI providing a facility that only works well on a few carefully selected
>
> examples. Of course, there is all the facility for speaking Mathematica
>
> expressions, but for custom dynamic presentations I would just be happy if
>
> it would do a good job at annunciating simple sentences.
>
>
>
> Here is a toy example. The user can choose 1 of three integers. Once a
>
> choice has been made the SetterBar is disabled until a calculation is
>
> performed. Then when the Calculate button is used a result is generated and
>
> the SetterBar is again enabled. The Dynamic statement in the SetterBar uses
>
> the extended form of the second argument of Dynamic. First a routine to
>
> generate the spoken phrase:
>
>
>
> spokenPhrase[n : (1 | 2 | 3)] :=
>
> Module[
>
> {basePhrase1 = "You have chosen ",
>
> basePhrase2 = " as the number to be used."},
>
> Speak[basePhrase1]; Speak[n]; Speak[basePhrase2]
>
> ]
>
>
>
> Then the dynamic presentation:
>
>
>

> DynamicModule[{n None, choiceEnabled = True, actionDone = False},

>
> Column[{
>
> Dynamic@
>
> SetterBar[
>
> Dynamic[n, {None, (n = #) &,
>
> Function[n, spokenPhrase[n]; choiceEnabled = False;
>
> actionDone = False; Pause[3]]}], {1, 2, 3},
>
> Enabled -> choiceEnabled],
>
> Dynamic@
>
> Row[{Button["Calculate", choiceEnabled = True;
>
> actionDone = True;], Spacer[10],
>
> If[actionDone, StringForm["The square of `` is ``", n, n^2]]}]
>
> }](* Column *)
>
> ]
>

> (*This is a nice "toy" and seems to operate just about the way I was hoping to get the buttons on the manipulate to operate. I am not familiar at all with Dynamic, (I assume that it woks differently from Manipulate) so it may take me while to get acquainted with its operation. I would also assume that SetterBars and Buttons work differently, so that for instance I could not just set up my four buttons (Stat over, Less, More and ALL) as a Setter Bar. Many thanks for responding and for working on this, for the first time in a few days I have some hope that I may be able to get this working.*)

>
>
>
> David Park
>
> > http://home.comcast.net/~djmpark/index.html
>

[Clif McInnis]

"On the larger issue, of getting kindergarten children to pronounce the numbers from 1 to 10. Uh, do you really need to use a computer? Running Mathematica?"

Not meaning to disregard the top part of your post, however the last two questions are important to me. I would like to get your opinion as I see that you are a well cited author of over 1100 documents on the Mathematica site.

I hope that I am interpreting your question correctly. I would say I hope a student would not need a computer to run the manipulate, and if I am under standing the way CDF's, such as those on the demonstrations project, work it could be run on a smart phone, a pad, or other such device, (w/o the player) that the student may be using while riding in the back seat of the car, or at other non-productive times.

Now if the question addresses the only necessity of the pronunciation of numerals, then I would say that it would be a good addition to a demonstration that targets an age group that are multi-sensory, but I guess not a bsolutely essential. I would also hope that such an instructional method would only be supplemental to more personal , probably tactile-engaging, methods of presenting the concept.

Reality, of 35 years teaching, says that there will be many students that will for whatever reason miss the point that numerals represent numbers, and come away with the idea that 3, whether written or spoken is two backwards c's stacked on top of each other. Given that as a foundation on which we would like to build the rest of their mathematical understanding is it any wonder that by the time that they are ready to do more complex mathematics many become discouraged?

I think that if this app can include audio, without disrupting the learning flow by showing x number of objects on the screen while speaking the number y, it would be more worthwhile to students in this age range.

[Richard Fateman]

foundation on which we would like to build the rest of their
mathematical understanding is
it any wonder that by the time that they are ready to do more complex
mathematics many become
discouraged?
>
> I think that if this app can include audio, without disrupting the learning flow by showing x
number of objects on the screen while speaking the number y, it would
be more worthwhile to
students in this age range.
>

.............

Historically, experiments at higher educational levels to introduce a
computer algebra system into a math course have resulted in consequences
like this:
1. Students, on average, resented having to learn "something else" (i.e.
using computer program) that wasn't "on the final".
2. On average they learned "no less" than students in the control group
not using computers. But "no more" either.

We are now wondering whether introducing computers will work for
kindergarten students (in 2013) learning number shapes. Two significant
changes. (a) much younger students (b) a different attitude toward
computers/smart phones -- these having been ubiquitous.

