I didn't say nor suggest the "dumbing down." An effective communicator gets his/her point across - that's the definition. Trust me, if you can't create another example or analogy off of the material you are supposed to be teaching, then you actually don't know it as well as you think. Simple as that.
> if you can't create another example or analogy off of the material you are supposed to be teaching, then you actually don't know it as well as you think
This is actually a fairly good metric for telling a good teacher from a bad one. Constant use of analogies without making things too convoluted is a pretty good strategy to become an effective communicator.
People love seeing/matching patterns, so if you give them patterns that they can associate with, that'll do like 90% of the communicating for you, then all you have to do is just fill in the blanks.
"""the ability to recognize that a student or class of students is not understanding an explanation, and generalize it further or change the example to make it more clear. Do that ad infinitum"""
You never examine the cases of students owning up to the work they have to do to understand in the first place.
It's like as you describe a world in which they do everything perfectly, and the only factor in getting that knowledge into their heads is the professor and his "further generalizing".
You're describing the complete other end of the pendulum swing from me. You're placing the burden on the student - and when it comes to new material, that is the absolute last place you want to place the burden of learning on. Look at oblique's last post under your response to him/her and you'll see what I mean.
