How to Learn Everything: The MasterClass Diaries(longreads.com)
longreads.com
How to Learn Everything: The MasterClass Diaries
https://longreads.com/2020/08/20/how-to-learn-everything-the-masterclass-diaries/
60 comments
This is why the original concept of master class --- a master giving class to musicians/artists --- are only opened to the brightest high-level students. It's sort of pointless to hire the top talent in the field and let them coach complete newbies.
I think whether the prerequisite is specifically to read books depends on the field. In fact, the first thing to do, in my opinion, is to ask someone already in the field what's the best way to get a taste of this activity. But the general message, "chop the mesquite before you can smoke the ribs", I agree very much on.
I think whether the prerequisite is specifically to read books depends on the field. In fact, the first thing to do, in my opinion, is to ask someone already in the field what's the best way to get a taste of this activity. But the general message, "chop the mesquite before you can smoke the ribs", I agree very much on.
On the other hand, my university was in the habit of using the best professors to teach the intro / first year courses. Because those are the courses where you tend to lose the most of your students.
They used the professors best at teaching. There are probably other professors better at doing research.
It’s edutainment. They select top celebrities to teach to the widest possible audience and maximize profit.
Sometimes the celebrities are good teachers, most of the time not.
Sometimes the celebrities are good teachers, most of the time not.
I think I'd prioritize doing the actual thing over reading books, whenever possible.
For your Gordon Ramsay example - Let's say you can prepare by spending 5 hours trying to cook 5 really nice dishes. Or, you can spend 5 hours reading about cooking. I think the cooking approach to preparing will make you much more "ready to learn" than the reading approach.
Obviously in some cases you can't easily do it at home, but there's often a better proxy than reading, even if that's just a conversation about the topic with someone more knowledgeable than yourself.
For your Gordon Ramsay example - Let's say you can prepare by spending 5 hours trying to cook 5 really nice dishes. Or, you can spend 5 hours reading about cooking. I think the cooking approach to preparing will make you much more "ready to learn" than the reading approach.
Obviously in some cases you can't easily do it at home, but there's often a better proxy than reading, even if that's just a conversation about the topic with someone more knowledgeable than yourself.
I 100% get what you're saying.
I guess where I differ is, I've been cooking food my entire life. Most of it sucks. I still eat it. But if you were to ask me how to make one of the foods I cook any better I really wouldn't even know where to start.
However, if I picked up one of the those books, all of a sudden I would start to understand how meat cooks, the different ways you can tweak the process, and how to achieve the best results.
From there, I would be prepared to actually start cooking well. But without reading, I would still be shooting in the dark with the same terrible dishes I've been cooking terribly for decades.
I guess where I differ is, I've been cooking food my entire life. Most of it sucks. I still eat it. But if you were to ask me how to make one of the foods I cook any better I really wouldn't even know where to start.
However, if I picked up one of the those books, all of a sudden I would start to understand how meat cooks, the different ways you can tweak the process, and how to achieve the best results.
From there, I would be prepared to actually start cooking well. But without reading, I would still be shooting in the dark with the same terrible dishes I've been cooking terribly for decades.
Author of the essay here -- I know they say you shouldn't read the comments, but the discussion on here was so thoughtful I just had to create and account and jump in.
Two thoughts to this convo:
1. One thing it took a few years of living in Europe to learn is that what seems like a logical way to learn or convey information is also -- at least partially -- cultural. I'm an experience first kind of gal -- and I judge theories by how well they explain experience. I also think it's a better way to communicate. But here in Europe the standard way of giving, say, a presentation is to begin with all the theory, definitions, concepts, and only then move on to case studies.
It was when I read Erin Meyer's The Culture Map that the whole thing clicked for me. I think it's worth reading the whole book, but here's a quick summary: https://www.mdttraining.vn/post/on-our-bookshelf-the-cultura...
One of her axes of comparison is "principles first vs applications first." It helped me to realise that my preference for applications first was also due to spending all my formative years in North America, being taught this way, consuming media structured this way, and so on.
2. I actually finally bought Salt Fat Acid Heat this spring, started reading it, and just the chapter on salt has already begun making a difference in my cooking. I do think cooking proves you can do something badly, every day, for an entire lifetime, if you don't either get some better theory or carry out a lot of experimentation and remember what works.
However... the reason I bought the Nosrat book was that I was starting to be inspired by cooking again, and what motivated me in that end was the Ramsay course! It gave me that sense of exploration and play again. So I think it's worth paying attention to what increases motivation, especially with something that can become quite a dull chore.
Two thoughts to this convo:
1. One thing it took a few years of living in Europe to learn is that what seems like a logical way to learn or convey information is also -- at least partially -- cultural. I'm an experience first kind of gal -- and I judge theories by how well they explain experience. I also think it's a better way to communicate. But here in Europe the standard way of giving, say, a presentation is to begin with all the theory, definitions, concepts, and only then move on to case studies.
It was when I read Erin Meyer's The Culture Map that the whole thing clicked for me. I think it's worth reading the whole book, but here's a quick summary: https://www.mdttraining.vn/post/on-our-bookshelf-the-cultura...
One of her axes of comparison is "principles first vs applications first." It helped me to realise that my preference for applications first was also due to spending all my formative years in North America, being taught this way, consuming media structured this way, and so on.
2. I actually finally bought Salt Fat Acid Heat this spring, started reading it, and just the chapter on salt has already begun making a difference in my cooking. I do think cooking proves you can do something badly, every day, for an entire lifetime, if you don't either get some better theory or carry out a lot of experimentation and remember what works.
