整理完前三篇有關高銘謙博士釋經講座的筆記，本來以為這個系列已經可以告一段落。但重新翻看課堂內容，我發現高博士用了相當篇幅談「教學」，而且這部分值得獨立整理成一篇。因為懂得釋經，與懂得把自己所理解的教給別人，其實是兩種彼此相關、卻不完全相同的能力。一個人可以讀過很多書，對經文有深入研究，也可以提出很精彩的見解；但當他站在講台或課室前，問題便不再只是「我明白了甚麼」，而是「我怎樣幫助另一個人明白」。這兩者之間的距離，有時比我們想像中更大。
After compiling the first three sets of notes on Dr. Ko Ming Him's lectures on biblical interpretation, I thought this series was more or less complete. But when I went back through the lecture material, I found that Dr. Ko had spent a considerable amount of time on the subject of "teaching" itself, and that this part deserved its own entry. Knowing how to interpret Scripture and knowing how to teach one's understanding to others are two related but not identical abilities. A person can read widely, study a passage in depth, and offer genuinely insightful observations; yet the moment he stands before a pulpit or a classroom, the question is no longer simply "What have I understood?" but "How do I help someone else understand?" The distance between these two things is sometimes greater than we expect.
高博士從《提摩太後書》三章十六至十七節談起：「聖經都是神所默示的，於教訓、督責、使人歸正、教導人學義都是有益的，叫屬神的人得以完全，預備行各樣的善事。」他指出，聖經的作用本身帶着方向。教訓讓人知道方向，督責使人看見生命的偏差，歸正把人重新帶回正路，教導人學義則讓人持續學習一種合乎神心意的生命。整段經文最後指向「叫屬神的人得以完全，預備行各樣的善事」。換言之，聖經教導不是單純增加資料，而是要把人帶向一個方向。
Dr. Ko began with 2 Timothy 3:16–17: "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." He pointed out that Scripture's function already carries a direction within it. Teaching shows people where they should be going; reproof exposes deviation in their lives; correction brings them back onto the right path; and training in righteousness allows them to keep learning a way of life that accords with God's will. The whole passage finally points toward the man of God being made complete and equipped for every good work. In other words, biblical teaching is not simply a matter of adding information; it is meant to move a person in a particular direction.
這個起點其實直接影響我們如何預備教學。高博士介紹了一個名為「PEPS」的教學預備框架，包括禱告（Prayer）、教學目標（Educational Objectives）、教學流程（Program）及時間安排（Schedule）。首先是禱告，教師在預備和教導以前尋求神，也讓自己的生命接受神的工作；然後是設定清晰的教學目標，一堂課不應有太多目標，而是要清楚知道希望學習者經過這堂課後掌握甚麼；有了目標，才設計相應的教學流程，最後再安排每一部分所需的時間。
This starting point directly shapes how we prepare to teach. Dr. Ko introduced a preparation framework called "PEPS": Prayer, Educational Objectives, Program, and Schedule. The first step is prayer—the teacher seeks God before preparing and teaching, and allows his own life to remain open to God's work. The next step is setting clear educational objectives: a single lesson should not carry too many goals, but should clearly identify what the teacher hopes learners will grasp by the end of it. Only once the objective is set can the corresponding program, or teaching sequence, be designed, and finally the time for each part of the lesson can be allocated.
這個次序看似很基本，卻指出一個很常見的教學問題。很多老師預備課堂，其實是從「我有甚麼可以講」開始，而不是從「我要把學生帶到哪裏」開始。我讀了十本書，便想把十本書的研究成果都講出來；我查了一個很精彩的原文，便覺得一定要放進課堂；我發現某位學者有一個很特別的觀點，不講好像很浪費。結果，一堂課塞滿資料，老師講得很興奮，學生卻不知道這些資料彼此有甚麼關係，更不知道自己究竟需要掌握甚麼。
This sequence may sound elementary, yet it points to a very common problem in teaching. Many teachers actually prepare a lesson by starting from "What do I have to say?" rather than "Where do I need to take my students?" I have read ten books, so I want to share the findings of all ten. I have researched a fascinating point in the original language, so I feel I must include it. I have come across a scholar's unusual insight, and it feels wasteful not to mention it. The result is a lesson crammed with material—the teacher speaks with great enthusiasm, while the students have no idea how these pieces of information relate to one another, let alone what they are actually supposed to grasp.
