If we're ever at a loss for what to talk about, in this context, of Python teachers, I could recommend a list of default topics, one of which would always be... What is this 'self'? The self appears right when we introduce the class construct (keyword class). And then we say things like "Python provides it" or "Python fills it in". What is "it" then? "It" is "the instance". For some, things are starting to get muddy. For coders familiar with OOP style grammars i.e. they're coming from another language such as JavaScript or Java (quite different I realize), they've got a sense of it, from keyword 'this'. However Python is widely touted as a gateway language into OOP style thinking, so we get a lot of first timers. We owe them a clear picture of self. One andragogical technique comes straight from the docs: instance = C() C.method(instance) # <-- needs instance as argument is equivalent to: instance = C() instance.method() # <-- instance is "subject" as in subject.verb() ... of course we may add additional arguments at will, but lets keep it simple. In OOP, all the selves share the same template or class code, so how is Python to distinguish one self from another? It's not like each self is carrying around a copy of the method code. The model is more like having DNA in common (a shared genetic core). As in: class Creature: def eat(self, food): # <--- needs to know which self self.stomach.append(food) With: instance.eat("spaghetti") # <-- self known to Python we have enough info to figure out which self, and Python obligingly brings it forward, to fill the placeholder, usually 'self'. With: Creature.eat(instance, "spaghetti") # self supplied by the caller we're not giving enough distinguishing information with generic Creature, and so instance has to be provided, as the self. Further andragogical elaboration involves showing what I mean by "usually 'self'" i.e. self is not a keyword but a placeholder. Here I tend to go for a Chinese character substitute, e.g. for "Ego", to remind the learner of Unicode in addition. Emoji can't be Python names or I might go for one of them. * * * Another good article by Trey Hunner just came out. He's one of the more prolific Python teachers *that I know about* (an important caveat as I'm always missing *a lot*): https://treyhunner.com/2019/04/is-it-a-class-or-a-function-its-a-callable/ He takes up the issue of "callables that are functions" versus "callables that are actually types (classes)". That can help with fine tuning one's sense of what a "type" is, plus callability in general is a bridge to decorators, and this article definitely goes there. Kirby