However... the reason I bought the Nosrat book was that I was starting to be inspired by cooking again, and what motivated me in that end was the Ramsay course! It gave me that sense of exploration and play again. So I think it's worth paying attention to what increases motivation, especially with something that can become quite a dull chore.
I'd like to add bread to the list of things that can be bad every day, without us questioning it.
I spent years eating bread rolls from the local bakery every morning and never questioning it. But there's like a whole world of bread variants that are not suitable for bakeries for various reasons (too much work, expensive ingredients, short shelf life). And now my new favorite is this:
http://www.thefreshloaf.com/node/23662/sourdough-hokkaido-mi...
It has such a pleasant nut-like taste and the fluffiness really highlights some flavors like smoked salmon. Now that I know what is possible, I feel disappointed by the blandness of store-bought bread.
I spent years eating bread rolls from the local bakery every morning and never questioning it. But there's like a whole world of bread variants that are not suitable for bakeries for various reasons (too much work, expensive ingredients, short shelf life). And now my new favorite is this:
http://www.thefreshloaf.com/node/23662/sourdough-hokkaido-mi...
It has such a pleasant nut-like taste and the fluffiness really highlights some flavors like smoked salmon. Now that I know what is possible, I feel disappointed by the blandness of store-bought bread.
Ramsey can teach you to cook in some capacity. But to be a true master a deep dive is required.
You're correct. There's a difference between being hand held through a handful of meals and actually understanding how to cook.
For better or worse, most people don't want to be masters. They simply want to impress someone else.
You're correct. There's a difference between being hand held through a handful of meals and actually understanding how to cook.
For better or worse, most people don't want to be masters. They simply want to impress someone else.
Right. The funny thing is Ramsay talks about the years of work he did learning how to cook, studying Italian cuisine in Italy, etc. etc.
I think the MasterClasses -- or other online instruction -- are mostly great for inspiration and motivation. Someone who is already good at the craft might get more out of it, since they'll notice the finer points of technique. But for most people I suspect it will be passive entertainment, with a few widely applicable insights here and there.
I think the MasterClasses -- or other online instruction -- are mostly great for inspiration and motivation. Someone who is already good at the craft might get more out of it, since they'll notice the finer points of technique. But for most people I suspect it will be passive entertainment, with a few widely applicable insights here and there.
I tend to read way more than I should before diving into something, but there's definitely a question of "you don't know what you don't know" that can't be resolved by mere practice, or not very efficiently for reasonably complex skills/topics.
What you’re saying is that the more you know the more you can learn from the world’s best. That is in fact what a masterclass is — a class for experts by a master.
This is interesting, and is reflected in some other comments, but I have always gone under the assumption that you will only learn things once so it is best to learn them the correct way. This mostly holds true in an academic situation though in my experience, and I have applied it as such.
I think it depends on the thing learned.
In dance it's pretty important to learn the basics well from day one. If you learn wrong technique it worms its way into your muscle memory and is difficult to unlearn and replace with something else. (It's also why the most basic dance classes ought to be taught by expert teachers, but that's another hobbyhorse.) And bad technique can lead to injury.
Other fields don't necessarily have a "correct" way, or they do but it's comparatively easy to replace a mistake once we notice it. In some cases, making a mistake and then correcting it can actually fix the right way to do it in one's memory. (Think of embarrassing mistakes we sometimes make when trying to speak a foreign language!)
In dance it's pretty important to learn the basics well from day one. If you learn wrong technique it worms its way into your muscle memory and is difficult to unlearn and replace with something else. (It's also why the most basic dance classes ought to be taught by expert teachers, but that's another hobbyhorse.) And bad technique can lead to injury.
Other fields don't necessarily have a "correct" way, or they do but it's comparatively easy to replace a mistake once we notice it. In some cases, making a mistake and then correcting it can actually fix the right way to do it in one's memory. (Think of embarrassing mistakes we sometimes make when trying to speak a foreign language!)
What you're wanting isn't simply knowledge. You're seeking understanding.
Understanding > Knowledge
And yes, it also takes more effort, more grit.
Understanding > Knowledge
And yes, it also takes more effort, more grit.
Compare to https://masterwiki.how
> MasterClass is an exclusive online education platform that costs $180 annually to learn (relatively ordinary skills) from A-list celebrities. masterWiki is the direct adaptation of MasterClass' video courses translated into wikiHow-style how-to guides, made available at no cost to you.
> MasterClass is an exclusive online education platform that costs $180 annually to learn (relatively ordinary skills) from A-list celebrities. masterWiki is the direct adaptation of MasterClass' video courses translated into wikiHow-style how-to guides, made available at no cost to you.
The posted article is a fun and interesting read about the author's relationship to themself and their family as impacted by their viewing of various classes.
I struggle to find a relevant comparison here, other than that both the article and your link (of a parody / theft of another company's intellectual property) are related to MasterClass.
I struggle to find a relevant comparison here, other than that both the article and your link (of a parody / theft of another company's intellectual property) are related to MasterClass.
> theft of another company's intellectual property
Seriously? "Theft"? Most of these millionaire 'celebrities' teaching on Masterclass are from the USA, which is the 'king' of 'intellectual property.
The 'intellectual property' system, by driving artificial scarcity of information, is the root cause for global heating and social inequity. Imagine if everything was open source and we'd have Open Value Networks that measure actual material flows, instead of a 'medium-of-exchange' that is backed and enforced by the military-industrial-complex.