我對這種情況其實很有感受。多年前，曾經聽一位剛從神學院畢業的講員講《詩篇》第一篇。今天我已經完全記不起那篇講章的內容，但一直記得台上的畫面。那位講員講得眉飛色舞，愈講愈興奮，明顯非常享受自己在經文中發現的東西；而坐在台下的我，由頭到尾幾乎不知道他在說甚麼。說得直接一點，那一刻很像只有台上的人自己在興奮。他大概真的做了不少研究，也可能真的看見了一些很精彩的東西；問題是，當時的我根本不知道他為甚麼如此興奮。
This is something I feel quite personally. Many years ago, I heard a preacher who had just graduated from seminary preach on Psalm 1. I no longer remember a single thing that sermon actually said, but I still remember the scene at the front. That preacher spoke with visible delight, growing more and more animated, clearly relishing what he himself had discovered in the text—while I, sitting in the pew, had almost no idea what he was talking about from start to finish. To put it bluntly, it felt as though only the person at the front was excited. He had probably done a great deal of research, and had probably genuinely seen something remarkable. The problem was that, at the time, I had no idea why he was so excited.
高博士在課堂中用了一個很簡單的圖像，幫助我們重新理解這種教學上的落差。
In class, Dr. Ko used a very simple image to help us rethink this gap in teaching.
假設學生現在站在A，而教師希望他最後到達E。對學生來說，A與E之間可能有一段很長的距離。他需要先由A走到B，掌握了B，才可能進入C；由C再走到D，最後才到達E。B、C、D可能是幾個需要先建立的概念，也可能是一連串問題、比較、推論或理解上的轉折。總之，學生不會因為老師把E說出來，便自然知道自己為甚麼應該接受E。
Suppose the student is currently standing at Point A, and the teacher wants him eventually to arrive at Point E. For the student, the distance between A and E may be considerable. He first needs to move from A to B; only once he has grasped B can he move on to C; from C he moves to D, and only then does he finally reach E. B, C, and D might be several concepts that need to be established first, or a series of questions, comparisons, inferences, or turning points in understanding. In any case, a student does not automatically come to see why he should accept E simply because the teacher states it.
問題是，老師與學生所站的位置往往完全不同。老師可能已經研究這個課題十年、二十年，讀過大量資料，也曾經反覆處理當中的問題。B、C、D對他而言，早已不再是需要逐步思考的東西，而是慢慢內化成為自己的直覺。他看見A，腦中幾乎立即便想到E；A與E之間的關係，在他看來甚至明顯得不需要解釋。於是，他站在課室裏由A直接跳到E，自己覺得非常有邏輯，甚至不明白學生為甚麼仍然聽不懂。
The trouble is that the teacher and the student are usually standing in completely different places. The teacher may have studied this subject for ten or twenty years, read extensively, and worked through its problems repeatedly. For him, B, C, and D are no longer things that require step-by-step thought; they have gradually become internalized as intuition. The moment he sees A, his mind almost instantly jumps to E; the relationship between A and E seems so obvious to him that it hardly needs explaining. So he stands in the classroom and leaps directly from A to E, feeling that his reasoning is perfectly logical, and cannot understand why the students still fail to follow.
但學生根本沒有老師腦中的B、C、D。
But the student simply does not have the B, C, and D that exist inside the teacher's head.
高博士提醒，教學其中一個很重要的工作，就是教師要重新拆解自己的思想過程。學生由A走到B以前，需要先知道甚麼？B與C之間，哪一個概念必須解釋？哪一個地方最容易產生誤會？到了C，學生還需要看見甚麼，才可能走到D？教師的工作不是站在E向學生揮手，大聲告訴他：「答案就在這裏！」而是重新走回A，看清楚學生現在站在哪裏，再為他鋪設一條可以經過B、C、D走到E的路。
Dr. Ko reminded us that one of the essential tasks of teaching is for the teacher to dismantle his own thought process once again. What does the student need to know before he can move from A to B? Between B and C, which concept absolutely must be explained? Where is misunderstanding most likely to arise? Once at C, what else does the student need to see before he can move on to D? The teacher's job is not to stand at E, waving and calling out, "The answer is right here!" It is to walk back to A, see clearly where the student is actually standing, and then lay down a path that leads through B, C, and D to E.
