Discussion: View Thread

I am not an professional economist but as a lay-economist I can understand why
undergraduates are not interested in research and statistics courses. One need
only ask "What are the short-term benefits to performing library research or
conducting a statistical analysis of a data set of any kind?" Answer: "A
higher grade than if I do not perform the research or run the numbers." That's
not enough in most cases to motivate high performance. If grades matter at all
to students, they are aware that a minimal performance in stat and research
courses can be mitigated by higher performance in other courses.

Beyond a grade students find no immediately valued rewards from the exercise.
In fact, other than in my graduate programs and research activities, I have
yet to fully apply stat and research skills. It satisfies my curiosity and
helps me advance in an educational environment -- neither of these benefits is
of concern to a vast majority of undergrads. They attend post secondary
institutions for many reasons but enhancing research skills is not one of
them. Money, social status, social service, parental or peer pressures,
avoiding less rewarding labor options, and other more easily recognizable
motivators play strong roles in attendance.

The key, of course, is in the "short term" verses "long term" benefit. Given
the status of public elementary and secondary education today, asking students
to fully grasp the value of long term benefits to mastering less concrete
knowledge (think marketability) when they attend a freshmen level composition
course or a sophomore level stat course is a bit much.

I experience the tension between the ideal curriculum and the pragmatic
reasons student enter my classroom. I teach Speech at a community college and
I am fortunate when 3 of 20 students appear to understand the value of the
introductory communication course. I anticipate it by making more relevant the
types of learning activities I require of students and accepting that
some/most will never get the point.

Ken Bandy
KenBandy@aol.com

On 28 Feb 99 at 14:50, Ken Bandy wrote:

> I am not an professional economist but as a lay-economist I can
> understand why undergraduates are not interested in research and
> statistics courses. One need only ask "What are the short-term
> benefits to performing library research or conducting a statistical
> analysis of a data set of any kind?" Answer: "A higher grade than if
> I do not perform the research or run the numbers." That's not enough
> in most cases to motivate high performance. If grades matter at all
> to students, they are aware that a minimal performance in stat and
> research courses can be mitigated by higher performance in other
> courses.

I can't comment on all that is in this thread except to say that re:
statistics, it is probably the worst taught course in a number of
disciplines. Like any math type course it can be taught conceptually
or mechanically. When it is taught conceptually, it starts to take on
meaning as it links up with issues around research design, data
gathering, etc. When it is taught mechanically it is simply moving
number around.

As a student I was lucky. At undergrad I was taught conceptually
while other "sections" were taught mechanically. So, before I learned
how to crunch numbers I learned WHY it was done, and it made sense to
me.

Later in grad school I got lucky again. Same deal. In both situations
we weren't evaluated on our ability to crunch the numbers, but our
ability to explain WHY we were crunching the numbers in a particular
way.

The end result was I actually put my self through grad school by
being a data analyst for professors, and fellow students who didn't
know what they were doing.

> Beyond a grade students find no immediately valued rewards from the
> exercise. In fact, other than in my graduate programs and research
> activities, I have yet to fully apply stat and research skills. It
> satisfies my curiosity and helps me advance in an educational
> environment --

Obviously for me it was different. Having the skills made me
signficant money because those skills were and are in short supply.
they also mean that I can read an article and tell you almost
immediately if a) the logic and stats are correctly used and b) if
there is insufficient information to tell.

My ability to do that isn't because I'm brilliant, but that I was
taught properly.

I agree with the rest of Ken's post about the long term and short
term, but I think we have to recognize, teaching in any area, that
some things just aren't going to seem relevant.

Isn't it the role of the teacher/professor to develop ways to "make
it so? (at least as best as possible).



Robert Bacal, author of PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT,(McGraw-Hill). Details at
http://members.xoom.com/perform and http://members.xoom.com/cooperate.
"Performance management - about people and creating success"=
Join the Performance Management/Appraisal discussion group by sending an email to perfmgt-subscribe@egroups.com
Visit the Perf. Management/Appraisal Resource Center at http://members.xoom.com/perform/index.htm

90% of what you INTEND to teach will probably never be used in the "real
world" -- most students will learn a great deal from you -- but perhaps not
EXACTLY what you intended for them to learn.

I am a recent grad of an undergraduate university - with a BA in Psych. I
can tell you that I was very disinterested in research methodology and psych
stats. I majored in Psych not because I intended to go on to do psych
research nor to practice clinical psychology. I majored in Psych because I
found it interesting and because I knew it had direct applications to
business/the real world -- with respect to its communications aspects (those
associated with social psych). Thus I knew it would help me in the future,
whatever the future held for me. That said, I was annoyed with the stats
and research classes that were required of the major b/c they were not
"interesting" to me like the other psych classes that taught psych phenomena
and findings of other researchers. It had nothing to do with the
short/long-term benefits to me - this thought never entered my head when I
registered for classes (and I can assure you that 98% of student don't think
of their schedule choices this way either!). I was also annoyed with these
classes because they required precision - which, of course, is the nature of
the game called research. I am sure that students with intentions to do
research and clinical psych are not as resistant to the research and stats
classes.

