Learning takes a path from concrete to abstract over time
No matter what job you're considering or doing, over time you realize some serious things. These awarenesses are not only limited to the intricacies of your work, but also make themselves felt on different floors of life. At this very moment, you confront yourself with the knowledge, skill, or behavior you have learned.
Remember the day you first met school and your first teacher. How do you like his name, manners, boundaries, tone of voice, way of presenting the lesson and more according to you; you coded it in your mind, in your imagination. It was like hitting the ball your way, even though you can't hit the ball with the air of a professional football player. Essentially, other students had integrated those teachers into their lives in their own way. Nor is it important to integrate the following. This is understanding, predicting and fully internalizing something.
The "+" symbol, which is used while learning to add in the teaching of mathematics, takes its life-related function from numbers and the unique abstractions between them. In the minds of the students, this symbol evokes increasing, multiplying, the situation that needs to be added, the meaning of addition, and similar situations. First, exercises or problems about addition that start with words or groups of words, then give themselves to the "+" symbol, which is accepted as a common meaning.
The same is true in the subtraction process, which echoes in the ear with meanings such as decrease, decrease, loss, shrinkage and is reinforced by its visuals. He surrenders himself to the "-" symbol, by alone facing all the expressions that he finds meaning and evokes in his mind. It is possible to multiply examples in this regard. The path followed in learning is that it evokes something unique to us in our minds. Indeed, learning is considered to have taken place if one or more of the right things connotes. From the point of view of presenting and benefiting from knowledge and skills in learning, the relationship of utilitarianism turns into behaviors, words, symbols, drawings, etc., which we call "output". The degree of success is also determined through these outputs. The purpose of the effort, time and energy spent in this hierarchy is to bring about permanent behavioral change. In short, we call this "learning".
Over time, our learning life takes a path from concrete to abstract. We try to embody what is told, shown and presented by constructing in our minds. The faster and more realistic this is, the faster our learning speed will be. Things don't always go well and we cannot internalize some laws and concepts quickly. This situation, which has many reasons, is also caused by the stereotypical approaches of our education and unfortunately by its practitioners who try to mold it. This place is really important. The more different ways a topic or concept or even a term can be presented, the easier it is to learn. To impose knowledge and skills with the patterns of the time they learned means to sign the failure in the learning-teaching environment from the very beginning. A student who can solve a math or science problem in an alternative way other than the ways in the book should be applauded. When viewed with a stereotypical approach, this attitude towards breaking the stereotypes makes our students, who have ingenious solutions, offended science, science and even art and sports.
The main thing to consider is the fact that in your opinion there is no single way to solve a problem, situation or problem. There is more than one path to knowledge and to learning to obtain it. Of course, it is possible to describe the same reality in different ways. The concept of "gravity", which is expressed in different approaches, should be accepted as true as long as its essence is the same. You define a body as "thing that has mass and volume". Why would it be wrong to define the same concept as "matter with a unique shape, the existence of which we can understand and measure with our senses"? Isn't it enough to come up with different definitions from different windows and to agree on the essence of the definition?
