Didactical Reduction, Part II

In my first post on didactical reduction, I argued that reduction of learning materials to meaningslessness can be detrimental, that teachers should trust in their students’ ability to learn and rise to a challenge. In this post I want to discuss ways of reducing complexity which actually makes sense. The gist is: reduce unneccessary detail, not difficulty. Build complexity in a carefully chosen progression.

Telling the difference between unnecessary detail and challenging complexity

In my post on why programming classes fail and learning ‘algorithmic thinking’, a main example was that students starting out programmig don’t need to know about data types. I will stick with this example here because I just think it illustrates my point so well. The skill to learn I discussed in the post really wasn’t the ‘vocabulary’ of your first programming language, but ‘learning programming’ means successfully communicating with a computer and in order to do that, you need to develop the skill of algorithmic thinking. This skill is independent from your chosen programming language, so you might as well start with a visual lanuage like PocketCode’s Catrobat or Scratch. I would even encourage you to do so.

My favourite illustrative example: data types in introductory programming classes

When took my first programming class, already in the first or second lesson, I was bombarded with data types. I might add now, that since I never write programs that calculate anything, I have never really needed any more datatypes than int, char, string and complex data types to this day. Other primitive datatypes I have ever only used in ‘fake examples’ or ‘program your own calculator’ tutorials. All while you can generally get away with not very much programming in the Digital Humanities, even though I try to program as much as possible, I have never needed any of the other data types to this day. And that first programming class I took was in 2016. So maybe you see what I’m getting at: a new learner really doesn’t need to know about data types. They should maybe informed at some point – once they have mastered string and int – that there are, in fact, other data types which they might need later on and to pay attention. But that should be about enough. Especially since every book on learning a programming language features them anyway. So your students will know where to find out about data types. Once they actually need them.

In that first class, when we were told about datatypes, the only thing it did for me was turn on this destructive internal dialogue: “What? What does it mean? What do I need it for? Should I learn this by heart now? (like how many bytes an int has… the internal representation is different depending on your computer anyway, I must add years later).” And it went on like this. But the most important thought it generated in my mind is this one – I will print it in bold because it’s important: “Wow. Programming must be really difficult. Maybe I’m too stupid to understand it.” This is the common thought students have in this situation because they are fed information which don’t fit into the learning grid in their heads. Unless they have had previous programming experience and already know the content you teach them, it is plain impossible to understand this new information because there isn’t enough context. This means you have utterly failed as a teacher, congrats. So please don’t do that. Only teach things which can find a place in the student’s internal thinking grid. They will not remember information they don’t know where to put. So that’s a complete waste of time.

Children’s books don’t mention data types

I have made the effort of checking many “learn programming” books for this example and it turns out that children’s books never mention data types but books for adults always do. So if in doubt, and if you really have no previous programming experience since children’s books usually start at a low entrance barrier (which can be good but maybe won’t be challenging enough for you), just get a children’s ‘learn programming’ class. They are way more sensible. They introduce concepts only when they’re really needed. If you’re not a complete beginner anymore, some more theory would be better. Remember, I am also a big fan of ‘the bigger picture’ and argue that you should, in fact, learn more background information than strictly necessary (see my post on learning from tutorials vs. books). It is assumed that a didactical approach is essential when teaching children, yet somehow people seem to think adult learning was different.

Imagine explaining everything to a child. Then apply this to adults.

So what I really mean is that you should not reduce difficulty or complexity, but you should reduce unnecessary detail. As a teacher, it is extremely difficult to leave things out, you always want to be as thorough as possible, I know this from experience. But that isn’t good teaching. Good teaching is learning, step by step, to leave out the unnecessary. Learn to simplify. If you don’t know how to explain something in a very simple way because you think the topic to be soo complicated and you just can’timagine how you would explain it to a child or to your grandma and there you go.

Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. (Antoine de Saint-Exupery)

Systematically planning for effective teaching

It is interesting that we usually give this kind of advice to our students for preparing presentations yet we totally ignore it for our own teaching. Especially, if you teach at the university, you feel like it’s not your problem to simplify things. Students should just suck it up. Well, plot twist. No they shouldn’t. Maybe we should take some time and plan for effective teaching. Because from my experience, I feel that respecting a few simple things will already do the trick.

