One of the fundamental creeds of writing is telling versus showing.

Imagine you're reading a novel and the writer has the following line:

"She must be out of her mind," said Jennifer. She was angry.

What do you know about the character? Well you take the author's that Jennifer's angry. You don't really have proof, with the possible exception of your added voice to the words. If you read it in an angry manner, you might feel okay about taking the author's word for jennifer's state of mind. But if you read it ironically, you might be surprised when you hit upon the word "angry". Depending on the sentence, you might even have to go back an reread.

Now take this sentence:

Jennifer stormed into the room. "She must be out of her mind," she hollered. She slammed her schoolbag on the table and turned on the TV.

Okay so it's not the most elegant prose you've ever read, but the author didn't come out and say that Jennifer was mad, yet you got the idea. Why? Cause you could see Jennifer "storming" into the room and "hollering" and "slamming her bag" those are all signs of anger. The reader can play it out in his mind and figure out that Jennifer must be mad. You haven't "told" the reader what to feel; you've let him experience it firsthand.

The same strategy can be used in teaching. It's the fundamental difference of being told how things work and seeing how things work. Especially in topics in the sciences, since we have real world examples of how things work, firsthand knowledge can't measure up to a few lines in a textbook. No matter how many times I tell you that a chemical solution is very acidic, as soon as you dip the litmus strip into it and it turns red, it will carve a place in your memory. And it's important that you dipped the strip and not me. You figure it out all by yourself. You deduce. You conclude.

Same idea applies to basic math, instead of saying two plus two equals four, why not line up two balls and then add two more and ask the student count? This way it's not as if you're divine and just imparting knowledge, but you're showing people how they can derive their own, correct, conclusions. I think that we tend to remember firsthand experiences much more vividly than information we're told.

Maybe it's cause we don't inherently like to take other people's word for things. Humans always observe the world around them. It's in our nature. And maybe in the processes of letting the students or readers come to their own conclusions, you elevate them to the same level as yourself. You show them that they're intelligent enough to figure it out.

In the end don't we all like to be treated as equals?

Previously? The Obvious.