On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 2:51 PM, Andrew Lentvorski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
We are talking about two different things. Getting a truly poor learner to learn something is often a test of patience. Also I would not want to confuse work with difficulty. My point is that getting a student to a certain benchmark is a lot easier with a good learner. After all that is the definition of a good learner. > > > 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. My experience was that the teacher was only rarely of real value in imparting knowledge. I can think of three instances during a long period of being "taught." Mostly teachers seemed to require attendance at boring sessions which were covered better by books and the literature. I do hope we get back to trying to figure out what programming is though. Instead I suspect the thread will rapidly degenerate into a debate on teaching and education :( Please folks do change the subject line if you feel compelled to go that way.) > Encouragement is important, but there is value in the knowledge and > experience of the teacher. Give me a good guide to the literature. Then leave me alone. I can use my time more effectively if left to my own devices. > > 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. So is that what you consider teaching in this case? You have just said that teaching a bright student is hard. Now you are saying also that teaching a dumb student (a computer) is also hard. I am getting the feeling that you are arguing "Heads, I win. Tails, you lose." for your metaphor. I am _not_ buying that argument :) BobLQ -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
