I was once teaching a student introductory programming when I was in my undergrad.
The problem was to draw two circles on the screen of different colours and detect when the mouse is inside of one.
I said, “So our goal is simple: Let’s draw a circle somewhere on the screen. Consider what you’d tell me as a human - I’ve got the pencil, and you want to tell me to draw a circle of a certain size somewhere on this paper. We have three functions. Calling a function will draw a shape. Each function draws a different shape. We have rect(), circle(), and line(). Which of these sounds like the one we want to use? Which would get me to draw the correct shape?”
“… Rect?” “Why?” “It draws a shape.” “What shape would rect draw?” “I don’t know.” “Guess.” “A circle?” “Why do you think that?” “We need to draw a circle.” “If I said that rect draws a rectangle, which of the three functions would we want to use then, to draw our picture?” “Rect?”
I’ve now been teaching for many years, and those situations still come up a lot. When I put up a poll in class, with the answer still written on the board, about 25% of people in a 100+ student class will get it wrong - of people who were not only admitted to a competitive university program, but have passed multiple prerequisite courses to be here.
Not only is it unknown gaps in knowledge, there is just a thought process I haven’t been able to crack through that some people really can’t see what is immediately before them.
Some people are apparently incapable of learning anything except by rote. To them, every problem or situation has one solution, and they have no answer for any situation that has not previously been explicitly spelled out to them and the solution memorized, and failing that they not only won’t know what to do but they flat out won’t even try. There is no such thing as figuring out a new solution to anything based on logic or deduction. In any process, they will refuse to understand how the result is actually derived from the actions taken, nor what each step does or why it is done.
I’ve had to work with several people like this over the years and it’s both exhausting and infuriating.
In my line of work I have also been forced to interact with people, mostly clients, who cannot understand hypotheticals. Any abstract or non-concrete concept is completely lost on them and worse, usually exposing them to one will make them irrationally angry in response – which they will immediately direct at you, you nerd.
These people are not only allowed to vote, but also drive cars, own firearms, and have children. It’s shocking.
Really great point - purely rote learning is definitely a major piece of this category, if not the category in itself. Basically an inability to move up Bloom’s taxonomy from the first level or two. I very recently spent hours with a student who had this exact issue - they tested well, but couldn’t even begin to do the applied work unless they were walked through it, precisely, step by step. Zero capability of generalizing, but fully capable of absorbing and recollecting facts… just no understanding associated with it. No connections.
I don’t know that i have the patience to do that more than once per person, i end up analyzing their thought patterns to sus out the root cause of the failure to adapt to new thinking. This kind of thing might be based on family culture or inappropriately reinforced assumptions about basic concepts that did not got caught by earlier educators. I will explore their cultural and family backgrounds to figure out how assumptions from there affect these failures to adapt to more dynamic environments.
A new model can be planted over inappropriate beliefs for the context of the new environment (here at work, generalizing is not only okay but necessary), and then it has to be reinforced over many months to keep the previously dominant mindset from reverting and help them build comfort with the new way of thinking.
The great part about this is that people who learn the adaptations this way will naturally teach others with the same maladaptions, and much more effectively. The terrible part is that it is slow and tedious and almost always includes religion or trauma
Yeah, this point about really needing time is pretty real. I recently came to the conclusion that some folks really just need to retake the core courses multiple times (and seeing if we can change this pattern) because it just takes them a long time to unlearn helplessness in the field and adapt.
And absolutely, as you’ve said, I find those who do adapt go from someone taking our most basic course three times to becoming a top student. Those who don’t adapt fall to cheating and/or dropping out. I usually have about 500-800 students per term, and with about 20-30% falling into this category with more each year, one-on-one interventions are rare and you usually only catch them on their second time around once they finally heed our requests to come talk to us.
I’d be curious what other fields work with this so I could go read some papers or other materials on these mindsets, it sounds like there is quite an overlap to what we’ve been experiencing, I appreciate these insights!
Edit: Oh, and adding that I’ve spoken to some researchers in trauma informed education and I imagine the overlap here is high in terms of approach - recognizing how different behaviours can be linked to trauma and considering the approaches that can be taken to ease them back into stronger academic habits. It’s been a while since my talks, but this could spark some more, as I hadn’t quite connected the rote memorizes to this. Seems quite feasible for at least a subset.
I struggle to think of what to call it and how to describe it, too. But it really is like a consistent quality. Some sort of reasoning blindness. It’s like listening to someone who is colorblind but doesn’t know critique a painting.
Yeah, you can feel it pretty quickly in an interaction. I like how the other comment put it, where it seems like they are stuck in rote memory mode. Having a list of facts in their head but no connections between them, no big picture capability. I recently had a student who seemingly refused to read the six bullet points describing a problem, and couldn’t comprehend that they described requirements, not step-by-step instructions. Without step-by-step instructions, this group flounders, and what should be insignificant details stand out as blockades they can’t get past because they can’t distinguish the roles of the details.
