On 24/06/19 7:14 AM, Wes Turner wrote:
> It would be a good team-teaching lesson, one teacher on the
white-board lecturing, and the other typing the python-translation of
the lecture into code on a big screen.
Do you find teamed presentations to be more effective, contrived, or
overwhelming than just speaking aloud to model the cognitive process of
model development? Modeling a mature process for correcting for mistakes
and errors is sometimes absent from prepared demos that make it look
like it's so easy for *them* (because they spent time preparing and
rehearsing)
That is a very good question!
Speaking personally, I'm ALWAYS suspicious of smooth, slick,
presentations - but then I was 'trained' into this ?negativity by IBM
salesmen, Oracle, MSFT, Apple, ad-nauseum. Whilst I don't attempt to
'play along at home' (concurrent to the presentation), I do prefer to
try something for myself - wherein the cynic expect to find that the
'slick' applies to the presenter and the product/code actually has many
rough-edges and 'gotchas'.
On one hand there is the question of split-attention: do I (the trainee)
pay attention to the lecturer or to the code-display? (or the pretty ...
two rows in-front?)
Alternately, isn't it painful having to sit and watch whilst someone
types - and mistypes - a wall of code?
To generate the elusive attention and interest mentioned, nothing
succeeds like success. Accordingly, something quick-and-dirty which
illustrates both the (depth of the) problem and an answer provides both
relevance and engenders motivation. Thereafter one can start to explore
the details and difficulties.
When you've finished debating presentation, here's something else: there
are lots of solutions 'out there', but how important/difficult is that
first inspiration of relevance and the assurance that the/an answer is
within our grasp?
Your thoughts?
--
Regards =dn
_______________________________________________
Edu-sig mailing list
Edu-sig@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig
