At 02:34 AM 4/25/01 -0300, Robert J. MacG. Dawson wrote: > The proposal we're studying -still at the >speculative level- is to separate most of the BA psych students from the >BSc psych students, and teach more solid stats to the latter and a more >qualitative course tothe former. then ... you are not going to be teaching stats to both ... because, qualitative tries like the devil to avoid anything quantitative ... i say you will be doing a disservice to the latter group ... and, the solution is to frame the experience in such a way as it might take LONGER ... but, you should have similar objectives ... though i clearly understand that those who find math NO problem at all ... can move faster and further (in the same period of time) compared to those who struggle with math ... but, the underlying assumption here of deciding to move them towards different goals ... seems NOT the right thing to do (IMHO) what you mean is analysis that is quantitative ... or not quantitative? where does this leave you? i have been thinking of this a bit more ... what you are talking about is at the heart of a typical basic survey course in (say) empirical research methods ... that assumes they have NADA coming into the course ... so, you try to get them to understand what it means when articles talk about reliability of tests ... or, what it means when you talk about sampling in the context of doing surveys ... or, you try to get them to understand what an experimental design is ... and ways you handle the data FROM that ... and on and on what usually happens is that courses like this turn into mini measurement courses ... mini stat courses ... mini design courses ... and usually, these are quite unsuccessful experiences ... because also usually ... one surviving that will then think he/she is ready to DO a study ... and they are NOT what we need here is a good overarching summative course in research methods that is not taken UNTIL they have had sufficient design, measurement, and analysis ... so that the emphasis in the course is on the actual planning and conduct of a study ... that is, the understanding of what it takes to DO a study this gets back to the old issue of breadth versus depth ... and i for one over many years of experience say that depth wins out over breadth every time (- 1 ... allowing for the loss of 1 degree of freedom!) as we move forward, we seem to be inextricably trying to cram more and more TOPICS covered in a much more superficial way into less and less (ie, fewer courses) ... and the results are that students are knowing less and less about more and more IS THIS WHAT WE WANT? > Yrs aye, > Robert _________________________________________________________ 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/ =================================================================
