Any time someone who does not understand the practical outworkings of a given topic tries to "teach" it, you end up with a "presentation" - mostly in the form of propositional statements (dogs are mammals; barges are boats), or key-value pairs (in 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue; Caracas is the capital of Venezuela)<p>Propositional statements and key-value pairs are absolutely vital <i>aspects</i> of learning and understanding - but seeing how those ideas, facts, and statements will work themselves out in <i>practical application</i> is absolutely mandatory for proper understanding of the topic<p>If you never learn how you might <i>use</i> these facts, you are going to have an incredibly difficult time "learning" them<p>This is the fundamental problem of why "teaching to the test" (or, for that matter, relying too heavily on multiple-choice, true|false, matching, etc type "tests" to evaluate "learning" or "knowledge") is problematic: I can teach pretty much <i>anyone</i> how to pass a multiple-choice test with zero knowledge of the subject material (did it myself years ago when I passed the first-tier amateur radio licensing exam without ever looking at any study guide)<p>When you "teach to the test" (which is what, fundamentally, exclusive reliance on propositional statements (and drills over them) and key-value pairs <i>are</i>), you create people who may (or may not) end up being good at trivia challenges ... but have no mental framework for connecting all those dots into anything coherent - iow, you create human-based data lakes: it is all sitting there, but no connective lines have been drawn<p>To get someone to <i>want</i> to learn, you have to show they <i>why</i> it "matters" - you have to get them to develop intrinsic motivation to learn (vs the purely extrinsic "you have to to pass")<p>To develop that intrinsic motivation, you need to <i>show</i> the 'why' and the 'where' of the 'what'<p>And to do <i>that</i> you have to understand it yourself