1.) Leave out unnecessary detail

To “automate” this, especially for classes where there are pratical parts, just plan the practical parts first. Note down only the information needed to complete the practicals. If you end up feeling like important concepts are missing in the end, mention those in the form of a glossary (key term + max. 1 sentence explanation you can put in a visual info block). Unnecessary detail clouds your students’ minds. Unlike you, they lack the experience to tell for themselves which bit of information is important and which one is just a nice-to-have. So they end up with tons of learning material,  large amouts of things to study in a non-brain-friendly format. It will take them ages to write up a summary and find out which parts can be left out and which can’t. For you, making this clear would probably take 5 additional minutes. If anything, always end with a “things to remember” final slide which sums up the concepts you expect them to know by the next lesson. You know how to tell the difference between signal and noise. That’s why they employed you to teach. So rise to your responsibility.

2.) Provide short survival summaries with the most important takeaways

I explain this in the tutorial post on study summaries. Force yourself to sum up all your classes’ contents in no more than one page per lesson and then, at the end, create a survival summary, which sums up the most important concepts from the 12 one-page-per-lesson summaries in one single page. All the detail you need can go into the lesson summaries, the final summary is equivalent to a pass grade in an examination: If the student knows and understands all the concepts on it, even if they know no details whatsoever that should be worth at least a pass grade.

3.) Choose handouts over ‘the slides culture’

Over the last years, I noticed that hardly anybody does handouts anymore. People think that their students have the PowerPoint (or LaTeX!) slides  anyway and can learn from them. But there is an important difference: Slides often contain illustrative examples or unimportant details and mostly, there are way too many slides. Students end up completely lost for which information is important. Provide a one-page handout. This forces you to stick to the key takeaways and leave away unimportant detail. You can still have details in your personal notes and mention them. But please do take the time to hand students a more didactical document than your personal notes. If your notes are sometimes confusing to yourself, the master and producer of that chaos, how do you expect non-experts to understand them?

4.) Mastery comes from mastering the deconstructed minimal building blocks of a skill

I explained this in the post on deliberate practice. For teaching purposes this means: people don’t pay enough attention to the basics! They are often presented in a way which makes students think they already understand everything anyway. This is, probably, the biggest hybris ever. In my experience, hardly anybody – except for real masters of their craft – actually get the basics and understand their vital importance. Don’t teach your students to sweat the small stuff. Rater spend some extra time on the basics. Often, the basics are crammed into the first 10 minutes of a class. This is a big mistake! It’s actually the advanced stuff which is easy, not the other way round. Once you’ve understood the basics. Never assume your students understand the basics, even if they think they do. They lack the experience to judge their own proficiency. The greatest waste of time I have observed in classes is when students don’t have a firm grasp on the basics but don’t dare ask. In the later stages, they are at a complete loss for what to do. It’s your job as a teacher to stress the basics so many times that students really understand them. This will also teach them that it’s ok to ask. If you skip over basics they didn’t understand, you make them afraid to ask for fear of looking like an idiot. There are no studid questions – live this and your students will start asking! Consequently, measure their mastery of the basics with some sort of testing and only move on once they really understood them. Even if it takes 6 out of your 13 lessons. It will be worth it in the end. Give more advanced students a challenging task in the meantime.

5.) Don’t forget the generic “How to approach this type of problem” summary

Even if this is mentioned implicitly in your teaching methodology, don’t assume students can abstract the general methodology from your practical example. That’s how they end up not knowing how to Google scientific literature on their chosen topic. You have to make everything explicit, even if it seems trivial. Especially if it’s trivial because everything which seems trivial to you is likely a vital underlying key concept and exactly the sort of basic knowledge you would be supposed to teach. Even if you think you already did it in your class, please just do provide a little written out step-by-step tutorial so people can go back to that if they don’t remember how to do it. Maybe they forgot to note down one simple step but that missing step will mess up the whole process. I tend to formulate this while explaining to students what they are supposed to do (i.e. explaining the homework, current task, etc.). I always feel like an iditot doing this but this is the moment where you still have feedback for what your students need. You can add additional problems as they come up. Make the list as extensive and detailed as possible. Often teachers have really bad assessment skills when it comes to predicting  what will be a difficult obstacle for a student in a task. Often it is not even the task they can’t manage but, for example, the forgot where to find the data needed for it, etc.

Like I talked about in the “learn programming” post, the “how to approach this problem” part for starting out programming is not the “vocabulary” of a programming language but algorithmic thinking. Where do I start when I am faced with a task like this? That is actually what you should be teaching. It’s called getting people actionable skills. Teach them to teach themselves, the tricks to make things easier, where they can find information, etc. Take the time to write this out even if you feel like your students should already know this because it came up in a prerequisiste class. Don’t play strict here. You’re only hurting your own class if you insist that people should already know this by now. If they don’t (which is likely to be the case), make it your priority to fill the gaps in their knowledge in the most effective way. Make sure they don’t end up in your colleagues class with an even bigger pile of “stuff they would have already be supposed to know”. Don’t cry over spilt milk. Wipe it up before it starts to stink.

6.) Don’t bore the pants off your advanced students

They don’t know everything and still have things to learn, else they probably wouldn’t be in your class. Prepare something to do for advanced students. I mean, honestly, even as an unexperienced teacher, deep down you can tell before you’ve even met your students that their skill level will not be homogenous. So why didn’t you prepare for it in advance? Offering a cool project for advanced students isn’t so difficult. Prepare it once and reuse it forever. Take this one hour it will take to come up with a more complicated problem (you probably already have one in mind anyway) and spell it out in a way that students can work independently. Give them book suggestions or links where they can learn what they need so they don’t need to interrupt your class.

Your class will (and should) move at the pace of the slowest student. If you don’t prepare for imhomogenous classes, more advanced students will be bored drift off quickly. Have advanced mini projects on hand to keep them busy, motivated and interested. Espeically your good students are actually the ones you want to keep happy. They are the ones who might come to the follow-up class. Unless you bore them away. Counterintuitively, advanced students often tend to get ignored by teachers because they are “difficult”. Yes, advanced students are challenging to teach. Give them something task from a real-life project you wanted to delegate to save time anyway. The responsibilty will ensure they know you value their advanced skill, even though you might not have the time for a 1:1 master class right now. Then, think about actually offering 1:1 master classes for motivated students. They will appreciate it because usually, advanced students really love to learn but hardly get the opportunity during classic teaching. If you have the time, challenge and mentor them outside class. They can become great allies and future co-workers in the long term. Also, the more advanced a student, the more they need non-generic help but challenges tailored to their current needs and skill level.

The “mini-project method” also allows you to take extra care of slow students without guilt – you can let everybody else start on the mini-project (which took you one hour to prepare one single time and can be reused indefinitely if it was a good project), so it won’t be at the expense of their learning experience.

Writing this down, I realized I really have a lot of thoughts on this, so expect another follow up at some point 😉

Bye for now,

the LaTeX Ninja

Buy me coffee!

If my content has helped you, donate 3€ to buy me coffee. Thanks a lot, I appreciate it!

€3.00

Advertisements

Why most “learn programming” classes, books and attempts fail

This seems to be a bold claim. Let me explain… There are two reasons why I think most introductory programming classes fail ant that is a) because they never actually teach prorgramming (i.e. “algorithmic thinking”, not the syntax of one concrete language / “your first language”)) and b) because they bombard students with tons of complicated subjects which are not necessary at the beginning, so nobody remembers or understands them anyway. But they confuse the students and distract them from what they really should learn like how to interact with the machine and basic flow control. Use a visual language (like Scratch for PC or Catrobat for mobile devices) and thank me later.

Algorithmic thinking

When we want to learn or teach how to program, we first need to define what programming is. Like in a human language, knowing the words and the grammar is not enough – knowing a language means “knowing how to communicate using that language”. For programming languages, this means what we might call “algorithmic thinking”.

Sadly, in most beginner’s programming classes, this is not taught. And this is also why in many classes on learning how to program, only those students succeed who already kind of knew how to program beforehand. Why is that, you ask? Because those classes  that have failed their students have never actually taught programming. The class listed some of the “vocabulary” of an example programming language. It maybe explained about data types, gave you information you didn’t know what to do with and forgot almost instantly.

You were fed all sorts of facts of “knowledge” but never got around “operationalizing” them.

John Sonmez thinks the same way when it comes to learning a new programming language when you already know how to program. Most people ( = learners) and, sadly, also most teachers, don’t get that in order to really teach programming,  they would have to teach algorithmic thinking on the example of one programming language. Not “show around” the programming language and wonder why nobody had learned anything.

Why you don’t need to learn about data types just yet and should start with a visual language

This is also why I would recommand a visual language to start out, like I explained in the [cheatsheet post](LINK) of this blog’s “learning effectively” series. Even more than high-level programming languages, visual languages allow you to ignore the low-level stuff for the beginning. (Data types being a high-level “symptom” of what I have just called “low-level stuff”. – Don’t kill me please.)