We need Commons-based peer production and Protocol Cooperativism, and the end of Rentier Capitalism, through the use of MetaCurrency's distributed computing pattern (Holographic chain). We need it now.
Seriously? "Theft"? Most of these millionaire 'celebrities' teaching on Masterclass are from the USA, which is the 'king' of 'intellectual property.
The 'intellectual property' system, by driving artificial scarcity of information, is the root cause for global heating and social inequity. Imagine if everything was open source and we'd have Open Value Networks that measure actual material flows, instead of a 'medium-of-exchange' that is backed and enforced by the military-industrial-complex.
We need Commons-based peer production and Protocol Cooperativism, and the end of Rentier Capitalism, through the use of MetaCurrency's distributed computing pattern (Holographic chain). We need it now.
It actually serves as a nice contrast in some ways. Compare the article’s description of the experience of going through the classes with the takeaways from a sample of the wiki entries.
The real benefit of having true experts teach something is all the tacit knowledge you get from hearing how they think about and approach their craft, not the explicit instructions they might give.
The real benefit of having true experts teach something is all the tacit knowledge you get from hearing how they think about and approach their craft, not the explicit instructions they might give.
> The real benefit of having true experts teach something is all the tacit knowledge you get from hearing how they think about and approach their craft
I think that's part of it, but only a part.
The real value of teaching lies in tight feedback loops.
Learning, as a neurological process, is entirely predicated on feedback loops. Our brains observe some system, make a prediction as to how that system will iterate, and then adjust their prediction mechanism based on the observed outcome.
Maybe to give an example, I learned to dance (Lindy Hop) by working with coaches. My nephew learned to dance by watching things like Masterclass.
He has spent much more time on watching videos than I have in working with coaches, and has been interested in dancing for far longer, but I am the better dancer. By a wide margin.
And that is not due to natural talent -- if anything, I would say that I am less coordinated than he is.
The advantage I have is -- partially! -- due to my instructors sharing a bunch of tacit knowledge. The structure of music, why jazz is polyrhythmic and how you can use syncopated steps to move between rhythms and melodies, etc.
But most of it comes from my instructors watching me flail about, and giving me immediate feedback on how to be less dangerous to my follow (the person dancing with me). And then watching me apply that feedback, correcting me again, and repeating that loop until I get it right -- which means than I then know what "right" feels like.
Online learning -- especially through watching videos -- completely lacks that realtime feedback.
It's possible to do! But most of the online course offerings that I have seen, don't. They are little more than recorded lectures and multiple-choice quizzes.
Moreover, now that I have a solid foundation -- built by working with coaches, and understanding the "why" behind the techniques -- I can leverage dance videos to pick up new moves, because I know what to look for an how to apply it.
I think that's part of it, but only a part.
The real value of teaching lies in tight feedback loops.
Learning, as a neurological process, is entirely predicated on feedback loops. Our brains observe some system, make a prediction as to how that system will iterate, and then adjust their prediction mechanism based on the observed outcome.
Maybe to give an example, I learned to dance (Lindy Hop) by working with coaches. My nephew learned to dance by watching things like Masterclass.
He has spent much more time on watching videos than I have in working with coaches, and has been interested in dancing for far longer, but I am the better dancer. By a wide margin.
And that is not due to natural talent -- if anything, I would say that I am less coordinated than he is.
The advantage I have is -- partially! -- due to my instructors sharing a bunch of tacit knowledge. The structure of music, why jazz is polyrhythmic and how you can use syncopated steps to move between rhythms and melodies, etc.
But most of it comes from my instructors watching me flail about, and giving me immediate feedback on how to be less dangerous to my follow (the person dancing with me). And then watching me apply that feedback, correcting me again, and repeating that loop until I get it right -- which means than I then know what "right" feels like.
Online learning -- especially through watching videos -- completely lacks that realtime feedback.
It's possible to do! But most of the online course offerings that I have seen, don't. They are little more than recorded lectures and multiple-choice quizzes.
Moreover, now that I have a solid foundation -- built by working with coaches, and understanding the "why" behind the techniques -- I can leverage dance videos to pick up new moves, because I know what to look for an how to apply it.
I think you bring up very valid points.
The overall takeaway shouldn't be to have personal instructors in order to learn things effectively and well. I think that will always be the case. The constraint there is mostly with accessibility and availability
What you intend to learn, and whether a self-learned/video watching approach can be effective depends entirely on how to close the feedback loop, and make it accurate. For couples dancing, it's very hard to know when you're doing things right (how is it supposed to feel? What is the correct tension for proper leading? Etc). So, it makes it almost crucial to have some (semi)direct guidance in order to make the practice sessions effective.
However there are many other areas in which it is easier to close this loop, as well as more correctly assess the result. This will of course never be as good as having an expert's guidance, but the cost/benefit in terms of time spent / skill gained is more amenable that it is for dancing.
I'd say (I might be wrong) that this applies somewhat to art, technical skills like math and programming, and other knowledge based domains.
Fields requiring physical accuracy and dexterity is a bit harder. Like music instruments or dancing.
The overall takeaway shouldn't be to have personal instructors in order to learn things effectively and well. I think that will always be the case. The constraint there is mostly with accessibility and availability
What you intend to learn, and whether a self-learned/video watching approach can be effective depends entirely on how to close the feedback loop, and make it accurate. For couples dancing, it's very hard to know when you're doing things right (how is it supposed to feel? What is the correct tension for proper leading? Etc). So, it makes it almost crucial to have some (semi)direct guidance in order to make the practice sessions effective.