Now I am hardly an expert in very early childhood education, but I have
seen some games aimed at children. Your game sounds pretty boring, but I
have seen something like it. Showing 4 ducks. Click on each one. Game
says "4 ducks" and shows a "4". Another requires tracing out of the
digits in the right directions of the strokes.

These are probably directed to children of age 3 with access to iPad or
similar. Children of age 5 in the US who cannot count to 10 and/or think
that 3 is two backwards C's stacked, are probably rare.

However, I am not actually >> objecting << to the educational
experiment. At worst you will be exposing children to a boring game that
they will simply not play.

What I am pointing out is that better software technology for all the
parts needed is so readily available and cheap. Using Mathematica seems
totally ill-advised. Possibly depriving kids of human contact --
Johnny, you have to learn your 3's. Sit in the back of the car and use
the computer..

Just because something Could Be Done with Mathematica does not mean
(a) it should be done with Mathematica. (b) should be done at all.

RJF

[mat...@hushmail.com]

OK, not to confuse matters, but... are you suggesting Mathematica has a LISP?

----

The other is that Mathematica does not know how to pronounce the A in A+B. What you really want is something like Hayplus Bee.Not Ahh plus Bee.

RJF

[Murray Eisenberg]

See interspersed responses:

On Apr 22, 2013, at 3:10 AM, Richard Fateman <fat...@cs.berkeley.edu> wrote:

> Historically, experiments at higher educational levels to introduce a
> computer algebra system into a math course have resulted in consequences
> like this:
> 1. Students, on average, resented having to learn "something else" (i.e.
> using computer program) that wasn't "on the final".

Simple solution: let students use the computer for all exams, too. (I've done that.)

> 2. On average they learned "no less" than students in the control group
> not using computers. But "no more" either.

What, exactly, does that mean? By what standards is this being judged? E.g., when comparing with a conventionally taught control group, does the comparison test asking what-if questions that require simulation or calculations, etc., beyond the normal capabilities of paper and pencil?

---
Murray Eisenberg mur...@math.umass.edu
Mathematics & Statistics Dept.
Lederle Graduate Research Tower phone 413 549-1020 (H)
University of Massachusetts 413 545-2838 (W)
710 North Pleasant Street fax 413 545-1801
Amherst, MA 01003-9305

[Richard Fateman]

On 4/24/2013 3:16 AM, Murray Eisenberg wrote:
> See interspersed responses:
> On Apr 22, 2013, at 3:10 AM, Richard Fateman <fat...@cs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
>> Historically, experiments at higher educational levels to introduce a
>> computer algebra system into a math course have resulted in consequences
>> like this:
>> 1. Students, on average, resented having to learn "something else" (i.e.
>> using computer program) that wasn't "on the final".
>
> Simple solution: let students use the computer for all exams, too. (I've done that.)

Finding a room with (say) 350 computers, all running (say) mathematica,
all DISconnected from the internet to avoid collusion, (etc) presents
certain physical and electronic problems.

>
>> 2. On average they learned "no less" than students in the control group
>> not using computers. But "no more" either.
>
> What, exactly, does that mean? By what standards is this being judged?

I think there are a number of peer-reviewed papers in this area; I
recall one that had to do with a "modern algebra" type course.
Or this report (1991) regarding calculus and Mathematica

http://library.wolfram.com/infocenter/Articles/3227/

and how students performed in a physics course, it found

" a nonsignificant difference in the mean grades of the two groups "

E.g., when comparing with a conventionally taught control group, does
the comparison test asking

what-if questions that require simulation or calculations, etc.,

beyond the normal capabilities of paper and pencil?

I think the comparisons are generally with control groups that were
being taught the same material but without "benefit" of computers. It
seems to me that comparing the two groups of students on their ability
to write programs would not be pertinent to the question of whether the
two groups learned (say) calculus equally well.

If you are making the point that you think that students gain something
by learning to write program for computers, generally, that is something
I agree with. However, there is scant evidence that introducing
computers into a conventional course improves learning of that
conventional course material. You can accuse the instructors of
lacking imagination, or the students of lacking in ambition, interest,
curiosity, or the curriculum specifications of lacking in flexibility,
or the testing process bogus, or the selection of control groups wrong,
or any other hypothesis that you can come up with to invalidate the
published results. But other than the anecdotal comments from students
who really liked (but some hated...) the course, what can you do?
>

I'm all in favor of technological aids to teaching that work. Finding
them is not so easy. Proving that they work is hard too. Evidence that
consists solely of anecdotes from enthusiasts doesn't count. Making neat
demos is fun for the instructor, but that's not the question here...


