Timeline for Is stressing too much on formalism acceptable?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 28, 2018 at 1:11 | comment | added | Gorchestopher H | @Soupy Not presenting the "rules" leads to blind memorization. Sure, it feels warm and cozy to say you teach by "examples" and "hands on", etc. but for many basic concepts and definitions, you really do need to know the rules. Expecting students to infer what a "set" or a "constructor" is with only examples is more of a riddle than a teaching style. | |
| Mar 24, 2018 at 2:52 | comment | added | Soupy | @Gorchestopher I disagree; initally presenting a bunch of definitions to students without good context can make examples hard to reason with. It depends on the base ability of the students, of course. Some just need the formal definitions and nothing more. | |
| Mar 12, 2018 at 20:19 | comment | added | Gorchestopher H | +1. You absolutely need to teach the formal definition, or the "rules", and not just examples. Rule first, then examples. Maybe I misread the other answers to this question, but I agree that you have to know why an integer is an "integer", or why a set is a "set", or how a class is defined. If you don't know the rules, you may never know how they work "in the wild". How many examples of a set would you have to see before you infer the single sentence that defines a set? | |
| Mar 12, 2018 at 1:55 | history | answered | Java Jive | CC BY-SA 3.0 |