However there are many other areas in which it is easier to close this loop, as well as more correctly assess the result. This will of course never be as good as having an expert's guidance, but the cost/benefit in terms of time spent / skill gained is more amenable that it is for dancing.
I'd say (I might be wrong) that this applies somewhat to art, technical skills like math and programming, and other knowledge based domains.
Fields requiring physical accuracy and dexterity is a bit harder. Like music instruments or dancing.
[deleted]
Getting someone that talks the syntax let's you know what questions to ask.
This is so important. I'm an intermediate coder and hit a wall on something today. I was fortunate to have a great Slack group to ask, and even though the answers weren't exactly the right solution, just exposure to the terminology used when talking about the problem let me refine my searches and find the answer very quickly.
I chuckled at the "Go Premium" button. I wont spoil it for you.
A really lovely read. I appreciate how naturally she frames her own growth in the face of professional and personal setbacks against different masterclass courses.
I love seeing this kind of writing on Hacker News.
I love seeing this kind of writing on Hacker News.
Learning anything for me always follows this sort of structure (I'm sure someone will tell me there's some well known name for this because it seems so "self obvious").
Step0: Select the simplest achievable task in the domain of the new thing you are trying to learn.
Step1: Gather all the stuff you think you will be needing to accomplish the task (tools, materials, software, instructions, time!, etc).
Step2: Hit a road-block. It can be the lack of an indispensable tool or a lack of knowledge of a particular detail.
Step3: Fix the blocker (fill the knowledge gap about the new detail, buy/borrow the missing tool). If multiple roadblocks: Solve the one that seems most fundamental first; If stuck at blocker: seek help from others, sleep on it, give up (some things are too hard with your present knowledge).
Step4: If task still not completed GOTO Step3; If task completed: Select a new more advanced task and GOTO Step2.
Step0: Select the simplest achievable task in the domain of the new thing you are trying to learn.
Step1: Gather all the stuff you think you will be needing to accomplish the task (tools, materials, software, instructions, time!, etc).
Step2: Hit a road-block. It can be the lack of an indispensable tool or a lack of knowledge of a particular detail.
Step3: Fix the blocker (fill the knowledge gap about the new detail, buy/borrow the missing tool). If multiple roadblocks: Solve the one that seems most fundamental first; If stuck at blocker: seek help from others, sleep on it, give up (some things are too hard with your present knowledge).
Step4: If task still not completed GOTO Step3; If task completed: Select a new more advanced task and GOTO Step2.
My way of learning is the opposite. I pick a task that is incredibly cool and motivating and surely way out of my skill set. Then I try to find examples by true masters of things that turned out similar. Then I try to imitate what I can from them. In the end, my result is very so-so in comparison with the masters, but I still feel happy about having learned many useful things.
‘...By this point, I have realized that there are two kinds of teachers. Some focus on transmitting their skills. They seem to be saying to the student: “this is how to do what I do.” Others offer themselves as models to be imitated: “this is how I became who I am.”‘
This part struck me. For topics like computer science (or any science) we need more of the former, for anything related to the subjective experiences of creativity or even life, we need more of the latter. Even then, “this is how I became who I am,” can only get you so far, because you need to learn to become who you are and not someone else.
This part struck me. For topics like computer science (or any science) we need more of the former, for anything related to the subjective experiences of creativity or even life, we need more of the latter. Even then, “this is how I became who I am,” can only get you so far, because you need to learn to become who you are and not someone else.
I spent a couple years as a programming teacher, and really struggled to find the right balance there.
As an example, about 9 months in I had a student ask how they should approach a problem. I'd say "What are all the ways you can think of to do it?" and together we'd brainstorm a few viable approaches. "So which one should I do?". What do I say to that? Do I tell them which approach I think is best? I was originally self taught, and I got good in part thanks to those moments. When you pick something yourself but you aren't sure if its the right choice, .. well, thats when learning happens. Next time you choose differently and over years explore the space. But at the same time, getting advice can really help a novice improve.
Despite being pushed I didn't answer the student about which approach I recommended, and I still wonder if it was the right choice. I'd like to think that my teaching approach resulted in my students spending more time gazing into the belly of the beast. But maybe I just didn't give them much as much instruction as they needed. I can't tell.
As an example, about 9 months in I had a student ask how they should approach a problem. I'd say "What are all the ways you can think of to do it?" and together we'd brainstorm a few viable approaches. "So which one should I do?". What do I say to that? Do I tell them which approach I think is best? I was originally self taught, and I got good in part thanks to those moments. When you pick something yourself but you aren't sure if its the right choice, .. well, thats when learning happens. Next time you choose differently and over years explore the space. But at the same time, getting advice can really help a novice improve.
Despite being pushed I didn't answer the student about which approach I recommended, and I still wonder if it was the right choice. I'd like to think that my teaching approach resulted in my students spending more time gazing into the belly of the beast. But maybe I just didn't give them much as much instruction as they needed. I can't tell.
According to this person there is plenty of research saying you should tell them how to do it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1ib43q3uXQ
I think she makes a good point. We don't hand people a guitar and say "figure it out on your own". Cooking shows don't generally show the final dish and say "if you want to make this yourself figure it out on your own".
