Back
other Feb 20, 2024

Should Students be Asked to Regurgitate Known Proofs?

Imitating without analyzing produces a robot / ape who can’t think critically; analyzing without imitating produces a critic who can’t act on their own advice.

by Justin Skycak (@justinskycak) justinmath.com 374 words
View original

Imitating without analyzing produces a robot / ape who can’t think critically; analyzing without imitating produces a critic who can’t act on their own advice.

Cross-posted from here.

Want to get notified about new posts? Join the mailing list and follow on X/Twitter.


If you’re training musicians, you might have them do exercises in 2 different categories:

  1. improvising from scratch in real time, on the spot, without prior rehearsal
  2. rehearsing and analyzing difficult pieces by master composers

Category 1 is about developing creativity within your repertoire, completely mastering the techniques that you’re already familiar/comfortable with.

Category 2 is about extending your repertoire to include new techniques that are initially very unfamiliar/uncomfortable. Initially, these techniques are advanced relative to your ability, so the only way to practice them properly is by imitating and analyzing them. But over time, as you build a baseline level of competence imitating/analyzing these techniques, they can gradually be moved into category 1 (and replaced with even more advanced techniques in category 2).

Basically every skill domain is the same way, including math.

On an exam, it would be reasonable to ask students to

Lastly, I should emphasize that moving techniques from category 2 to category 1 requires both imitation and analysis, not just one or the other.

Imitating without analyzing produces a robot / ape who can’t think critically; analyzing without imitating produces a critic who can’t act on their own advice.


Want to get notified about new posts? Join the mailing list and follow on X/Twitter.