3 ms·

I'm not disagreeing that this is good content, but doesn't having to reread something or relisten to something indicate that the pedagogical approach could have

by mindB 8y ago

I'm not disagreeing that this is good content, but doesn't having to reread something or relisten to something indicate that the pedagogical approach could have been better rather than that the teacher is a good teacher? In general, for teaching (note that this is very different than resources used for reference), caeteris paribus shouldn't we prefer the teacher who is easier to understand? EDIT: It occurs to me that possibly your first and third statement were actually intended to be unrelated to your second. In which case, please disregard this comment.

lomnakkus 8y ago
Well, I mean it might, but it also might the case that the material is genuinely difficult and no amount of pedagogy is going to get around that. (An example might be trying to explain e.g. a non-trivial theroem from point set topology to a layperson... without including a huge amount of background material that you would actually get during a math degree.)
setr 8y ago
It's also a question of density; if he's simply saying a lot in very little, or assuming you'll do the menial work like a paper will (offers a theorem, properties and consequences, but proving the theorem is left as an exercise for the reader), then itll have the same property of having to re-read it, or rather, read it very carefully, but still be very valuable. The difference is in the goal. If its just pedagogical, then you'd want to explain it in three different ways, hoping one will stick; but if its also intended as a reference to review, and discuss, after understanding the general principles (and believing in the theorems), then conciseness is preferable. Three different explanations just makes it more difficult to figure out what you're looking for