RJF

[debguy]

?? http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms717077%28v=vs.85%29.aspx
??

{f[x*(x + b*(c + x + z))], f[x*(x + b*(c + x) + z)]}

{f[x (x + b (c + x + z))], f[x (x + b (c + x) + z)]}

So I am to understand mm spoke exactly as asked: because they are not
the same. Is that right?

?? http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms717077%28v=vs.85%29.aspx
?? Microsoft didn't develop speach. Linux had it before Microsoft
did. DragonSpeach didn't develop it either.

The U.S. Government developed it (what dragon speech uses) and much
later released it public domain. I once tried to find it that same
releease: it somehow is very hard to find even though it's public
domain.

Understanding a language is what can be an issue. bnf parsers can
interpret grammar. but the correct context of, even people are not
good at.

[Richard Fateman]

On 4/24/2013 11:52 PM, debguy wrote:
> ?? http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms717077%28v=vs.85%29.aspx
> ??
>
> {f[x*(x + b*(c + x + z))], f[x*(x + b*(c + x) + z)]}
>
> {f[x (x + b (c + x + z))], f[x (x + b (c + x) + z)]}
>
> So I am to understand mm spoke exactly as asked: because they are not
> the same. Is that right?

I don't understand your question. Mathematica speaks the two different
expressions the same way, although they are not equivalent. Mathematica
has an option to insert audible parentheses, but that is clumsy, and it
should not be necessary. Who knows though. Wolfram might think this bug
is a feature.

>
> ?? http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms717077%28v=vs.85%29.aspx
> ?? Microsoft didn't develop speach.

I didn't say that Microsoft developed (text-to-) speech. I indicated a
link to a contemporary web page that could be used as a reference.

Linux had it before Microsoft
> did.

Are you sure?

DragonSpeach didn't develop it either.

The first system I am familiar with to speak mathematics was AsTer,
written by T.V. Raman

http://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/raman/aster/aster-toplevel.html
in 1994.

>
> The U.S. Government developed it (what dragon speech uses) and much
> later released it public domain.

Citation please? The original Apple Macintosh had MacinTalk, circa 1984.

You are, I think, confusing speech OUTPUT (relatively easy, at least if
you are content with a slightly robotic voice.) with
speech INPUT (a much harder problem. e.g. Siri.)

Good public (free, open source) speech recognition is sufficiently hard
to find and set up that companies like Nuance make a good business
selling it shrink-wrapped.

Speech-to-text is available "in the cloud" via (for example) Google
Voice.

Here's one open project though...

http://cmusphinx.sourceforge.net/sphinx4/

Setting it up is not for the faint of heart.

Programs to convert spoken mathematics to text (or mathml equivalent)
are around, but probably not ready for prime time.


..snip..
RJF

[debguy]

I'm sorry if I got off topic Richard Fateman.

Sorry I cannot test the audio situation I have an earlier mm ver. But
i have an idea.

"I have tried to work with pausing and the problem that I am
encountering with pausing is that what ends up happening is the
displaying of the disks is delayed and while the buttons are delayed
they are not disabled, so it still allows that audio to become out of
sync."

(a race condition - that is why I suggested simple waiting. i see no
solution posted above so let me try again....)

TRY THIS:

The Front-End has it's own evaluator separate from the kernel. I'm
thinking maybe that's where your split (and then race condition)
occurs. Make sure all expressions effected are done by one or the
other but are not split in-between both. See "FrontEndEvaluate" for
more info. I'm thinking that because I beleive many new features todo
with dynamic front end content have some level of integration with the
new front-end evaluator.

[Murray Eisenberg]

On Apr 25, 2013, at 2:51 AM, Richard Fateman <fat...@cs.berkeley.edu> wrote:

> I think the comparisons are generally with control groups that were being taught
> the same material but without "benefit" of computers. It
> seems to me that comparing the two groups of students on their ability
> to write programs would not be pertinent to the question of whether the
> two groups learned (say) calculus equally well."

If you think that what I'm suggesting is to "write programs" then you simply don't understand the issues here. It's learning mathematical ideas vs. learning to do (largely mindless) mechanical manipulations of symbols.

