Tutoring Students

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
29,976
For me, the classic example of rote learning is the "I must remember all the formulae to pass" mentality or "this is what I was taught in 1960" concept. There are probably several others.
With respect to the latter, I was informed some time ago that that all RF antennas are designed to match the 300 ohm impedance of free space. So a 300 ohm folded dipole was the best antenna. When I challenged the statement, I was told that they (the person) were taught this truth way back when they were a student and that was a sufficient argument to justify their claim.
If I remember correctly, the impedance of free space is ~377Ω. Assuming I'm remembering that correctly, that's enough of a difference to pretty much throw that claim out the window.

Aside - I once explained to a fellow student that 60Hz was the best frequency for AC power because the frequency of 377 r/s matched the 377Ω impedance of free space and, therefore, you got no reflections and could transmit power at 60Hz without radiated loss while any other frequency, such as 50Hz, suffered from power losses due to improper impedance matching. They bought it.
 

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
29,976
For me, the classic example of rote learning is the "I must remember all the formulae to pass" mentality or "this is what I was taught in 1960" concept. There are probably several others.
A strange thing that I first noticed a bit over a decade ago was, to my mind, a reversal of what was considered "memorization" and what was considered "comprehension". I expected students to be able to start with the constitutive equation for a transistor, such as the Eber-Molls model for a BJT, and from that derive the tee and hybrid-pi small-signal models. They complained that they didn't see any use in memorizing the models and that they thought their prior instructor had the better approach because he expected them to understand the models. When I asked what they meant by that, it turned out that they were just expected to be able to regurgitate the models and the formulas for the small-signal parameters in terms of the large-signal operating point parameters. Yet THAT is what they considered "understanding" the models and being able to derive those same formulas from the constitutive equation only constituted "memorizing" the models.
 
Last edited:

GopherT

Joined Nov 23, 2012
8,009
No, I do not have that idea. In fact if you will take the time to read what I wrote, you will see that I specifically allowed for and acknowledged that YOU are able to learn from seeing examples worked just fine.

And, as I pointed, you want to generalize and conclude that EVERYONE learns the exact same way that you do. That is a false conclusion.
Since Yakama only remembers (or bothers mentioning) his nearly failed calculus class as the example of how all people learn all the time, he is obviously deciding to ignore how his elementary school teachers taught him to read, write and do arithmetic, algebra and geometry proofs. Those classes must have been taught by good teachers (so he didn't notice he was being "taught") and, therefore, eliminates them from his dataset of relate the information, or, he was born with all of that already in his brain designed by god. So, apparently the only time he was ever taught, the teacher was doing it wrong and he discovered the holy grail of how all people learn all the time as he read the study guide/solution manual.

In any case, he has his single datapoint, I am anxious to see what he decides the slope of his trend line will be in the next few posts.

Note: instead of sharing this with us, why isn't he getting a publisher to work with him to write the ultimate guide to how all students learn all the time. Oh, wait, because students buy solution manuals all the time and study for hours and still fail - no, that can't be true, because Yakama said that is how students are supposed to learn best - I'm confused now...
 
Last edited:

t_n_k

Joined Mar 6, 2009
5,455
If I remember correctly, the impedance of free space is ~377Ω. Assuming I'm remembering that correctly, that's enough of a difference to pretty much throw that claim out the window.

Aside - I once explained to a fellow student that 60Hz was the best frequency for AC power because the frequency of 377 r/s matched the 377Ω impedance of free space and, therefore, you got no reflections and could transmit power at 60Hz without radiated loss while any other frequency, such as 50Hz, suffered from power losses due to improper impedance matching. They bought it.
Yes my sloppiness I'm afraid. The free space impedance is indeed ~377 ohm. Story hasn't changed otherwise. Your story is much better. I hope you eventually let them in on the deception - they may still be promulgating the myth.
 
Last edited:

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
29,976
Yes my sloppiness I'm afraid. The free space impedance is indeed ~377 ohm. Story hasn't changed otherwise. Your story is much better. I hope you eventually let them in on the deception - they may still be promulgating the myth.
I think the only reason that I always seem to be able to remember that it is 377Ω is because of this tale. And it is truly just coincidence because they aren't exactly the same (numerically) and the units are completely incompatible.