You might say computer programming is different but I suspect for most people here you were taught things like sorting algorithms, database queries, lexers and parsing algorithms, etc. You were not made to figure them on your own. Sure maybe you were self motivated and looked up the topics by yourself but likely you mostly learned by looking at existing code and over time figured out how to see what it was doing and how to modify it or apply the same ideas.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1ib43q3uXQ
I think she makes a good point. We don't hand people a guitar and say "figure it out on your own". Cooking shows don't generally show the final dish and say "if you want to make this yourself figure it out on your own".
You might say computer programming is different but I suspect for most people here you were taught things like sorting algorithms, database queries, lexers and parsing algorithms, etc. You were not made to figure them on your own. Sure maybe you were self motivated and looked up the topics by yourself but likely you mostly learned by looking at existing code and over time figured out how to see what it was doing and how to modify it or apply the same ideas.
This is a useful point. The beginning learner needs more straightforward instruction -- just knowledge transfer -- whereas the learner with a basis of knowledge can spend more time exploring, making mistakes.
The issue comes in when a student is so accustomed to being fed information that they bristle at being asked to think.
This point also suggests a flaw in the online MasterClass format. In a traditional music master class, someone who is already very very good at singing or playing an instrument comes out, performs a song, and then is corrected by the "master." Then they do it again, etc. An online "masterclass" is in fact a lecture-style course, which is really better suited to beginners.
The issue comes in when a student is so accustomed to being fed information that they bristle at being asked to think.
This point also suggests a flaw in the online MasterClass format. In a traditional music master class, someone who is already very very good at singing or playing an instrument comes out, performs a song, and then is corrected by the "master." Then they do it again, etc. An online "masterclass" is in fact a lecture-style course, which is really better suited to beginners.
From someone versed in teaching, here's my unsolicited analysis of your teaching:
On the spectrum from direct instruction (I tell you/show you what to do) to inquiry (I set up a situation for you to use some of your prior knowledge to learn something new) it sounds like you leaned towards inquiry here.
You experienced the power of this yourself when you were younger so it's no surprise it informed how you chose to help/not help.
You used a mix of collaborative and cognitive questioning to both engage the learner in the problem and help them think through it. ------------------------
Next I'd like to ask you some questions to help you think through two important teaching concepts: 1) Productive struggle 2) Feedback
Was the student at a complete loss with what to do? Given time to take a break, maybe even sleep, and revisit the problem, do you think they still would have been at a loss?
If no, then give them time and space to think through it on their own or use cognitive questioning as you did to help them think through it.
This gets us to the concept of productive struggle. It is just as the name sounds. This concept has well researched benefits for learners.
If the student had no idea what to do and you suspect would merely get frustrated then that's struggling and its not productive. It's the kind of situation that leads to poor first order outcomes and has second order outcomes like making someone hate the thing you are trying to help them learn.
In that event it would be best to either help them through the problem with advice or find a different problem for them to work on that they have enough prior knowledge to productively struggle with.
Next up is feedback...
Did the student get any feedback after they made their choice? If it was programming could they run their code and see if it worked? Was it a binary right/wrong?
If it didn't work did the student have enough prior knowledge to work around any roadblocks they might encounter?
These questions take us back to the concept of productive struggle.
1) productive struggle is good 2) feedback or advice should be timely and based on what a learner needs to keep them from struggling unproductively
There are related ideas...some lessons you may have a focus and so you tell the student certain things that aren't the focus of the lesson instead of putting them in an inquiry situation. This is another skill needed for effective teaching: creating, selecting, and sequencing a curriculum.
Implied in all of this is the importance of knowing the content, how you want to teach, your learner's prior knowledge, and how they are reacting to the problem.
On the spectrum from direct instruction (I tell you/show you what to do) to inquiry (I set up a situation for you to use some of your prior knowledge to learn something new) it sounds like you leaned towards inquiry here.
You experienced the power of this yourself when you were younger so it's no surprise it informed how you chose to help/not help.
You used a mix of collaborative and cognitive questioning to both engage the learner in the problem and help them think through it. ------------------------
Next I'd like to ask you some questions to help you think through two important teaching concepts: 1) Productive struggle 2) Feedback
Was the student at a complete loss with what to do? Given time to take a break, maybe even sleep, and revisit the problem, do you think they still would have been at a loss?
If no, then give them time and space to think through it on their own or use cognitive questioning as you did to help them think through it.
This gets us to the concept of productive struggle. It is just as the name sounds. This concept has well researched benefits for learners.
If the student had no idea what to do and you suspect would merely get frustrated then that's struggling and its not productive. It's the kind of situation that leads to poor first order outcomes and has second order outcomes like making someone hate the thing you are trying to help them learn.
In that event it would be best to either help them through the problem with advice or find a different problem for them to work on that they have enough prior knowledge to productively struggle with.
Next up is feedback...
Did the student get any feedback after they made their choice? If it was programming could they run their code and see if it worked? Was it a binary right/wrong?
If it didn't work did the student have enough prior knowledge to work around any roadblocks they might encounter?
These questions take us back to the concept of productive struggle.
1) productive struggle is good 2) feedback or advice should be timely and based on what a learner needs to keep them from struggling unproductively
There are related ideas...some lessons you may have a focus and so you tell the student certain things that aren't the focus of the lesson instead of putting them in an inquiry situation. This is another skill needed for effective teaching: creating, selecting, and sequencing a curriculum.
Implied in all of this is the importance of knowing the content, how you want to teach, your learner's prior knowledge, and how they are reacting to the problem.
