Forums

Interpreting Carol Dweck's Motivation Questionairre

Last post 25/12/10 at 00:41 by weebecka, 363 replies
Post started by mature_maths_trainee on 12/12/10 at 11:59

Rate this topic

Select colour:
  • Offline
    131
    Posted by: Maths_Mike 20/12/2010 at 20:19
    Joined on 13/08/2005
    Posts 3,052

    Beecka - please dont take it too personally I just think that lots of us are fed up with people - many of whom have limited (either in time or type) teaching experience telling us what to do and why we are crap at our jobs and they are so much better.

     

    I mean anyone from Ed balls (or who ever his replacement is) to Carol Vorderman to my postman things they would be a bettre treacher than I am.

     

    They may well be right but I dont tell them how to do their job!

  • Offline
    132
    Posted by: scentless_apprentice 20/12/2010 at 20:29
    Joined on 26/02/2005
    Posts 143

    Maths_Mike:
    Beecka - please dont take it too personally I just think that lots of us are fed up with people - many of whom have limited (either in time or type) teaching experience telling us what to do and why we are crap at our jobs and they are so much better.
     

    My sentiments entirely. I'm all for a debate about the priniciples of Mathematics education. 

    But a lot of the time, we've got to look at the problems we have working at 'the coal face' - i.e. in the class!

  • Offline
    133
    Posted by: weebecka 20/12/2010 at 21:19
    Joined on 15/09/2010
    Posts 823

    Maths_Mike:

    Beecka - please dont take it too personally I just think that lots of us are fed up with people - many of whom have limited (either in time or type) teaching experience telling us what to do and why we are crap at our jobs and they are so much better.

    I mean anyone from Ed balls (or who ever his replacement is) to Carol Vorderman to my postman things they would be a bettre treacher than I am.

    They may well be right but I dont tell them how to do their job!

     

    Er - I do get this.

    Back on the thread - when we had training on Carol Dweck, the first half of it was fine - a nice gentle interactive coverage of what she was all about. 

    Then I/we wanted to talk about and share and develop how we were doing a lot of what she was talking about already, it's just we'd never expressed it in her way. 

    Instead Barry Hymer just picked the pace up and up, going on with more and more fervour and conviction about how wonderful she was and that was it.  

    If anyone ever catches me doing a conference session or any training in that way, please scream and shout and stop me.  I don't ever want to be like that.

     

    On-line conversations are challenging, especially when they are talking about deep issues like philosophy.  I'm genuinely interested in listening to everyone but it takes some working at.  I think part of the problem is people assume I'm not listening so they don't bother to work at it.

     

    The coal face bit just means people drop in and out of the deeper conversations as and when they feel like it and that's absolutely fine.  The deeper stuff is better taken on bite size chunks anyway.

     

  • Online
    134
    Posted by: DM 20/12/2010 at 21:49
    Joined on 12/05/2003
    Posts 5,309

    weebecka:
    Instead Barry Hymer just picked the pace up and up, going on with more and more fervour and conviction about how wonderful she was and that was it.  

    If anyone ever catches me doing a conference session or any training in that way, please scream and shout and stop me.  I don't ever want to be like that.

     

  • Offline
    135
    Posted by: weebecka 20/12/2010 at 21:57
    Joined on 15/09/2010
    Posts 823

     You have to come to a session first DM.......

  • Offline
    136
    Posted by: weebecka 20/12/2010 at 22:00
    Joined on 15/09/2010
    Posts 823

    scentless_apprentice:
    But a lot of the time, we've got to look at the problems we have working at 'the coal face' - i.e. in the class!
     

    But this is a thread about Carol Dweck.....

    it's hardly a thread on 'What are the differences between the different entry level qualifications'.

  • Online
    137
    Posted by: DM 20/12/2010 at 22:04
    Joined on 12/05/2003
    Posts 5,309

    weebecka:

     You have to come to a session first DM.......

    Oh I have spent enough time with you to know what I will hear weebs.

  • Offline
    138
    Posted by: Karvol 20/12/2010 at 22:05
    Joined on 30/06/2008
    Posts 1,389

    weebecka:

     I think part of the problem is people assume I'm not listening so they don't bother to work at it.

     

    I am not sure about that. I think part of the problem is that you don't seem to realise that people have thought about a priori and a posteriori knowledge in maths, whether or not it is objective or subjective knowledge ( it is pretty standard fare for the IB ) but that it has little relevance if the students cannot add two numbers together.

    Now it may be very well discussing what is, in reality, 7 x 8 or how we can describe a n-dimensional space using algebraic structures, but it doesn't get the students anywhere. In my mind all it is doing is purposefully avoiding the hard grind of actually teaching some fundamental building blocks of arithmetic, in order to pretend or even play at teaching mathematics. 

    I do not teach in a problem school, and I never have. The type of schools I teach in consider a problem student as one who cannot obtain an A or A* at IGCSE ( even that is not really true - my school does not even sit any external exam until the students are in their final year before university ). Class sizes are seldom in double figures and resources are anything you want. Even in this type of setting, the students learning the fundamentals of arithmetic and algebraic manipulation is vital. Without it they cannot do anything, learn anything or express themselves in any shape or form mathematically.

    All this talk about students creating theorems for themselves and discovering mathematics is frankly a pipe dream. An unfortunate relic of some 70's ideal still holding sway in teacher training colleges. Even if you take the most elite mathematical hothouses the English public school system has to offer, the US advocates of the Harkness system, etc. etc. you still require a great deal of guidance from a teacher. 

    If at the end of the day the students cannot do any basic arithmetic nor can they perform rudimentary algebra, then you, as a teacher, have failed. You may blame the failure on extenuating circumstances, on poverty, on poor social conditions, on a poor primary education but it does not excuse the fact that a student under your care has failed to learn basic mathematics. Each time a student leaves my classroom after two years of being in there without passing their mathematics IB exam at whatever level it may be at then I have failed them as a teacher.

    Do I believe all students are capable of learning? Yes, fundamentally all are capable of learning. Do I believe all are wanting to learn? No, most definitely not, no matter what excitement you may bring into your classes. 

  • Offline
    139
    Posted by: Nazard 20/12/2010 at 22:06
    Joined on 15/03/2009
    Posts 715

    DM:

    I like self-deprecating humour but I'm not particularly good at it.

    Now that is funny!

  • Offline
    140
    Posted by: Nazard 20/12/2010 at 22:21
    Joined on 15/03/2009
    Posts 715

    Maths_Mike:
    I just think that lots of us are fed up with people - many of whom have limited (either in time or type) teaching experience telling us what to do and why we are crap at our jobs and they are so much better.

    I mean anyone from Ed balls (or who ever his replacement is)

    Cutting ...

    Like it!

Back to top

Sign up – it’s free!

  • Don’t miss out on the latest jobs
  • Connect and share with friends
  • Download thousands of resources
  • Chat in the forums