In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
dennis roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>At 02:17 PM 2/14/2003, Herman Rubin wrote:
>>The instructor does not have the right. But the instructor
>>should have the obligation to teach the course at the level
>>for which it is intended, no matter who is in the classroom.
>>And the instructor should have the right to give the student
>>credit for knowing the material, no matter how it is learned.
>I know that in a previous post, where I mentioned an introductory
>statistics course at Purdue (which was only meant as an exemplar) ... you
>said that a number of folks there know that you have been critical of how
>such a course operates. I am sure that many of us would find fault with all
>kinds of courses ... especially at the introductory.
>But, in reference to the above ... what IS the level for which a course
>like introductory statistics ... even taught differently than how currently
>taught ... that is appropriate?
Considering that a good mathematical level is not available,
there needs to be many introductory courses. One can teach
a good statistics course if the students UNDERSTAND
high school algebra;
calculus;
"real analysis".
We do give probability courses at those levels, and do not
even recommend that a student take more than one.
As for statistics courses, I believe that anything which
does not require probability (which may be in the statistics
course) is even worse than useless. The important part of
the probability course is understanding, and learning how
to calculate probabilities does not provide this, and may
not even be of any help.
It's NOT easy at all to define these with
>any precision AND, at the same time, meet the needs of students having to
>sign up for such courses.
The problem is that there is, at this time, essentially
no method of finding out if the understanding is present
without a rather long test. Nor does the student know;
in most of the present courses in anything, understanding
gets omitted. Also, remedial courses tend to be given
under the assumption that the student did not learn the
important material the first time, rather than starting
with the more accurate view that it was not even taught.
>What I see missing in most course proposals (and your comments) ...
>particularly for introductory courses ... is a clear specification of who
>SHOULD be allowed in and who should not and why ... that is, the
>enumeration of a set of prerequisite skills and LEVELS of skills that makes
>the course ... right for them or wrong.
>After all, courses can only operate IF there is some critical mass of
>students signing up for them and .advisors recommending them .. if our
>courses become SO particular as to who we will let in ... our courses won't
>live very long.
>I don't think that "higher education" lets us be quite so fussy (pardon the
>term) as to who we will let in ... particularly for our general purpose,
>introductory kinds of courses.
We need EXTENSIVE remediation. Higher education cannot do
even a fair job if it assumes that lower education has done
what it should to prepare the student.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Deptartment of Statistics, Purdue University
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
.
.
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the
problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at:
. http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ .
=================================================================
