Re: More /.{I->-1} craziness

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg106735] Re: More /.{I->-1} craziness*From*: AES <siegman at stanford.edu>*Date*: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 05:38:03 -0500 (EST)*Organization*: Stanford University*References*: <200912300915.EAA17299@smc.vnet.net> <hhhmn8$o9t$1@smc.vnet.net> <hhpl28$9lf$1@smc.vnet.net> <hip8gf$t4d$1@smc.vnet.net> <8304354.1263643340634.JavaMail.root@n11> <hiuur1$919$1@smc.vnet.net> <hj130e$bcn$1@smc.vnet.net> <201001191014.FAA29127@smc.vnet.net> <hj6qf0$8qo$1@smc.vnet.net> <hj981f$fo3$1@smc.vnet.net>

In article <hj981f$fo3$1 at smc.vnet.net>, Richard Fateman <fateman at cs.berkeley.edu> wrote: > The success of such courses obviously depend on the enthusiasm, energy, > and charisma of the teachers. To what extent does it depend on the > computing aspect? > > In the absence of a controlled experiment, it is hard to convince > skeptics. Even the experiments that might be tried would probably be > flawed -- e.g. two sections of the same course -- may be defective if > the better students self-select to come to the "experimental > computer-based" course. Old (and well-tested) maxim: "All educational experiments are big successes for the first two or three years then they disappear forever". [Anyone on this group remember (or use) the Keller Plan for student-paced learning <http://www.mcmaster.ca/cll/posped/pastissues/volume.1.no.1/the.keller.pl an.htm> and the hype it got at MIT in the 1970s?]

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: Re: More /.{I->-1} craziness***From:*Murray Eisenberg <murray@math.umass.edu>

**References**:**Re: More /.{I->-1} craziness***From:*Richard Fateman <fateman@cs.berkeley.edu>