You can say whatever you want, but at this early stage you just don’t need to know about these concepts. Not when you’re barely starting out and have never programmed before. These concepts scare people away. These concepts make things complicated when they need not (yet) be.

If you want to learn effectively (this is valid for any kind of learning), you need to focus on one thing at a time. When starting out on your programming journey, learn algorithmic thinking first.

Programming essentially is “problem solving using a computer”

 So a class on starting programming should not teach “the vocabulary” of a language (not the grammer either). It should focus on giving you strategies for digital problem solving which is more or less the same thing as effectively communicating with the machine (if we want to use the human-language analogy). In learning a human language you would never expect to master the language just by learning some vocabulary and grammar by heart. You know that you have to be able to use it first. That means, you need to find out how to communicate effectively in that language.

Also we shouldn’t fall victim to the fallacy that starting to learn programming is synonymous to learning your first programming language. You could theoretically learn algorithmic thinking in pseudo-code without ever seeing a concrete example (which is not anything I would advise, however).

So when you teach an introductory class to programming (to people who might never have programmed before), maybe think of me and keep this in mind.

I myself have fallen victim to this and endured many boring and ineffective “start programming” classes. If you want to start programming, would like to follow my advice but don’t know how to start, I suggest my [post on how to find a “starting out” project](LINK).

 

 

Buy me coffee!

If my content has helped you, donate 3€ to buy me coffee. Thanks a lot, I appreciate it!

€3.00

On Didactical Reduction (especially in the DH)

Didactical reduction means abstracting complexity to facilitate learning. It is the act of reducing and simplifying teaching material as to promote student learning. Sadly, I feel that didactical reduction doesn’t accomplish its ends most of the time. Here is why and how I think we could do better.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions

I have seen many classes where the content to be taught was reduced so drastically that is became simple and clear – but maybe **too simple and clear. It became meaningless.** The material became so easy to understand (or, even worse, a complex topic was made to seem like a banality), so that students stopped paying attention. “I already know this” or “I get this” are not necessarily thoughts a teacher wants to provoke. We use didactical reduction so that the complexity of a topic is hidden and we don’t scare our pupils. But fear isn’t always a bad thing. Fear means respect. And if a student never starts respecting a topic in its complexity, the student will never actually learn it.

Often, topics end up being reduced to banalities due to overly motivated didactical reduction.

There is no more incentive for students to learn them. I see this a lot with the more technical aspects of the Digital Humanities. Programming can seem scary to Humanists, so we reduce it to a bare minimum and then complain about how we can’t program. It’s either hack or yack with the DH, isn’t it?

Well, I don’t think so. I think that the DH have not yet reached the point where they have enough self-confidence to dare and face their dear students with a difficult class. Would anyone question the maths exams in a Computer Science degree even after they’d failed five times? They would complain, but they would not question why they  were necessary. (At least not at the back of their hearts where they know they are.)

It’s all just introductions in the DH?

In the DH, we are so afraid of the supposed lack of technical aptitude of our students that we basically just stop teaching them real skills. We do some theory, but not too much – it could scare away the students. We do some programming or other technical work but remain so much on the surface that no student could leave the class and actually feel that they master the topic. And maybe achieving mastery of a topic in just one class would be too much to ask. But then again, why do we even bother teaching a class if we don’t expect our students to have any actual skills after they have sucessfully completed it? Is it part of the nature of the DH that we are ‘Jacks of all trades’, we collect introductions to everything and master nothing? (Sorry to be provocative here, mabye this is exaggerated but also, maybe it makes my point more obvious.)

Challenging students means taking them seriously

I personally feel that teachers tend to not take students seriously enough. And by that, I don’t mean to insult or point fingers, but I think it is inherent in the nature of teaching that teachers deem themselves superior to their students. And this might be the case, of course. But this assumption brings with it a lot of presuppositions like the possible lack of aptitude or talent in the students. We mean well when we use didactic reduction but implicitly, it also often means that we don’t dare to challenge them because we’re afraid they might not be up for it. And that is a lack of respect.