> On 4/24/2013 3:16 AM, Murray Eisenberg wrote:

>> See interspersed responses:
>> On Apr 22, 2013, at 3:10 AM, Richard Fateman <fat...@cs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Historically, experiments at higher educational levels to introduce a
>>> computer algebra system into a math course have resulted in consequences
>>> like this:
>>> 1. Students, on average, resented having to learn "something else" (i.e.
>>> using computer program) that wasn't "on the final".
>>
>> Simple solution: let students use the computer for all exams, too. (I've done that.)

> Finding a room with (say) 350 computers, all running (say) mathematica,
> all DISconnected from the internet to avoid collusion, (etc) presents
> certain physical and electronic problems.
>>

>>> 2. On average they learned "no less" than students in the control group
>>> not using computers. But "no more" either.
>>
>> What, exactly, does that mean? By what standards is this being judged?
>

> I think there are a number of peer-reviewed papers in this area; I
> recall one that had to do with a "modern algebra" type course.
> Or this report (1991) regarding calculus and Mathematica
>
> http://library.wolfram.com/infocenter/Articles/3227/
>
> and how students performed in a physics course, it found
>
> " a nonsignificant difference in the mean grades of the two groups "
>
>

> E.g., when comparing with a conventionally taught control group, does
> the comparison test asking
>
> what-if questions that require simulation or calculations, etc.,
>
> beyond the normal capabilities of paper and pencil?
>

> I think the comparisons are generally with control groups that were
> being taught the same material but without "benefit" of computers. It
> seems to me that comparing the two groups of students on their ability
> to write programs would not be pertinent to the question of whether the
> two groups learned (say) calculus equally well.
>
> If you are making the point that you think that students gain something
> by learning to write program for computers, generally, that is something
> I agree with. However, there is scant evidence that introducing
> computers into a conventional course improves learning of that
> conventional course material. You can accuse the instructors of
> lacking imagination, or the students of lacking in ambition, interest,
> curiosity, or the curriculum specifications of lacking in flexibility,
> or the testing process bogus, or the selection of control groups wrong,
> or any other hypothesis that you can come up with to invalidate the
> published results. But other than the anecdotal comments from students
> who really liked (but some hated...) the course, what can you do?
>>
>
> I'm all in favor of technological aids to teaching that work. Finding
> them is not so easy. Proving that they work is hard too. Evidence that
> consists solely of anecdotes from enthusiasts doesn't count. Making neat
> demos is fun for the instructor, but that's not the question here...
>
>
> RJF
>
>

[Richard Fateman]

On 4/25/2013 6:46 AM, Murray Eisenberg wrote:
> On Apr 25, 2013, at 2:51 AM, Richard Fateman <fat...@cs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
>> I think the comparisons are generally with control groups that were being taught
>> the same material but without "benefit" of computers. It
>> seems to me that comparing the two groups of students on their ability
>> to write programs would not be pertinent to the question of whether the
>> two groups learned (say) calculus equally well."
> If you think that what I'm suggesting is to "write programs" then you simply don't understand the issues here. It's learning mathematical ideas vs. learning to do (largely mindless) mechanical manipulations of symbols.
>

I was being somewhat facetious in describing the other benefits of
introducing computers as
learning to write programs. Certainly there is a prospect that students
would learn, as a consequence
of the computer-related stuff to have a higher appreciation of (say)
algorithmic / procedural
thought processes, even "ideas" (however defined by you) vs rote
repetition. I am not aware
of any peer-reviewed research papers validating such a hypothesis.
Occasional anecdotes
notwithstanding.

You might or might not recall that the standard methods in calculus
courses (and I suspect in
physics/ etc courses) consist largely in teaching mindless mechanical
manipulations. Worse,
they are taught by repeated examples, not as fixed algorithms by which
any of the problems
can be done by following those algorithms. Then students are graded on
their ability to
perform the mindless manipulations.

It is my own cynical view that the real value in compulsory calculus is
that it is mighty tough
to do those manipulations without a firm grasp of the (mindless)
manipulations of algebra and
perhaps trigonometry. Therefore the calculus, which is itself vital to
10% of the students and
useless to 90%, has the effect of reinforcing knowledge of algebra,
which is somewhat more
relevant to people. (e.g. financial matters...)

