I was once told that individuals who started out not playing well in a sport up until a point when "something clicked," turn out to be the best coaches. The reasoning was that the person finally understood and learned the intricate nature of the sport that was required to perform well. Whereas those individuals who are "naturals" tend not to coach as well. There may or may not be some truth to this, but you can't help but wonder if this pertains to other aspects in life. Are those who are just "naturals" in designing and running experiments any better or worse at training other scientists compared to people like me, who were struggling (I have yet to have "something click") and then it all dawned on them? Food for thought.
Posted by johnvu at August 13, 2003 03:39 PMI don't know if there is such a thing as a "natural" at science. Some people are smarter than others, and some people are more creative or enthusiastic, but the secret to good experimental design is rationality. It's by definition conscious. Intelligence, creativity and enthiusiasm are important for success in sports as well, but none of these things can be taught. Good scientists have the scientific method ingrained in them, whereas there is no "sporting method." You're dependent on something clicking in sports.
Maybe when playing the game becomes second nature to you, that mentality is similar to people for whom the scientific method is second nature.
Teaching is like giving a good talk -- the ability to distill what it has taken you a great deal of time to understand and appreciate, into a straightforward explanation. Trying to cram as much information into some one's head as you can won't work: if it took you 2 weeks to understand it, it'll probably take them the same length.
A good teacher/mentor etc teaches by giving salient points in relatively digestible format (I've found metaphors and examples particularly effective for inexperienced tutees/students) and **putting it in context**. If you can't explain why you're talking about something, you might as well stop there. engaging someone's interest requires (i) a good delivery style, and (ii) the all important context.
Don't know about you guys, but I've spent too many hours sitting in lectures and tutes wondering why X was rabitting on about whatever. I understood the material; I just didn't get why it was so important. I suspect most students are the same; even the really keen ones.