Teaching millenials?

[i_got_a_mohawk]

You're in your publish or perish days, is it any better?

My hairline is receeding about as quickly as my waistline is growing.

Need a better explaination?

 

[Simo98]

Did you read my whole post, doesn't seem like it, I don't blame you though, it was rather long.

This is exactly the kind of thing I was mentioning- it's a bit grandiose of an idea to take on the student's failure as your own, and speaks to the inability to tolerate their struggle.

This is the narcissistic parent thing.

Why? How is wanting to help somebody overcome their difficulty to learn narcissistic in any way? And what does it have to do with the parents? Half the parents of the kids I'm taking about don't give a **** about their kids, when they get home they tell them they're a useless piece if crap and are going to go nowhere in life, they mess up in school and then go home to get beat up on by their dad for messing up in school.

It's nothing to do with an inability to tolerate their struggle, it is the desire to help them with their struggle. Not everybody is as awesome at life at you seem to think they are, and they can't get everywhere on their own power, they need help, they need guidance, and they need support. Otherwise they will fail, when that happens it isn't because they aren't a good enough student, it is because the teaching method used didn't work for them. A good teacher, will find another way to teach them, a bad one will say they're a bad student. The teacher should learn as much from a students failure as the student does, and then the teacher should try again.

Now if you can point out some sort of logical failure in this point of view, or reason why it doesn't makes sense, I'm more than happy to listen, but you just tell me I'm wrong and go on about narcissistic parents which seems to be fairly irrelevant.

Yes, there are parents who think their kids are awesome and can do no wrong and turn their kids into spoilt little self entitled pains in the butt, and it's always the teachers fault as far as these parents are concerned. And no, it's not always the teachers fault, but there is always something the teacher can do to teach even these students, you just need to find the right carrot. It's certainly not the students fault that their parents raised them the way they are.

Then everyone is exactly the same, and the only reason some people succeed is luck. Fantastic. That is a sad and perverse notion about the world because it then leaves no place for hard work, learning from failure, and ways to change for the better. That's bleak.

Again, this is the same mentality as mentioned in my previous post- the trophy-for-every-kid-because-adults-can't-tolerate-discomfort thing.

I think at 20 it's difficult to assess the "tough love" approach by saying that it "rarely works".

Ah I see, you get everywhere in your life by your own hard work, it's all about how great you are and all those people who struggle are just lazy or stupid. It's nothing to to with being born in the right place at the right time, in a country or a family where you have a leg up on everybody else in the world, food and clothes and water and the ability to get an education, with a genetic make up that gives you the strength and ability to "work hard" and an attitude and method of absorbing information that fits right into societies little mold of how you should learn.

I used to think the same when I was younger. I was a straight A student, everything came easy to me, I passed with flying colours, I don't have an addictive personality and I'm self confident and strong willed enough to not get myself into trouble or do stupid things because other people are doing them. All the naughty kids just weren't trying hard enough, or they were just lazy, or stupid, people who get addicted to drugs are just weak willed.

It's nothing to do with everyone being the same, it's to do with them all being different. Truth is, some people are just born weak willed, or born with a personality that doesn't fit the mold, they're born in a family where they don't have support and they happen to be the type of person who can't handle it, or maybe they're just flat out lazy and don't want to learn. As a "Stronger" person, it's not our duty to pass judgment on these people and tell them how they suck and life and that they could be so much better if they were just like us, it's our responsbility to help them where we never needed it, to advise them where we never went wrong, and to give them the best chance of overcoming their own difficulties we possibly can.

I think at whatever age you are, presumably older than 20 by your condescending remarks, it's a little unfortunate that you still think you got everywhere in life on your own hard work. Yes, hard work has plenty to do with it, but where did you get that work ethic? Though your own amazingly strong will and drive as a child, or was it more to do with having parent and others to guide you along the way and teach you these values? Even if you were some super child who learned these values on your own, or maybe had a much more difficult background where you learned them through experience, where did the will to go on come from, the ability to learn and not give up?

You're not always as responsible for your own merits as you think you are, and a simple twist of fate could have left you a completely different person living in a different world to what you know.

 

[fdeck]

In a typical survey class of 25-35 students, I'll typically have two or three who are good enough that they could succeed anywhere (seems like less than that this term, for some reason).

The economy is improving. It's conventional wisdom that the quality and motivation of students at lower tier colleges improves during recessions.

They don't read. At all, as far as I can see. I assigned a book to one class that a colleague in the state university had suggested for US history surveys; reactions came back that it was too hard, surely that would only be for upper-level students, they couldn't make head or tail of it.