高博士甚至說，教學時有時要把學生當作一個「小白」：你沒有說，他就不知道。這不是輕看學生，而是教師不能假設對方已經知道自己腦中的東西。你用了二十年的神學術語，學生可能第一次聽見；你覺得某兩段經文的關係非常明顯，學生可能連第一段經文的背景也不知道；你說「所以我們可以看見……」，學生心裏可能正在問：「為甚麼是『所以』？」
Dr. Ko even said that in teaching, it sometimes helps to treat the student as a complete beginner: if you don't say it, he simply won't know it. This is not a matter of looking down on the student; it means the teacher cannot assume the other person already knows what is inside his own head. A theological term you have used for twenty years may be something the student is hearing for the first time. A connection between two passages that seems perfectly obvious to you may be something the student cannot see because he doesn't even know the background of the first passage. You say, "So we can see that…," and the student may quietly be asking, "Why 'so'?"
我愈想愈覺得，「所以」可能是教學和講道中一個很值得警惕的詞。
The more I think about it, the more I feel that "so" or "therefore" may be a word we should be especially cautious of in teaching and preaching.
每當我們說：「所以，這段經文告訴我們……」其實是在宣告前面的資料足以支持後面的結論。但A與E中間那條路，聽眾真的看見了嗎？有時講員腦中的B、C、D運行得太快，他自己已經習慣了，於是覺得這個「所以」非常自然；但台下的人只聽見A，下一句已經突然去到E。老師以為自己完成了一個推論，學生卻只看見一次瞬間轉移。
Whenever we say, "So, this passage tells us…," we are in effect declaring that everything preceding it is sufficient to support the conclusion that follows. But has the audience actually seen the road connecting A and E? Sometimes the B, C, and D running through the speaker's mind move so quickly, and he is so accustomed to them, that the word "so" feels perfectly natural to him. But the people listening hear only A, and the very next sentence has suddenly arrived at E. The teacher believes he has completed a chain of reasoning; the student has only witnessed an instant leap.
多年來，我自己一直很有興趣研究「人如何學習」這個課題。從成長時的學習經驗，到後來跟師父學習，我陸續接觸過「記憶法」（Memory Techniques）、「費曼學習法」（Feynman Technique）、「康奈爾筆記法」（Cornell Note-taking System）、「金字塔原理」（Pyramid Principle）、「原子習慣」（Atomic Habits）及「刻意練習」（Deliberate Practice）等不同方法和原理。我一直很喜歡問：為甚麼有些人知道很多，卻講不清楚？為甚麼有些人可以把一件很複雜的事情逐層拆解，讓人一步一步跟上？高博士的A至E圖像很簡單，卻很準確地指出其中一個核心問題：當知識內化成為直覺，我們很容易忘記自己當初是怎樣學會的。
Over the years, I have had a longstanding interest in how people learn. From my own experiences of learning while growing up to later years of studying under a mentor, I have encountered various methods and principles: memory techniques, the Feynman Technique, the Cornell Note-taking System, the Pyramid Principle, Atomic Habits, and Deliberate Practice, among others. I have always enjoyed asking: Why do some people know a great deal yet cannot explain it clearly? Why are some people able to take something very complex and break it down layer by layer, so that others can follow step by step? Dr. Ko's A-to-E image is simple, yet it points precisely at one core problem: once knowledge becomes internalized as intuition, we very easily forget how we ourselves came to learn it in the first place.
