Captivating. Understanding something by answering questions on your own (even if guided) always feels more like true understanding. But what happens when we come to a point that requires mental leap beyond what a student can do? Is there a set of problems, or a set of students that are more suitable for Socratic method (3rd graders seem to do just fine at it)? Or is there a set of teachers that are more adept to teaching this way? Please give your answers through questions only.
The hard part about teaching is recognizing when you've introduced a large leap for a good percentage of the class.
There's a famous math story that goes:
"A professor was at the chalkboard writing up a proof for his class. At one point he comes to a portion of the proof and says, 'And it's obvious this must be X'. At which point he pauses, the class waiting. Stares at the board for a minute. Then leaves the class without saying a word. He returns fifteen minutes later, continuing, 'Yes, it's obvious this must be X'."
What is...not understanding the limitations of the Socratic method, clearly outlined at the bottom of the link?
Everything that we know can be broken down into "basic" atoms which cannot be broken down further, but are so tiny the can be learned quickly, or things built up bit by bit, which can be explained given enough time. Even things like "capital cities and states" can be taught by asking how things get named and who names them and who would name something the way they did, giving a bit of historical background etc.
I am in my early 40s. I have started family young. With my son in university now I feel that I have the same amount of time (if not more) then when I was 20 and yet I have far more commitment and experience. There is a burning feeling to make something grand at this stage of life - working at an industry giant does not qualify as such.
