= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Viliam_Bur comments on What Direct Instruction is - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (81)
I think it would be good to include also non-examples of "d", "p" and "q".
Generally, I think that any explanation should include non-examples, to show the boundaries of the concept. Otherwise you did not disprove the hypothesis that "anything is a valid example".
My intuition about DI is that you give a few examples and non-examples such that an Occam's razor will lead student to the correct explanation. Or in other words, "faultless communication" is one where the correct interpretation of teacher's words has lower (preferably: much lower) Kolmogorov complexity than any incorrect interpretation.
One of the rules for nouns is that the negative examples you use (in the whole sequence, including testing) are ones the learner already knows. In this case, I think that, because there is such a narrow range of variation in letters, they felt like the already-known "d", "p", and "q" could be saved for the test examples.
I personally think it wouldn't hurt to mention them before the testing examples, too, and this seems like something open to interpretation.