Dennis: without going into chapter and verse,I think you are touching on sumpin
real. The excitement these days tends to be at interfaces between disciplines
not at the centers of old disciplines. Our academic departments were largely
defined in the 19th century--some have made the jump--astrophysics, biochemistry,
nonlinear economics, etc. But by and large the students still labor in the
departmental centers not on the interfaces. There has to be some reason why wall
streetfirms are hiring topologists, that "pure math" has been mad by theoretical
phsicists, that bioengineering is hot stuff.
Give em hell man.
dennis roberts wrote:
> the difficulty in discussing new courses and other issues is that ...
> academe is a compartment system. most institutions have what is labelled as
> general education ... so that, it is assumed that it is GOOD for an
> undergraduate to have some from the science compartment, some from the
> quantitative compartment, some from the humanities compartment, so on and
> so forth. in many cases, this work is done before one declares the major.
> BUT, when we get to the major, we find more compartments ... in fact, more
> specific compartments ... in psychology for example, there is the
> personality compartment, motivation compartment, learning compartment, and
> so on
>
> then folks who are courageous might actually move to the graduate level
> and, guess what? MORE COMPARTMENTS AND MORE SPECIFICITY within each ... we
> have educational psychology and, there is the statistics compartment, the
> measurement compartment, cognitive learning compartment, and so on.
>
> this is how we have structured ourselves ... and this is how we act. and we
> cannot break out of that mold.
>
> in the area of research, the ideal approach would be to start off a cohort
> group ... and, begin real simple. say ... we design a very VERY simple
> survey ... a few demographics ... do some piloting to see that it makes
> sense to takers ... then begin to talk about how we might work with the
> data once we get some ... we write up what we did, what we found, and
> limitations to what has transpired
>
> then, we move up a notch ... perhaps work on a scale of some sort ... like
> an attitude scale ... work on the notion of developing items to measure
> some underlying construct ... actually construct some items ... do some
> pilot work ... see what happens ... and introduce some notions of
> reliability ... what it is ... how it is assessed ... how we can improve it
> ...
>
> and perhaps bring in some notions of validation too ... how scores on this
> measure might relate to other variables of interest ... we offer up some
> hypotheses about what should be related to what ... and when see gather
> some data ... we again come back to how we might handle the data ...
> perhaps bringing in the notion of correlation ... simple regression ....
> and the like
>
> and we write up the results ... say what we did ... how we handled the data
> ... what the problems were ... and try to summarize what we found
>
> then, we might turn to a simple experimental situation ... where we think
> of some useful independent variable to explore and manipulate ... talk
> about how do design and implement such a study ... how we recruit and
> assign Ss to conditions ... collect data .. and then approach how we might
> handle data of this sort ... maybe anova gets some air time ... then we
> write up the results ... say what we did ... tell what problems we ran into
> ... and summarize what we found
>
> in the long run, over several semesters ... we build up a good basket of
> skills THROUGH EXPERIENCING the acts ... we learn by doing ... discussing
> ... summarizing ... and then moving up the ladder of complexity
>
> but, this approach ... is almost impossible to implement within standard
> university settings ... whether it be for general education ... for work in
> the major ... or for graduate study BECAUSE ... our instruction and methods
> have been SO COMPARTMENTALIZED ... and usually, faculty are only really
> competent to teach in one maybe two of these subdivisions ...
>
> the only practical way to do this would be for ONE entire department ...
> that has complete control over THEIR say 200 students ... could revamp what
> they do and what their students take ...
>
> but, this is a pipe dream ... and it is a super pipe dream if you happen to
> be a department that is expected to provide overall SERVICE COURSES ... for
> those outside of your OWN group of students
>
> so, back to the main issue ... trying to have a survey course ... in whatever
>
> such approaches cover the water ... FAST .... with no depth ... and that
> seems to be the way programs want it nowadays ... especially when a student
> ventures outside of his or her COMPARTMENT ...
>
> so, do i think that a book or course can be designed in a way that will
> focus on READING AND INTERPRETING articles and research reports? well, sure
> ... but, if the students don't have the PREREQUISITE SKILLS in analysis,
> measurement, design, etc. ... then, it is bound to be a watered down and
> rather unsuccessful experience ... and ultimately, does NOT serve the
> student well
>
> _________________________________________________________
> dennis roberts, educational psychology, penn state university
> 208 cedar, AC 8148632401, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://roberts.ed.psu.edu/users/droberts/drober~1.htm
>
> =================================================================
> Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
> the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
> http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
> =================================================================
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