Love this breakdown. And to josephg's post:
When I was picking a dissertation topic I'd suggest things to my advisor and she'd say brightly, "Why don't you go do some research on that, come back in two weeks and tell me what you found?"
I'd go off to the library for a couple of weeks, do the reading, come back and say, "You know I think X is a terrible topic, the scholarship on it all seems to drag."
"Oh yes," she'd say, with a look that said this was the worst topic in the world.
"So why didn't you just tell me that in the first place?"
Then she'd get diplomatic. "You're young, maybe you see something that I don't!"
I realised though that it wasn't just that. Had she told me my idea about topic X was a loser, I'd have thought that my advisor was crushing my creativity and ingenuity. I really had to figure out on my own how much the topic sucked. It had to come from my own discovery, not from her authority.
Anyway, I do this now and it drives my students nuts, because they want me to hand them a paper topic, ideally tell them what books to read, and send them off so they can execute the steps. Meanwhile, I want them to spend time in the messy, difficult process of working things out. I think my process probably results in more failure (at least as far as the grades are concerned), but the good work is so much better.
When I was picking a dissertation topic I'd suggest things to my advisor and she'd say brightly, "Why don't you go do some research on that, come back in two weeks and tell me what you found?"
I'd go off to the library for a couple of weeks, do the reading, come back and say, "You know I think X is a terrible topic, the scholarship on it all seems to drag."
"Oh yes," she'd say, with a look that said this was the worst topic in the world.
"So why didn't you just tell me that in the first place?"
Then she'd get diplomatic. "You're young, maybe you see something that I don't!"
I realised though that it wasn't just that. Had she told me my idea about topic X was a loser, I'd have thought that my advisor was crushing my creativity and ingenuity. I really had to figure out on my own how much the topic sucked. It had to come from my own discovery, not from her authority.
Anyway, I do this now and it drives my students nuts, because they want me to hand them a paper topic, ideally tell them what books to read, and send them off so they can execute the steps. Meanwhile, I want them to spend time in the messy, difficult process of working things out. I think my process probably results in more failure (at least as far as the grades are concerned), but the good work is so much better.
I'd have thought that my advisor was crushing my creativity and ingenuity
Thanks for sharing this story.
I think a lot of about potential impacts like this on students/learners. My goals when teaching are to nurture agency, autonomy, and a positive disposition towards what is being learned in addition to a student learning the content or practices/skills.
People often misconstrue this as wanting to make learning "fun" for students. For me it begins with inversion, look at how to crush a student's spirit, agency, and disposition towards a topic. Don't do that.
Then find ways to put them in situations where they can struggle productively, be creative, show ingenuity, and see the fruits of doing so. Sometimes students aren't aware of their own ingenuity, creativity, or their own productive struggle so that gives me an opportunity to go meta with them and help them see it.
Thanks for sharing this story.
I think a lot of about potential impacts like this on students/learners. My goals when teaching are to nurture agency, autonomy, and a positive disposition towards what is being learned in addition to a student learning the content or practices/skills.
People often misconstrue this as wanting to make learning "fun" for students. For me it begins with inversion, look at how to crush a student's spirit, agency, and disposition towards a topic. Don't do that.
Then find ways to put them in situations where they can struggle productively, be creative, show ingenuity, and see the fruits of doing so. Sometimes students aren't aware of their own ingenuity, creativity, or their own productive struggle so that gives me an opportunity to go meta with them and help them see it.
Yes, I love this! I try to convince my students to work on something they find interesting, even to take risks in doing so. My experience is that they tend to do better work when the topic reflects their own curiosity, obsessions.
Unfortunately the educational system I work in prioritizes conformity. I don't blame them for having a hard time taking a risk.
Unfortunately the educational system I work in prioritizes conformity. I don't blame them for having a hard time taking a risk.
Unfortunately the educational system I work in prioritizes conformity.
I feel that in my bones.
If you see this I'd be curious to hear more about your education experience. Drop me a line at heymijo.hn at google mail if you'd like to continue the discussion :)
I feel that in my bones.
If you see this I'd be curious to hear more about your education experience. Drop me a line at heymijo.hn at google mail if you'd like to continue the discussion :)
Btw, since this is HN and its oriented towards startups let me pull this out of the teaching world and into management.+
I'm not alone. Andy Grove and his concept of Task Relevant Maturity (TRM) have a lot of overlap here. Primarily in understanding that someone's prior knowledge/experience will dictate their ability to accomplish the task at hand.
Where I differ from Grove is how to help someone when their TRM is low. He states this is a time to tell them what/when/how.
1) In a structured org like Intel in the 80's when Grove wrote High Output Management, maybe this worked. In a startup where the work to be done is often as yet unknown by manager and worker alike, trying to tell someone what/when/how doesn't work
2) The ability to handle ambiguity is itself a skill and one people need to develop maturity in handling. This is where I see the idea of productive struggle/desirable difficulties as a useful addition to Grove's TRM framework
+Good teaching is good management--both roles are about developing people and setting them up for success
I'm not alone. Andy Grove and his concept of Task Relevant Maturity (TRM) have a lot of overlap here. Primarily in understanding that someone's prior knowledge/experience will dictate their ability to accomplish the task at hand.
Where I differ from Grove is how to help someone when their TRM is low. He states this is a time to tell them what/when/how.
