Robert Kiesling wrote:
> ... but on a more sophisticated level, it's better to give someone a
> model to emulate, then let them figure out for themselves how to
> arrive at the finished program, provided they know how to perform all
> of the necessary procedures (e.g., don't first throw the monitor out
> of the window).
I wouldn't say 'better', just 'different'.
At the risk of starting a religious war - which I /don't/ want
to do, why do you say 'better'?
People think differently. It's one of our strengths as a species
that we are composed of a variety of ways-of-being. Some people
(me) happen to be unable to simply 'emulate' something we don't
understand the structure of.
I would have to analyse the model - and it's easier to teach me by
showing me HOW to analyse the model effectively, THEN giving me either
a model or a task (perhaps letting me find my own model) and saying
'do this'.
You, presumably, work better given an example and either not analysing
(perhaps. I dunno. I don't know your mind), analysing instinctively,
or somehow 'knowing' how it fits together.
And why is it 'more sophisticated'?
I'm genuinely curious - this isn't intended as a criticism, flame,
or whatever else it might be taken as. It's asking. Cause I don't
get it.
Jenn V.
--
"We're repairing the coolant loop of a nuclear fusion reactor.
This is women's work!"
Helix, Freefall. http://www.purrsia.com/freefall/
Jenn Vesperman [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.simegen.com/~jenn
************
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
