[Tutor] Searching a list for a value, was Re: (no subject)

[David L Neil]

Apologies to OP, in that somewhat different topical interest.


On 11/02/20 10:59 PM, Peter Otten wrote:
...

> your suggestion looks a bit like overengineering ;)

It's a common problem in training.

On the one hand we (trainers) try to gently guide trainees 'into' a 
solution - IIRC the OP even said 'has to use an if-statement (albeit 
your (advanced Python) solution both cleaner and more efficient!).

On the other, this sort of 'hinting' (and likely the use of published 
rubrics) does seem to 'steer' literal-minded people to limit their 
review of the material covered to-date.

(Nothing new/out-of-the-ordinary: as students, many of us develop(ed) 
the strategy to trying to double-guess what the tutor/examiner was 
'expecting', and customising our answers accordingly!)

Thus, thinking along such lines as: 'I should include an if, a for, and 
show how advanced I am with a context manager...'


These days, and not necessarily in-agreement with colleagues, I'm 
inclined against offering specific "use an if" advice - in the same way 
that when starting to develop a system one is wise not to impose 
artificial limits or pre-judge 'the best' solution (as in "must involved 
'xyz' package/system/hardware/latest-shiny-object")!

If trainees exhibit anxiety, then the course is to ask some questions 
which invite thinking about the material-covered.
(and part of the 'learning contract' is to NEVER set a challenge which 
requires 'stuff' that hasn't been covered - although within that 
guideline, many trainees are surprised to discover that "reading" is 
part of their learning, and therefore "covered"!)

Do you have other ideas or advice? I'll be interested to consider...


Disclaimer: my training is in topics other than Python.
-- 
Regards =dn