所以，有時很有學問的人未必懂得教，問題不一定是他驕傲，也不一定是他不關心學生，而是他已經忘記自己曾經不明白。他忘記自己也曾經在B卡住，也曾經在C問過一些今天看來很基本的問題，也曾經由C走到D時完全摸不着頭腦。當一個人愈熟悉某個課題，他腦中的思想步驟便愈容易被壓縮；最後看見A便自然想到E，卻忘記對一個初學者來說，中間仍然有一條從未走過的路。
That is why a highly learned person does not necessarily know how to teach well. The problem is not necessarily pride, and not necessarily a lack of care for the student—it is that he has forgotten what it was like not to understand. He has forgotten that he himself once got stuck at B, once asked what now seem like very basic questions at C, and once found himself completely lost moving from C to D. The more familiar a person becomes with a subject, the more easily the steps in his thinking get compressed; in the end, seeing A leads him naturally to think of E, while he forgets that for a beginner, there remains a road in between that has never yet been walked.
不過，我想還有另一種情況，比教師忘記B、C、D更加麻煩：有時講員自己其實也未真正走到E。
But I think there is another situation, even more troublesome than a teacher forgetting B, C, and D: sometimes the speaker himself has not actually reached E at all.
我們讀了一本書，看了一篇文章，或者在註釋書中發現一個很精彩的觀點，覺得這個結論很有意思，便急着把它放進講章。問題是，那個E可能是另一位學者經過多年研究所得的E，我們只是用了幾分鐘讀完他的結論，便以為自己也已經掌握了同一件事。換句話說，我們只是看見別人的E，卻沒有親自走過他的B、C、D。
We read a book, an article, or come across a striking observation in a commentary, find the conclusion interesting, and hurry to put it into a sermon. The trouble is that this E may be an E another scholar reached only after years of research, while we have simply read his conclusion in a few minutes and assumed we have grasped the same thing ourselves. In other words, we have only seen someone else's E without ever having personally walked through his B, C, and D.
然後，我們拿着一個自己尚未真正消化的E站上講台。
And then we walk into the pulpit carrying an E we have never truly digested.
這可能解釋了為甚麼有些講道聽起來非常「深」，卻愈聽愈令人一頭霧水。講員提出很多專有名詞，也引用一些學者，甚至講到原文和複雜的神學觀念；但如果再追問一句：「為甚麼？」「這個結論如何從經文得出來？」「你剛才使用的這個詞究竟是甚麼意思？」整個論述可能便開始鬆散。問題未必是E本身錯了，而是連講員自己也未真正消化那個E。他記得答案，卻不知道答案如何形成；他可以重複學者的句子，卻未能用自己的語言重新解釋。
This may explain why some sermons sound very "deep" and yet leave listeners more confused the longer they go on. The preacher introduces many technical terms, cites various scholars, and even brings in the original languages and complicated theological concepts. But if we press further and ask, "Why?" "How does this conclusion actually arise from the text?" "What exactly does the term you just used mean?"—the whole argument can start to fall apart. The problem may not be that E itself is wrong, but that even the preacher himself has not truly digested E. He remembers the answer without knowing how the answer was formed; he can repeat a scholar's sentence but cannot re-explain it in his own words.
如果教師自己也未走過B、C、D，又怎可能帶學生由A走到E？
If the teacher himself has never walked through B, C, and D, how can he possibly lead a student from A to E?
他最多只能把別人的E再說一次。
At most, all he can do is repeat someone else's E.
這也使我想到「費曼學習法」其中一個很實際的提醒：如果一件事情不能用較清楚、簡單的語言重新解釋，很可能我們自己仍未真正理解。簡單不等於膚淺。相反，很多時候，一個人能夠把複雜的事情講得清楚，正因為他知道問題真正複雜在哪裏，也知道如何把那份複雜逐層拆開。真正有學問的人，不一定是不斷把問題講得更加深奧；有時恰恰相反，他能夠把一個非常深奧的問題，用較淺白的方式說清楚。
This also brings to mind one of the very practical reminders of the Feynman Technique: if something cannot be re-explained in clearer, simpler language, we probably have not truly understood it ourselves. Simplicity is not the same as shallowness. On the contrary, a person is often able to explain something complex clearly precisely because he understands where the real complexity lies, and knows how to unpack it layer by layer. Genuine scholarship is not necessarily shown by continually making a question sound more profound. Sometimes it is exactly the opposite—a truly learned person can take a very profound question and explain it in plain, accessible terms.
