Analysis Standards Draft

I spent most of the day on Monday designing the course standards for my real analysis class in the fall. I ended up with a rough draft and went home.

Later that night, I got this mysteriously clairvoyant tweet from Joss Ives: “writing learning goals is a task well-suited to collaboration.” He is right, of course, but I was astounded that—seemingly out of nowhere—he decided to tell me exactly what I needed to hear at exactly the time when I needed to hear it. He was some sort of JIT Jedi mentor.

(What actually happened was this: Joss was tweeted last week that he was writing learning goals, I replied, and he was just replying back. I like the Jedi version better, though).

Anyway, here is the first draft of the standards. I welcome feedback in the comments (what big ideas are missing, which of these aren’t so important, etc):

Core Topics: repeatedly demonstrate

Apply the Completeness Axiom
Determine convergence/divergence of sequences
Determine if a function is differentiable at a point
Apply the Mean Value Theorem to solve problems.
Use sequences when working with functions to show divergence
Determine if functions are continuous
Determine if functions are uniformly continuous
Determine if a function is integrable
\end{tabular}

Supporting Topics: demonstrate at least once

Determine limits of sequences
Determine limits of functions
Determine convergence/divergence of series
Apply Bolzano-Weierstrass
Know three equivalences for compactness on R (compact, closed bounded, finite subcover)
Determine if a sequence of functions converges pointwise; if so, determine the limit
Determine if a sequence of functions converges uniformly; if so, determine the limit
Apply Abel’s Theorem
Determine radii of convergence for power series
Apply the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , ,

4 Responses to “Analysis Standards Draft”

  1. Andy "SuperFly" Rundquist Says:

    If someone did one of the core topics well, would they necessarily have done some of the supporting topics? Or maybe vice versa? Not being fully versed on some of these, I’m not sure if supporting means tangential (do only once because you don’t care about them as much) or not-cool-enough-to-be-core-but-still-important-skills where they might be able to be folded into the core ones.

    • bretbenesh Says:

      Hi Andy,

      My intent was that the Supporting Topics are less important than the Core Topics. This is why the students need to demonstrate them less frequently.

      Their semester grade would be determined by the number of topics (and frequency, for Core Topics) that they demonstrate. I think that I should write another post on that—you can expect one within the week. Bret

  2. SBF Grading Policy (Draft) « Solvable by Radicals Says:

    […] Standards Based Feedback (SBF). Here is a first pass at the policies. These will hopefully address Andy Rundquist’s question about […]

  3. Semester Reflection, Part I « Solvable by Radicals Says:

    […] screwed up the standards a bit. For example, I was missing “Cauchy sequences” and “Limits” […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: