In a way, I felt this method of learning was more effective than the book, or at least the material seemed more relevant, and less wordy which made it more simplistic. what was once foggy in the book, was made mroe clear from this website, but I didn't find the exercises as helpful as I thought they would be. I don't think it was the material, but mroeso the layout on the page, and how that was organized in comparrison to the beginning example of the truck driver and the cyclist.
In the example, it is obviously the trucks fault, because under no circumstance can you park in the bike lane. So, the reading helped me understand which claims were helpful and which ones were not. I understood the overall argument better after reading it a couple of times. For me, the material doesn't stick unless I read it more than once, and especially with this stuff that doesn't stick to begin with, I have to be able to take my time to understand it.
I didn't like how the exercises pages were structured because I would answer one question and I would scroll down to see all of the other answers as well.... If you ask me, the exercises might need to revamp the structure on their site, but the material works great.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think that your post was really well thought out. There are many aspects that in your post that I agreed with. For starters, I definitely agree that this way of learning was easier and more effective than the book. The book is so confusing sometimes and this website helped better explain the concept of cause and effect. Also, I hated the layout of the page with a passion. It was boring and difficult to figure out how to find the quiz without seeing all of the answers. I thought the mission critical layout was much better designed. Good post!
Post a Comment