I can honestly say NOW that I actually learned a lot more than I anticipated
from the research classes I took. I use many of my learnings from those
classes now - like working on a team (as I do with my current colleagues),
influencing subjects (as I do my current my clients), performing analyses
(which is a key component to practically everything!), and I even took away
with me the need for precision - the need for clarity in my current work and
correspondences with others.

-Stephanie Levin

Stephanie's response included the following comment:

> I can honestly say NOW that I actually learned a lot more than I
> anticipated
> from the research classes I took. I use many of my learnings from those
> classes now - like working on a team (as I do with my current colleagues),
> influencing subjects (as I do my current my clients), performing analyses
> (which is a key component to practically everything!), and I even took
> away
> with me the need for precision - the need for clarity in my current work
> and
> correspondences with others.
>
>
As a 49 year old who received my BA 27 years ago, with a 20 year old son who
is a sophomore in college, I agree whole heartedly with Stephanie. As a 20
year old, I wasn't experienced enough to know how the things I didn't like
would serve me throughout my career. Likewise, my son is constantly
questionning why he has to take many of the required core and major courses.
There are things which could help make the research courses more acceptable
to the 18 - 22 year olds.

First, what would it take to provide an explanation like Stephanie's at the
beginning of the course? The prof could spend about 1/2 hour in the first
class talking about how the research skills they will learn can be applied
in life outside academia.

Second, my son is currently taking a Critical Thinking course in the Jepson
School of Leadership at the University of Richmond. He and his classmates
are doing primary, action oriented research which illustrates how research
skills are applicable in the non-academic environment. He's actually
excited about the course work, and is looking for summer interships where he
can apply the research skills in a business environment.

As a long-time training manager and training consultant, I know how
difficult it can be to make otherwise mundane topics interesting to a
heterogeneous audience. I always make sure I've covered the WIIFM (what's
in it for me) factor in anything I teach. Relating the research skills to
the students' future will provide the WIIFM that will support their learning
AND possibly increase their retention.

Jay Spitulnik

Your letter was most interesting. I was drafted right after leaving
school during the Korean War and went directly to the Chemical Corp
where my knowledge in statistics resulted in not going to Korea. I spent
my two years analyzing data from nerve gas related projects. So, my
statistics source came in very handy.

Robert Bacal wrote:
>
> On 28 Feb 99 at 14:50, Ken Bandy wrote:
>
> > I am not an professional economist but as a lay-economist I can
> > understand why undergraduates are not interested in research and
> > statistics courses. One need only ask "What are the short-term
> > benefits to performing library research or conducting a statistical
> > analysis of a data set of any kind?" Answer: "A higher grade than if
> > I do not perform the research or run the numbers." That's not enough
> > in most cases to motivate high performance. If grades matter at all
> > to students, they are aware that a minimal performance in stat and
> > research courses can be mitigated by higher performance in other
> > courses.
>
> I can't comment on all that is in this thread except to say that re:
> statistics, it is probably the worst taught course in a number of
> disciplines. Like any math type course it can be taught conceptually
> or mechanically. When it is taught conceptually, it starts to take on
> meaning as it links up with issues around research design, data
> gathering, etc. When it is taught mechanically it is simply moving
> number around.
>
> As a student I was lucky. At undergrad I was taught conceptually
> while other "sections" were taught mechanically. So, before I learned
> how to crunch numbers I learned WHY it was done, and it made sense to
> me.
>
> Later in grad school I got lucky again. Same deal. In both situations
> we weren't evaluated on our ability to crunch the numbers, but our
> ability to explain WHY we were crunching the numbers in a particular
> way.
>
> The end result was I actually put my self through grad school by
> being a data analyst for professors, and fellow students who didn't
> know what they were doing.
>
> > Beyond a grade students find no immediately valued rewards from the
> > exercise. In fact, other than in my graduate programs and research
> > activities, I have yet to fully apply stat and research skills. It
> > satisfies my curiosity and helps me advance in an educational
> > environment --
>
> Obviously for me it was different. Having the skills made me
> signficant money because those skills were and are in short supply.
> they also mean that I can read an article and tell you almost
> immediately if a) the logic and stats are correctly used and b) if
> there is insufficient information to tell.
>
> My ability to do that isn't because I'm brilliant, but that I was
> taught properly.
>
> I agree with the rest of Ken's post about the long term and short
> term, but I think we have to recognize, teaching in any area, that
> some things just aren't going to seem relevant.
>
> Isn't it the role of the teacher/professor to develop ways to "make
> it so? (at least as best as possible).
>
> Robert Bacal, author of PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT,(McGraw-Hill). Details at
> http://members.xoom.com/perform and http://members.xoom.com/cooperate.
> "Performance management - about people and creating success"=
> Join the Performance Management/Appraisal discussion group by sending an email to perfmgt-subscribe@egroups.com
> Visit the Perf. Management/Appraisal Resource Center at http://members.xoom.com/perform/index.htm

