The aim of the development of Study Tech was to improve the ability of the student to learn (i.e. change his subjective reaction to the subject) by altering the teaching methodology used - pan-determinism at work!
In schools and universities, subjective reality on the part of the student is achieved by threat of failure or expulsion. I.e. no address to what's needed to support the student's efforts to study.
In schooling, the teacher does not observe the student applying for real what he's learned, and so does not have a good idea of the success or failure of the course.
The school system fails to observe that education is not very successful.
Most studies expect the student (after graduation) to be very amateurish.
Scn. is a complex subject to study. There are many parts to learn to obtain the exact result required.
You teach someone on a gradient to avoid them becoming confused.
When someone gets confused, he has fully gotten the earlier step. He's not confronting the current step.
The only error you can make in using gradients is to start with too high a gradient. This is an easy mistake to make. The modern university does nothing but make this mistake.
The basic gradient is to have the student there, which is skipped in most elementary schools.
The actual confusion to handle in the student is not the one the student (or instructor) thinks it is. It's the earlier skipped gradient.
The one that comes up on the meter is the later, stronger confusion.
"The thing the student is apparently having trouble with is never the thing the student is having trouble with."
The skipped gradient is due to a word in that step that was not understood.
Study can produce very strong physiological reactions.
When you get a physiological reaction, you've got a skip on the gradient.
The skipped gradient may not be in the preceding paragraph. It can be a more fundamental datum from years before, or never seen.
The apparent problem occurs after the actual skipped gradient has been keyed in. That area is a blank to him - words will vanish off the page.
Find out where the student wasn't having trouble. The problem/word is at the tag end of that.
Instruction consists of guiding a student along a gradient of known data.
Good instruction is a system of backtracking. The student will go forward quite happily by himself until he gets stuck.
The student will be positive he understood the last point on the gradient. The evidence that he didn't is that he is having trouble with the next point.
If the earlier gradient than where he got stuck is also badly misunderstood there's something before even that.
Study is a concatenation of certainties, confidences and competences.
Let a student get into trouble before you help him out.
Study uniformly spread across a group is a mistake - they're all at different places on the gradient.
Don't ever take up with the student what he says he doesn’t understand.
The trouble is in the bracket of "doing well there" and "having trouble there".
There was some indication in 1947 research that a misunderstood can have an significant negative impact on a life.
In that teaching is relaying data to a person that he can understand and use, and that words are involved in this (along with actions), the definitions of words has an impact on study.
You can get in as much trouble by not naming a distinctly different part as you can by naming one too complexly.
If you take a person up the gradient too steeply he will get lost at some step, always because he is confused about the prior step.
The responsibility for the subjective reaction of the student lies in a very large measure with the instructor.
The problem is really always a word or phrase.
The fault could be with the text, e.g. typographical error, info not there.
No comments:
Post a Comment