> You will reach limits in learning when you have a "Swiss cheese" foundation full of misconception holes.
On the other hand you will get stuck on your first subject if your force yourself to learn everything.
I think it is important to know the point when the consistency of your foundation goes from "perilous Swiss cheese" to "rock-solid metal mesh to be filled in the future".
I agree with you here, Gioele. The balance between foundation and progress is an important one to strike.
In theory, a full understanding of the foundations of any subject will, in the end, lead to a more complete mastery. However, if you do not give a learner enough "Why am I doing this?" to support their early stumbling steps, you risk losing them entirely. Imagine if you were forced to read the entire K&R C book before writing your first program. I know I wouldn't have made it.
When I was a bartending instructor (past life), my boss told me this Yeats quote (misattributed I think): "Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire".
The short version I've heard is: "The mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be kindled." -Plutarch
But upon some research, the context of the quote is even more interesting:
"The correct analogy for the mind is not a vessel that needs filling, but wood that needs igniting — no more — and then it motivates one towards originality and instills the desire for truth. Suppose someone were to go and ask his neighbors for fire and find a substantial blaze there, and just stay there continually warming himself: that is no different from someone who goes to someone else to get to some of his rationality, and fails to realize that he ought to ignite his own flame, his own intellect, but is happy to sit entranced by the lecture, and the words trigger only associative thinking and bring, as it were, only a flush to his cheeks and a glow to his limbs; but he has not dispelled or dispersed, in the warm light of philosophy, the internal dank gloom of his mind."
I think this has some implication that learning works strictly in a "foundations support advancements" model. The reality seems far more feedback oriented. It isn't that you should build a solid foundation before you move on. It is that later learning should help shape the foundations that you have already passed. Learning is a very active feedback cycle.
That may be a good strategy for the individual, but a community as a whole should be sure that the entire foundation is solid, even if a single individual can't comprehend the entire foundation.
Always worth looking at that the US military do. (I say US because it seems that a hell of a lot of their instruction manuals are freely available. Shame I cant say that of the UK)
For me it was engineering. Years ago, I found some documents on metal work when I was learning to use lathes, milling machines, etc. Best resource available. It seemed old, but the information was invaluable. The thing that struck me was that, while it did do a quick over view of the basic methodologies and concepts, it very quickly focused on getting stuff done. It read like it was written for instant use. So, say you were a private stuck in the middle of no where, needed to make a part for, say, a gun and had a metal work workshop instantly available; this document would have said private making the part in something like an hour. Further, that part would work properly over a decent life span.
A basic rule of thumb for me is that what ever new thing I want to learn, I see if I can find a military instruction document on the subject.
How do you go about looking for such documents? Simple google "military instruction document"? Is there a term for those things? I know enough about the military that everything that can be put into an acronym is.
I hear this statement a lot, and I think it's very suspicious. Everyone wants to believe this, because if they fail a class, they can use "learning is more important than grades" as an easy excuse to avoid taking responsibility for their own failings. In reality though, if you've actually mastered what the class is trying to teach, you should be able to get passing grades.
Flip it around. What it is meant to say is just because you got a passing grade in the class, doesn't necessarily mean you've mastered the material. You may still have a shaky understanding of it. It is more important to master the material than just have the goal of "passing."
That's exactly it. I've observed that behaviour so often, I stopped counting. A lot of college/university students under very harsh time constraints learn the material with a focus on what they believe will get them the desired grade (be that passing or highest).
Meanwhile, they will leave out big chunks of the necessary foundations, because they won't be tested on their own. And then they mechanically learn the parts that will get tested, without understanding the underlying parts. They pass, usually, but that's more a problem of poorly written tests. (Because if you didn't _understand_ the material, I happen to think that you should fail a well written test.)
I had a professor who unwittingly encouraged this kind of rote study. His questions were word questions that required you to describe in details certain concepts from the course material.
All of that is good (in theory), but his grading approach was to mark off a point or two for minor discrepancies. In theory, this meant that if you had the concept, without memorization you would get points.
In reality if you didn't include all keywords from the lessons, you would be docked points. People who memorized extremely well and parroted back his words almost verbatim would do well. People who worked to understand the material and write back their understanding often wouldn't.
Sigh. The sad thing was is that from a classroom learning standpoint, he was one of the best professors there. But I would often end up avoiding his classes (my memory is often terrible at rote learning).
From my experience the knowledge of a university course topic should be a reasonable conpromise between full understanding of all concept in detail (which could require too much time) and the study of the key concept, and the capability of apply it. I often found in university course (in Italy) an excess of theory and detail on all the topic and subtopics, and a poor teaching to apply the key concepts that are the ones you would use in practice. (Even if the test require also the capability to practically apply concept)
I hear it differently: Focus on mastering the material, not on a grade you want to get.
As you said, with mastery the rest should follow. Though, in my experience, testing itself needs to be mastered. For some of us that comes quite naturally, but for others it takes a bit of time.
Edit: Sorry, I didn't see aestra's comment before I posted.
Judgment has a negative effect on the efficiency of learning. Being graded causes stress and stress reduces your ability to learn.
Grading can be a motivator, however, causing you to push yourself to learn things you might not otherwise be motivated to do.
However, I think that learning without judgment is the most effective way to learn, when you otherwise have some intrinsic motivation. Likewise, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overjustification_effect which is not the same, but another effect that causes an extrinsic factor to diminish intrinsic motivation.
When I learn for my own benefit, all of my efforts are focused on developing new skills and new understanding. When I am learning to pass some test, my efforts are focused instead on not failing.
If these tools are used to guide study to make sure students get the requisite knowledge then they can be effective. I think they lose effectiveness when they are instead used to classify and rank students.
I have always scored well on tests, but I've always learned and understood things more fully doing things that were at my own direction.
Face-to-face instruction should focus on practise and exploration, not on learning basic facts.
I don't think face-to-face instruction should focus on practise and exploration any more than it should on learning basic facts. Practise is controlled repetition, and this is probably the easiest thing for a learner to undertake on their own. Exploration is likewise a very personal endeavour - it's always come down to exploring how the concepts are relevant to me, or a specific context I am interested in.
Face-to-face time ('instruction' is not really the right word for it) should focus on collaboration more than anything.
I think one of the most valuable aspects of face-to-face time is that the mentor can challenge you, or lead you in directions it might have taken you longer to get there or you might not have even thought of. Cf the Socratic method, which I think far too many classrooms eschew (I can't count the number of times I've fallen asleep in dry fact presenting lectures).
That being said, sometimes hands on guidance (especially for more corporeal pursuits, such as playing a musical instrument or weight training), can save not just wasted practice time, but correct bad form before it does possible physical damage.
I like his distinguishing of mastery of the visible versus mastery of the invisible. This is very true, and why people who sometimes seem outwardly competent and good at routine thing struggle with uncertainty and adaptation. I also like the distinction between drilling and practice. Both are needed, but simulation doesn't build core skills or help weak areas.
Perhaps the best thing he did was share the link to the Commander's guide.
On the other hand you will get stuck on your first subject if your force yourself to learn everything.
I think it is important to know the point when the consistency of your foundation goes from "perilous Swiss cheese" to "rock-solid metal mesh to be filled in the future".