Safe places, respect and challenge

I personally feel that trusting someone to be able to face a real challenge is a form of respect a teacher owes to its student. Showing respect by challenging people to learn and trusting them to be up for the challenge is something I apparently do unknowingly all the time when I teach. No matter if I teach Latin at school, teach university students or explain programming to 10 year olds. I trust students to be up for the challenge so that they can trust themselves. At first, they can be reluctant but once they realize how empowering it feels to learn an actionable skill, they love it.

I was very surprised to get very good feedback after teaching children during a sort of summer school this year. After all, my ski instructing years (the last time I actively worked with pre-adolescent children) were long past. But I think the reason why children I teach tend to idolize me is because I am one of the few people who treat them like adults. Who trust them to be able to handle responsibility and who take them just as seriously as I would a professor. Who doesn’t treat them like they’re dumb. Apparently, hardly anybody else does that or else it wouldn’t be so special.

But not treating a person as though they were dumb also means that I have expectations. I think them to be able to master a challenge but this also comes with the obligation to take the challenge. Adolescents tend to show more reluctance and resistance here. Challenging yourself is hard work and it might transform you. Change is feared and supposed to be painful. But it’s what makes learning worthwhile.

What I’m really trying to say with this is: You can only see your students’ potential once you dare to challenge them. Real learning can’t happen within the boundaries of absolute safety. Yes, it’s safe in your comfort zone, but there is this popular quote from the internet:

A comfort zone is a beautiful place but nothing ever grows there.

You can’t learn without leaving your comfort zone. Didactic reduction often leads teachers to make everything safe for their students. So safe that they actually prevent them from learning. And mind you, teachers: Students have a natural instinct to dumb themselves down hoping they will get less challenging work. Challenging work promotes personal growth, personal growth is change and people fear change. Also they avoid hard work. They will not appear compentent for a big challenge because they don’t want to be challenged. This is why you need to believe in their ability to tackle a challenge. Because they won’t do it if you don’t make them. Laziness kills, believe me.

Learning = Commitment to personal transformation

When I – as a student – take a class, on the one hand I want to obtain some quick and easy ECTS. But on the other hand, I don’t really want a class where I don’t ever learn anything. In the long term, the class will have been a waste of time if it doesn’t transform the way I think, at least in some aspect. A mere introduction, a listing or overview of the topic is nothing I need to take a class for. I can find this on Wikipedia. It doesn’t require any commitment. But if you want to learn, you won’t get very far without commitment.

A definition of learning in the field of Knowledge Technologies / Machine Learning / Artificial Intelligence is that it is a processes by which we achieve long-term changes in knowledge, perception and behaviour through experience. This results in in changes in brain structure in human learning and in changes in parameters of computationally represented knowledge and reasoning algorithms in machines.

This is a helpful working definition for the blog post at hand because according to this definition, no learning can happen without change. Which means it is a teacher’s job to induce change. This cannot be done by feeding students information they already know or making it appear like they already understand something because it is so drastically simplified. Students need to be made aware that there are things they don’t already know but at the same time assured that with the teacher’s help, they will be able to fill the void, one gap at a time.

Winging it

This all sounds great in theory but how do I make this work in practice, you might ask. Well, I’m not an expert and this sure isn’t the theory of the century but I have some ideas. Indulge me for a moment.

First of all, I obviously see that there is a difference between adolescents being forced to attend school and university students who, at least somewhere deep down, signed up for it freewillingly and came of their own accord. My tips work best for people who want to learn, at least somehow. But I don’t see why one shouldn’t be able to make it work for enslaved adolescents as well. It will probably be more difficult, but still.

Always make it actionable

If you have to do tons of theory, don’t forget to always make it actionable at some point. Theory can always be put into an actionable skill or “practised” on an example. This will be the one thing students will remember a year after your class is over. So make sure there is an actionable skill or general take-away or they might just remember nothing from the class in a year’s time.

Here, I would suggest you treat less topics but make room for some in-depth practical example for every topic covered where students can take action themselves. They should feel like they have mastered a task big enough that they can acutally use the skill they are supposed to have learned. Of course they still won’t be good. But I think they should end up feeling confident enough to do some paid work using the skill (taking into account that you go on learning as you work and usually can pull off, say a first week of slower, less good work, where you work yourself up to get a little more confident).

The size of the tasks I’m talking about could be doing XML annotation in a project, not “full mastery of Python” or something this big. If the class is, say, an introduction to Python, a student should be able to take a (not well paid) job where they do some small tasks with Python, in my opinion. So I would expect the student to have been taught some basic problem solving skills, some “algorithmic thinking”, Python basics and the knowledge of where to find what he or she doesn’t know yet. Or for another topic, the student should be confident enough to give supplementary classes or tutoring for someone who is new to the topic.