Perhaps somewhere there is a calculus course that does not depend on
such an approach.
One time I taught part of a calculus course at MIT (circa 1972) -- an
added computer "lab"
in which I explained the fundamentals of the Risch integration procedure
to students in course 18.001,
which was a more "applied" calculus. The students seemed to like that.
The main instructional themes and senior faculty lecturers were
unaffected by it. In that
year, or so far as I know, in any future year.

I note that the MIT regular calculus, 18.01
http://math.mit.edu/classes/18.01/Spring2013/
apparently uses a computer algebra system, but not Mathematica.
I do not see how it is used or how it could be used on the exams.

In the previous century (1987 ish) there were reform efforts regarding
"Calculus for the New Century"
which is presumably THIS century. Big news. Graphing calculators..

It occurs to me that we have had a similar conversation previously.
Indeed ... 21 Jan 2010..

http://forums.wolfram.com/mathgroup/archive/2010/Jan/msg00643.html

Regards
RJF




http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED300252&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED300252

[Louis Talman]

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 02:25:16 -0600, Richard Fateman
<fat...@cs.berkeley.edu> wrote:

> Mathematica
> has an option to insert audible parentheses, but that is clumsy, and it
> should not be necessary.

When I was a graduate student many moons ago, I read research journal
articles onto tape for a blind mathematician.

I have to disagree that inserting audible parentheses isn't necessary. It
may be clumsy, but most of audible mathematics is clumsy. There are, I
think, few alternatives, short of using something akin to (reverse) Polish
notation, for some folks.

--Louis A. Talman
Department of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Metropolitan State University of Denver

<http://rowdy.msudenver.edu/~talmanl>

[Richard Fateman]

On 4/26/2013 9:06 AM, Louis Talman wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 02:25:16 -0600, Richard Fateman
> <fat...@cs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
>> Mathematica
>> has an option to insert audible parentheses, but that is clumsy, and it
>> should not be necessary.
>
> When I was a graduate student many moons ago, I read research journal
> articles onto tape for a blind mathematician.
>
> I have to disagree that inserting audible parentheses isn't
> necessary. It may be clumsy, but most of audible mathematics is
> clumsy. There are, I think, few alternatives, short of using something
> akin to (reverse) Polish notation, for some folks.

Sorry I was not clear on this. _Mathematica's option is *clumsy*. _ I
agree that some grouping markers are necessary.
Example.

Let s = a*(b + c) + d
SpokenString[s] is

a times the quantity b plus c plus d
(which Mathematica 9 pronounces defectively as ahtimes ....,
and fails to group the b+c.)

SpokenString[s, IncludeParentheses -> True] is

a times open parenthesis b plus c close parenthesis plus d

which is, in my opinion, CLUMSY. Incidentally, the documentation is
buggy.
It directs you to type "IncludeParentheses"-> True, but the quote
marks are unnecessary.
Perhaps this is all the work of a summer intern.).

How then to group the expression if not to say o-pen pa-ren-thi-sis
(6 syllables) and close pa-ren-thi-sis (5 syllables)?

How about
A times open b plus c close plus d or
A times quantity b plus c endquantity plus d
A times left b plus c right plus d

or (considerably more subtlely) as done by AsTer, see
http://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/raman/aster/sec-06.html

by changing the pitch higher within "the quantity" and dropping it at
the end.

Or consider what Mathematica does for Sin[x+y], including parentheses..
sine of open parenthesis x plus y close parenthesis
which is unambiguously spoken as sine of quantity x plus y, so clumsy..

There may also be a bug in

SpokenString[HoldForm[Sin[x] + y], IncludeParentheses -> True]

which says sine of x plus y.

Oh, it seems that if you want to pronounce the variable "a", you can do
so by substituting "eh".
This may scramble the ordering, so you need to do something like
HoldForm[eh*(b+c)+d].

This works. But especially for Canadians. :)
http://tx.english-ch.com/teacher/dai/others/eh-is-canadian-eh-/

RJF

[Clif McInnis]

Hi debguy,
Yes, I think that a race condition is what is happening. When the code is run without Pause statements, the graphics can easily race ahead of the audio, and when Pause statements are included, after each speak[], the audio races ahead of the graphics. I tried to find "FrontEndEvaluate" in the Documentation Center, but it gave me "FrontEndExecute" (which did not seem to address the question) instead.
I have also tried to disable the buttons (Enable-> False) when the button is pressed and have them enable again when the graphics has updated, but that doesn't seem to work(does about the same thing as the pause statements).
I appreciate all suggestions.

