On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 11:56:57 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> That's actually a really good strategy for learning, as well - if you
>> have to explain what you learned to someone, that helps focus your
>> attention on what you're learning.
> 
> That's why I like arguing with Warp. He's smart and technical enough to
> make me have to think up really good arguments to support my gut
> feelings. :-)

LOL, same here for me when I'm discussing something with Patrick.  

>> The trick is not to identify "Haskell" as the subject you're writing
>> about, but to break it down into smaller pieces.  Then break those
>> smaller pieces down, and so on.
> 
> And another part of the trick is that the broken down sections might not
> have the same cleaves as you would expect. You might have to break down
> lazy evaluation into three or four different parts before you can find
> an order to present them in, because it gives you an opportunity to
> explain something else between part two and part three that part three
> relies on.

Yes, absolutely.  The class I developed and taught when I first started 
at Novell is actually somewhat like that - it was an advanced class that 
there were some circular bits of knowledge, so you have to start with 
what's more foundational and explain the things it depends on in clear 
enough terms, but not in great detail, because that'll come later after 
the foundation is built.

Very often, students would ask questions about that foundational 
knowledge, and I'd have to tell them "we'll get to that later in the 
class, and it'll all make sense then" - and of course, I'd have to make 
sure it did, then. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message