In high school, reading books is not part of the standardized tests, so it isn't taught. What's tested is reading short passages and then answering a couple of questions right away. And then they complain that the kids are brought up on FaceBook and Twitter. My daughter brought home a list of "test taking skills" that all amounted to techniques of improving your odds when guessing. Thank goodness she doesn't need those skills. Also, she attends a public school that is so far over the top on test scores that they can afford to teach things like reading books.

In the faculty lounge, I had a conversation with a math instructor. She was teaching an algebra class and her students were having trouble with it because they had weak arithmetic skills. This wasn't linear algebra or anything, this was Algebra I. I didn't think you could even take Algebra I in college, but apparently here you can. She didn't know if she should slow down to give them remedial teaching, or keep up the pace so that those who could handle it would be ready to go on to Algebra II.

"College algebra" is the lowest level math course that you can offer for credit at an accredited college. That's what I taught. The curriculum was hopelessly oudated. But if your friend's students don't learn the skills in Algebra 1, they won't even pass the first quiz in Algebra 2, because math is a topic that "builds on itself" according to how it is traditionally taught.

 

[A-Step-Towards]

You dont have to put on a show , but a simplistic slide with maybe a picture for every 10 minutes you lecture would probably do wonders to reinforce what your teaching, just a photo thats it. Or maybe a video midway through lecture.

I am 22 and in college and when the teacher simply talks 50 mins to 1 1/2 hours straight ( depending on class time) with zero diagrams, models , pictures or a video, I am totally bored.

 

[fdeck]

I fired her on the third day and she responded by telling me that I still needed to fill out some paperwork for her transcripts so that she could get credit for the internship. She was incredulous when I told her that the real world doesn't work that way.

Short answer: America is doomed.

I've worked with several interns and recent graduates over my career, and I've been humbled by how bright, talented, diligent, and personable they are.

 

[LM Bass]

Has anyone seen the Branford Marsalis reply to the question "What did you learn from your students?" It's good for a laugh and cry. I'm at the bar with Titus and Maki if you need me.

 

[tplyons]

The best teachers I had were able to relate relevant material to our lives. Studying slave ships? We'd jam all the desks in the center of the classroom, we'd stuff ourselves under them, really jammed up for a half hour while she gave the lecture about conditions on the slave ship.

Another teacher was a history re-enactor, he'd show up in period garb from time to time to give us a sense of how things were. And we all looked forward to the end of the year hatchet throwing lesson that he was known for.

It's about connecting to the students, and making it relevant. Unfortunately, there are so many mediocre teachers with tenure that don't even try anymore. The fact that you're here asking these questions show that you care enough to try to improve. That's more than I can say for a lot of the teachers I ever had.

I've been out of High School for seven years, and can think back to these things that really impacted me. This says a LOT for those teachers.

 

[Angus]

Did you read my whole post, doesn't seem like it, I don't blame you though, it was rather long.

Of course I did. I don't think you interpreted any of what I said the way it was intended, however.

Why? How is wanting to help somebody overcome their difficulty to learn narcissistic in any way?

The notion that someone is a poor student directly because you are a poor teacher is, in itself, grandiose.

Poor students are poor students for a lot of reasons, and bad teachers are bad teachers for various reasons, but coming across a student who does poorly does not necessarily mean you are a bad teacher. This is the basis of why teachers get such an unnecessarily bad rap in the states in particular- if students do poorly it must be because the teachers are bad...when often the problem is actually the parents, the family structure, the living environment, on and on. These are things out of the teacher's control.

But it doesn't mean the students shouldn't receive help. I never made that claim.

It's nothing to do with an inability to tolerate their struggle, it is the desire to help them with their struggle. Not everybody is as awesome at life at you seem to think they are, and they can't get everywhere on their own power, they need help, they need guidance, and they need support. Otherwise they will fail, when that happens it isn't because they aren't a good enough student, it is because the teaching method used didn't work for them. A good teacher, will find another way to teach them, a bad one will say they're a bad student. The teacher should learn as much from a students failure as the student does, and then the teacher should try again.

Who said I was awesome at life? I didn't. I didn't bring myself into it at all. I agree about support, help and guidance.

However to say that without that that they'll fail, and that it is purely because of the teaching method, is sort of an insult to the student. They have their own constitution and power, and though they may need a lot of help and guidance, they are capable of functioning as their own entity. You are taking away their input into the equation. With you doing a good job, they can't possibly find a way to become good, and it is reliant on your input alone. THAT is what is grandiose and narcissistic. That is not to say that it is not well meaning, malicious or evil or anything in there, just that it isn't really fair to the student.

