Add Statistics & Computer Science Forums to Mathematics & Technology Sections

[wlvanbesien]

If i could offer a bit of advice for the site, I would say that you should add a Statistics forum in the Mathematics section. Also, the technology section is a bit dull I must say. Since so many people here are computer scientists, I think it would also be a good idea to put in a Computer Science/General Programming forum in too under the Technology Section. Physics is more than just solving equations on a piece of paper ... it often involves data analysis in addition to working with/creating computer simulations. I think the site would benefit a lot from this.

 

[Gokul43201]

There is a Statistics sub-forum under Math.

The idea of a forum dedicated computational methods has been raised before, but I don't think there's been enough support for the idea to warrant the creation of a new forum.

 

[Curious3141]

Perhaps the Set theory, Logic, prob and stats forum should be split in two, so that prob and stats will be a separate forum ? Set theory and Stats are so different in "sprit".

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Obviously the ideal thing would be to have a forum for every subject under the sun, however it just logistically wouldn't work. We don't want to spread the discussion out too thin or make you scroll down too far with a list of 50 forums. I think we have an extremely sound setup as is. Thanks for the suggestion though.

 

[arildno]

If I were to suggest a new forum (which I'm evidently in the process of doing), I would think a didactics/pedagogics forum is sufficiently distinct thematically from established forums.

Just a few ideas of what questions a subforum like this might concern itself with:
How can we teach maths/physics optimally? (To different age/level groups)
What are particular pitfalls students/pupils will encounter?
How should I go about increasing motivation, or ward off despair/apathy among pupils?
What are instructive experiments in physics?
Is logical rigour something we should avoid in teaching maths to younger pupils, or might stimulation of logical faculties make maths more interesting?
(Meaning, for example, going beyond dull arithmetic exercises)

I think there are quite a few members/readers of PF who in one form or another are involved in teaching/tutoring; possibly enough to make such a subforum a valuable addition to PF.

 

[Nereid]

If I were to suggest a new forum (which I'm evidently in the process of doing), I would think a didactics/pedagogics forum is sufficiently distinct thematically from established forums.

Just a few ideas of what questions a subforum like this might concern itself with:
How can we teach maths/physics optimally? (To different age/level groups)
What are particular pitfalls students/pupils will encounter?
How should I go about increasing motivation, or ward off despair/apathy among pupils?
What are instructive experiments in physics?
Is logical rigour something we should avoid in teaching maths to younger pupils, or might stimulation of logical faculties make maths more interesting?
(Meaning, for example, going beyond dull arithmetic exercises)

I think there are quite a few members/readers of PF who in one form or another are involved in teaching/tutoring; possibly enough to make such a subforum a valuable addition to PF.

I wholeheartedly support this idea.

To help me think through a stronger case for it, does anyone have any data on the numbers of undergraduate university students taking a physics course (say, in 1H 2005) there are, world-wide? The number of physics/science teachers, both (senior) high school and (undergrad) university? I'm looking for OOM numbers.

 

[Sirus]

I think there are quite a few members/readers of PF who in one form or another are involved in teaching/tutoring

And there are definitely quite a few members involved in learning (I am among them), giving the teachers/tutors direct feedback as to their experiences as students.

 

[arildno]

And there are definitely quite a few members involved in learning (I am among them), giving the teachers/tutors direct feedback as to their experiences as students.

I agree; that students can give direct feedback on which teaching techniques worked for them (or not), should be of great value for teachers/tutors.

 

[Moonbear]

I agree; that students can give direct feedback on which teaching techniques worked for them (or not), should be of great value for teachers/tutors.

That's very true. Especially for those grad students here who are just starting out teaching some courses and need some pointers. Too often, teaching evaluations are only done at the end of a course, when it is far too late, in my opinion, to make the input very useful (some is useful, but too late for the class that just evaluated you). There are more serious students here too, so less likely to get bogged down with the "you suck because you failed me" type of evaluations one gets when teaching.

This would also be quite valuable for those tutoring, or even for those still learning. There are some misconceptions about various topics that consistently appear. Knowing about these can help the teacher identify and address them to head off problems for students, and can help the student recognize if they themselves have fallen into one of these traps and needs to reconsider their understanding to succeed in a subject.

There are also issues that first time TAs and instructors face that are not specific to their discipline, so anyone could answer, such as how to put together a syllabus, good ways to structure a lecture to maintain student attention, dealing with a disruptive student, how to help a student with learning disabilities, how to prepare a test so it fairly covers the materials included in lecture, etc.

 

[honestrosewater]

To help me think through a stronger case for it, does anyone have any data on the numbers of undergraduate university students taking a physics course (say, in 1H 2005) there are, world-wide? The number of physics/science teachers, both (senior) high school and (undergrad) university? I'm looking for OOM numbers.

I don't know what OOM means, but you can possibly find some of what you want at AIP's Statistical Research Center and NCES's http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d03_tf.asp . AIP isn't bad, but the US DOE is infuriating, IMO. Good luck.

 

[Nereid]

Thanks Moonbear ('order of magnitude'; you know, 'assume cows are spherical ...' There's also something about 'envelopes', but I have no idea what such things could be - where's my email 'envelope', for example, or my PM one?).

 

[Moonbear]

Thanks Moonbear ('order of magnitude'; you know, 'assume cows are spherical ...' There's also something about 'envelopes', but I have no idea what such things could be - where's my email 'envelope', for example, or my PM one?).

Your welcome? But it wasn't me who provided the link or asked what OOM meant...that was honestrosewater.

 

[honestrosewater]

Your welcome? But it wasn't me who provided the link or asked what OOM meant...that was honestrosewater.

Eh, whatever- I have no idea what he's talking about anyway.

 

[Bystander]

(snip)a didactics/pedagogics forum (snip)

Try "Academics and Career Guidance" --- it hasn't really developed any "traditions," and this is along the lines of what I think Greg had in mind when he added it.

 

[Moonbear]

Try "Academics and Career Guidance" --- it hasn't really developed any "traditions," and this is along the lines of what I think Greg had in mind when he added it.

Good suggestion. I thought that forum was mainly started because of a growing number of questions about choosing majors and careers, but for now, that seems the best fit for these types of questions...as long as Greg and the mentors agree they will be allowed there. Greg seems more willing to create new forums or subforums when there's already evidence that they will be used (i.e., lots of active posts already on the forums on the topic). If it turns out to just be an ocassional question, it's better to just find them a home among the current forums.

 

[The_Professional]

Also, the technology section is a bit dull I must say. Since so many people here are computer scientists, .

This is primarily a Science site and not really a tech site which explains why there are less tech savvy members in the technology section. You can visit the sister site: Talkroot.com if you want to talk tech or Security-forums.com for more tech/coding/cryptography/security/etc discussions

And there are much fewer people here that are actually computer scientists.