News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The examples in the textbooks are not representative of r... by jiggawatts on Thursday April 07, 2022 @05:20AM (#30942346)
It seems counter-intuitive, but I've found that this works for me also. For example, I could never learn basic mathematical concepts until I had seem them in action as a part of a larger framework or practical problem.

For example, differentiation by itself is just pushing symbols around according to some arbitrary-seeming rules. It's not until I did physics that its purpose made sense. I studied calculus for years, and it never "clicked" for me, and I forgot most of it promptly. Then in just a semester of physics where I was applying it in the context of complicated problems, it suddenly felt like second-nature. I had to basically re-learn all of it from scratch, but with the context of my physics problems it was so easy!

I've had similar experiences teaching programming to junior staff. Anything you talk about in isolation goes in one ear and out the other. They have to encounter the problem in something larger that they are solving for the solution to make sense and motivate them to learn.

An example is string-escaping. E.g.: how do you represent the quote symbol in a quoted string? This seems trivial, but it trips up everyone when they are getting started. I mean literally everyone. So okay, I make sure to cover it in like... lesson #1 or #2 because string literals are everywhere, and escaping is common. Every single time, the people that sat through that lesson will ask me a week later to help me fix as program that has a literal like 'O'Brian' in it, and they can't figure out why it's broken. But once I show them that they should have used 'O''Brian' or 'O\'Brian', it all makes sense to them and they memorise the technique.

Re:The examples in the textbooks are not representative of r... by elcapitan on Thursday April 07, 2022 @05:38AM (#30942453)
Yes. I always found it odd, especially in mathematical textbooks, but to some degree also other areas, when a field is explained top down from a theory that is the end result of hundreds of years of discovery, fiddling and trial and error. As if that whole theory was god given and just happened without motivation or process. Besides making it harder to understand by going abstract idea first, it also makes it harder to develop an understanding for how people come up with and improve ideas over time.
Re:The examples in the textbooks are not representative of r... by Gibbon1 on Thursday April 07, 2022 @05:57AM (#30942573)
About 20 years ago I read a book on spread spectrum radio. Unlike all the others each chapter was in three parts. The first part explained the problem. The things people tried to solve it. Problems with those solutions. And then second part explained the canonical solution, how it solved issues. The third was a formal description and analysis

That book was totally great. Even if you got lost in the math reading the last formal part you understood what was going on.

Re:The examples in the textbooks are not representative of r... by aesch on Thursday April 07, 2022 @04:11PM (#30949790)
Do you remember the name of the book and the author?
Re:The examples in the textbooks are not representative of r... by thfuran on Thursday April 07, 2022 @12:35PM (#30946825)
It makes complete sense for mathematics. Few of the mathematicians I know have any interest in applying math to much of anything besides math research. The whole business is entirely abstract.