Manuevering Speed

at a level they understand and can build on...There are millions of ways to achieve that end.

How can you build on a lie? For the student to advance in understanding, the previous model will have to be torn and rebuilt from scratch.

Can you explain to me why
  1. I can teach it correctly and have my students understand, and
  2. MidlifeFlyer can teach it correctly and have his students understand, and
  3. FlyGuy's instructor could teach it correctly and have him understand, and
  4. Rod Machado can teach it this way and have his students understand,
but you cannot? Do we four just have all the genius students?:)
 
Still attacking I see ...

I haven't attacked you. No one has.

I am challenging your ideas, but this is a forum dedicated to learning, isn't it? How can we learn, yet keep the same ideas that we had before?

You should never confuse rejecting someone's ideas with rejecting the person. You're a really swell fellow. :)
 
I haven't attacked you. No one has.

I am challenging your ideas, but this is a forum dedicated to learning, isn't it? How can we learn, yet keep the same ideas that we had before?

You should never confuse rejecting someone's ideas with rejecting the person. You're a really swell fellow. :)

Lol. I'm an @$$hole.

But that's not the point.
 
Lol. I'm an @$$hole.

But that's not the point.
I think tgrayson's point is just that simplifying to a level that the student understands does not require using analogies that really don't describe the phenomenon. (I used to use the Corolla v dump truck over the train tracks one and was soundly nailed for it).
 
I just have to say that I found Tgray and Midlifeflyers explanations better than Pilot's analogy. I don't have a preference on either one person in this explanation, I just found it in an easier to understand way.

But hey, another explanation of every student doesn't learn the same way. Actually, I might use them in my CFI book as well!
 
Back
Top