h a l f b a k e r y
OK, we're here. Now what?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
or get an account
Teaching by Exclusion
It is not what you know, it is what you thought you didnt think you didnt know you knew you know, except you didnt know it correctly. You know?
Im not a stranger to transferring or building models of
understanding through educational means.
If you teach a concept or facet within a subject, what may
happen is that the students mind settles on a plausible
model that is not quite the model which is correct, but to
them seems to be.
They will consider that as they now get
it there is no need to ask questions or seek further
I think this happens over and over, far more than we realise,
and each time at a quite small scale. People go out into the
world and work in the field with years of significantly off-
What I suggest is a form of teaching that not only points to
what the thing is, the facet or aspect that is undergoing the
teaching of, but also covers likely ways of getting it
incorrect. Teach by exclusion explain what it isnt. Theres
a lot more incorrect configurations of information than
correct ones, and statistically the student will have arrived at
one of those first. Realising it is incorrect, theyll move on to
a different understanding, but if they dont, they wont. The
job of the teacher in this paradigm is to realise the many
diverse ways people can get it incorrect, and overtly exclude
Teach by testing
An use tests with questions that highlight attractive wrong ways to do things. [bungston, May 16 2016]
||I get this. No need to explain further...
||teach join-the-feckin-dots. I've been saying this forever...
||Sturton was excluded for several terms - can't say
it worked well for him.
||However, I do sort of agree with the motive behind
the idea. The problem is that there are so many
incorrect notions in the heads of so many people
that it will be very, very hard to exclude a
significant proportion of them. To put it another
way, "it's difficult to make something foolproof,
because fools are so ingenious".
||I think a more promising approach is to teach
principles more and specifics less, particularly at
the beginning. For instance, if you're teaching
about enzymes, don't start with peroxidase and
then later on extract general ideas from it. Start
instead with ideas like reaction energies and
quantum tunnelling, and then bring in peroxidase
||Something about... known knowns, and things we know that we know, and known unknowns ... things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.
||Does that about cover it ?
||It doesnt quantify it. I note that just as for each
domain there are specific steps that
require getting before further progress can be
made, that each domain has a different
profile of how many things you have to get before
next level is embarked upon.
||What I mean by quantify is that for each famous
node, theres likely to be a quantifiable top ten of
worst practice ways of thinking about this thing
you're on the cusp of having learned about, that
although seem as though you can be satisfied youve
learned it, in fact, are incorrect and you havent
learned it, youve merely achieved an equilibrium
whereby you dont feel you dont understand it. In
fact, you still dont, but you think you do.
||As I say, theres probably a top ten (for convenience)
of traps a person will fall into at this particular facet
of this topic whereby theyll feel relieved that they
understand it now.
||// There are things we don't know we don't know. //
||That's on a need-to-know basis ... we could tell you, but then we'd have to kill you.
||I suspect that what Tindale describes here in fact described human thought generally. A person acquiring a concept acquires and refines it to the points where the concept serves the purpose at hand. I might stop with Newtonian physics if I have no interest in the orbit of Mercury. My own mental geography is adequate to get me home, most of the time. It certainly could be refined further but before I go to the effort I would want to see the challenges which my current mental scheme cannot adequately address.
||A way to do this is with the teach by testing scheme I saw here. An incorrect mental model will fail with certain types of challenges. Early on, a student should be faced with these challenges such that the deficit in the model is clear.
||I've put you in my contradictory teacher lineup for learning purposes, along with tossing a bun in your direction, but I fear that too many counterexamples which are not directly contrary will muddle the fish pool.
||Here's what i don't understand about your idea.