Do less but do it better.

I would go as far as to say that, for example, leave out the data types theory and just show that there are different data types with the examples of string and integer and how they work. Make the student understand what a data type is fairly clearly using these two examples and make sure he or she is able to practically apply that knowledge. They can learn about the other data types as they go.

Dare to do didactical reduction in the way that you leave things out so you can go into detail with the most important, most actionable basics. Cut the last topic you had planned for the semester, if you have to. It will be worth it if you really achieved good results on the basics.

A student with a sound understanding of the basics and the ability to apply this understanding to small (but not too small / banally small) tasks will be able to teach him- or herself the more advanced stuff somehow. Your job as a teacher is to provide the information the student couldn’t easily get on their own (like insider tips, thing you only learn with tons of experience, the understanding why XY is important or why attention to detail is important with a particular task, etc.).

But I don’t teach topics which can be made ‘actionable’

I don’t believe you. Anything can be made actionable. And if the action is just passing your exam. Think about what you will let the students do for the exam and practise it. Students often have difficulty applying something they were supposedly taught. Because applying it is part of what you (yes, I’m pointing fingers) would have been supposed to teach them. Teachers often expect students to have the so-called “transfer” skill of applying knowledge but most often: they don’t. Just assume they don’t. Teaching this is part of your job! Also, let them do it with help first but be sure to include an example where they have to apply the skill completely on their own. Students usually don’t think for themselves as long as you help them with everything and so, neither you nor the student ever realize they actually haven’t learnt the skill yet. Do check if they have actually learnt the skill you were trying to teach.

What gets measured, gets managed. (Peter Drucker)

If the desired output is to write a seminar paper, think about what real life application that skill could have. Write a well-researched article in a (non-scientific) journal? If you get your students to be ready to publish for a scientific journal, all the better. Don’t be content with some half-baked output. (unless it’s Ben & Jerry’s). Also think about potential fields your students might work in once they’re done with their studies. Come up with a real life output. Don’t stop until you have found at least one. Then hold yourself  (and your students) accountable to really achieve this.

Information is certain to be lost, skills remain

But remember, if your class doesn’t teach anything students would be able to put down in their CV as a skill, they might just look back to the class afterwards and wonder what the hell they’d even learned there. At least that’s how I think back to classes where I feel I didn’t really learn anything. These classes all had topics, but only some of them had actual outputs. Digital Humanities teacher’s have absolutely no excuses here but I do see that this is easier said than done for some other Humanities topics. But nevertheless, you should always be able to come up with some real desired output of the class. If you can’t try harder. Revise your class. Challenge your students, but also challenge yourself.

I insist so much on teaching skills alongside “information” because information is certain to get lost over time. If you don’t teach any skill, your class will have no lasting impact on your students whatsoever. All the “good classes” I myself have ever attended have taught me a new skill in one way or another. The only classes I remember now are the ones where I actually learned a new skill.

Undergraduate level vs. Master’s level: Knowing about a topic vs. knowing a topic

For undergraduate, so Bachelor’s level classes, I reckon some drastically reduced content and even the ominous “listings” of information might be ok if they can’t be avoided. You have to start somewhere. Though I firmly believe that there is always a way to include at least some actionable skill where you can go into detail. If it’s just doing a mini hands-on tutorial online where they get to do something they might, at least theoretically, use in real life.

Teach the class so well that your students can confidently write that skill in their CV

But for the graduate level, so anything Master’s curriculum or above, you absolutely have to make it actionable. Merely absorbing information is not enough anymore. A students needs to walk out of your study programme with a specialization and enough skills to get a first job. So this means either specializing on some topics with the result that the student is able to “make sound decisions”, “think for him- or herself” in this topic. Or enough applied knowledge which translates to a skill students can put into their CVs. If you teach a “practical” class, what is the skill you would trust your students to put into their CVs once they have completed your class? If you can’t come up with one, maybe you should rethink your class. Having heard about the topic and knowing it exists is enough for a Bachelor’s level introduction at best. At the master’s level, it is my firm belief that you should teach an actual skill for the student to master, a specialization where they feel “firm” and confident enough to do paid work in.

 

Buy me coffee!

If my content has helped you, donate 3€ to buy me coffee. Thanks a lot, I appreciate it!

€3.00