*See* also: [[Part-whole approach]] At the MANSW 2023 Annual Conference, a teaching session attempted to instruct an audience of approximately 80 people to solve a Rubik's cube within one hour. Only one person succeeded. The low success rate offers insights into effective teaching methodology, when contrasted with alternative approaches. I attended this session with Jimmy, a close friend and early career teacher who was already expert in solving Rubik's cubes and sought to learn how to teach this skill to his students. Jimmy's instruction was more effective than the conference presenters' approach, using principles of [[Explicit Teaching]]. The differences became apparent immediately with the white daisy, the first step in solving the cube. The conference presenters demonstrated how to create the white daisy once, then asked attendees to figure it out independently. In contrast, Jimmy repeatedly showed me how to create the white daisy, explicitly modelling his thinking process (what he was looking for and how he manipulated the layers to form the pattern). Rather than assuming the process would be obvious after one demonstration, he made his problem-solving visible and repeatable. When we reached the white cross, which involves lining up edge pieces before rotating them to create the cross, both approaches provided similar initial instruction. The difference emerged in what followed. After I completed the white cross, the conference presenters moved forward. Jimmy instead mixed up my cube and told me to repeat it. He continued this cycle until I achieved [[Fluency|automaticity]] (I could complete the white cross rapidly and accurately without conscious effort). For the white layer, the conference presenters taught the algorithm for moving a white corner piece to its correct position and allowed time to practise. Jimmy prevented me from rushing to this step. He first had me practise the algorithm with my hands (moving my fingers through the motions repeatedly until I could execute it effortlessly). Only after achieving fluency with the isolated algorithm did he have me complete the white layer, mix up the cube, and repeat until I demonstrated fluency again. The contrast became most apparent at the second layer. This represented a significant jump in complexity, and many of the conference attendees responded by putting down their cubes and beginning to network. Jimmy recognised I was not ready for the second layer. Rather than moving forward, he kept me practising the white layer until my execution was truly fluent. By the session's end, I could not solve a Rubik's cube (it required another week of independent study to achieve a solve time under five minutes). However, I could complete the white layer fluently and quickly. This secure foundation was more valuable for subsequent learning than the fragmentary knowledge attendees obtained from the conference approach. I recommend watching the video below if you want to learn to solve a Rubik's cube or teach others. It uses the principles of [[Chunking]] to simplify the lengthy algorithms required. [How to Solve the Rubik's Cube: An Easy Tutorial - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1t1OL2zN0LQ) ## References Catrambone, R. (1998). The subgoal learning model: Creating better examples so that students can solve novel problems. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: General*, 127(4), 355-376. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.127.4.355 Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. *Psychological Review*, 102(2), 211-245. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102.2.211 Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. *Psychological Review*, 95(4), 492-527. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.4.492 Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction: Research-based strategies that all teachers should know. *American Educator*, 36(1), 12-19.