3 ms·

The part that the article leaves out is that when you go home after having been led so magically to a place you could've not gotten to yourself - you still have

The part that the article leaves out is that when you go home after having been led so magically to a place you could've not gotten to yourself - you still have to sit down and comprehend it and work through it by solving similar problems and re-tracing your steps. Just because you were able to grasp it temporarily in class, does not mean you'll get to keep it when the excellent teacher is not around. It is a lot like when somebody guides you through cooking something step by step with you doing all the work. It is definitely great because it inspires confidence in you doing new things. But when you are by yourself and you try to repeat the experience, you'll stumble and fumble quite a bit. So in short - teaching anything using logical steps makes a lot of sense and is a great way to do it. Caveat: you still have to put in the work to solidify that knowledge. Problem being: solidifying things is oftentimes tedious unless the task you're learning is intrinsically interesting/pleasing (solving math puzzles is just fun for some folks), so there is no revolution around the corner. People will put up with a lot if they have the natural dexterity for it, good teachers/methodology makes the whole experience more pleasant is all :)

4927a15fe7b0c35 12y ago
I actually think you misunderstand the point. I'm not trying to argue that learning complex things is easy and it doesn't require mental effort, but this is not simply "teaching anything using logical steps". It's about encouraging the student to discover the solution on their own, with very careful and reluctant guidance.
siscia 12y ago
Hummm... I am not sure I agree completely, what you mean by "knowledge" ? Let's suppose I don't know how to multiply numbers, however I do know how to add numbers and I also know what multiplication is... Do I know how to multiply numbers ? The real caveat here is another one, the author prepared a sequence a question, for what I can recall from my philosophy class Socrate did not... It was more a random exploration... Finally we all know that some work is necessary to retain knowledge (again, what we mean by knowledge ?), but a logic, inductive work is way more enjoyable (read easier) than a mere mnemonic one.
- alexashka 12y ago
  The point I was trying to make is very simple - the article presented a way to teach kids by getting them to a place using questions. He/she left out the part where you have to go home and solidify what you learned in class. That's where kids will struggle. That home part is not solved by socratic method or otherwise. Nothing solves it, except doing the work. All the socratic way of teaching in a classroom does, is make it more fun and interactive than a traditional lecture. If it gets people excited about learning, they may feel more inclined to put in the work at home. Hence what you were proposing - putting the socratic method in a book, doesn't make sense to me. In a book, you want concise explanations. In a lecture, you do want more interactivity to get people excited to go home and look up the concise information. That's my take on it anyway. I don't know where you were going with defining 'knowledge' - I don't find defining words useful, as long as we both know what we're talking about, we should be fine :)
  - rgarlikov 12y ago
    This was about one lesson, and yes that lesson needs reinforcement. But part of that was being done by those students who were inspired to try it with other mathematical "bases", such as base 3 -- a system with 3 digits. Also, in a full course, if you consistently and frequently use the Socratic method or any method that questions students' logic, many of them begin to do that on their own about their logic or, usually, the logic of other people, even the teacher. I have had students come up with good flaws in my own logic, by the middle or end of the term. But yes, it takes reinforcement.

4927a15fe7b0c35 12y ago

I actually think you misunderstand the point. I'm not trying to argue that learning complex things is easy and it doesn't require mental effort, but this is not simply "teaching anything using logical steps". It's about encouraging the student to discover the solution on their own, with very careful and reluctant guidance.

siscia 12y ago

Hummm... I am not sure I agree completely, what you mean by "knowledge" ? Let's suppose I don't know how to multiply numbers, however I do know how to add numbers and I also know what multiplication is... Do I know how to multiply numbers ? The real caveat here is another one, the author prepared a sequence a question, for what I can recall from my philosophy class Socrate did not... It was more a random exploration... Finally we all know that some work is necessary to retain knowledge (again, what we mean by knowledge ?), but a logic, inductive work is way more enjoyable (read easier) than a mere mnemonic one.

alexashka 12y ago
The point I was trying to make is very simple - the article presented a way to teach kids by getting them to a place using questions. He/she left out the part where you have to go home and solidify what you learned in class. That's where kids will struggle. That home part is not solved by socratic method or otherwise. Nothing solves it, except doing the work. All the socratic way of teaching in a classroom does, is make it more fun and interactive than a traditional lecture. If it gets people excited about learning, they may feel more inclined to put in the work at home. Hence what you were proposing - putting the socratic method in a book, doesn't make sense to me. In a book, you want concise explanations. In a lecture, you do want more interactivity to get people excited to go home and look up the concise information. That's my take on it anyway. I don't know where you were going with defining 'knowledge' - I don't find defining words useful, as long as we both know what we're talking about, we should be fine :)
- rgarlikov 12y ago
  This was about one lesson, and yes that lesson needs reinforcement. But part of that was being done by those students who were inspired to try it with other mathematical "bases", such as base 3 -- a system with 3 digits. Also, in a full course, if you consistently and frequently use the Socratic method or any method that questions students' logic, many of them begin to do that on their own about their logic or, usually, the logic of other people, even the teacher. I have had students come up with good flaws in my own logic, by the middle or end of the term. But yes, it takes reinforcement.