Finding a way to support and guide students is fantastic, but it is impossible for a teacher to tailor every lesson exactly to each student. Support and guidance to help students figure out how to study, how to motivate themselves, and to give them insight into where the work can take them- that is important, but that requires input from multiple different people. A good teacher can often find ways to get students to feel invested in the quality of their work and to be invested into putting in effort. But even great teachers have to give out bad grades.

Part of life is learning how to deal with failure and discomfort, particularly for young people. Blaming the teachers doesn't help the student learn.

The hyperbolic example of the dyslexic student who can't read, sells drugs and has a cider jug for a mom is unfair, because those cases are not the norm. Of course they'll struggle, but improving that situation generally requires a team of people.

Ah I see, you get everywhere in your life by your own hard work, it's all about how great you are and all those people who struggle are just lazy or stupid.

I never said that. Taking an argument to a hyperbolic extreme is silly- I never stated anything about anyone being lazy or stupid, nor did I say anything about me getting everywhere with hard work.

It's nothing to to with being born in the right place at the right time, in a country or a family where you have a leg up on everybody else in the world, food and clothes and water and the ability to get an education, with a genetic make up that gives you the strength and ability to "work hard" and an attitude and method of absorbing information that fits right into societies little mold of how you should learn.

Of course those are advantages, and of course they help. By pure force of existence, some people start with more, some less. Some have to work hard, some are given everything...and yet that last example is exceeeeeedingly rare. The more appropriate example is that those who start with more advantages absolutely have a head start, but it doesn't mean that they don't work hard, nor does it mean that others who begin without those advantages are screwed...they just may have to work harder. Can't get around this.

What I didn't like is the idea that it's luck, that it's a force out of anyone's control, that both success and failure are largely the result of forces of society, the man, nature or whatever. It's a horrible thing to teach anyone. People absolutely have different starting places, different advantages, and different levels of problems, and it does NOT mean I'm a proponent of the "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" BS. I'm saying it is horrible to tell someone that it is out of their control, that it isn't something they can't take responsibility for.

That is not the same thing as telling inner city youth that they are poor because they are lazy. Nobody said that.

Besides, if where you start was the only indicator of success, success would strongly follow generations and there would rarely be class jumping. In reality, extreme success and money tend to dwindle by the third generation (though this is not to say that wealth is not still a factor; this is a separate issue), and there are plenty of rags-to-riches stories you hear all the time.

All the naughty kids just weren't trying hard enough, or they were just lazy, or stupid, people who get addicted to drugs are just weak willed.

I never said any of this and I don't think any of this.

As a "Stronger" person, it's not our duty to pass judgment on these people and tell them how they suck and life and that they could be so much better if they were just like us, it's our responsbility to help them where we never needed it, to advise them where we never went wrong, and to give them the best chance of overcoming their own difficulties we possibly can.

Agree completely.

I think at whatever age you are, presumably older than 20 by your condescending remarks, it's a little unfortunate that you still think you got everywhere in life on your own hard work. Yes, hard work has plenty to do with it, but where did you get that work ethic? Though your own amazingly strong will and drive as a child, or was it more to do with having parent and others to guide you along the way and teach you these values? Even if you were some super child who learned these values on your own, or maybe had a much more difficult background where you learned them through experience, where did the will to go on come from, the ability to learn and not give up?

You're not always as responsible for your own merits as you think you are, and a simple twist of fate could have left you a completely different person living in a different world to what you know.

I never said any of what you are stating here.

The point of all of this is that it is a two-way street- a teacher cannot tailor to every single student, and finding ways to get students invested in doing good work is probably more important than figure out clever ways to get them to pay attention. In the end, though, especially for older students, they have to be given the responsibility to manage their work and learning, because that's how the real world works. Taking that away from them is damaging. But that does not mean we don't support and guide them to the fullest of our capabilities.

 

[Simo98]

Of course I did. I don't think you interpreted any of what I said the way it was intended, however.

That seems to be the case, and I apologise for any false assumptions I made, however I see the attitude quite often and it's more than a little disappointing.

The notion that someone is a poor student directly because you are a poor teacher is, in itself, grandiose.

Poor students are poor students for a lot of reasons, and bad teachers are bad teachers for various reasons, but coming across a student who does poorly does not necessarily mean you are a bad teacher. This is the basis of why teachers get such an unnecessarily bad rap in the states in particular- if students do poorly it must be because the teachers are bad...when often the problem is actually the parents, the family structure, the living environment, on and on. These are things out of the teacher's control.

But it doesn't mean the students shouldn't receive help. I never made that claim.

