Description: Learning excellence is of value to both candidates and credentialed actuaries learning new areas. Learning mastery and excellence requires 1) use of executive function (EF), multiple brain areas, for example, verbal, formal (algebraic), computational, and geometric (rule of four), and 2) goal-setting, skillful breaking down of complex tasks into subtasks each of which are simultaneously 2a) clear and specific, 2b) achievable in a short time and 2c) challenging. 10 examples are presented illustrating use of the "rule of four" to achieve elegant solutions to otherwise complex problems as well as goal setting using fellowship-exam approaches, approaches to multi-component problems, and skillful use of databases as visual organizers. The material reflects a new approach to learning complexity that is easier to use than the pedagogic hierarchies and unifies them.

Description: Traditionally the SOA formulates pedagogic excellence in terms of the Marzano Taxonomy. For example, the "analysis level" consisting of generalization, specification, classification, contrast, matching, and error identification, is considered superior to the "retrieval level" consisting of rote memorization such as recognition, recall, and using. In this presentation, we first show that pedagogic excellence can be equivalently, but more simply, formulated in terms of executive function and goal-setting. Here executive function refers to problems requiring multiple mental modalities - such as, formal, verbal, computational, and graphical - for their solution. Goal-setting refers to the skillful breakup of a complex problem into a sequence of subgoals each of which is clearly formulated, challenging, but achievable timely. Light examples from the literature illustrate these concepts. Five "challenging FM problems": reinvestment, refinancing, multiple rate/deposit problems, pricing deferred bonds using a term structure, and obscure loan problems, illustrate the following fundamental techniques of goal-setting and executive function: i) a fellowship approach to teaching preliminary exam material, ii) using subgoals to give difficult homework, iii) alternating between different mental modalities to achieve elegant brevity in solutions, iv) goal-setting reflecting familiar vs. new, and v) skillful definition of unit subgoals.

Description: This presentation proposes a solution to the student actuarial paradox “I mastered the syllabus but failed the exam,” by utilizing the two-dimensional syllabus vehicle which pedagogically focuses on the two dimensions of content and problem difficulty. This presentation advocates the PMR characterization of three levels of problems difficulty: Plug-ins (easy), Monkey-wrench (intermediate), and Research-type(hard) questions. PMR was developed by examining difficulty levels in SOA exams, and problems of various software vendors. The author's students routinely score high on the SOA FM exam; it is hoped that these methods will assist other instructors in their quest for good pedagogy. Very briefly: “Plug-ins,” refer to multi-part problems, for example, calculating the price of an annuity that is first increasing and then level; “Monkey-wrench” problems specifically refer to plug-in multi-part problems where one component is a monkey-wrench, an issue the candidate has not previously encountered. It might be a non-typical modeling or it might be a non-typical algebraic simplification or it might be an unexpected integration of distinct modules in a manner that the candidate has not yet seen. “Research-type questions” refer to problems requiring some type of experimentation for example, looking at initial cases, seeing a pattern and then applying methods