因此，A至E的問題至少有兩種。第一種，是教師自己已經走到E，卻忘記學生仍然站在A，所以省略了B、C、D；第二種，是教師自己根本未真正走到E，只是借用了別人的E，然後嘗試帶學生走一條連自己也沒有走過的路。前者是教學上的跳步，後者則是理解尚未完成。
So there are at least two kinds of problems on the road from A to E. The first is that the teacher has already reached E but has forgotten that the student is still standing at A, and so he skips over B, C, and D. The second is that the teacher has not actually reached E at all, but has simply borrowed someone else's E and is attempting to lead the student down a road he himself has never walked. The first is a shortcut in teaching; the second is an understanding that was never completed.
對講員而言，這是一個很值得警惕的問題。預備講章其中一個重要過程，可能就是逼自己重新走一次B、C、D。我真的明白這個觀點嗎？如果不用原作者的句子，我可以重新解釋嗎？我知道它為甚麼成立嗎？如果有人問我「為甚麼」，我能否從經文開始，一步一步再走一次？如果連自己也未走過那條路，我們又怎能帶別人走？
For a preacher, this is a problem well worth guarding against. One important part of preparing a sermon may simply be forcing oneself to walk through B, C, and D once again. Do I really understand this point? Can I explain it again without using the original author's sentences? Do I know why it holds true? If someone were to ask me "why," could I start again from the text and walk through the whole argument step by step? If we ourselves have never walked that road, how can we possibly lead anyone else down it?
然而，高博士的教學並沒有停留在「如何把知識講清楚」。他接着以《哥林多前書》三章談屬靈生命的成熟。保羅說，他不能把哥林多人當作屬靈的人，只能把他們當作屬肉體、在基督裏為嬰孩的人；他用奶餵他們，沒有用飯，因為他們不能吃。值得注意的是，保羅接着指出的問題，是嫉妒、紛爭，以及「我是屬保羅的」、「我是屬亞波羅的」等結黨現象。換言之，哥林多人的問題並不單純是「知道得太少」，而是他們的生命仍然未成熟。
Dr. Ko's teaching, however, did not stop at "how to explain knowledge clearly." He went on to discuss spiritual maturity through 1 Corinthians 3. Paul says he could not address the Corinthians as spiritual people, but only as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ; he fed them with milk, not solid food, because they were not ready for it. It is worth noting that the problem Paul goes on to identify is jealousy, strife, and factions—"I follow Paul," "I follow Apollos." In other words, the Corinthians' problem was not simply that they "knew too little"; it was that their spiritual lives had not yet matured.
這使A至E的圖像再多了一層。教師要知道學生的A在哪裏，但這個A不只是他的知識程度。我們不能只問：「他讀過多少聖經？」「他懂不懂這個神學名詞？」有時更重要的問題是：他的生命現在在哪裏？他面對甚麼掙扎？他能否在真實生活中辨識所學的真理？
This adds another layer to the A-to-E image. A teacher needs to know where a student's A actually is—but that A is not simply his level of knowledge. We cannot ask only, "How much of the Bible has he read?" or "Does he understand this theological term?" Sometimes the more important questions are: Where is his life right now? What is he struggling with? Can he actually recognize the truth he has learned in the midst of real life?
高博士在課堂中談到一個「說是非」的例子。教師可以很清楚地告訴學生：「基督徒不應該說是非。」學生聽完明白，如果考試問他，他大概也會答對。但真實生活不會把問題寫成選擇題。有一天，有人對你說：「請你為我祈禱，我的老闆真的很差。」然後開始詳細講述老闆做過的事情。這算不算說是非？如果對方真的希望你代禱，又應該如何處理？如果有人向你講別人的事情，你又應該怎樣回應？
In class, Dr. Ko gave the example of gossip. A teacher can state very clearly, "Christians should not gossip." The student understands, and if it appeared on a test, he would probably answer correctly. But real life does not present its problems as multiple-choice questions. One day, someone says to you, "Please pray for me—my boss is really terrible," and then begins describing in detail everything the boss has done. Does this count as gossip? If the person genuinely wants you to pray for them, how should you respond? If someone tells you about another person's affairs, how ought you to react?