Pretty much spot on imo. I don't think that the statement "There are no bad students, only bad teachers" implies that because a student is bad then it is entirely the teachers fault (although people do seem to use it in that sense), but I believe that the statement is true in the fact that the teacher simply hasn't found the right way to teach the specific student yet. In reality this can be extremely challenging, but it's far from impossible and in my opinion the teacher is still at fault to a degree, but rarely entirely responsible.

Who said I was awesome at life? I didn't. I didn't bring myself into it at all. I agree about support, help and guidance.

However to say that without that that they'll fail, and that it is purely because of the teaching method, is sort of an insult to the student. They have their own constitution and power, and though they may need a lot of help and guidance, they are capable of functioning as their own entity. You are taking away their input into the equation. With you doing a good job, they can't possibly find a way to become good, and it is reliant on your input alone. THAT is what is grandiose and narcissistic. That is not to say that it is not well meaning, malicious or evil or anything in there, just that it isn't really fair to the student.

Finding a way to support and guide students is fantastic, but it is impossible for a teacher to tailor every lesson exactly to each student. Support and guidance to help students figure out how to study, how to motivate themselves, and to give them insight into where the work can take them- that is important, but that requires input from multiple different people. A good teacher can often find ways to get students to feel invested in the quality of their work and to be invested into putting in effort. But even great teachers have to give out bad grades.

Part of life is learning how to deal with failure and discomfort, particularly for young people. Blaming the teachers doesn't help the student learn.

The hyperbolic example of the dyslexic student who can't read, sells drugs and has a cider jug for a mom is unfair, because those cases are not the norm. Of course they'll struggle, but improving that situation generally requires a team of people.

There certainly is a balance between letting people make their own mistakes and learn from them, but many people need someone there to pick them up, otherwise they'll just give in. I disagree strongly with the idea of blaming other people for you own failures and short comings, you have to responsible for finding your own faults and wanting to improve on them, but that's the key, making the decision to fix your own problems, and having someone there to help, encourage and push can and will make all the difference.

When I say failure I don't mean in the temporary sense, I mean in the giving up sense. Failing at something in life is an important lesson to learn, but learning to try it again is even more important in my opinion.

Of course those are advantages, and of course they help. By pure force of existence, some people start with more, some less. Some have to work hard, some are given everything...and yet that last example is exceeeeeedingly rare. The more appropriate example is that those who start with more advantages absolutely have a head start, but it doesn't mean that they don't work hard, nor does it mean that others who begin without those advantages are screwed...they just may have to work harder. Can't get around this.

What I didn't like is the idea that it's luck, that it's a force out of anyone's control, that both success and failure are largely the result of forces of society, the man, nature or whatever. It's a horrible thing to teach anyone. People absolutely have different starting places, different advantages, and different levels of problems, and it does NOT mean I'm a proponent of the "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" BS. I'm saying it is horrible to tell someone that it is out of their control, that it isn't something they can't take responsibility for.

That is not the same thing as telling inner city youth that they are poor because they are lazy. Nobody said that.

Besides, if where you start was the only indicator of success, success would strongly follow generations and there would rarely be class jumping. In reality, extreme success and money tend to dwindle by the third generation (though this is not to say that wealth is not still a factor; this is a separate issue), and there are plenty of rags-to-riches stories you hear all the time.

I believe a lot of it is luck, you certainly have some degree of control over your life (I'd say that's debatable, but that's an entirely different discussion) but who you are and your attitude has a lot to do with where and when you happened to pop out. That's not to say coming from a difficult background and succeeding is impossible, far from it. As you said, there are countless rags to riches stories, and people who come from difficult backgrounds and upbringings who go on to change the world, but even in these cases it is peoples conditions that shape them, a strong willed and driven person who's born in a dysfunctional family could grow up taking care of his or her younger siblings and fighting to stay alive, carrying the family on their own back, but it's those experiences that drive them to become bigger and better than their parents.

People can and do succeed with all the odds stacked against them, but in many cases I believe that it's because the odds are stacked against them that they do or did succeed, if that makes sense. In a lot of cases I don't think you can really blame, nor praise people for who they are, you can just do your best to aid them, or do you best to be more like them.

The point of all of this is that it is a two-way street- a teacher cannot tailor to every single student, and finding ways to get students invested in doing good work is probably more important than figure out clever ways to get them to pay attention. In the end, though, especially for older students, they have to be given the responsibility to manage their work and learning, because that's how the real world works. Taking that away from them is damaging. But that does not mean we don't support and guide them to the fullest of our capabilities.

Couldn't agree more. You can't help those who won't help themselves, but you can let them know that the help is there.

"I can only show you the door Neo...."