As for whether I told them the truth -- to be honest I don't remember. I probably did -- because I usually do. But I can't even picture who it was so I really don't recall. Probably another person that ended up in therapy because of me.
 

tracecom

Joined Apr 16, 2010
3,944
While it is true that people have different levels of innate cognitive ability that are based on genetics and brain physiology, and therefore not normally subject to positive change, all people can improve their effective cognitive skills with better methodology. In my experience, all students respond best to demonstrations of "what" to do when coupled with explanations of "how" to do.
 
Last edited:

Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
23,415
When being shown something I learn better with my hands, not everyone does. To say there are only a few ways to learn is to really not understand psychology.

Autistic people are another major case in point.
 

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
29,976
The "best" method is, like everything associated with the concept "best" highly context-dependent as well as being dependent on the metric by which one method is judged "better" than another method.

Even with a given person, they might learn Task A better using Method X and Task B better using Method Y. They might also learn Task A better form Person J if that person uses Method X, but if they are learning from Person K they might learn better if that person uses Method Y and NOT Method X. There are all kinds of dynamics involved.

When you are working with a person one-on-one and face-to-face, you have access to a whole suite of feedback channels including the person's facial expressions and a whole host of other non-verbal cues with which to judge, and adjust, the approach. That is, unfortunately, not a viable option in an online forum. You also have a complete lack of control in that if I have a student that I am assisting one-on-one, I have the ability to choose to work one of their problems (though I usually work a similar problem instead) knowing that I can limit it to that and then see how they do on the next problem on their own. But if I take that approach in an online forum, then it takes only a small handful of such "helpers" to enable someone to just shop their homework around until they find enough "helpers" to do all their homework for them, all the time while each "helper" thinks that they are just giving a helpful demonstration -- especially when the person comes back and says something like, "Great! That really helped and I was able to do the next five problems all by myself. But I can't see how to tackle this problem -- could you please show me how it's done?" Sounds wonderful and gives us a warm fuzzy that we are really helping this student learn and makes us feel good about showing them how to work that next problem. All the while we are unaware that they are playing this same game, with different problems, on five to six different sites (and perhaps with their instructor, and their friends, and their help sessions, and their department's tutors, and...) and that they have yet to actually work a single problem themselves.
 

#12

Joined Nov 30, 2010
18,224
The "best" method even changes by the subject matter.

Example 1: I was impressed with my Calculus book because each homework problem contained one new concept which followed naturally from the previous problem. Amazing! That author must have spent years polishing that book!

Example 2: One semester in, "theory" of automatic transmissions. What? I should know what I'm doing? I had to take the second semester twice to get to the point that I could recognize which part I had in my hand. Front clutch...second gear...overrunning clutch...C4...FMX...Turbo-hydromatic...Aaagh! There is no way to learn this from a book!

Tell me, show me, depends on who you're teaching and what the subject is.
 

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
29,976
That's what I meant by Task A and Task B, but your concrete example gets the point across much better.

I might even learn the same thing today better one way than I would learn it tomorrow (or a year from now). The background and experience I bring to the table strongly affects how I will best learn something. But on even shorter timescales, where my mind is at this morning and where it is at this afternoon are not the same, and so I might be more receptive to one method this morning and a substantially different method this afternoon.
 

joeyd999

Joined Jun 6, 2011
5,234
I'd like to chime in here in a completely unrelated way:

As a hobby, I train dogs. Over the past 10 years, I've worked with hundreds of different dogs and as many handlers.

One thing you must quickly learn in order to be a successful dog trainer is that every dog is different. Every single one of them.

Each has its own set of "drives" and, as I like to say, different "buttons" that need to be pressed in order for them to comprehend the lesson and absorb the training. One who sticks to a specific method of training for all dogs will be successful with none of them.

With that said, no matter how good the trainer, there are "bad dogs" -- i.e. dogs that won't learn no matter what you do. This, in dogs, is a matter of genetics and you cannot get around it. Such dogs do not advance far in their training.

