Difference between revisions of "Comparison of pedagogical scenes"
| (18 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{| class="sortable wikitable" | {| class="sortable wikitable" | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | ! Name !! | + | ! Name |
| + | ! Medium | ||
| + | ! Aiming to be comprehensive?<ref group=note>Is the material comprehensive, and can it be used as a standalone resource? Or is it more of an auxiliary thing to make the topic more entertaining?</ref> | ||
| + | ! Gets to deep/hard stuff, and forces people to think?<ref group=note>Does the thing have exercises that really deepen understanding? Does it take [https://learning.subwiki.org/wiki/Importance_of_struggling_in_learning desirable difficulties] into account?</ref> | ||
| + | ! Focus on explanation vs creating/doing? | ||
| + | ! Focus on analyzing explanations?<ref group=note>Does the field or scene see the ''analysis of explanations'' as itself a topic of the work? Or is it more just a thing that happens outside of the public view? Is a discussion of a new technique to explain things seen as a contribution to the scene? Is the scene open to "meta" things?</ref> | ||
| + | ! Totally new stuff, or just "do more of the same, but faster and with more polish"? | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | | Generic pedagogy || | + | | Generic pedagogy, say "good" math books like Tao, Axler, Spivak || Text || Yes || Yes (but it's very difficult work!) || Explanation || No || same old |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | Tools for thought || | + | | Tools for thought || The point is to create new mediums! || Yes? || Yes? || Creating/doing || Yes || Totally new stuff! |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | Research distillation<ref>https://distill.pub/2017/research-debt/</ref> || | + | | Research distillation<ref>https://distill.pub/2017/research-debt/</ref> || Mostly text, with some interactive widgets || No || Kinda (aspirational, but most online essays are still not so deep) || Explanation || No, or at least not in public || faster/more polish |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | [[ | + | | [[Explorable explanation]]s || Interactive widgets || Not || Not really || Explanation || No || mix of both |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | [[3Blue1Brown]] | + | | [[3Blue1Brown]] || Non-interactive video with visualizations || No || No || Explanation || No || mix of both |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | Khan Academy || | + | | Khan Academy || Tutor-like videos and text || Explanation || Yes, but it only targets "easy" topics || Kinda, but it only targets "easy" topics || No || just cover all the high school topics |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | [[Explanation science]] || | + | | [[Spaced repetition]] and "learning how to learn" || Flashcards, notes || Yes || Yes (but you do all the work!) || Creating/doing || Yes || Yes; people talk about how to write better prompts and come up with new learning techniques |
| + | |- | ||
| + | | [https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/DJk86FE29ad4vr5e9/riceissa-s-shortform/comment/W49udPvKRZB4B3snR Asynchronous Discord severs] || Chatroom || Kinda (not intended to be a standalone resource, but a good server will cover all the chapters and be able to help at any stage of learning) || Yes (people who are asking their questions are actually asking about the stuff they are struggling with) || Explanation || No || The concept itself is new (as described in my LW post) but once it's been created, there is no drive to make it even better; instead, the drive has been to expand to more and more textbooks/subfields of math | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | [[Explanation science]] || Mostly text? || Yes (aspirational) || Yes || Explanation || Yes || Totally new stuff! | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | puzzle video games community (e.g. [[Jonathan Blow]]) || | ||
|} | |} | ||
| Line 29: | Line 41: | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Notes== | ||
| + | |||
| + | <references group=note/> | ||
[[Category:Learning]] | [[Category:Learning]] | ||
Latest revision as of 19:28, 4 July 2022
| Name | Medium | Aiming to be comprehensive?[note 1] | Gets to deep/hard stuff, and forces people to think?[note 2] | Focus on explanation vs creating/doing? | Focus on analyzing explanations?[note 3] | Totally new stuff, or just "do more of the same, but faster and with more polish"? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Generic pedagogy, say "good" math books like Tao, Axler, Spivak | Text | Yes | Yes (but it's very difficult work!) | Explanation | No | same old |
| Tools for thought | The point is to create new mediums! | Yes? | Yes? | Creating/doing | Yes | Totally new stuff! |
| Research distillation[1] | Mostly text, with some interactive widgets | No | Kinda (aspirational, but most online essays are still not so deep) | Explanation | No, or at least not in public | faster/more polish |
| Explorable explanations | Interactive widgets | Not | Not really | Explanation | No | mix of both |
| 3Blue1Brown | Non-interactive video with visualizations | No | No | Explanation | No | mix of both |
| Khan Academy | Tutor-like videos and text | Explanation | Yes, but it only targets "easy" topics | Kinda, but it only targets "easy" topics | No | just cover all the high school topics |
| Spaced repetition and "learning how to learn" | Flashcards, notes | Yes | Yes (but you do all the work!) | Creating/doing | Yes | Yes; people talk about how to write better prompts and come up with new learning techniques |
| Asynchronous Discord severs | Chatroom | Kinda (not intended to be a standalone resource, but a good server will cover all the chapters and be able to help at any stage of learning) | Yes (people who are asking their questions are actually asking about the stuff they are struggling with) | Explanation | No | The concept itself is new (as described in my LW post) but once it's been created, there is no drive to make it even better; instead, the drive has been to expand to more and more textbooks/subfields of math |
| Explanation science | Mostly text? | Yes (aspirational) | Yes | Explanation | Yes | Totally new stuff! |
| puzzle video games community (e.g. Jonathan Blow) |
Contents
See also
What links here
References
Notes
- ↑ Is the material comprehensive, and can it be used as a standalone resource? Or is it more of an auxiliary thing to make the topic more entertaining?
- ↑ Does the thing have exercises that really deepen understanding? Does it take desirable difficulties into account?
- ↑ Does the field or scene see the analysis of explanations as itself a topic of the work? Or is it more just a thing that happens outside of the public view? Is a discussion of a new technique to explain things seen as a contribution to the scene? Is the scene open to "meta" things?
