"cramming" teaching

In the last article, I mentioned the idea of heuristic teaching. The general way is to find problems from real life first, then make guesses, then put the guesses into experiments for verification, and finally come to a conclusion to form a theory, and then apply it back to life to solve other problems. Teachers play a more guiding role than telling students the answers directly.

The advantage of this teaching method is that students can think actively, learn to think, and cultivate students' ability to solve problems in real life. But its disadvantage is low efficiency, students' divergent thinking can't be controlled at all, and teachers need to spend a lot of energy to explain.

In addition to some problems of heuristic teaching described in my last article, another netizen also expressed his helplessness from the teacher's point of view through a message. These are irresistible realities.

At the same time, the more interesting the class is, the less content is taught, so the interesting degree of the class is inversely proportional to the efficiency of imparting knowledge. At the same time, at the same time, the more a student practices, the better his grades, so his grades are directly proportional to his practice efficiency. Then logically speaking, for students with the same degree of hard work, the more boring the class, the better the grades should be. Therefore, under the current situation that scores are the main verification means, heuristic teaching is obviously useless, and the advantages of cramming teaching are prominent.

So people think that this is the pot of exam-oriented education, and it is the spoon-feeding teaching that makes our life so miserable. MC Hotdog sneered at this point when he was young, and cursed it countless times in his works, so he circled a large number of fans.

Many people have similar ideas about this problem. There are more and more literate people, and heuristic teaching will be popularized one day. By then, society will be beautiful, classes will be interesting, children will learn knowledge happily, everyone will become an excellent person, and finally the country will become rich and strong.

However, the reality may not be so beautiful, because the problem that education can solve is not that everyone goes to college, but that the level of the worst people is improved. Before modern education, illiteracy was the majority in society, but after modern education, illiteracy was basically eliminated. This is a great achievement of compulsory education, but it is by no means an achievement of higher education. Many people think that a strong country is strengthened by education, and higher education can improve the overall level of Chinese people. However, the facts may be a bit confusing. My idol Wan Weigang once mentioned such a set of comparisons in an article. 1960, South Korea's literacy rate is far lower than that of Argentina, and its per capita income is only one fifth of that of Argentina. Now, South Korea's per capita income is three times that of Argentina. The same phenomenon exists in many other places on earth.

Since economic take-off has nothing to do with education, what is higher education for? The answer is a bit bad, in fact, it is to set a threshold for screening people. Only by attracting high admission standards and high salary will I pay a lot to get this job, and finally I will be particularly reluctant to take this job. Therefore, in order to ensure the stability and morale of employees, it is completely correct to set a high threshold. So in the foreseeable future, this screening mode will not disappear.

As long as this premise is taken as the background, the trend will be biased towards the pursuit of the threshold, so students who adapt to cramming teaching can stand out in such a classroom, gain a sense of accomplishment and enthusiasm from high scores, thus enjoying learning more and more, and their grades are getting better and better. Those students who can't adapt to cramming teaching have suffered setbacks from the beginning, so they don't like learning more and more, and their grades are getting worse. Even in the objective attribute, there is not much difference in people's adaptability to cramming teaching. There is only a gap between 80 points and 100 points in the first grade, but once a person determines his psychological preference, he basically says goodbye to the possibility of liking again.

Although every student should have the same learning opportunities from the perspective of political correctness, the reality is not political correctness, and teachers are all human beings. Their energy and ability are limited. It is impossible to think hard about everyone's feelings, there will always be trade-offs. Then, between classmates, the small gap at first will enlarge infinitely with time. As a result, one of the children who grew up as neighbors in the same neighborhood became a professor of mathematics at first because of the small difference, and the other was still wondering whether one-third plus one-half was two-fifths or five-sixths at the age of thirty. But what does it matter? Anyway, even if we don't increase one-third and one-half for a lifetime, the economy will not get worse.

Therefore, the spoon-feeding teaching method will not be reduced because of people's disgust in the future. As long as competition needs to be established at the educational level, cramming teaching will always have advantages over heuristic teaching.

But on the other hand, is spoon-feeding really bad?

Knowledge, in fact, is the process of the relationship between a certain result and a certain reason and the change between them. For example, I know that A will become C through B, and this process is knowledge.

The so-called cramming teaching means that I look for answers directly and recite them. A becomes C after B, and I don't care about the rest. Heuristic teaching means that I want to know exactly how two events evolved and sum up this way of evolution into a theory, so that I can deduce the result from another event through theory. For example, I know that A will become C through B, so when I meet a D similar to A, I can deduce that D will become C through B through this theory.

However, it should be noted that the theory of push is actually a story. Whether this story is right or not, and under what circumstances, always needs further verification. The more verification, the higher the cost.

For example, I am a pig in a pigsty, and our master feeds us delicious food every day. Our theory of his behavior is that he loves us, and then 200 days later, we go out to slaughter and collectively enter the meat grinder to be made into sausages. On the contrary, there was an experiment in which a group of monkeys were given a banana. As long as one monkey gets this banana, the experimenter will beat all the monkeys. After a period of time, monkeys gradually formed their own culture. Whenever a banana appears, as long as an ignorant monkey wants to get it, onlookers will flock to beat the new monkey. In fact, the beating of the old monkey to the new monkey is a kind of cramming teaching. I'll just tell you the relevance, and you're not allowed to do it. In these two scenarios, the pig's heuristic is obviously not as effective as the monkey's cramming.

And especially in this era of easy access to big data, many correlations can't be explained by theory at all, so use them. For example, A/B/C three fundraising advertising schemes, which one is more effective? What if you can't do it through theory? Put the three together directly, and find that the fund-raising effect of scheme A is better than the other two, and then remove B and C, and use all A. It is said that Obama used this method to raise campaign funds from the beginning, and the number of people who donated money to Obama increased by 40%, equivalent to 60 million US dollars.

It's violent and filling. I have no idea why, but it's effective.

Therefore, in real social life, spoon-feeding and heuristics are very effective methods to solve problems. We can't completely give up heuristics because of cramming in school before, and we can't become superstitious and refuse all cramming because heuristics can really learn knowledge. It is important not to let the defects of cramming and heuristic hinder you.

Sometimes in the face of heuristic teaching, if we need to know the answer as soon as possible, then don't dwell on logic. Anyway, heuristic teaching takes a lot of time, and I will gradually understand it and walk the road of reading a hundred times in the future. But sometimes in the face of cramming teaching, if you can't figure out the reason, you must use heuristic methods to understand and then go back to life to verify. Don't be superstitious about what you have learned by rote. Always tell yourself that the conclusion is just a message. Only by understanding logical knowledge can you say that you have mastered knowledge.

It is a sign of first-class wisdom to keep two completely opposite ideas at the same time and act normally.