Any teaching that assumes that the student is a biggot that needs to be corrected, and that the student should just accept his truth on the basis of his/her authority as a teacher, is obviously a fairly bad way of teaching.
The teacher should make the knowledge he wants to impart approachable and use an angle that the student can accept so as to convince him/her.
Agreed. In my class I always start with the hard/wrong way. Point out why it's hard/wrong. Let them hate it. Then show the easy/correct way. You can't just point them at something and say, "Do it this way or else." That's not teaching. That's directing.
This got me thinking about teaching as well. But I actually think it is a good counter-example to the idea that the truth is somehow sufficient.
The truth is obviously necessary, but not sufficient. When lecturing, sure a collection of facts is nice, but most people don’t do well with a bunch of facts. Our brains can only handle a couple things at a time. If the facts aren’t combined into a single cohesive narrative that can be considered “a thing,” they are much harder to keep hold of. And building a narrative is a much a thing of subjective tastes, as objective truth.
When talking to students one-on-one, if they make a wrong statement, it is usually not enough to just tell them the alternative correct thing. A wrong statement is a symptom. It is the start of a journey. You may have to travel with them down some fairly winding paths, to get to the nexus of misunderstanding.
That's true regardless of the teaching technique though, isn't it? Having someone lecture at you because they assume your knowledge is lacking is the part that makes it condescending, IMO.
In my experience as a TA, the worst obstacle in teaching someone something is when they think they already know it. There's nothing that can replace a bad grade and the consequent soul searching in these situations. A disagreeable experience for the moment can sometimes benefit you much more in the long run.
To counter the positive feedback about this technique, I'd like to point that when the person on the learning side (answering the questions) has not asked to be taught anything, the teacher (asking questions) can come across as a condescending prick. This is especially true if the content is a matter of opinion, not statements of fact. I have become sensitized to this and it makes my blood boil when I notice it happen.
I agree. Basic pedagogy: if you are about to introduce an example where you think you might have to choose between being truthful or confusing, you should not introduce that example. Or, if you have to, do it the confusing way.
Lying to beginners to shield them from confusion does not help them. Find a way to do what you want to do while still telling the truth.
This is the wrong place to have that conversation. This is a submission based on the premise that one must teach a group of students, as is the case in any classroom environment such as the one described.
You're arguing with the premise, which is unhelpful. You either accept the premise and engage in this topic, or you disagree with the premise and leave the rest of us alone.
If teaching is indeed universally bad (which I doubt but lets go with the idea as a thought experiment) - then surely the issue must lie with training/the accepted teaching methods?
I have an issue with the idea of "teaching new practitioners X while telling them that X is not to be used seriously", for so many reasons.
1) It is doing a disservice to the students to tell them that you won't use much of what you are made to learn.
2) A nontrivial amount of people will attempt to use it seriously anyway, sometimes with disastrous results.
3) It usually indicates teacher laziness and/or disinteredness in finding alternative ways to teach.
4) Surprisingly often, when you are not supposed to use X, it is actually useless to learn X. (That is NOT the case in this situation -- there are reasons to learn C -- but the students can't know that unless told so.)
5) There are almost always better alternatives. I have never been unable to find a Y which fulfills the same criteria as X, yet in addition is also usable for serious things. It's just that sometimes you have to look a little harder for it.
In other words, I think it is a teacher's categorical responsibility to find a means to teach what they want in a way that is practically applicable by the students right away. And failing to do so should be taken as a strong hint that what they want to teach may not be the thing they should teach.
I wouldn't say this if I didn't firmly believe that you can teach most things in a way that grants the student immediate practical applications. And I don't say this in a political way -- of course everyone should have the liberty to teach whatever useless thing they want in whatever shitty manner they cn come up with. I'm viewing it more as requirements on any teacher who wants to call themselves good, or tell themselves they are doing their students a service and improving mankind.
I think the way we are taught could be greatly improved. What do you think? And what would be the ideal way to teach?
bad teaching examples from personal experience:
---
>you have 1/5 exercises wrong and therefore sit in 2 hour long exercise sessions waiting for that specific exercise to be solved. (20 students * 20% * 2h = 8h wasted)
>lectures add no value or excitement to content. Most students learn it better and faster reading the script. video lectures are also very bad. You mainly go to the lectures for social interaction or a clear conscience.
>a friend made a teaching internship in Uganda this winter: the kids have school for 15h a day. They didn't learn anything, it was basically to keep them busy and increase the price for the girls when they are married off
There are many more and better examples, these are just from the top of my head. For me it is just so frustrating to see, especially for the other people. For example, there are physics lecture that were given for the past houndred years, how can my professor then give them in such a bad way that noone understands, but after a 1min youtube video, it is all clear.
I will apply for a TA position next semester. At some point in the future I (try/)want to create high-quality opensource content. In our time it makes no sense that thousands of professors give the same, but bad online lectures, all around the world. I could go on and on...
My approach to education requires the students understand the subject and build their own representations. Nudging in the large is not acceptable to me, but it the small perhaps to gain the tools for understanding. Tricking someone into understanding a thing for themselves seems ok.
The teacher should make the knowledge he wants to impart approachable and use an angle that the student can accept so as to convince him/her.
reply