Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Things I learned from teaching

claytonwramsey.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 132 posts

Re: Things I learned from teaching

#111

Post by groby_b »

dmvdoug wrote: post #59
groby_b wrote: post #18

The thing that breaks my heart is that we have a much better understanding of adult learning. It didn't need to be that painful. That's not the lecturers fault. It takes a while to learn how to teach. It is the fault of our education system which thinks "let's throw seniors into a teaching situation without any grounding or support". We can also, simultaneously, fault the education system for a high school system tha…

Our high school system doesn’t prepare students for college at all because the way high school works here (in America) clearly isn’t meant to prepare students for college. You have to go to high school. There are compulsory attendance laws everywhere. You don’t have to go to college. It’s a choice to be there. College professors expect students to have their own motivation, their own ability to study things, and so i…

Note that I point to the education system. I know a lot of teachers bend over backwards to make sure their students learn something. (Often even at personal cost, because heaven forbid we give them or students decent supplies)

We as a society just don't seem to give a damn about that outcome. (Cf teacher salaries, the truancy issue you mention, standardized testing, content standards as strict prescription instead of a minimum,....)

And you're right, maybe colleges need to adapt to that reality as well. Or maybe there's a step missing between high school and college. But, again, we don't seem to particularly care about fixing that as a society.

Re: Things I learned from teaching

#112

Post by dmvdoug »

groby_b wrote: post #111
dmvdoug wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our high school system doesn’t prepare students for college at all because the way high school works here (in America) clearly isn’t meant to prepare students for college. You have to go to high school. There are compulsory attendance laws everywhere. You don’t have to go to college. It’s a choice to be there. College professors expect students to have their own motivation, their own ability to study things, and so i…

Note that I point to the education system . I know a lot of teachers bend over backwards to make sure their students learn something. (Often even at personal cost, because heaven forbid we give them or students decent supplies) We as a society just don't seem to give a damn about that outcome. (Cf teacher salaries, the truancy issue you mention, standardized testing, content standards as strict prescription instead o…

I like the idea that there’s a step missing in between. Like, after high school, you spend a year minimum doing college prep at some sort of extended school. Or you could test out of it and enter college immediately (if, say, you went to a college-prep-type high school). I don’t know who would fund it and that’s half the battle, but it would be miles better than what we do right now.

Part of the issue with public schools right now is that we aren’t really just education anymore. We’re like a social service agency. And I’m not saying we shouldn’t be but people need to understand that what we do is so much more than just content. Every day last week, I was in the offices of the guidance counselors, or our behavioral interventionist, because kids had come to talk to me privately about different struggles they’re having (all mental health-related in one way or another). Whether it was anxiety, depression, panic attacks, or not being able to get through the day without smoking weed because of how bad they feel. Who else is going to help these kids deal with that? They don’t have community resources to help them, and they often don’t tell anyone at home about it. And that’s just extra stuff on top of what every normal teenager goes through during their development. I’ve had to have so many conversations with boys AND girls this year about using protection if they’re having sex that it’s terrifying, because of the shit I hear. But people on the outside just see me as, like, giving history assignments.

Re: Things I learned from teaching

#113

Post by tsumnia »

uolmir wrote: post #101
tsumnia wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why not create a set of lectures by the best in the field or even setup a committee of professors on how best to craft a particular lecture and create a video... A few things: - Professors, even best in the field, may disagree. In the first lecture for my AI course I talk about how cognitive scientists still can't agree on a definition for what intelligence IS. Extend that to other domains and I'm willing to bet th…

Low content reply I know but it's great to see ICAP having the mindshare to appear in this discussion on HN. It's such a great paper and concept. I also think it has a lot to offer practitioners by making "active learning" a defined and delineated idea.

Absolutely! I based my dissertation on analyzing how students selected different lower level CS exercises (typing exercises, Parson Puzzles, output prediction, etc.) based on ICAP. What I observed was lower Active exercises benefit all students, the general order of exercise selection follows a sawtooth wave (work upwards to assessment, then reset for the next week), completers and non-completers in a MOOC selected 'next exercises' similarly, and no one likes pop ups recommending you to 'downgrade' if you're struggling on a problem. There are limitations to my work, like the order of how exercises were presented primed their selections, but the overarching theme I tried to convey was that lower-level drilling is an absolute necessity for learning.

Re: Things I learned from teaching

#114

Post by jstarfish »

SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #100
kmoser wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is always a "why", else what would be the use of teaching the subject in the first place, even to enthusiastic students? OP's point is that helping the students understand the "why" might spark interest in them. Even if you reach one kid, you will have achieved your intended result.

The why the course is useful to know may not actually ever be relevant to the students why they’re taking the class, and no amount of informing the student how it’s useful will assist them. Knowing firsthand the value of tax knowledge doesn’t mean I have any level of enthusiasm about my taxes… Btw, for your baking example: the great British bake off is a wildly popular show and yet almost none of the people I know wh…

> the great British bake off is a wildly popular show and yet almost none of the people I know who are fans care to even try to learn baking themselves.

You're missing the point of teaching anything. Teaching is (literally) the act of grooming someone to be receptive to an idea. It's different from training, which is the act of coaching someone into doing something.

When the day comes where one of those fans does try to bake something, everything they saw on the show is going to resonate in a way it wouldn't for someone without the exposure.

I don't bake, but I now know two ways in which greasy meat leads to a soggy bottom.