The human parallel? I suppose that everyone learns (better) in different ways, and a single methodology is probably not good for all. Unfortunately, most schools tend to have an approach that is tailored such that a "majority" of students make moderate progress (bell curve, anyone?). This leaves out the different ones -- both the brightest and not so bright.

I also think some students will not learn certain subjects no matter how they are taught. All work is honorable, and the world needs ditch diggers as well as engineers, scientists, and doctors.
 

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
29,976
Definitely agree.

In an ideal world, each student would be matched with a teacher whose teaching style matched that student's dominant learning style. But we don't live in an ideal world and how the bulk of students are taught the bulk of their knowledge is almost always going to be using techniques that, across the board, work as well as possible for as many students as possible. Students at both ends of the distribution get short-changed, but that's reality. The best we can hope for is to have at least some avenues by which students in the tails can address their specific situation and, by and large, most developed nations have those avenues available.
 

tracecom

Joined Apr 16, 2010
3,944
A generalization follows, but one that I believe, nonetheless.
High achievers excel despite poor teachers. Conversely, low achievers fail despite good teachers. It's those in the middle who are most affected by the quality of instruction. The fallacious assumption of No Child Left Behind is that there are no low achievers.
 

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
29,976
A generalization follows, but one that I believe, nonetheless.
High achievers excel despite poor teachers. Conversely, low achievers fail despite good teachers. It's those in the middle who are most affected by the quality of instruction. The fallacious assumption of No Child Left Behind is that there are no low achievers.
In general I agree. As you noted, it is a generalization and is therefore subject to all of the limitations that nearly any broad generalization is.

A similar view that I have maintained for a long time is that it is possible to get a very good education even at a very poor school or to get a very poor education even at a very good school. The specific student is the biggest determining factor in that. But, even if that is true (and I believe it is), that doesn't mean that it isn't easier to get a good education at a good school or that it isn't harder to get a good education at a bad school.

I also agree with your criticism of NCLB. It's worth noting that NCLB was not something way out in left field, but rather merely just an embodiment of wishful thinking social dogma that had been around for quite some time and has, in many ways, only gotten more prevalent. Namely that we must ignore any differences between two people in terms of their academic abilities by pretending that no such differences exist (while at the same time continuing to acknowledge and celebrate differences between two people in terms of their athletic abilities).
 

#12

Joined Nov 30, 2010
18,224
The fallacious assumption of No Child Left Behind is that there are no low achievers.
Aaand we're down to, "lowest common denominator" education which resembles enforced mediocrity. Only the best rebel against this and educate themselves. It's good to be among the best, here on this website. :)
 

GopherT

Joined Nov 23, 2012
8,009
Aaand we're down to, "lowest common denominator" education which resembles enforced mediocrity. Only the best rebel against this and educate themselves. It's good to be among the best, here on this website. :)
Luckily, I grew up near Lake Wobegon, "...where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking and all the children are above average."
 

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
29,976
Aaand we're down to, "lowest common denominator" education which resembles enforced mediocrity. Only the best rebel against this and educate themselves. It's good to be among the best, here on this website. :)
And sometimes it truly is "enforced". Students are actively discouraged from excelling academically at times. In some states schools are prohibited from posting Honor Roles or having high school valedictorians or even honor graduates, yet those exact same schools still have athletic letter jackets and such. Increasingly, school districts are scaling back or eliminating support entirely for programs that promote academic excellence, such as physics bowls, unless such programs are "equally accessible" to all students, regardless of academic performance. Yet those same schools would never consider the notion of insisting that their sports teams be "equally accessible" to all students, regardless of athletic performance.
 

jpanhalt

Joined Jan 18, 2008
11,087
And sometimes it truly is "enforced". Students are actively discouraged from excelling academically at times.
So right. The school my daughter sends her children is like that. The recent science fair only awarded participation ribbons. I thought her daughters should have at least have won something, but then, I am completely unbiased. Her oldest daughter did comment on the fact that the "project" next to hers didn't even have a title and got the same recognition. Not surprisingly, it is in Minnesota.

@GopherT: As for Lake Wobegon and Garrison Keillor, I survived there for 17 years. Great place, if the weather doesn't get to you. I wasn't strong enough.

John
 
Top