Those traits are similar to some of mine. I've known for decades that I'm partiularly good at multiple choice exams, because of a combination of strong recognition abilities and logic. My recall, OTOH is pretty ordinary. I've also found rote learning is inefficient for me. I need to learn the fundamental "rules" for whatever it is that I'm learning, so I can form a mental model of it, before I really start to understand.
Those traits are similar to some of mine. I've known for decades that I'm partiularly good at multiple choice exams, because of a combination of strong recognition abilities and logic. My recall, OTOH is pretty ordinary. I've also found rote learning is inefficient for me. I need to learn the fundamental "rules" for whatever it is that I'm learning, so I can form a mental model of it, before I really start to understand.
I think that's why I never really was too interested in history classes in school (and things like geography, etc.). I suppose I was interested in learning about it to a point, but it seemed like a lot of it was just rote memorization of things. With math and science, at least there's (often) some amount of logic to it that you can work out (though it can sometimes
On 08-15-18 16:08, Nightfox wrote to Vk3jed <=-
I think that's why I never really was too interested in history classes
in school (and things like geography, etc.). I suppose I was
interested in learning about it to a point, but it seemed like a lot of
it was just rote memorization of things. With math and science, at
least there's (often) some amount of logic to it that you can work out (though it can sometimes need some creativity).
On 08-15-18 18:41, MRO wrote to Vk3jed <=-
i can pass multiple choice exams just by noticing patterns.
i think multiple choice tests are just a lazy cop out. it's not really testing what a person knows.
i also am good at cramming and passing tests but that doesnt really
mean i retain much when i do it that way.
so just saying i pretty much wasted my time in highschool and tech
school because i was lazy.
Yeah, everyone learns differently, and I'm not sure if there's a good one-size-fits-all approach.
I think that's why I never really was too interested in history
classes in school (and things like geography, etc.). I suppose I was
interested in learning about it to a point, but it seemed like a lot
of it was just rote memorization of things. With math and science, at
least there's (often) some amount of logic to it that you can work out
(though it can sometimes
you just didnt have the right history teacher. i had the best one after i got out of highschool and he really showed us how interesting history is.
Oddly enough, for long and complicated reasons, I have actually got a lot out of history as I've got older. Humans are somewhat predictable, frighteningly so in some ways, and looking at historic trends shows up those patterns on a societal level. As I said, I am _extremely_ sensitive to patterms. :)
Yeah, everyone learns differently, and I'm not sure if there's a
good one-size-fits-all approach.
I don't see why there's a need to patent a teaching method, unless your plan is to push an agenda of licensing your *special* brand of teaching to make money - not to educate kids.
On 08-16-18 09:55, Nightfox wrote to Vk3jed <=-
Yeah, I think that's the good thing about learning history. We need to
be able to remember what humanity has done in the past.
On 08-16-18 09:47, Nightfox wrote to MRO <=-
Perhaps.. I'm not sure I ever had a history teacher that made it more interesting than I thought it was though. In college I took a class
one term on the history of China, which I thought was interesting, but
I thought it was still a lot of learning about events & people. Also,
| Sysop: | MCMLXXIX |
|---|---|
| Location: | Prospect, CT |
| Users: | 333 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 17:15:03 |
| Calls: | 574 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Messages: | 235855 |