1) In a structured org like Intel in the 80's when Grove wrote High Output Management, maybe this worked. In a startup where the work to be done is often as yet unknown by manager and worker alike, trying to tell someone what/when/how doesn't work
2) The ability to handle ambiguity is itself a skill and one people need to develop maturity in handling. This is where I see the idea of productive struggle/desirable difficulties as a useful addition to Grove's TRM framework
+Good teaching is good management--both roles are about developing people and setting them up for success
Thanks for this write up - the cognitive model of “productive struggle” is exactly the thing I was fumbling around in the dark for. This was really well explained and something I’m going to carry with me next time I run into a similar situation in the classroom. Much appreciated!
You're welcome. It's useful and enjoyable for me to see how people think through their teaching.
Should you want to find out more you can search "productive struggle nctm/math/teaching." The concept came to me via the math education community but I would actually recommend starting out with the work of Robert and Elizabeth Bjork [0,1].
The Bjorks have researched the same concept extensively. Their term for it is "desirable difficulties."
Their work made the leap from academia to popular culture via David Epstein's book, Range.
[0] https://researchschool.org.uk/durrington/news/bjorks-desirab...
[1] https://bjorklab.psych.ucla.edu/robert-a-bjork-publications/
Should you want to find out more you can search "productive struggle nctm/math/teaching." The concept came to me via the math education community but I would actually recommend starting out with the work of Robert and Elizabeth Bjork [0,1].
The Bjorks have researched the same concept extensively. Their term for it is "desirable difficulties."
Their work made the leap from academia to popular culture via David Epstein's book, Range.
[0] https://researchschool.org.uk/durrington/news/bjorks-desirab...
[1] https://bjorklab.psych.ucla.edu/robert-a-bjork-publications/
I don’t really see Master Class being a thing for computer science. To be honest, I don’t see it being a thing for most engineering subjects.
The knowledge here is mostly objective and non-personal. The best classes are not necessarily those carried out by “masters”, but by really good educators. Sometimes the two aspects overlap (e.g. Feynman), but most of the time they don’t. And what’s more, it is actually okay to learn engineering with a teacher who is dry, accurate, but not necessarily the top engineer of the field.
For art and music, on the other hand, the deeper you learn, the more personal it gets. So, the subjective experience of a master is of great value. That’s where the this kind of class really shines.
The knowledge here is mostly objective and non-personal. The best classes are not necessarily those carried out by “masters”, but by really good educators. Sometimes the two aspects overlap (e.g. Feynman), but most of the time they don’t. And what’s more, it is actually okay to learn engineering with a teacher who is dry, accurate, but not necessarily the top engineer of the field.
For art and music, on the other hand, the deeper you learn, the more personal it gets. So, the subjective experience of a master is of great value. That’s where the this kind of class really shines.
I've been lucky (not really, keep reading) enough to take a few classes with professors who are probably the best in the world at what they do and found them really awful. You could tell they didn't want to be there and didn't really give a shit about anyone learning anything. Moreover, I think being really good at something makes it harder to teach, not easier. TAs are usually much better teachers. After all, they can still remember what it was like to not understand the material.
Some of the best teachers I've had were at a community college, actually. I ended up taking community college classes for a couple years instead of going to high school and had a much better experience than at the "real" college I attended when I was older. That could have been a function of age though (by the time I went to a real college I was much more interested in girls and partying than learning anything).
Some of the best teachers I've had were at a community college, actually. I ended up taking community college classes for a couple years instead of going to high school and had a much better experience than at the "real" college I attended when I was older. That could have been a function of age though (by the time I went to a real college I was much more interested in girls and partying than learning anything).
Now we put eggs in water with a tiny mechanical device that plays “Killing Me Softly” to let us know they are soft-boiled. You could say our standards have fallen.
For those of you who had to stop and shop at this point, here's what I found:
UK: https://www.amazon.co.uk/BrainStream-Beep-Egg-Timer/dp/B001U...
US but unfortunately not featuring the Roberta Flack classic: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00WDE24G4/
For those of you who had to stop and shop at this point, here's what I found:
UK: https://www.amazon.co.uk/BrainStream-Beep-Egg-Timer/dp/B001U...
US but unfortunately not featuring the Roberta Flack classic: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00WDE24G4/
I had one of those many years ago, but they're not very good. The sound is muffled a lot by the water and it's just not accurate all together. The Android app 'Egg Timer' gives much better results.
I do still see the appeal of the singing egg, though.
I do still see the appeal of the singing egg, though.
I didn't have space for this in the essay, but the mechanical egg also plays "The Final Countdown" when the eggs are supposed to be hard boiled.
It's honestly not a great way to cook eggs, but don't underestimate the joy of hearing those opening notes in the morning...
It's honestly not a great way to cook eggs, but don't underestimate the joy of hearing those opening notes in the morning...
By now, you have probably conditioned yourself to associate the sound with the pleasant experience of eating the food, not unlike Pavlov's dogs.
Other way around: the egg is so-so, but every time I hear the song I'm a teenager again (not that I'm that old, but that's when I was getting to know a lot of classic rock & similar), so it makes me feel young and full of potential.
Unlike... that egg.
Unlike... that egg.
Yeah, also I used to store the music egg in the fridge along with my normal eggs, and I think that didn't help the accuracy either. I should ask the Egg Timer app people to implement playing custom songs though, these comments have thrown me back in time where I had the same reactions you describe...
