Replies: 2 comments
-
|
In the start with why style: Perhaps a per-course set of resources could serve as the context & big picture, so we don't need to explicitly craft & spend our very limited time together to get the class started off with a more uniform mental model to build on and fill gaps in understanding. And/or a "day zero" blitz on topics as all black boxes at tons of examples of real world applications & concepts that enable them to work. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
That youtube channel in the OP is really good:
Tons of great tactics to suggest for students, and perhaps how to structure hands-on aspects to more deeply learn so many "random" topics in our very dense & broad curriculum 🤔 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
The PBA presently leans into "Ground up" methodology in:
I have heard mixed things about the value of crypto & econ mostly, I suspect at east in part is due to lack of motivating them in the wider picture. Those who "get" the web3 vision & are "in-the-know" about our industry seem to split: some don't see value as they just want to learn practical job skills, some don't see why these topics matter. at all, at this depth and find them boring.
This video points out that rapid, parallel learning is somewhat stiffed by this style, and suggests "black box" style that is more akin to how we treat crypto libraries and math but not the content. I wonder if we could consider adjusting the group up style we have to motivate and much sooner reveal (so context of the bigger picture is clear) how web3 systems are composed of the fundamentals we cover.
WDYT about the two (mostly) divergent styles?
Anything we can do to maximize the impact mixing both?
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions