4 ms·

This dynamic is not impossible to overcome. It's often as simple as reminding students that we are responsible for one another's success by shifting the goal fr

by gavmor 2y ago

This dynamic is not impossible to overcome. It's often as simple as reminding students that we are responsible for one another's success by shifting the goal from "finish the exercise" to "ensure we've both learned how to finish the exercise". "Lone wolves" and "lazy" students, I've found, often warm up when given 1:1 attention of peers.

watwut 2y ago
> It's often as simple as reminding students that we are responsible for one another's success by shifting the goal from "finish the exercise" to "ensure we've both learned how to finish the exercise". Then it ends up with faster student trying to explain to the slower one and failing. While the slower one still does not really have an option to do it independently and think it through, until they get home. This pair thing is great if you are the faster one or the one with better initial knowledge. It really does not work well if you are the weaker one. I have been both on occasion, sometimes I was behind and other times advanced. Classes where I worked alone gave me much more then the ones where I was paired with someone better. When I was paired with someone slower, it was good for my ego and I remembered more from trying to explain (if I did that).
- gavmor 2y ago
  Thank you for sharing! > the slower one still does not really have an option to do it independently and think it through This is a good point, and a constraint of the institution. When I was the slower student, I was blessed with the inordinate chutzpah to shamelessly ask faster students for explanations ad nauseum. I was never concerned with time, deadlines, assignments, nor grades: I was maximizing my understanding at the expense of anyone who would entertain my curiosity. I took my time in a way that most students, perhaps reasonably, feel they can't afford to. I wish all students felt as entitled to knowledge as I'd been raised to feel—and as my instructors suggested! As a professional, being the weaker pair has presented fantastic opportunities to observe and learn from senior developers. I pity the remote junior who interfaces with an infinitesimal fraction of the fidelity I've enjoyed. In short, "never be the best player in the band" remains sound advice for persons of my bent... in accommodating institutions.
  - aleph_minus_one 2y ago
    > When I was the slower student, I was blessed with the inordinate chutzpah to shamelessly ask faster students for explanations ad nauseum. This assumes that the other person has a "thinking style" that is compatible with yours, and that thus the explanations are helpful for you. For example if the other student is "sufficiently advanced" from you, it can happen that this is not the case.
    - gavmor 2y ago
      > This assumes that the other person has a "thinking style" that is compatible with yours No one has a thinking style compatible with mine. Communication is difficult, but the whole point is to share adopt novel ways of thinking. By the end of the conversation, both participants' "thinking styles" have changed. Sure, some folks' lexicon and mental models might overlap more, but there's no one (speaking English) from whom I can't learn. Reminds me of that old line "you can't get there from here!" which I always considered funny, but you're saying it's true? Wish I knew more about these "thinking styles" you're talking about, because I've never met someone I couldn't communicate with (in English).
      - aleph_minus_one 2y ago
        > Wish I knew more about these "thinking styles" you're talking about, because I've never met someone I couldn't communicate with (in English). It is plausible that you are sufficiently smart and thus never (or at least rarely) had such problems. To give an extreme example: when Grigori Perelman published his papers about his proof of the geometrization conjecture, even experts in his area had a lot of difficulties understanding his proof (and thus verifying the correctness of it). Only after multiple groups of mathematicians came up with better understandable versions of the central arguments of his proof, (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geometrization_conjecture&oldid=1239788120#History https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geometrization_co... and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture&oldid=1238720390#Hamilton's_program_and_solution https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poincar%C3%A9_con... ), they became convinced of the correctness of Perelman's proof. This was clearly a particularly marked example, but in a school pupils of very different IQs and thinking styles are present. So I wouldn't say that this problem (pupil not understanding another pupil's solution) is uncommon at schools.

by gavmor 2y ago

watwut 2y ago

> It's often as simple as reminding students that we are responsible for one another's success by shifting the goal from "finish the exercise" to "ensure we've both learned how to finish the exercise". Then it ends up with faster student trying to explain to the slower one and failing. While the slower one still does not really have an option to do it independently and think it through, until they get home. This pair thing is great if you are the faster one or the one with better initial knowledge. It really does not work well if you are the weaker one. I have been both on occasion, sometimes I was behind and other times advanced. Classes where I worked alone gave me much more then the ones where I was paired with someone better. When I was paired with someone slower, it was good for my ego and I remembered more from trying to explain (if I did that).

gavmor 2y ago
Thank you for sharing! > the slower one still does not really have an option to do it independently and think it through This is a good point, and a constraint of the institution. When I was the slower student, I was blessed with the inordinate chutzpah to shamelessly ask faster students for explanations ad nauseum. I was never concerned with time, deadlines, assignments, nor grades: I was maximizing my understanding at the expense of anyone who would entertain my curiosity. I took my time in a way that most students, perhaps reasonably, feel they can't afford to. I wish all students felt as entitled to knowledge as I'd been raised to feel—and as my instructors suggested! As a professional, being the weaker pair has presented fantastic opportunities to observe and learn from senior developers. I pity the remote junior who interfaces with an infinitesimal fraction of the fidelity I've enjoyed. In short, "never be the best player in the band" remains sound advice for persons of my bent... in accommodating institutions.
- aleph_minus_one 2y ago
  > When I was the slower student, I was blessed with the inordinate chutzpah to shamelessly ask faster students for explanations ad nauseum. This assumes that the other person has a "thinking style" that is compatible with yours, and that thus the explanations are helpful for you. For example if the other student is "sufficiently advanced" from you, it can happen that this is not the case.
  - gavmor 2y ago
    > This assumes that the other person has a "thinking style" that is compatible with yours No one has a thinking style compatible with mine. Communication is difficult, but the whole point is to share adopt novel ways of thinking. By the end of the conversation, both participants' "thinking styles" have changed. Sure, some folks' lexicon and mental models might overlap more, but there's no one (speaking English) from whom I can't learn. Reminds me of that old line "you can't get there from here!" which I always considered funny, but you're saying it's true? Wish I knew more about these "thinking styles" you're talking about, because I've never met someone I couldn't communicate with (in English).
    - aleph_minus_one 2y ago
      > Wish I knew more about these "thinking styles" you're talking about, because I've never met someone I couldn't communicate with (in English). It is plausible that you are sufficiently smart and thus never (or at least rarely) had such problems. To give an extreme example: when Grigori Perelman published his papers about his proof of the geometrization conjecture, even experts in his area had a lot of difficulties understanding his proof (and thus verifying the correctness of it). Only after multiple groups of mathematicians came up with better understandable versions of the central arguments of his proof, (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geometrization_conjecture&oldid=1239788120#History https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geometrization_co... and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture&oldid=1238720390#Hamilton's_program_and_solution https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poincar%C3%A9_con... ), they became convinced of the correctness of Perelman's proof. This was clearly a particularly marked example, but in a school pupils of very different IQs and thinking styles are present. So I wouldn't say that this problem (pupil not understanding another pupil's solution) is uncommon at schools.