[deleted]
"I never trust anyone who's more excited about success than about doing the thing they want to be successful at."
https://m.xkcd.com/874/
https://m.xkcd.com/874/
Despite the au courant reference to the global pandemic, this seems very familiar (particularly the bits about Wintour, Gladwell, & Ramsay), but I can't recall where I read it (sometime 5-10 years ago, maybe), and a cursory google search doesn't pull up anything.
Still, the deja vu was pretty darn strong. Perhaps the writer had a blog that has since been deleted, and she recycled an old post.
Still, the deja vu was pretty darn strong. Perhaps the writer had a blog that has since been deleted, and she recycled an old post.
Hmmm... this has me wondering. I've been writing about teaching and learning for a while (my dissertation and book were on the topic in the early Middle Ages). MasterClass has only been around for five years though, and the Wintour course came online last year. It's possible there were review pieces out. I did do a bunch of searching on MasterClass last year, because I was tempted by it but found it a bit pricey and wanted to know if there was any substance to the courses. Most of what I found were very brief reviews though.
Play. That’s how.
This was beautiful! In fact, a note to all the YouTube productivity gurus who think they are giving us a master class on productivity or VCs on twitter who sell their (obvious but apparently profound) wisdom thinking they are doing a service to humanity. At least IMO things that are best learned in the form of a class are vocational stuff and hard sciences, anything other than that like a course on confidence, productivity, loving yourself, learning to learn etc should be f*cking banned into oblivion.
Or you could just, like, not watch/read those videos/posts/tweets if you don't like them?
Also, there's a lot more academic fields than the "hard" sciences and vocational stuff.
Also, there's a lot more academic fields than the "hard" sciences and vocational stuff.
Cute!
How do you say you don’t like a video/post/tweet without reading/watching those videos/posts/tweets?
Yes there’s a lot more academic fields than the “hard” sciences and vocational stuff, add them to the list too. That was not a treatise on teachability/learnability of a subject.
I seriously didn’t get your point, you thought of being sarcastic and bitter because I ranted about how I disliked VCs and Productivity gurus? Thanks, got your point, be well.
How do you say you don’t like a video/post/tweet without reading/watching those videos/posts/tweets?
Yes there’s a lot more academic fields than the “hard” sciences and vocational stuff, add them to the list too. That was not a treatise on teachability/learnability of a subject.
I seriously didn’t get your point, you thought of being sarcastic and bitter because I ranted about how I disliked VCs and Productivity gurus? Thanks, got your point, be well.
If someone else has figured it out, I’d rather just get their take on the thing than try to figure it out myself, especially if it’s something like productivity or learning. I want to spend my time mastering software engineering, not reinventing the pomodoro technique.
Seriously? You put on a 25 minute timer every time you sit for work? Dude, I know I shouldn’t have generalised, but tell me that these things are anything but homeopathy of the mindset problem? I understand that these things can be reassuring/calming/satisfying but so can be the superstitious rituals in religion or the words of a healer, do we not condemn those when we see the fraudulent nature in them. I’ve seen with my eyes how these guys concoct stuff they call productivity hacks right out of their a and slap a polished 4K video to sell it.
I understand that all our wants differ, For instance I only want to have a decent grasp over software engineering to sustain a livelihood, but even if I wanted to master all of computer science, I don’t know if I would equate using a timer(pomodoro) or recalling the answer without looking at the answer(active recall) to mastering compiler design. I don’t about you, but to recall the answer without looking at the answer while preparing for a test or studying for a stipulated time before losing focus didn’t need a overly sophisticated term at least up until a couple years ago. Most of us did pretty well through our schools and colleges. What is this all of a sudden now, if not money grabbing, avarice, charlatanry, fraudulence? In fact, I would’ve conceded if the benefits of these sophistication were extraordinary, they are not even marginal. Anyway man, be well:)
I understand that all our wants differ, For instance I only want to have a decent grasp over software engineering to sustain a livelihood, but even if I wanted to master all of computer science, I don’t know if I would equate using a timer(pomodoro) or recalling the answer without looking at the answer(active recall) to mastering compiler design. I don’t about you, but to recall the answer without looking at the answer while preparing for a test or studying for a stipulated time before losing focus didn’t need a overly sophisticated term at least up until a couple years ago. Most of us did pretty well through our schools and colleges. What is this all of a sudden now, if not money grabbing, avarice, charlatanry, fraudulence? In fact, I would’ve conceded if the benefits of these sophistication were extraordinary, they are not even marginal. Anyway man, be well:)
I'm going to take this question seriously. I worked for a project management company once in a support role. It seemed to me that a lot of what they were doing, and teaching in their courses, was basic common sense. I asked the VP if they weren't charging a lot of money for common sense. His answer? "When people pay for advice, they're more likely to follow it."
There's not really a lot new under the sun. A person can hear the same advice a million times without following it. What people are often paying for, when they pay for online courses or coaches or whatever, is a structure that will make them more likely to commit to doing the good thing -- that they probably know to do anyway.
There's not really a lot new under the sun. A person can hear the same advice a million times without following it. What people are often paying for, when they pay for online courses or coaches or whatever, is a structure that will make them more likely to commit to doing the good thing -- that they probably know to do anyway.
For example, I wouldn't pay to see Gordon Ramsay teaching something without first working through Salt, Fat, Acid, Heat and The Food Lab. And by the time I've worked through the books, I know if I'm actually interested in the subject, or if it's just something that I've convinced myself is interesting based on seeing someone doing it on YouTube.
That's just my own philosophy on it. You gotta chop the mesquite before you can smoke the ribs.