[Helen Read]

On 4/26/2013 4:24 AM, Richard Fateman wrote:
>
>
> I note that the MIT regular calculus, 18.01
> http://math.mit.edu/classes/18.01/Spring2013/
> apparently uses a computer algebra system, but not Mathematica.
> I do not see how it is used or how it could be used on the exams.

I teach calculus in a classroom (we have two such rooms) equipped with a
computer for each student. We use Mathematica routinely throughout the
semester, in and out of class, and most of the students like having it
and using it. We have a site license that allows the students to install
Mathematica on their own laptops so they can use it outside of class.

I try to present things with the "rule of three" when possible, looking
at things from the numerical, graphical, and analytic points of view.
Obviously Mathematica is a big help for the numerical and graphical
approaches. One of my favorite examples is introducing series, where
give the students some examples and have them make tables and plots of
partial sums and try to guess whether or not the series converges (of
course I give them some examples where it's difficult to tell), and
after a bit of this they practically beg to be taught analytic tests of
convergence. We continue with the numerical/graphical/analytic approach
throughout the chapter, using analytic tests to prove that a series
converges and then using numerical methods (with the help of
Mathematica) to approximate the limit of partial sums. I find that
overall they seem to end up with a better understanding of series than
my students did years ago when all we did was paper-and-pencil
convergence (which the students found to be terribly abstract).

My students do use Mathematica on exams, but not for everything. I make
up exams in two parts. Part 1 is paper and pencil only, and I keep the
computers "locked" (using monitoring software installed on all the
student computers). When a student finishes Part 1, s/he hands it in and
I unlock that particular computer (which I can do remotely from the
instructor's desk), and the student has full use of Mathematica for Part
2. I can monitor what the students are doing on their computers from the
instructor's station (and of course I get up and walk around and answer
questions if they get stuck on something like a missing comma). We have
a printer in the room so that the students can print their work and
staple it to their test paper when they hand it in.

I've been teaching this way since the late 1990s, and wouldn't dream of
going back to doing it without technology.

Helen Read
University of Vermont

[Richard Fateman]

On 4/27/2013 9:58 PM, Helen Read wrote:
> On 4/26/2013 4:24 AM, Richard Fateman wrote:
>>
>>
>> I note that the MIT regular calculus, 18.01
>> http://math.mit.edu/classes/18.01/Spring2013/
>> apparently uses a computer algebra system, but not Mathematica.
>> I do not see how it is used or how it could be used on the exams.
>

> I teach calculus in a classroom (we have two such rooms) equipped with a
> computer for each student. We use Mathematica routinely throughout the
> semester, in and out of class, and most of the students like having it
> and using it. We have a site license that allows the students to install
> Mathematica on their own laptops so they can use it outside of class.

I was speaking of how the MIT course could use computer algebra. If you
look at the review problems
http://math.mit.edu/classes/18.01/Spring2013/Supplementary%20notes/01rp1.pdf
you see that quite a few of them are trivial if you just type them in to
a computer algebra system, and presumably would not be much of a
learning experience if in fact they were just typed in. Others require
explain/prove/give examples.

I have no doubt that a calculus course could be constructed using
computer algebra systems --- I would hope it would be quite different,
emphasizing (say) the calculational aspects of the subject and then
observing the symbolic, almost coincidental, solutions to the same
evaluations. It sounds like you are doing something along those lines.

It does not surprise me that MIT is still doing the same old thing; when
I was covering recitation sections, the main lecturer was Arthur
Mattuck. In 1971. The notes used in 2013 are apparently by Arthur Mattuck.

It is presumably possible to do things at U. Vermont without overcoming
such massive inertia. I have encountered substantial inertia at UC
Berkeley in mathematics and engineering, too.

On the other hand, the question remains for any of these courses as to
whether one can objectively demonstrate that students learn calculus
more than those in a control group not using computers. I am not
doubting for a moment that instructors who like computers prefer
teaching using them. (Including me.) Yet there are still math
instructors who, for whatever reason, prefer not.
>
>
<snip> ....

> I find that
> overall they seem to end up with a better understanding of series than
> my students did years ago when all we did was paper-and-pencil
> convergence (which the students found to be terribly abstract).

Can you quantify this? (This is somewhat unfair -- you are stating your
own observations and I'm asking you to be an expert on human factors,
learning, etc. I've often seen and participated in "innovation" in
teaching and rarely tried to prove the innovation had positive results!
Nevertheless, it would be nice to have "evidence".)

