"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:js4l74hscvmqvd3daod10th9jnfu6dv6rb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Larry Hewitt" <larryhewi@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> This is mechanical, and has no mathematical content, nor
>>> statistical content except descriptive.
>>
>>Wrong.
>>
>>There are calculations to determine quartiles, and an *****sment of
>>understanding of statistical concepts.
>>
>>This chart is an im****tant foundation for further study of statistics.
In
>>fact, my first college stat class mentioned it as a quick and easy way
to
>>demonstrate skewed data.
>
> Herman is a statistics professor of significant repute, and he seems
> not to consider that sort of stat class to be proper statistics.
> "Cookbook" statistical algorithms are frequently used without
> understanding, leading to misleading results (sometimes intentionally
> misleading).
>
I understand .
But that does not negate teh , admittedly slight, benefit of these
structures for conveying understanding and meaning.
>>>>So how would you grade a student who uses outstanfing toechnique to
>>>>rpesent
>>>>linear eq. in point-slope form when the question alled for the
>>>>slope-intercept form?
>>>
>>>>Did he just not follow instructions, and shouldn;t that be punished?
>>>
>>> I would be unlikely to ask the question. I am not even sure
>>> that I would give such, except as how to normalize the equation
>>> of a line for certain purposes, and leave it at that. Memorizing
>>> trivia is not that im****tant.
>>
>>My legislature demands that I teach this, failure to do so will result
in
>>my
>>termination.
>
> Herman doesn't think that legislatures should have the right to decide
> curriculum - only subject matter academicians.
>
>>Strict adherence to rules is an impediment to early childhood
development,
>>not a goal. They are experimenting, experiencing, evaluating, learning.
>>Rigorous attention to rule shuts down this process.
>
> But in mathematics, such rigor is mandatory for real understanding.
> Which is why I think it is so hard to improve mathematical education.
>
> Other countries that outperform us in science and math tests are also
> noted for being envious of American initiative and creativity. It
> could very well be that there is a tradeoff between rigor and
> creativity for all but the most intelligent (and maybe even them).
>
I understand both sides of the coin. AS a mathematician myself, and as a
math teacher, under Ideal cir***stances I would prefer to impart more
rigor
into my cl*****.
But, despite Herman's and others opinions, and as you note, I am paid to
provide a specific product. And failure to provide that product means I
don;t get paid.
I have considerable qualms about the product I provide. I would much, much
prefer to provide a more rigorous, more thorough treatment of my subject.
But, not tooting my own horn, I and thousands of others went through a
public education to successfully graduate with BS's and MS's adn PHD's
in
math.
But i cannot decide whther or not such rigor is truly needed.
AS in the stated case above, the closest most of my students will ever get
to a statsistical analysis is an election poll.
I am friends with people in a wide variety of careers and professions,
from
doctors to self-employed media consultants, to construction worlers to
retail clerks.
And truth to tell, beyond an ability to understand money they have no
need
to understand math, yet are still successful, some greatly so.
So the eye surgeon doesn;t need to know how to calculate rates of decay of
he meds he gives to patients, he just needs to knwo what a rate of decay
is
and how to read the literature. my self employed friends need to know how
to
read their accountants re****ts, not write them, and so on.
Perversely, my construction friends may use more math than the others. But
there are tools ranging from specialized calculators to scales on squares
and rules to do most of the work.
In any event, who am I to say what parents consider to be best for their
kids, and who am I to say what each person will need in the future. ALl my
job is is to impart enough basic knowledge so that when the student's
future
clarifies he can succeed in those later cl*****. It just won;t happen
that
a lesson in, say rudimentary probability, will be remembered in detail 6
yrs
later in college, whether it is a rigorous analysis or rote calculation of
odds.
Heck, I'd be delighted if the kids remembered for the next year!
Larry
> lojbab
> Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
> lojbab@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lojban language www.lojban.org
|