Reasoning blindness is an interesting term for it. Bloom’s taxonomy of learning, which has its controversies, stands out to me here; it’s like they are stuck at recall problems, maybe moving up to understanding a little bit but unable to get into using knowledge in new circumstances, connecting them, or being able to argue points. It works well for certain testing, it’s a great skill to be particularly astute in for many lines of work, but it really is a critical thinking nightmare.
Agree in concept, as voting should mean actually thinking about what a person brings to the position and not just a name grab. However the danger of drawing a line for voting qualification is that the line can easily be moved around with any sort of parameters. Educating the public is the only real solution, but boy that’s difficult when the means of communication are loaded to enhance someone’s profit and not actually teach substance.
This election was a failure because of the lack of communication, in many different aspects. And now that will become even harder to do.
I can appreciate that. Arguably these folks might be more likely to vote because they aren’t stuck in the mud of nuance, answers they see are more clear and obvious and the other ones may as well not exist. Not contemplation of what they don’t know, in a way.
But - on the other hand, as mentioned we can’t really pick who votes without opening Pandora’s Box - and the best thing we can do is not to punish, but to rehabilitate. To model stronger behaviours, to identify why they behave in this way, and to try to help them build stronger critical thinking skills. Punishment is polarizing.
Fun, maybe related note: I’ve researched some more classical AI approaches and took classes with some greats in the field whom are now my colleagues. One of which has many children who are absurdly successful globally, every one of them. He mathematically proved that (at least this form of AI) when you reward good behaviour and punish bad behaviour (correct responses, incorrect responses), the AI takes much longer to learn and spends a long time stuck on certain correct points and fails to, or takes a long time to, develop a varied strategy. If you just reward correct responses and don’t punish incorrect responses, the AI builds a much stronger model for answering a variety of questions. He said he applied that thinking to his kids, too, to what he considered a great success.
I think there’s something to that, and I’ve seen it in my own teaching, but the difficulty now has been getting students with this mindset to even try to get something correct or incorrect in the first place, so they just… Give up, or only kick into action after it’s too late and they don’t know how to handle it at that stage because they didn’t learn. Inaction is often the worst action, as it kills any hope of learning or building the skills of learning.
I was once teaching a student introductory programming when I was in my undergrad.
The problem was to draw two circles on the screen of different colours and detect when the mouse is inside of one.
I said, “So our goal is simple: Let’s draw a circle somewhere on the screen. Consider what you’d tell me as a human - I’ve got the pencil, and you want to tell me to draw a circle of a certain size somewhere on this paper. We have three functions. Calling a function will draw a shape. Each function draws a different shape. We have rect(), circle(), and line(). Which of these sounds like the one we want to use? Which would get me to draw the correct shape?”
“… Rect?” “Why?” “It draws a shape.” “What shape would rect draw?” “I don’t know.” “Guess.” “A circle?” “Why do you think that?” “We need to draw a circle.” “If I said that rect draws a rectangle, which of the three functions would we want to use then, to draw our picture?” “Rect?”
I’ve now been teaching for many years, and those situations still come up a lot. When I put up a poll in class, with the answer still written on the board, about 25% of people in a 100+ student class will get it wrong - of people who were not only admitted to a competitive university program, but have passed multiple prerequisite courses to be here.
Not only is it unknown gaps in knowledge, there is just a thought process I haven’t been able to crack through that some people really can’t see what is immediately before them.
Some people are apparently incapable of learning anything except by rote. To them, every problem or situation has one solution, and they have no answer for any situation that has not previously been explicitly spelled out to them and the solution memorized, and failing that they not only won’t know what to do but they flat out won’t even try. There is no such thing as figuring out a new solution to anything based on logic or deduction. In any process, they will refuse to understand how the result is actually derived from the actions taken, nor what each step does or why it is done.
I’ve had to work with several people like this over the years and it’s both exhausting and infuriating.
In my line of work I have also been forced to interact with people, mostly clients, who cannot understand hypotheticals. Any abstract or non-concrete concept is completely lost on them and worse, usually exposing them to one will make them irrationally angry in response – which they will immediately direct at you, you nerd.
These people are not only allowed to vote, but also drive cars, own firearms, and have children. It’s shocking.
Really great point - purely rote learning is definitely a major piece of this category, if not the category in itself. Basically an inability to move up Bloom’s taxonomy from the first level or two. I very recently spent hours with a student who had this exact issue - they tested well, but couldn’t even begin to do the applied work unless they were walked through it, precisely, step by step. Zero capability of generalizing, but fully capable of absorbing and recollecting facts… just no understanding associated with it. No connections.
That gave me something to think about, thank you!
I don’t know that i have the patience to do that more than once per person, i end up analyzing their thought patterns to sus out the root cause of the failure to adapt to new thinking. This kind of thing might be based on family culture or inappropriately reinforced assumptions about basic concepts that did not got caught by earlier educators. I will explore their cultural and family backgrounds to figure out how assumptions from there affect these failures to adapt to more dynamic environments.
A new model can be planted over inappropriate beliefs for the context of the new environment (here at work, generalizing is not only okay but necessary), and then it has to be reinforced over many months to keep the previously dominant mindset from reverting and help them build comfort with the new way of thinking.
The great part about this is that people who learn the adaptations this way will naturally teach others with the same maladaptions, and much more effectively. The terrible part is that it is slow and tedious and almost always includes religion or trauma
Yeah, this point about really needing time is pretty real. I recently came to the conclusion that some folks really just need to retake the core courses multiple times (and seeing if we can change this pattern) because it just takes them a long time to unlearn helplessness in the field and adapt.
And absolutely, as you’ve said, I find those who do adapt go from someone taking our most basic course three times to becoming a top student. Those who don’t adapt fall to cheating and/or dropping out. I usually have about 500-800 students per term, and with about 20-30% falling into this category with more each year, one-on-one interventions are rare and you usually only catch them on their second time around once they finally heed our requests to come talk to us.
I’d be curious what other fields work with this so I could go read some papers or other materials on these mindsets, it sounds like there is quite an overlap to what we’ve been experiencing, I appreciate these insights!
Edit: Oh, and adding that I’ve spoken to some researchers in trauma informed education and I imagine the overlap here is high in terms of approach - recognizing how different behaviours can be linked to trauma and considering the approaches that can be taken to ease them back into stronger academic habits. It’s been a while since my talks, but this could spark some more, as I hadn’t quite connected the rote memorizes to this. Seems quite feasible for at least a subset.
Ted talk on it https://youtu.be/9vpqilhW9uI
I struggle to think of what to call it and how to describe it, too. But it really is like a consistent quality. Some sort of reasoning blindness. It’s like listening to someone who is colorblind but doesn’t know critique a painting.
Yeah, you can feel it pretty quickly in an interaction. I like how the other comment put it, where it seems like they are stuck in rote memory mode. Having a list of facts in their head but no connections between them, no big picture capability. I recently had a student who seemingly refused to read the six bullet points describing a problem, and couldn’t comprehend that they described requirements, not step-by-step instructions. Without step-by-step instructions, this group flounders, and what should be insignificant details stand out as blockades they can’t get past because they can’t distinguish the roles of the details.
Reasoning blindness is an interesting term for it. Bloom’s taxonomy of learning, which has its controversies, stands out to me here; it’s like they are stuck at recall problems, maybe moving up to understanding a little bit but unable to get into using knowledge in new circumstances, connecting them, or being able to argue points. It works well for certain testing, it’s a great skill to be particularly astute in for many lines of work, but it really is a critical thinking nightmare.
Get rect. ;)
I got angry reading this. These people should not be allowed to vote on anything.
Agree in concept, as voting should mean actually thinking about what a person brings to the position and not just a name grab. However the danger of drawing a line for voting qualification is that the line can easily be moved around with any sort of parameters. Educating the public is the only real solution, but boy that’s difficult when the means of communication are loaded to enhance someone’s profit and not actually teach substance.
This election was a failure because of the lack of communication, in many different aspects. And now that will become even harder to do.
I can appreciate that. Arguably these folks might be more likely to vote because they aren’t stuck in the mud of nuance, answers they see are more clear and obvious and the other ones may as well not exist. Not contemplation of what they don’t know, in a way.
But - on the other hand, as mentioned we can’t really pick who votes without opening Pandora’s Box - and the best thing we can do is not to punish, but to rehabilitate. To model stronger behaviours, to identify why they behave in this way, and to try to help them build stronger critical thinking skills. Punishment is polarizing.
Fun, maybe related note: I’ve researched some more classical AI approaches and took classes with some greats in the field whom are now my colleagues. One of which has many children who are absurdly successful globally, every one of them. He mathematically proved that (at least this form of AI) when you reward good behaviour and punish bad behaviour (correct responses, incorrect responses), the AI takes much longer to learn and spends a long time stuck on certain correct points and fails to, or takes a long time to, develop a varied strategy. If you just reward correct responses and don’t punish incorrect responses, the AI builds a much stronger model for answering a variety of questions. He said he applied that thinking to his kids, too, to what he considered a great success.
I think there’s something to that, and I’ve seen it in my own teaching, but the difficulty now has been getting students with this mindset to even try to get something correct or incorrect in the first place, so they just… Give up, or only kick into action after it’s too late and they don’t know how to handle it at that stage because they didn’t learn. Inaction is often the worst action, as it kills any hope of learning or building the skills of learning.