>
> My students do use Mathematica on exams, but not for everything. I make
> up exams in two parts. Part 1 is paper and pencil only, and I keep the
> computers "locked" (using monitoring software installed on all the
> student computers). When a student finishes Part 1, s/he hands it in and
> I unlock that particular computer (which I can do remotely from the
> instructor's desk), and the student has full use of Mathematica for Part
> 2. I can monitor what the students are doing on their computers from the
> instructor's station (and of course I get up and walk around and answer
> questions if they get stuck on something like a missing comma). We have
> a printer in the room so that the students can print their work and
> staple it to their test paper when they hand it in.

I have no doubt that there are interesting calculations that are vastly
easier to do with the help of a computer algebra system.

I would be interested to see what kinds of questions you can ask on a
calculus exam that (a) test something that students are expected to know
from a calculus course and (b) require (or are substantially assisted
by) Mathematica.

>
> I've been teaching this way since the late 1990s, and wouldn't dream of
> going back to doing it without technology.

Another question, based on my own observations ... If you are on
sabbatical and not available to teach this course, does someone else
pick it up and teach it the same way? What I've seen is that when the
computer enthusiast is not available, the course reverts to something
rather more traditional.

RJF

[Clif McInnis]

This is not the perfect solution to the problem, however the behavior of the manipulate is improved over what it was in the original question. Thanks to all who looked at this and to those that left comments, especially David Park who gave me the choiceEnabled =True/False. As for this answer I feel like one of the keys was to place the Speak and Pause statements after the graphics, forcing the program to read through the graphics before encountering the Pause.

Manipulate[
Pane[Column[{Text[
Row[If[n < 2, {Spacer[160],
Style[nnames[[n]], Bold, Large, Hue[RandomReal[]]],
Style[" Ball", Bold, Large, Green]}, {Spacer[160],
Style[nnames[[n]], Bold, Large, Hue[RandomReal[]]],
Style[" Balls", Bold, Large, Green]}]]],
Row[Table[
Graphics[{Darker[Green], Disk[],
Text[Style[numerals[[r]], Orange, "Label", 48], {0, 0}]}], {r,

1, n}]], Speak[n], Pause[1], choiceEnabled = True;},

BaseStyle -> {LinebreakAdjustments -> {1., 10, 0, 0, 10}}], {525,
300}], Row[{Button[

" Start \n ", {If[n < 2,
"", {n = 1, Speak["lets count the numbers 1 to 9 out loud"],
choiceEnabled = False}]}, Enabled -> Dynamic[choiceEnabled]],
Spacer[55],
Button[
"\[FilledLeftTriangle]\[FilledLeftTriangle] Start Over", {If[
n < 2, "", {n = 1, choiceEnabled = False}]},
Enabled -> Dynamic[choiceEnabled]],

Button[
"\[FilledLeftTriangle] Less", {If[
n < 2, {n = 1,
Speak["Today we are just working on the numbers from one to \

nine."], Pause[3]}, {n -= 1, choiceEnabled = False}]},
Enabled -> Dynamic[choiceEnabled]], Spacer[10],

Button["More \[FilledRightTriangle]", {If[
n > 8, {n = 9,
Speak["Lets learn the numbers from one to nine before we go \

on."], Pause[3]}, {n += 1, choiceEnabled = False}]},
Enabled -> Dynamic[choiceEnabled]],
Button[
"All \[FilledRightTriangle]\[FilledRightTriangle]", {If[n > 8,
"", {n = 9, choiceEnabled = False}]},
Enabled -> Dynamic[choiceEnabled]]}],

{{n, 9, " "}, ControlType -> None},

Initialization :> (numerals = {"1", "2", "3", "4", "5", "6", "7",

"8", "9"};
nnames = {"One", "Two", "Three", "Four", "Five", "Six", "Seven",
"Eight", "Nine"};

choiceEnabled = True;)]

[Helen Read]

It's a difficult thing to measure. Many, many years ago I developed a
"reform" version of the "baby" calculus at UVM. (This is our
two-semester, easier, calculus sequence taken by students whose majors
require them to take calculus but not at the level that is required by
say math or engineering majors. It is taken by more students at UVM than
any other course, including English 001, and many of the students have
terrible deficits in pre-calculus skills such as algebra and
trigonometry.) For the "new wave" version of the course we used a
textbook written by some folks at Clemson University that emphasized
concepts over algebra, and used data driven examples to motivate the
concepts. The emphasis was on understanding and interpretation, using
graphing calculators to handle the drudge work. Almost everything was a
"word problem" and rote skill-and-drill problems were downplayed (though
we still assigned some). Many of the faculty freaked out over this
approach, and we ended up with two separate tracks taught by different
faculty.

