Why Do So Many Gifted Kids Think They Don’t like Math?

by TIStaff on Sun, 2011-12-04 14:15

Why do so many bright and gifted kids think they don’t like math? Experience and the reading of lots of research leads me to believe that boredom, under-instruction and poor instruction throughout elementary and middle school lie behind the problem.

My best girlfriend since high school is a math teacher north of Philly. We’ve talked about this a lot. She and I are both aware that our own math instruction lacked a lot. As I give IQ tests, too, I see something that I thought many people would be interested to know. As those who have read the work of Benbow and Lubinksi, among others, know, math-reasoning ability has a huge ability spread among individuals of the same age. Even when kids are ability grouped, there tend to be outliers—people who are truly math geniuses compared to other really bright kids—in the top group. My friend Pam and I were not math outliers but we were 99th percentile people in math. Having an outlier in your class is a problem for self-esteem and confidence related to math. What I see really missing in math instruction for high ability kids who aren’t outliers is twofold:

1. Their route through math during their school years is way too slow and easy for the first 8 or 9 years and then they’re slammed with stuff that is really challenging and for which they aren’t prepared;

2. They don’t get nearly enough practice on “story problems,” that is, how to recognize what needs to be done so they can set up the proper sequences and steps for solving the problems. There is far too much time spent on memorization of how to solve problems that are laid out for you (memorization of math facts, for example), and really bright kids who aren’t outliers quickly become overwhelmed and conclude they aren’t good at math as they see the smarter kids “get it” so quickly.

 To read more, go here.
Advertisements

Who Needs Advanced Degrees?

This is one of those education discussions that sends shooting pains through my head. In what other profession would anybody think that advanced degrees are not effective? Should we encourage a shift towards undergraduate medical degree programs, undergraduate lawyers, engineers?

Intuitively, masters degrees have to add value. If that isn’t true, nothing in our world makes any sense. The question we should be asking is why research shows that advanced education doesn’t improve teaching outcomes.

There are three simple answers. The truth probably lies in the intersection of all three.

First, it’s all about incentives. We pay teachers to complete these courses. We don’t pay them to have better outcomes. Why should we be surprised when they take a lot of courses but their results don’t improve?

Second, we should examine the content of the courses. Our educational system is infested with archaic concepts of dubious merit. If we want to teach teachers to be more effective, we have to teach them effective techniques. I am of the mind that teaching is an art and therefore there isn’t one effective way to teach. We need to teach alternatives – but effective alternatives. See Teach Like a Champion and Rafe Esquith for examples of two very different ways to be effective in this century.

Third, we need to look at the educational environment. Look at the pay structure. Look at the benefits structure. Look at the incentives, or lack thereof. Look at opportunities for job satisfaction and personal efficacy. Most importantly, look at what it takes to be a successful teacher. Ask if the environment attracts the people who can do the best job? All too often, teaching is much too much like working at the DMV. Why should we be surprised that the intrinsic motivation of many teachers doesn’t match our aspirations.

Anyway, here’s the article. What do you think?

States’ Costs Skyrocket on Master’s Degree Pay for Teachers

By Stephen Sawchuk on July 17, 2012 2:18 PM
Despite little research supporting the practice, paying teachers for earning advanced degrees continues to cost states billions of dollars—in 2007-08, an estimated $14.8 billion, or 72 percent more than just four years before that, according to a report released today by the Washington-based Center for American Progress.

The report contends that the funding could be better spent on other compensation schemes, such as offering more to teachers in shortage fields, like math or special education; higher salaries to retain the best teachers; or incentives to teachers who take difficult teaching assignments.

Research indicates that, outside the areas of content degrees in math and science, there’s not a lot of evidence to support the idea that advanced degrees make for better teaching. (About 90 percent of the master’s degrees held by teachers are from education programs, the CAP report states.)

The report builds on CAP’s 2009 analysis, which estimated that the degrees cost some $8.6 billion in 2003-04. The study employs much the same methodology—using U.S. Department of Education and National Education Association collected data to compute the average salary increase for earning a master’s and applying that to the average salary figure and total number of teachers. The report’s authors, CAP’s Raegen T. Miller and the Center on Reinventing Public Education’s Marguerite Roza, provide a state-by-state breakdown of the figures.

To read more, go here.

Mr Whiskers

What type of classroom management do you favor? Why? What will you do if your style is different from your master teacher(s)?

I am a firm believer in non-disciplinary approaches to classroom management in a 5th grade classroom. I believe one core contribution I make to my students is teaching them life skills. I believe (a la Alfie Kohn) that punishments and rewards teach selfishness. This is because in a rewards system, a student’s behavior is linked to a student getting stuff, good stuff and bad stuff. Students learn “If I do this, I get that” with little or no link to intrinsic logic. To teach more effective life skills, discipline needs to be internally motivated. This may appear harder than just using external methods, but my experience is external methods don’t actually change behavior. They just moderate it. Instead, I would start day one with teaching Lawrence Kohlberg’s stages of moral development and apply that as a template to discussions of behavior in the classroom. I also believe that most misconduct stems from boring and/or irrelevant lessons. My goal would be to make my lessons sufficiently relevant and interesting such that inability to participate in lessons is sufficient incentive to act in a socially responsible manner.