Introduce Statistical Thinking before introducing the equations

[Tom Slack]

I hope this message helps people that developing a course in Introductory Statistics. SAS is a computer package that is used extensively for Statistical Analysis. Dr. Jim Goodnight is the President of SAS (his PhD is in Statistics). This quote came from SAS-L (a SAS newsgroup):

Jim Goodnight says he takes life easy. "I try not to get emotional
about things," he says. "You very seldom get me fired up and mad."
But something that really gets his goat is the way universities
teach introductory statistics. "It's like the statistics professionals
got together and said, 'How can we turn off every possible student who
ever takes a course so that nobody is ever interested in statistics?' "
he says. "Maybe it's something they do for job security."

I feel the advice is to introduce Statistical Thinking before introducing the equations.

Happy Hollidays,

Tom

[Marc]

That makes sense. If one doesn't have the basic concepts, one would find it difficult to apply the equations.

[WALLACE]

I agree,
It's almost criminal in the manner and format that Stats are introduced to genuinely intersted seekers.
If I'm ever in the position of introducing anyone to the basic tools of stats, I introduce them to the three most basic and powerful stat (Quality) tools; Run chart, Pareto and Ishikawa.
Wallace.

[Wes Bucey]

I'm not quite sure I understand the statistical significance of an Ishikawa (or fishbone) chart. I see it as an aid in sorting out factors which affect a process in looking for the root cause of nonconformance. Help me out here.

[wmarhel]

Originally Posted by Marc

That makes sense. If one doesn't have the basic concepts, one would find it difficult to apply the equations.

How many of us have ever sat in a class where the instructor was more interested in trying to bedazzle us with "his" brilliance, instead of actually teaching?

Also, it is one thing to have walked the halls of academia for one's entire life versus being in the fray all day long. Just because somebody passed the tests, wrote the papers, etc., it doesn't necessarily make them a good instructor. Knowing the material and being able to make others understand it are two very different animals.

Wayne

[fallon]

I think you hit it right on the head, Wes. Other than identifying some possible causes for a specific problem or performing some sort of root cause analysis, I'm wondering what stats could be derived from it (fishbone).

[WALLACE]

Originally Posted by WALLACE

I introduce them to the three most basic and powerful stat (Quality) tools; Run chart, Pareto and Ishikawa.
Wallace.

OK, I'll bite, to clear up the word smithing.
If you picked up my post wording order, I quoted the above. I bracketed ( ) Quality.
So to make it more clear; two (2) of the tools mentioned were statistical in nature and one was Quality in nature. The inclusion of the Ishikawa was intentional to make the correlation between stats and quality root cause.

Wes, I'm sure you'll agree (As a notable systems thinker) that, the three mentioned tools are a decent genesis for systems thinking and, to be a reasonable systems thinker, statistical thiking (Grounding) would IMO be an excellent compliment to the pursuit of a grounding of systems thinking.

Respectfully
Wallace.

[Wes Bucey]

Yep. I knew, Wallace. I was just pulling your chain a little. Our responsibility as gurus is to avoid ambiguity. Thanks for your input and clarification.