Re: math (in)competence

[John Clement <clement@HAL-PC.ORG>]

> Tina Fanetti wrote:
> ...
> >  Some of these people are going to be nurses in charge
> > of sick people.  If they can't do math how are they
> > supposed to give the right doses to patients?  How are
> > they going to know when too much is too much?  That is
> > what frightens me is that I may in the future be in the
> > care of these students.
>
> That is frightening _if_ you assume you are going to fail
> in the effort to teach them.
>
> And I suspect that's part of the problem here.  If you
> believe they are a bunch of losers, they will fulfill your
> expectations.  The trick is to set a high (but achievable)
> expectation and get them to fulfill that instead.
>
> Teaching is maybe 10% knowing the subject matter and 90%
> motivating the students.  They could have gotten the subject
> matter from books.
>
> Unless you are an exceptionally skilled and highly trained
> actor, the best bet is to start by convincing yourself, i.e.
> creating a self-fulfilling prophecy that you will succeed.
> If, in contrast, you come to work with despair, disrespect
> for the school, and disrespect for the students, they _will_
> detect it.  Instantly.  Then you've lost the motivational
> part of the game, and knowing the subject matter won't make
> up the loss.

Actually, motivational factors work differently from what is commonly
assumed.  There is an interesting study in middle school that showed that
girls and boys science achievement was independent of whether they thought
they were good in the subject.  Girls opinion of themselves was also not
affected by how well they did in the course.  However boy's opinions of
themselves was changed by how well they did in the course.

One of the advantages of using the types of techniques advocated by PER is
that they work even when students have some hostile feelings.  This past
year I saw an example of this.  A student achieved respectable gain even
though she felt stressed out, and her mother accused me of using
inappropriate teaching techniques on her daughter.  As a result I would
place a large percentage of effective teaching as knowing and practicing the
sort of techniques that work.  Priscilla Laws experienced the same sort of
problem with her "Workshop Physics".  Students complained that they didn't
learn anything.  The evaluation tests clearly showed that the students had
actually achieved a lot.  In my own experience I have managed to improve my
student evaluations, but this has resulted in no discernable gain in the
student learning.  Higher gain in learning has resulted from paying careful
attention to the pedagogy, not to the motivation.

Incidentally there have been several studies that showed that students learn
much more when the teacher has better mastery of the subject.  So content
mastery is actually a very large factor.  High motivation is irrelevant if
the course is taught by an athletic coach who knows no physics.  The truism
in TX used to be that the physics teacher was addressed as coach.
Motivation is no substitute for knowing the subject.

I would suspect that motivation is a contributing factor, but more like 20%
provided it is at a satisfactory level.  Zero motivation is obviously the
kiss of death.  If the reports from the "modelers" are to be believed, their
pedagogy also results in improved motivation.  The only reported project
that I know of to attack all parts of the problem is the "Scaleup" project
by Bob Beicher.  You may wish to read some of his papers.

By all means work on motivation.  It helps reduce complaints which helps you
keep the job.  Also you must divide problems correctly.  Some things are
your problem, but others are students' problems.  New teachers often make
the mistake of feeling responsible for things that are really the students
problems.  Make sure you communicate the expectations clearly, and up front.
Tell them why you do things, and be really firm about this.  You might try
reading some of the books by Harry Wong for some motivation tips.  But pay
attention to the pedagogy, because this is where it is possible to make huge
gains.

Remember you ARE a content master, so you possess the indispensable part of
the formula.  Learning what to say to improve motivation takes time learning
on the job, so eventually you WILL improve there.  Pedagogy requires study,
and your ability to ask questions reveals that you will improve there.  It
has been pointed out, I think by Hake, that to become a master of any
discipline requires 8 years.  You have time.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX