Tyler Strickland wrote:
On 11/09/2005 08:20 AM, Ross Werner wrote:
That was the impression I was given of the BYU database classes. Now I
want to make explicit that I think this is *exactly* what BYU database
classes *should* be teaching. Theory theory theory. The mathematical
models. Ideas and concepts.
However, I felt that the original poster was looking for something
about real-world design concepts and ideas, not the theory and math
behind databases. The latter may be helpful, of course, but I'm not
sure *how* helpful.
I'm glad that for the one BYU class I had, theory was the subject - from
there it was easier to branch out to learning individual databases than
it would have been to go the other way.
I've always wondered if I'm odd in the way I learn things, but I've
always had far more success if I start with practical applications
before moving into theory. When I start with theory, I don't know why I
need to learn it, so my rebellious nature ignores it. However, when I
start with applications, the importance is obvious and most of the
theory is intuitive. Later, I fill in the gaps in my theoretical
understanding by talking to people or reading books.
People say this approach leads to misunderstandings, which is true for a
time, but the misunderstandings cause me to appreciate the theory and
dedicate serious time to learning the theory. At this point the theory
is exciting and easy to learn. In the process, I also learn notable
practical exceptions to the theory, helping me see some directions the
theory needs to expand to become more useful. Sometimes I try to expand
the theory.
Nearly every time I've applied this method (practice before theory) and
subsequently taken a class on the same topic, the class was a breeze; I
felt like I could be teaching the class. Nearly every time I've taken a
theory-heavy class in something I haven't learned on my own, I struggled
a lot.
I've changed the subject of this mail thread, since this is a tangent on
education theory rather than database theory. I don't know much about
education theory and the research behind it, but my personal observation
seems to condradict prevailing wisdom about the best way to teach.
Surely there are others like me who learn faster and better when theory
follows practice.
I think the ideal course for rebels like me would follow a structure
something like this: spend a week and a half learning how to create
something difficult, then a week and a half learning the theory behind
it that makes it easy. Repeat three or four times. By the end of the
course, expect to understand both the complete theory and current
practice. Don't expect the theory to be easy, but expect it to be
exciting, because its importance is clear.
I don't know of any school trying such an approach. Schools tend to
teach either theory (thorough, but hard and slow) or practice (fast, but
the usefulness of the skills diminishes quickly.) I'd be interested in
finding a graduate school that has the vision that theory is quite
exciting if you first learn what it's good for.
Shane
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
Don't fear the penguin.
*/
