3 ms·
allow me to shamelessly plug something I wrote on the topic https://gist.github.com/androidfred/75629dfda63180b6f0a0eaa4655ec5f0 https://gist.github.com/androi
by bedobi 3y ago
allow me to shamelessly plug something I wrote on the topic
https://gist.github.com/androidfred/75629dfda63180b6f0a0eaa4655ec5f0 https://gist.github.com/androidfred/75629dfda63180b6f0a0eaa4...
no data, no research :P just anecdote and opinon
- eszed 3y agoI really like what you've written. It jibes with my own experience and opinions. If I were to expand it a bit further, I'd point out that there are teaching methodologies that seem to be derived from these paradigms. In one, an apprentice copies the master as well as they are able, sometimes with no explicit instruction at all, until they've filled in the details for themselves; in the other the student memorizes facts and methods, often by rote, until they build up the big picture for themselves. I've learned within (and from) both approaches, and find each - when rigidly followed - to be highly frustrating! In my own pedagogy I try to hold both in mind, and calibrate students' learning paths accordingly. When they're mired in detail, I re-orient them towards the end goal; when they're not sure what to do, or how to do it, I guide them through the next step. It's a lot more effort, because you have to pay attention to them, and not only the subject, which most teachers would prefer not (or don't know how) to do. (On a side note, I'll say that - in the field(s?) where I'm an expert - nearly all of the pleasure comes from refining the last 2% of the details. It's never going to be perfect, but it can always be incrementally better. It's not "productive", certainly in a commercial sense, but it's immensely satisfying.)