One semester we did make an attempt to compare outcomes by putting some
common questions on the final exams, but the more conceptual questions
that those of us teaching the "new wave" course proposed were rejected
by those teaching the traditional course as "unfair" questions that
their students should not be expected to answer. Which tells you
something right there. In the end we found no statistical difference
between the two groups on the skill questions (e.g., product rule), and
on the (very few) mildly conceptual questions that we were permitted to
ask the students in the "reform" group outperformed (in a statistically
significant way) the students from the traditional group. Nonetheless,
there was so much faculty resistance that the "reform" version ended up
being given a separate course number, and was eventually killed off
because almost all of the client departments continued to require the
original traditional version.

I haven't taught the baby calculus in ages (I stopped when the reform
version was discontinued) and don't really know what they are doing with
it these days, but my sense is that it is somewhere in between the two
versions, but closer to the old traditional way.

> <snip> ....
>> I find that
>> overall they seem to end up with a better understanding of series than
>> my students did years ago when all we did was paper-and-pencil
>> convergence (which the students found to be terribly abstract).
>
> Can you quantify this? (This is somewhat unfair -- you are stating your
> own observations and I'm asking you to be an expert on human factors,
> learning, etc. I've often seen and participated in "innovation" in
> teaching and rarely tried to prove the innovation had positive results!
> Nevertheless, it would be nice to have "evidence".)

Unfortunately I have nothing more than anecdotal evidence.

>> My students do use Mathematica on exams, but not for everything. I make
>> up exams in two parts. Part 1 is paper and pencil only, and I keep the
>> computers "locked" (using monitoring software installed on all the
>> student computers). When a student finishes Part 1, s/he hands it in and
>> I unlock that particular computer (which I can do remotely from the
>> instructor's desk), and the student has full use of Mathematica for Part
>> 2. I can monitor what the students are doing on their computers from the
>> instructor's station (and of course I get up and walk around and answer
>> questions if they get stuck on something like a missing comma). We have
>> a printer in the room so that the students can print their work and
>> staple it to their test paper when they hand it in.
>
> I have no doubt that there are interesting calculations that are vastly
> easier to do with the help of a computer algebra system.
>
> I would be interested to see what kinds of questions you can ask on a
> calculus exam that (a) test something that students are expected to know
> from a calculus course and (b) require (or are substantially assisted
> by) Mathematica.
>>
>> I've been teaching this way since the late 1990s, and wouldn't dream of
>> going back to doing it without technology.
>
> Another question, based on my own observations ... If you are on
> sabbatical and not available to teach this course, does someone else
> pick it up and teach it the same way? What I've seen is that when the
> computer enthusiast is not available, the course reverts to something
> rather more traditional.

My department enacted a policy that requires some use of Mathematica
throughout the three semester "grown up" calculus sequence, and drew up
a document of minimum Mathematica competence that should be achieved by
all students. From my point of view Mathematica competence in and of
itself isn't really the main point, it's just a means to a greater end.
Still, most of the faculty are on board with this, and many are very
enthusiastic and integrate Mathematica in ways that we believe benefit
the students (again, no hard evidence -- but I don't have hard evidence
for lots of the choices I make in teaching; all I have is years of
experience and observation). If I were not around, there are enough
others to carry on.

--
HPR

[Clif McInnis]

@ Helen
Very interesting that the teachers that taught the older version of the course resisted attempts to have concept driven questions put on the final, and yet the concept driven version students did as well on the skill, or computational questions as the students whose courses had stressed that approach. I feel like that is one of the benefits of a concept focused course, it gives a student the sense of why should I do this, and the student will then work out her/his own how should I do this.
Another point that you made that resonates with me is that I teach based much more on experience and observation than data. One statistic that might be interesting, if it is still retrievable, would be to find out how many (if any) of the students from either of the sections went on to take a math course beyond the required baby calculus. My gut would tell me that if any did they were more likely to have come from the group whose instruction was concepts based. If I am right about that it would serve as evidence of one premise of CBM, which is that once a student becomes interested in a subject s/he will explore it more closely.
Clif