學生知道答案，不代表他能夠辨識答案在現實中的樣子。
Knowing the answer does not mean the student is able to recognize what that answer looks like in real life.
這也是為甚麼高博士談到個案、討論和實踐。知識與生命之間存在距離，教師不能只把正確答案告訴學生，有時需要把真理放進不同處境，讓學生重新判斷、討論和辨識。從這個角度看，生命教育的A至E未必永遠是一條簡單直線。一個人由「不知道」走到「知道」，再由「知道」走到「理解」，不代表學習已經完成。同一個真理可能需要在不同處境中一次又一次重新遇見，人才慢慢形成辨識能力。今天說是非披上「代禱」的外衣，明天可能披上「關心」的外衣；人需要在不同情境中重新辨識，才慢慢學懂如何實踐真理。
This is also why Dr. Ko spoke about case studies, discussion, and practice. There is a gap between knowledge and life, and a teacher cannot simply hand a student the correct answer; sometimes the truth needs to be placed within different situations, so the student can practise judging, discussing, and discerning it for himself. Seen this way, the A-to-E of forming character is not always a simple straight line. A person moving from "not knowing" to "knowing," and then from "knowing" to "understanding," does not mean the learning is complete. The same truth may need to be encountered again and again in different situations before a person gradually develops the capacity to recognize it. Today gossip may wear the disguise of "asking for prayer"; tomorrow it may wear the disguise of "showing concern." People need to keep re-recognizing truth across different situations before they slowly learn how to put it into practice.
因此，高博士亦很重視教學中的回饋。教師心中有一個信息，經過整理和表達傳遞出去；學生收到信息後，卻會按自己的知識、經驗和理解重新解讀。教師「說了甚麼」，與學生「收到甚麼」，並不一定完全相同。如果教學只是單向傳遞，教師很容易以為自己已經講得十分清楚，卻完全不知道學生其實仍然停留在B。學生的問題、表情、討論和回應，都是教師需要留意的回饋，它們讓教師知道，原本設計的B、C、D是否真的能夠把學生帶向E。
That is why Dr. Ko also places great emphasis on feedback in teaching. A teacher has a message in mind, organizes it, and communicates it; but once students receive that message, they inevitably reinterpret it according to their own knowledge, experience, and understanding. What the teacher "said" and what the student "received" are not necessarily the same thing. If teaching is purely one-directional, a teacher can easily believe he has explained something with perfect clarity, without ever realizing the student is actually still stuck at B. A student's questions, expressions, discussion, and responses are all forms of feedback the teacher needs to watch for—they tell the teacher whether the B, C, and D he originally designed are actually succeeding in leading the student toward E.
高博士有一句說話：「材料是死的，人是活的。」
Dr. Ko had a saying: "Materials are static; people are alive."
教師當然需要預備，也需要有目標、流程和時間安排；但如果學生仍然卡在B，而老師因為教案寫着今天一定要去到E，便繼續向前衝，最後可能只有老師一個人準時到達終點，學生全部留在後面。有時教師預備了十頁筆記，便覺得十頁都必須講完；預備了二十張PowerPoint，便覺得二十張都必須展示。但完成教材與完成教學，根本是兩回事。材料是死的，人是活的。真正的教師需要看着面前的人，知道他們現在走到哪裏，甚至願意因着學生的狀況，放下一部分自己很想講的資料。
Teachers certainly need to prepare, and they need objectives, a program, and a schedule. But if students are still stuck at B, and the teacher pushes ahead simply because the lesson plan says he must reach E today, the result may be that only the teacher arrives on time at the finish line, while every student is left behind. Sometimes, having prepared ten pages of notes, a teacher feels all ten must be covered; having prepared twenty PowerPoint slides, he feels all twenty must be shown. But finishing the material and accomplishing the teaching are two entirely different things. Materials are static; people are alive. A genuine teacher needs to keep watching the people in front of him, to know where they actually are, and even to be willing—because of where the students are—to set aside some of the material he very much wanted to cover.
