The issue is that, at least for me, I'm madly trying to capture in my notes whatever it is the teacher was presenting. Then, on "step 15" we get the "Oh, did anyone notice this on Step 3?" and then they'd erase the board and we'd start again.
I never felt it was an interesting technique, especially early on, when, again, at least for me, I'm just trying to absorb everything. I don't know enough to separate the wheat from the chaff, and still barely understand what I'm doing. Many times one can succeed by blindly following a process without understanding, and over time that understanding arrives, aided by repetition and application of the examples.
Folks learn differently with different ways. This was not an effective teaching technique for me.
Ideally, you should only work at learning something if you don't know it. Repetition wastes a lot of time to get that guarantee, but it would be much more efficient to just recognize where you're weak and work at that. It's a rather lazy meta-learning strategy to just throw spaghetti at the wall until everything sticks.
I think it's fine if someone chooses to learn this way, but it's unfair to expect all the other students to waste their time---I really hated when math teachers assigned 30 problems of homework, because I didn't need 30 of the same problem to know how to solve it, and almost no one does. Really, you only need repetition for a small percent of the content, it's just what "clicks" for each person is different.
I appreciated what my high school chemistry teacher did instead: all problem sets were optional, but there were recommended problems. Then, we had tests every two weeks which we were allowed to retake, but only once we solved the problems. That way, we quickly see if we're missing any knowledge and are forced to learn it for a good grade.
This is only slightly related, but if you don't understand, what value do your notes actually have? Or is this an environment with no lecture recordings, digital presentations or notes shared with the class..? I ask out of a genuine curiosity, since I know many people benefit from live note taking. I can only imagine notes being useful if they constituted a synthesis of the teacher's guidance.
Gilbert Strang would do a version of this too: appearing to work through problems on the fly and asking the audience for help, when of course he had come up with the problems himself and made them readily solvable to illustrate the concept he was teaching.
You can see instances of this in his last lecture in 2023.
A bit tangential but, when a teacher asks if anyone knows x, he/she doesn't want the nerd wiseguy who actually knows to answer, he wants someone who is unsure to answer so that everyone can participate in the learning experience.
Only if you let the mistake go unmentioned. I do a version of this where I glibly include a mistake, like:
// Examples of dereference operator.
int i, *ip = ..., **ipp = ...;
i = *ip; // Assuming ip has been correctly initialized.
i = **ipp; // Likewise.
// The address-of operator is the opposite.
ip = &i;
ipp = &&i;
I actually talk through the last line. Almost no one ever questions it. I then ask students to look at that last line again, and ask them if an address has an address, and if so, what does that mean, could it ever be useful?
> It’s about finding someone who’s not ashamed to fail in front of you—and then figuring out the answers together.
Students aren't going to lose trust in their teacher over mistakes. Establishing core concepts while tripping over details breeds humility for correction when real mistakes are made by the teacher and helps show students that it's okay to make mistakes. This brings more attention to the value of double-checking one's work and the opportunities for correction give purpose to their learning.
It reminds me of another anecdote, regarding a university professor who told his students that he would deliberately include one falsehood in each lecture, and the students were charged with listening carefully and identifying the 'mistake' in each class.
For the very last class in the course, the professor trolled his students by not including any mistake.
I had a teacher that routinely did this.
I hated it.
The issue is that, at least for me, I'm madly trying to capture in my notes whatever it is the teacher was presenting. Then, on "step 15" we get the "Oh, did anyone notice this on Step 3?" and then they'd erase the board and we'd start again.
I never felt it was an interesting technique, especially early on, when, again, at least for me, I'm just trying to absorb everything. I don't know enough to separate the wheat from the chaff, and still barely understand what I'm doing. Many times one can succeed by blindly following a process without understanding, and over time that understanding arrives, aided by repetition and application of the examples.
Folks learn differently with different ways. This was not an effective teaching technique for me.
Ideally, you should only work at learning something if you don't know it. Repetition wastes a lot of time to get that guarantee, but it would be much more efficient to just recognize where you're weak and work at that. It's a rather lazy meta-learning strategy to just throw spaghetti at the wall until everything sticks.
I think it's fine if someone chooses to learn this way, but it's unfair to expect all the other students to waste their time---I really hated when math teachers assigned 30 problems of homework, because I didn't need 30 of the same problem to know how to solve it, and almost no one does. Really, you only need repetition for a small percent of the content, it's just what "clicks" for each person is different.
I appreciated what my high school chemistry teacher did instead: all problem sets were optional, but there were recommended problems. Then, we had tests every two weeks which we were allowed to retake, but only once we solved the problems. That way, we quickly see if we're missing any knowledge and are forced to learn it for a good grade.
I think it works well for the early grades with simple problems like 5x5=24 to get young kids interested or your vs you’re
But anything beyond that anything multi step is just not useful - you talk about taking notes young kids are not taking notes
This is only slightly related, but if you don't understand, what value do your notes actually have? Or is this an environment with no lecture recordings, digital presentations or notes shared with the class..? I ask out of a genuine curiosity, since I know many people benefit from live note taking. I can only imagine notes being useful if they constituted a synthesis of the teacher's guidance.
Gilbert Strang would do a version of this too: appearing to work through problems on the fly and asking the audience for help, when of course he had come up with the problems himself and made them readily solvable to illustrate the concept he was teaching.
You can see instances of this in his last lecture in 2023.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUUte2o2Sn8
Linear Algebra was the math subject I was strongest in during college and I give all credit to Gilbert Strang. He was the best to ever do it.
A bit tangential but, when a teacher asks if anyone knows x, he/she doesn't want the nerd wiseguy who actually knows to answer, he wants someone who is unsure to answer so that everyone can participate in the learning experience.
Cunningham's Law: "the best way to get the right answer on the Internet is not to ask a question, it's to post the wrong answer"
To be clear, this appears to be a work of fiction?
Are people taking this to be a real life account, and if so whats the basis for that. I'm not seeing anything on this blog to indicate otherwise.
That’s my read on it. Far too tidy, pitched to make you feel just so. If it’s real, so many details are missing that it may as well not be.
This is very 1990s chain-email glurge story.
That's absolutely a great catch Jprete!
Good spot - indeed in real life these things often don't work out as you would expect based on those superficially beautiful stories.
You are an AI bot.
Do this too often and you risk losing the trust of your students, however.
Only if you let the mistake go unmentioned. I do a version of this where I glibly include a mistake, like:
I actually talk through the last line. Almost no one ever questions it. I then ask students to look at that last line again, and ask them if an address has an address, and if so, what does that mean, could it ever be useful?I see what the mistake is! You are using some sort of gibberish instead of using JavaScript and naming your variables with clear and verbose intent.
> It’s about finding someone who’s not ashamed to fail in front of you—and then figuring out the answers together.
Students aren't going to lose trust in their teacher over mistakes. Establishing core concepts while tripping over details breeds humility for correction when real mistakes are made by the teacher and helps show students that it's okay to make mistakes. This brings more attention to the value of double-checking one's work and the opportunities for correction give purpose to their learning.
I’d be worried administration thought I had dementia and would be removed.
Great article.
It reminds me of another anecdote, regarding a university professor who told his students that he would deliberately include one falsehood in each lecture, and the students were charged with listening carefully and identifying the 'mistake' in each class.
For the very last class in the course, the professor trolled his students by not including any mistake.
Kai Chang's "Dr. K" in economics (2008)
https://www.overcomingbias.com/p/my-favorite-liahtml - https://zenmoments.org/my-favorite-liar/
Ah, that must have been it. Thanks for the link!