--
Dick Montgomery, General Manager
21st Century Co-operative
Our Mission - "Help You Increase Sales"
http://www.chemmgrs.com

In a message dated 3/1/99 9:49:14 AM Central Standard Time, SLLevin@LINKAGE-
INC.COM writes:

<< It had nothing to do with the
short/long-term benefits to me - this thought never entered my head when I
registered for classes (and I can assure you that 98% of student don't think
of their schedule choices this way either!). >>


Actually, not explicitly considering the benefits of a given course supports
my contention that students do not consider long term value to course
material. However, students do recognize short term benefits of courses if
conditions support this recognition. For example, if a student worked in a
retail clothing outlet while attending school and knew that taking a course in
retail management may help them move into a management trainee position, they
would recognize the immediate benefit to the course.

What thoughts do enter students' heads when they register for classes? I am
certain there is a wide range of motives that impact overall registration.
What we are concerned with in this instance are research and stats courses
that are populated with an observable number of unmotivated students.
Stephanie's report is true for a non representative sample unit of one. As to
whether 98% of students are, or are not, thinking like Stephanie did, more
data is needed.

My earlier message was intended to encourage instructors to organize their
instruction around relevant student needs. However, many of the posts
concerning this issue seem to lament student disinterest. Some instructors
appear personally offended that students lack interest in their course(s). It
is our professional responsibility to establish the best possible learning
conditions. However, the ball is in the student's court when it comes to
actual learning. Stephanie's response clearly illustrates the impact of
experience and reflection on past learning. Perhaps some of the lessons
students learn from our courses will occur years in the future.

Ken Bandy
KenBandy@aol.com

After lurking around this series of posts for some time I feel I've got to
add my two cents worth.

I was not only disinterested in stats but actively loathed it. But that
hasn't lessened in any way the benefits I'm still getting out of having
studied it. There was one comment very early on in my studies that has
stuck with me and that was the purpose of literature research was not only
to analyse what has already been written on a subject but to also test the
validity of what was written and the credentials of the writer. Too often
in this day and age we accept facts and opinions on face value without
questionning where they came from and how 'real' they are. If studying
stats and research has taught me one thing it is to question stats and
research. No longer will I accept that "90% of X believe Y".

Phil Rutherford
Academic Director and Lecturer
Competency-based systems specialist
robnphil@ozemail.com.au
http://www.competency-au.com


----------
> From: S LLevin <SLLevin@LINKAGE-INC.COM>
> To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
> Subject: Re: [MG-ED-DV] Why are students not interested in research
> Date: Tuesday, 2 March 1999 2:46
>
> 90% of what you INTEND to teach will probably never be used in the "real
> world" -- most students will learn a great deal from you -- but perhaps
not
> EXACTLY what you intended for them to learn.
>
> I am a recent grad of an undergraduate university - with a BA in Psych.
I
> can tell you that I was very disinterested in research methodology and
psych
> stats. I majored in Psych not because I intended to go on to do psych
> research nor to practice clinical psychology. I majored in Psych because
I
> found it interesting and because I knew it had direct applications to
> business/the real world -- with respect to its communications aspects
(those
> associated with social psych). Thus I knew it would help me in the
future,
> whatever the future held for me. That said, I was annoyed with the stats
> and research classes that were required of the major b/c they were not
> "interesting" to me like the other psych classes that taught psych
phenomena
> and findings of other researchers. It had nothing to do with the
> short/long-term benefits to me - this thought never entered my head when
I
> registered for classes (and I can assure you that 98% of student don't
think
> of their schedule choices this way either!). I was also annoyed with
these
> classes because they required precision - which, of course, is the nature
of
> the game called research. I am sure that students with intentions to do
> research and clinical psych are not as resistant to the research and
stats
> classes.
>
> I can honestly say NOW that I actually learned a lot more than I
anticipated
> from the research classes I took. I use many of my learnings from those
> classes now - like working on a team (as I do with my current
colleagues),
> influencing subjects (as I do my current my clients), performing analyses
> (which is a key component to practically everything!), and I even took
away
> with me the need for precision - the need for clarity in my current work
and
> correspondences with others.
>
> -Stephanie Levin