Re: Things I learned from teaching

#115

Post by shortrounddev2 »

jstarfish wrote: post #114
SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The why the course is useful to know may not actually ever be relevant to the students why they’re taking the class, and no amount of informing the student how it’s useful will assist them. Knowing firsthand the value of tax knowledge doesn’t mean I have any level of enthusiasm about my taxes… Btw, for your baking example: the great British bake off is a wildly popular show and yet almost none of the people I know wh…

> the great British bake off is a wildly popular show and yet almost none of the people I know who are fans care to even try to learn baking themselves. You're missing the point of teaching anything. Teaching is (literally) the act of grooming someone to be receptive to an idea. It's different from training, which is the act of coaching someone into doing something. When the day comes where one of those fans does try…

Most people go to college for training; they could not care less about receptivity to ideas. There is this myth that college is about expanding one's mind and worldview. It is not. It is about improving and ensuring one's economic class. Only professors forsake a job in the real world for these ideals. Everybody else is there to secure their spot in the middle class, and they don't care about superfluous information

Re: Things I learned from teaching

#116

Post by jstarfish »

shortrounddev2 wrote: post #115
jstarfish wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the great British bake off is a wildly popular show and yet almost none of the people I know who are fans care to even try to learn baking themselves. You're missing the point of teaching anything. Teaching is (literally) the act of grooming someone to be receptive to an idea. It's different from training, which is the act of coaching someone into doing something. When the day comes where one of those fans does try…

Most people go to college for training; they could not care less about receptivity to ideas. There is this myth that college is about expanding one's mind and worldview. It is not. It is about improving and ensuring one's economic class. Only professors forsake a job in the real world for these ideals. Everybody else is there to secure their spot in the middle class, and they don't care about superfluous information

> Most people go to college for training; they could not care less about receptivity to ideas

And they come out of it disappointed that they don't actually know how to do anything.

> There is this myth that college is about expanding one's mind and worldview.

I used to think that was a myth too. So much so I did it twice. College is wasted on the young.

It took decades of experience for me to recognize how much of my college experience consisted of being fed blatant lies meant to foster critical thought.

Re: Things I learned from teaching

#117

Post by agumonkey »

skeeter2020 wrote: post #87
agumonkey wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been quite curious how to "divide and conquer" the problem by weaponizing the bored genius into teaching the perplexed and lagging. It may save teacher time for teaching the middle group while also teaching the genius what it is to explain something so intuitive to someone who doesn't. But it may backfire ..

>> by weaponizing the bored genius into teaching the perplexed and lagging. This seems like a great idea but should be used very sparingly. Your "bored genius" isn't necessarily a great teacher, and that's not their job anyway. I've found you're better to give them more challenging options. If they want to be bored that's on them; if they pursue it they'll likely do it independently.

I agree but there's a huge value in showing them how diverse can brains be. As a smart person, it's very important that they tame their own needs and open their mind a bit too.

That said, making them chasing challenges is also a great thing.

Re: Things I learned from teaching

#118

Post by schneems »

pmichaud wrote: post #89
schneems wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now we ready for the exciting part" or "This next bit is what I like best about this topic", etc. Personal excitement for the material is one piece, but it’s not enough. The most important thing a teacher should do is help the students internalize *why* they’re learning the material. What they can do with it. Baking shows don’t start off telling the history of the maillard reaction, they show you the delicious cake…

Love this. My version is wanting to know what problem I would face on my own that would lead me to independently generate the solution I'm about to learn. That gives me motivation and context for the information so I can form a complete orientation in the problem space.

I completely agree.

A problem is probably the most classic storytelling device. “A heroes journey” gives the hero a problem to solve and then the climax is when they solve it.

Re: Things I learned from teaching

#119

Post by schneems »

nonameiguess wrote: post #95
schneems wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now we ready for the exciting part" or "This next bit is what I like best about this topic", etc. Personal excitement for the material is one piece, but it’s not enough. The most important thing a teacher should do is help the students internalize *why* they’re learning the material. What they can do with it. Baking shows don’t start off telling the history of the maillard reaction, they show you the delicious cake…

At least some of the time the reason is the canon of that subject requires it and you either care about that subject or you don't. If it's a distribution requirement the school imposes or the student simply doesn't know yet what they enjoy studying and are still major-shopping, there isn't necessarily much a professor can do about that. It's not like cooking. Everyone has to eat. Not everyone needs to become a chemis…

> It's not like cooking. Everyone has to eat.

Not everyone likes cake (believe it or not). But everyone understands why someone else might want a cake.

It’s a storytellers job to make the connection or to provide a surrogate. Most people have never been orphans, but Little orphan Annie’s character acts as surrogate through which the viewer can understand the orphan world.

You’re right that having more context of your audience and having shared interests help, but you can still tell a story to someone you’ve never met.

Re: Things I learned from teaching

#120

Post by schneems »

shortrounddev2 wrote: post #91
schneems wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now we ready for the exciting part" or "This next bit is what I like best about this topic", etc. Personal excitement for the material is one piece, but it’s not enough. The most important thing a teacher should do is help the students internalize *why* they’re learning the material. What they can do with it. Baking shows don’t start off telling the history of the maillard reaction, they show you the delicious cake…

> The most important thing a teacher should do is help the students internalize why they’re learning the material. What they can do with it. Depending on the topic there is often no "why". Most classes a student takes are required and they have absolutely zero interest in them and they will willfully forget them as soon as the semester is over

There’s always a reason.

“I want to learn something just to learn something” isn’t the best reason, but it is A reason.

I mention in another post that even if the reason doesn’t interest you personally, the teacher still should make a strong case and you should walk away knowing why someone (even if not you) could do, if only they had the knowledge.

Post reply on HN