In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Paul Bernhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >VOLTOLINI said on 10/2/02 9:55 AM:
>>Are kids prepared to learn statistics ? Why to teach statistics for kids ? >>I was discussing these questions with some collegues and several of them >>said that kids are NOT prepared for statistical abstraction and then..... I >>would like to to know about your opinion. This is not a question about "how" >>but "why" to teach ! >>It seems to me that sometimes statistics can be used in classroom using real >>life examples more easily than math. >>Maybe this is a question for a specialist in theory of education (any >>available?) >>Regards...... >The current issue of Discover magazine has a round table discussion of >mathematics education in the US. They discuss the relative importance of >continuing to emphasize how to do long division in an age of calculators >and computers versus other topics that may be more valuable, ultimately. >Worth the time. The current educationists are experts in how not to teach. Anyone who would put children in the same classroom merely because they are the same age should be excluded. Learning by memorization and routine is easily forgotten, while starting with structure and concepts is not. The teachers could not learn the "new math". This has not changed, but gotten worse. Few now going to college have had what could be called a mathematics, rather than computation, course. The old proof geometry is not common. -- 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/ . =================================================================
