I recall that any problems that I had understanding _how_ to solve something, arose from not knowing _why_ it was being done in the first place. And as a result I had no entry point into the solution process.
Once inside the process of finding a solution things tended to fall into place. But looking at a problem set and not being able to guess what the first step is, thats a sign that I have not developed a means to find my bearing or orientation in the overall problem space.
what distinguishes the forgettable instructors that I have had, from the invaluable and irreplaceable ones? The ability to communicate why we are doing what we are doing as effectively if not more so, than how we go about doing it.
This is the gift that someone like grant Sanderson has, so incredibly rare and strangely opaque to (or even dismissed by) the typical college level instructor of STEM material.
>The ability to communicate WHY we are doing what we are doing
I really resonate with what you said. The Why and the contextual motivation is what I'm always so starved for in classes that I don't understand.
Once inside the process of finding a solution things tended to fall into place. But looking at a problem set and not being able to guess what the first step is, thats a sign that I have not developed a means to find my bearing or orientation in the overall problem space.
what distinguishes the forgettable instructors that I have had, from the invaluable and irreplaceable ones? The ability to communicate why we are doing what we are doing as effectively if not more so, than how we go about doing it.
This is the gift that someone like grant Sanderson has, so incredibly rare and strangely opaque to (or even dismissed by) the typical college level instructor of STEM material.