----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Frick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 1999 1:30 PM
Subject: Re: teaching statistical methods by rules?
> I think you are concentrating on the information in what is learned and
> ignoring the format. This works for computers, which learn in only one
> format (memory), but not for people, for which memory is just one
> format. My argument:
> For the sake of example, suppose I want to teach students how to tie
> their shoes. I could observe what I do and create a verbal
> description. I could teach students this verbal description, and they
> could memorize it. I could test them on their ability to remember this
> information. A student who could remember it probably could tie their
> shoes.
> My students might end up knowledge roughly the same information as me,
> but their knowledge wouldn't be stored in their brains the same way it
> is stored in mine. I have a connected series of motor movements built
> into my brain as a habit. And these different storage formats have
> different implications. My students would be good at verbal
> descriptions, but probably not so fast at actually tying their shoes.
> Now to reality. Research on implicit learning has suggested that
> people can learn something without being able to report what they have
> learned. Presumably, they have no conscious knowledge of what they have
> learned. In my published opinion, there are three types of implicit
> knowledge, with habits being just one. Combined with conscious
> knowledge, that makes four different types of learning.
> The format in which something is learned has implications. One is for
> memory. Research suggests that implicit learning is retained much
> longer than explicit learning. Another is for usage. Obviously, for
> verbal report, conscious knowledge is far superior than any other type
> of knowledge. But the other types of learning probably are probably
> better for other types of performance. For example, in one study, we
> either gave subjects implicit knowledge of a rule or explicitly taught
> them a collection of rules. The subjects with implicit knowledge could
> use the information in an identification task better than they could
> report it. The subjects with conscious knowledge could report the rules
> better than they could use them.
> The hardest type of learning to describe or define is what I call
> mental models, and what often corresponds to what people call
> understanding. For example, you have a mental model of your spouse (or
> friend). You can use this mental model to predict what your spouse or
> friend will do. You can also try to use this mental model to verbally
> describe your spouse or friend, but that isn't a natural use of the
> mental model and that format of learning isn't that good for verbal
> report. Someone adept at statistics would have a mental model of
> standard deviation, the t-test, statistical testing, etc. Teaching
> students rules or formulas does not develop mental models.
>
> Bob F.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Yes this is why teaching is so difficult. Everyone learns differently. In a
class of every possible kind of ways to learn, the teacher has to find out
what works and what does not for that particular class.
My few attempts at classroom teaching gave me a clear sign that I was not a
teacher. It really showed me how difficult it really is to communicate, get
students enthused with the subject and end up with a class at the end of the
semester with students in it.
Whatever the learning model, the bottom line is the ability to go out and
solve problems. Some can do it with mental images, and some require rules.
Based on several years of being on edstat and semnet, I have to conclude
that the "rule memorizors" predominate.
DAH
