Maybe I shouldn't have started this blog now, not with everything that's been going on.

Returning to my discussion of my Mathematical Methods 1 class last Thursday, after multiplying both sides by the original denominator to get rid of the fractions, they had to isolate the coefficients for the variable of each degree on both sides, which they would have to equate. Thus, depending on the degree of the variable, they would have one equation more than that to contend with.

For two or three variables, they could use any of the methods we discussed before for dealing with systems of equations, including graphical and determinants. In fact, using determinants would be simpler than they were used to because there were always coefficients that were zero.

In the quiz we had last Friday, showing the questions to David before having them mass-produced, he said he did not teach to his class how to solve for the value of one of the coefficients of a polynomial given one of its factors.

Actually, neither did I, but the principles were in place – that is, we had gone over them in the course of the lecture and it would only take a small leap in logic to find out how it is answered. He asked that the question be taken out anyway, so that the students would have more time with the last (now ninth, before tenth) item in the test, which is asks for partial fractions with non repeating quadratic factors.

In all there were two items for the remainder theorem, two for the factor theorem, two for synthetic division and three for partial fractions.

Other things of note for that session were that a handful of students were absent, some were late – trying to solve the optional assignment I gave them, in fact, but only one submitted – and not fully at that.

There were also some students who blanked out after assigning the denominators to the partial fractions and didn’t know how to proceed from the equation with the fractions taken out. I guess the concept that the coefficient for a variable of one side would equal that of the other side with the same degree was still a bit foreign to them, and could have used a more emphatic illustration.

Something for me to learn from next time – if I will be given this subject to teach again in the succeeding term.

Lastly, I gave them the questionnaire again to take home, but I didn’t tell them that it was an assignment or if we were going to have board work on that in the next meeting. It’s up to them. Let’s see who has the initiative.

In my mechanics lab last Wednesday morning I was back to writing the questions of the ten-point quiz on the board. There were only five questions: what to measure for potential and kinetic energy (one point each), what equations to use for potential and kinetic energy (three points each) and what was changed for each trial (two points). This was for the experiment on conservation of mechanical energy.

It was only in that session that students asked me how they did in the quiz, and I would rattle off their scores on the spot. The highest of those who asked was Percival for whom this is the third take of the subject after all.

Again we used the new setups, which is basically the open inclined ramps where the ball can be dropped from any height. Instead of following the specific heights given in the book (one of the revisions I do not agree with) I had them measure the total height of the ramp first and release from several quarters of that height.

There’s no more time left for now. I’ll continue discussing this and Thursday’s mechanics lecture class exam next time, as well as the highlights of our field trip in a little while, and everything else in between. For now, class dismissed.