高博士亦提到，教師可以把自己的教學錄下來，重新聽一次，也可以讓身邊的人給自己意見。我覺得這是一個很實際的建議，也是我做了十多年的習慣，每次講道或主日學完成，我總要回家聽兩次自己的宣講，看有甚麼地方可改進。當我們重新聽自己說話，往往會發現一些平時完全沒有察覺的問題：某些地方跳得太快，某些句子其實只有自己明白，某些「所以」中間根本欠了兩三步。我們以為自己的邏輯很清楚，很多時只是因為腦中的B、C、D一直自動替自己補充；但學生的腦不會自動替我們補充。
Dr. Ko also mentioned that teachers can record their own teaching and listen back to it, and can invite people around them to give feedback. I find this a very practical suggestion, and it has been my own habit for more than a decade—after every sermon or Sunday school lesson, I go home and listen to my own delivery at least twice, looking for anything that could be improved. When we listen to ourselves again, we often discover problems we were completely unaware of at the time: certain places where we moved too quickly, certain sentences that only make sense to us, certain "so's" that are missing two or three steps in between. We assume our reasoning is perfectly clear, when very often this is simply because the B, C, and D in our own minds are automatically filling in the gaps for us—but a student's mind does not automatically fill in those gaps on our behalf.
在AI、YouTube和網上課程愈來愈普及的年代，我反而覺得高博士這部分的教學更加值得思想。今天取得E實在太容易。AI可以在幾秒內給我們一個答案，網上亦有大量整理好的資料。但正因為E來得太容易，我們可能更容易把「看過答案」誤以為「已經明白」。如果教師的作用只是提供E，他的確很容易被取代；但一位真正認識學習者的教師，可以看見對方現在站在A、B還是C，知道他在哪裏卡住，也知道哪一步需要重新解釋。AI可以給我很多E，但一位曾經陪伴我成長的老師或師父，往往知道我的A在哪裏。
In an age when AI, YouTube, and online courses are becoming more and more prevalent, I find this part of Dr. Ko's teaching even more worth reflecting on. Reaching E today has become remarkably easy. AI can give us an answer within seconds, and the internet is full of neatly organized material. But precisely because E comes so easily, we may find it even easier to mistake "having seen the answer" for "having understood it." If a teacher's role is merely to supply E, he can indeed be easily replaced. But a teacher who genuinely knows the learner can see whether that person is currently standing at A, B, or C, knows exactly where he is stuck, and knows which step needs to be re-explained. AI can give me plenty of E's, but a teacher or mentor who has walked alongside me as I grew usually knows where my A actually is.
重新整理高博士這部分的教學，以及我自己的經驗回饋。教師其實有兩重責任。第一，是對自己所教的內容負責：不要拿着別人的E，便假裝自己已經走過那條路。第二，是對面前的學習者負責：即使自己真的已經走到E，也不要把自己的終點當成學生的起點。
Bringing together this part of Dr. Ko's teaching with my own experience, I would say a teacher carries a double responsibility. The first is responsibility for the content he teaches: he must not take hold of someone else's E and pretend he has walked that road himself. The second is responsibility toward the learner in front of him: even if he genuinely has reached E, he must not treat his own finish line as the student's starting point.
教師要先親自走過B、C、D，真正明白自己所說的E；然後再回過頭來，重新拆解那些自己早已內化、甚至已經忘記的步驟，看清楚學生現在站在哪裏，再陪他走一次。
The teacher must first personally walk through B, C, and D, so that he genuinely understands the E he is speaking of. Then he must turn back, dismantle once more the steps he has long since internalized and perhaps even forgotten, see clearly where the student is actually standing, and walk that road again alongside him.
也許，這就是「你明白」與「你教得明」之間最大的距離。
Perhaps this is the greatest distance between "you understand it" and "you can teach it clearly."
你知道E，並不代表你真正走到E；你走到E，也不代表你有能力帶另一個人走到E。
Knowing E does not mean you have truly reached E. Having reached E does not mean you are able to bring someone else there.
真正的教學，是自己先走過那條路，然後願意回頭，陪另一個人由他的A開始。
Genuine teaching means walking that road yourself first, and then being willing to turn back and accompany someone else, beginning from wherever his own A happens to be.
Pastor Antony
