Forums

/ Subjects / Mathematics

Oh Carol Dweck.   I remember when she was the lead singer with T'Pau. 

mature_maths_trainee:

Just to clarify...

- Dweck's work has not been mentioned whatsoever in any my teacher training (I stumbled across it in my reading). But you might well be right in saying it's heavily pushed on other courses - I don't know. They've encouraged us to do other surveys (notably VAK - which is the least useful survey I can imagine (since, even if students do have a learning preference, you are advised not to teach to their bias in any case)).

 - I largely agree that such surveys aren't always realistic when you're teaching full time, which is why I'm doing it now. I've chosen a topic where I feel there's most value - which is to better understand my lower-set Year 9's.

That's not intended to be defensive, just to explain. :-)

The VAK thing was rubbished sometime ago and IMO topics are taught by VAK differentiation, not students...yet teacher training still pushes it along with so many other fashionable ideas which come and go and just eat in to REAL planning and teaching time. I could spend 25 hours a week on planning not to teach, but when would i manage to teach, assess and advance pupils and myself?

Dweck is yet another one, along with 10,20, 30 or whatever more that peole get hooked on when they cannot control and inspire.

Bottom line, if you are teaching 20+ hours a week for 30-40 years then IMO its about solid long term consistent teaching.

All the fashionable stuff is fine for PGCE/GTP box tickers on 3 hours a week and the non teaching preachers who 'research and share it' at training days.....most of which were not great teachers when they had to do the job but realistically for the classroom teacher its not bread and butter week in week out work.

I don't know if it helps the (v. interesting) discussion  along, but I have surveyed lots of my classes to find out whether they have an 'ability is fixed' (i.e. if you have ability, it's a gift - not much you can do about it) mentality.  The results have always agreed with Dweck - about half the class think ability in maths is fixed. (Also surveyed teachers once - same result!).

In contrast to VAK and Emotional Intelligence, which I think have been discredited, Dweck's work, along with formative assessment, seems to be robust (look at Hattie's sheer volume of data).

Question:  If you did repeat the research, and it's likelyto confirm the results, what would you do different?

stillrollingalong:

I don't know if it helps the (v. interesting) discussion  along, but I have surveyed lots of my classes to find out whether they have an 'ability is fixed' (i.e. if you have ability, it's a gift - not much you can do about it) mentality.  The results have always agreed with Dweck - about half the class think ability in maths is fixed. (Also surveyed teachers once - same result!).

In contrast to VAK and Emotional Intelligence, which I think have been discredited, Dweck's work, along with formative assessment, seems to be robust (look at Hattie's sheer volume of data).

Question:  If you did repeat the research, and it's likelyto confirm the results, what would you do different?

 

I like your enthusiasm. For me though this is more admin, less learning.

I dont think anyone will still agree that intelligence is fixed. Im not usre KS3-KS4 maths is a good place to test that TBH as many average students willing to put the work in will do ok.

Anyway, back to the questionning of pupils.

• Some pupils respond in the way they think they should
• Some pupils don't know what they think
• Some pupils do but can't articulate it
• Some don't understand what is being asked of them
• MANY students motives change over an academic year and certainly a school life

Where does this leave the pigeon holing? Does it really transfer to the maths lesson and the subject?

Im a maths teacher and like most certainly not a psychologist. I would like to think I get a feel for the motiveation of a class and teach holistically allowing pupils to explore maths in their own time and discover where they feel they fit in the whole MI spectrum

The longer we spend trying to psychoanalyse the less maths is taught, the more we pigeon hole the less dynamic a pupil or lesson can be.

As stated, this is theory that trainees and retired teachers can have great fun with but, IMO, not something to get caught up in class by class, pupil by pupil only for it to either change or not be applicable.

Is this done at top mathematics uni's, or do pupils sit, listen and learn maths?

scentless_apprentice:

 The more you tag students with 'issues' and 'learning needs', the more they fall into the trap of becoming dependent on them.

I used to teach student who refused to attempt anything on a worksheet because he was a 'kinaesthetic' learner. I didn't know 'kinaesthetic' meant that you couldn't learn in any other way. 

The only way you'll truly know what makes your students tick is to get to know them. Not via tests, audits and analysis - by an actual, one-to-one, teacher-pupil relationship.

Show me a VAK 'champion', an analyst of Emotional Intelligence, or a Brain Gym consultant, and I shall wave Occam's Razor in their faces....

I assume thats on the top of your lesson plans for observations

I couldnt agree more though and to add, I think the dynamics of a group on top of the individual is a good measure for your teaching as many are motivated to either learn or to subscribe to a way of thinking based on their envornment.

If you channel any negativity from the protagonists in a class through challenege and control then the motivation to learn can alter for many.