Matthew Knott - Blog

There's a definite science to teaching, it's called pedagogy. But what about the science of learning? I'm not a cognitive neuroscientist (no matter how much I was I was because it sounds cool, and would look great on business and christmas cards).

I started thinking about this after looking at how I handled todays training, and I wonder how much comes down to mental attitude towards the subject being taught. Allow me to elaborate.

In the morning, the course started covering the basics of C#. Now, this is an area I felt fairly comfortable with through past experience with other languages and also the work I've already done with C#. However the training was still complex and required a high degree of concentration, yet my mind remained open and I absorbed, understood and processed the information I was being taught.

In the afternoon, the training became more complicated, or at least that's how I felt. Consequentially I tried to concentrate harder, but in doing so became confused, tired and felt mild panic as I struggled in near-vain to understand just what he was getting at, my mind felt like it was closing and becoming unreceptive to anything new.

As the practical started, I drew a blank about where to start on the project, I willed my brain into action but nothing would happen, eventually, I started making slow inroads. The instructor came over an made a number of corrections, setting a solid foundation for the additional code. But once I felt confidence returning, my mind reopened and I finished the example first. 

I look at people who I consider good learners, and they often have a common quality, the calmness that comes from being self assured. 

When I'm taught something new, sometimes I will panic in an effort to absorb the information, I think this is the catalyst that prevents me functioning on a number of levels:

1. I can't argue very well, I'm devoid of counter-arguments until several hours after the incident.
2. In pressure situations I will often say the wrong thing, or give an over simplified answer, usually sounding like an idiot. When in fact I'm quite capable of structuring a well worded logical statement.
3. I have no skill when it come to talking to women I'm attracted to. Granted, I don't need / want this anymore, but it's worth remarking that on the night I met my now wife, I could not bring myself to talk to her, and instead bumped into her violently just to start a conversation point.

I could go on, but it seems clear that there are a number of situations that rely on quick synaptic responses that leave you impaired because the first reaction is a degree of panic.

The sheer number of factors involved are vast, and infinitely varied. For example, in a conversation you could say:

• Do I know the person? If yes, panic + 1, if no, panic + 3.
  
• Is the person male? If yes, panic + 3, if no, panic + 2
  
• If the person is male, do you feel superior to them, mentally or otherwise? If yes, panic - 4, if no panic + 2
  
• Is the conversation topic something you are intimately familiar with, if yes, panic -5, if no, panic +5
  

I could go on but you get the picture, and I should point out that this is my personal panic chart, I'm not implying that everyone is like this. Maybe I'm onto something here, and should start forming knotts formula of panic.

There's serious scientific ground for establishing someone's ability to react to situations, including learning, via a questionnaire. Something to think about I suppose. I think it may even be worth noting that whenever I come up with a decent post that's not a rant, I'm usually very relaxed and happy. Doesn't happen often.

Final thought, does anyone think of Doogie Howser when they type anything like this at the end of the day, I do, and I'm proud.