Talk:Interactive Mathematics Program

[Untitled]

Well done, you've managed to make maths sound dull :0)--Dr Finkbottle 07:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This article isn't very neutral in its tone--it seems to me pretty anti-IMP. Could we clean this up?

Meganomics 05:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I am rewriting this page with an effort to maintain a Neutral Point of View Dmbryant 03:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh...

"Criticism often includes anecdotal evidence..."

"On the other hand, some IMP students describe the program in positive terms."

The battle of the anecdotes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Owijad (talk • contribs) 12:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Article naming

This article really should be named "Interactive Mathematics Program", not "Interactive Mathematics Program (IMP)", to go along with article naming convention, but I don't feel like fixing all the links to this page after doing a page move :-/ Are there bots or anything that makes it easier, or anyone who does feel like spending that time? —Isaac Dupree^(talk) 11:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

IMP" After all this homework, I’ve learned how to use a T-Stick and have gotten super-speedy at creating even lines to write on poster boards. After we’ve solved the unit problem, it only took us a collaboration of ten hours to put together our boards with interactions, diagrams and having them look creative and presentable. I totally get a lot out of IMP. In classes like world studies, or Spanish, the homework only helps teach me the material. With IMP, I get to discover it all by myself! I love it! It’s GREAT! As you can tell I am quite enthusiastic about it. IMP is life in a nutshell. I mean we don’t get enough life experience outside of class anyways. My motto is - “Life is like IMP. You work really hard at it, and in the end your just as confused as when you started and you fail anyways. Also, everyone wishes it was as simple as regular math.” Because before, you know, I was getting A’s in math and I scored a 998 (only because I missed half a day) on the entrance exams. But I don’t think I was getting the college experience I should have. I know that because I am very confused with IMP, I might not score well on the SAT’s. But that’s okay, because I will have the experience colleges want me to have for their courses. I will have beasted the difficult skills of working in a group and figuring things out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.82.131 (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality problems

This article shows clear signs of bias pro-IMP (I understand from an above comment that the opposite was once true). I have added the POV tag, and suggest a clean-up by someone knowledgeable (my own knowledge is limited to what I have read in the article).

Examples include:

This larger problem serves as motivation for students to develop the underlying
skills and concepts needed to solve it, through solving a variety of smaller
related problems.

This presupposes that the motivation is succesful, which is not a given. All we could claim is that this is the intent.

Together, they tackle problems that are usually too complex to be solved by any

one individual.

This is factually doubtful: In my experience adding more people to a group makes it harder to solve complex problems, not easier. Your mileage may vary, but this claim would need more foundation to be left standing.

Students become comfortable with the calculator to such an extent that a Year

4 project tasks students with using their knowledge of trigonometry, matrix algebra, geometric projections and transformations, and computer programming to design and present an animated cartoon on the screen of the graphing calculator.

Here it is clear (from the introduction of the task) that the intent is that the students should be comfortable enough. It may or may not be verifiable that they also reach this state (I have not checked the reference); however, under no circumstance is the "reversed causality" in the above formulation allowable.

The way "Mathematically Correct" is introduced leaves me with a subjective impression that the author is hostile towards them. In particular, the quoting from the website strikes me as somewhat odd. (Strictly my personal impression, however.)

Criticism often includes anecdotal evidence [...]

is followed by a paragraph with equally anecdotal evidence that supports IMF, without any corresponding qualification.

94.220.246.35 (talk) 00:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Interactive Mathematics Program. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121107044839/http://www.keycurriculum.com/about/press to http://www.keycurriculum.com/about/press

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)