But when it comes to reading about math in college, I quickly lost all the original pleasure I found in math. Rather than solving my own problems and finding solutions on my own, I had to read about how others did it. I'm personally more of a hands-on learner rather than someone who learns by reading in-depth into statistical methods, so it is harder for me to understand methodologies by reading about them instead of just doing them. But an additional problem is that much of the data collected in experiments is just plugged into a computer or calculator, which does all the work for you. Am I just suppose to accept the fact that what comes out as the computerized end product is what gives the research paper significance? I'd much rather see the mathematical steps and reasoning behind each step.
Of course, this is just how I learn best. I understand that there are many people out there who can easily understand empirical journal articles by skimming through them. I think that by going through the experimental and mathematical processes slowly, I could understand everything better, thus allowing me to gradually get a faster pace in reading empirical journals. After all... slow and steady wins the race... right?
No comments:
Post a Comment