Bob La Quey wrote:
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 9:56 PM, Andrew Lentvorski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Teaching is only hard when you teach poor learners.
I wholeheartedly disagree. With some of the best learners (and I have been fortunate to have had some very good students), teaching gets *harder*, not easier. I know the questions and problems an "average" class will have. Truly good learners will come up with questions and problems you've never tought of and will require work to figure out. It may be more enjoyable, but it is more work.
I know a number of educators (not great "teachers" ;) who consider the entire educational process just one of filtering. Find the ones who can do, encourage them and stay out of their way. Personally I always preferred that approach in my teachers.
I really disagree with this. This assumes that the "teacher" has no value in imparting knowledge. I have watched people who don't "get" something chew through the same subject with a different teacher.
Encouragement is important, but there is value in the knowledge and experience of the teacher.
I suppose you could argue that computers are extremely poor learners so that is why they are hard to teach. As far as I am concerned that simply stretches the metafor to the breaking point. Human based metaphors for programming or computing mislead more often then enlighten.
Sometimes. However, a computer is *truly* stupid. Programming a computer is explaining things to a very obedient, but very dumb automaton.
-a -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
