Author
|
Topic: The Myth of Ability
|
|
|
|
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092
|
posted 12 January 2005 04:20 AM
I totally agree. Obviously there are people born with certain facilities, and we are all different in the facilities we're born with, but from then on it's all a function of effort. If you do something a lot, you get good at it, plain and simple. I spent most of my life thinking I sucked at all things physical, and it took a long time to realise this wasn't true. That it had, in fact, become a self-sulfilling prophecy. I didn't do it because I sucked, but I sucked because I didn't do it, and so on. I still can't throw a ball very well, but I've stopped thinking that I couldn't be taught. If I spend time and effort to learn this, then I'll learn it. It's true that it is harder to teach an old dog new tricks, but it can be done and is done every day. The whole notion of talent, while not entirely false, is vastly exaggerated in our society, much to the detriment of all of us who are pigeon-holed at an early age. All of the things I am considered talented in are things that I spent most of my childhood doing obsessively, and to dismiss them as naturally inborn advantages totally negates the considerable effort that I invested in building these skills. It's slightly offensive, if the truth be known. And I'm one of the lucky ones, who had things that I was considered talented at. Many others (like my older sister) have never had anything like this, and went through life believing that not only did they have no "talents", but because of this, it was useless to attempt to become good at anything. She suffers from this poor self esteem to this day. Nothing could be better for the development of children than to dispense with the notion of talents and emphasise the rewards of hard work.
From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 12 January 2005 05:45 AM
I've never read the book. But I did flunk grade 11 math and struggled with grade 12 math at the general level, not the advanced level which existed in high schools back then. I wasn't ready to study math then, and I didn't live in a normal household conducive to study. The home situation was somewhat ok for me compared to my older siblings who were encouraged even less so to study at home with the small home we lived in and constant distractions. A death in the family when I was just into my teens affected me deeply for years afterwards.But I knew I was math challenged as well when I began to study engineering. I had no confidence in my ability, but I knew that I was ready for a challenge because I could "picture" myself doing it, not that I had any basis for believing I could actually do upper level math. I almost flunked the first calculus course and not for a lack of focus or effort on my part. I had to start over and teach myself the algebra and geometry that I didn't have the time or interest for while living life a free spirit in my teens. I passed my very last vector calculus exam. I earned an A. [ 12 January 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
abnormal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1245
|
posted 12 January 2005 07:25 AM
I read the book and bought the course notes. If any of the authors stories are true, it would seem that his methods are effective. I do stress the word "seem" since it's always possible that he's lucked out and a disproportionate percentage of his students have a lot of native ability that was previously hidden.It is important to realize that this is not a self-help book by anyone's definition. Reading it will not show you how to learn math. In fact, a lot of his methodology seems to focus on developing appropriate building blocks of math skills and building the student's ego. Definitely a book on how to teach math, not a book on how to learn math. If you expect this book to show you how to be a better math student you're in for a big disappointment. Having said that, I tend to be of the belief that, at least beyond a certain point, you can either do math or you can't. That point varies by individual. While I suspect that, for the majority of people that point is a lot higher than they think, I also don't think it's possible to determine what that point is, at least in the majority of cases. I knew too many math graduate students that weren't exactly stellar performers in high school but went on to do Masters and Doctorate degrees. By way of illustration a good friend of mine actually had the school guidance counselor tell his parents that they were doing their son a significant diservice by putting him in a five year academic high school program (Ontario grade 13 remember). The individual tried to force them to put him in a four year technical program because, in his opinion, this student couldn't handle an academic program of any sort. Guess what, several degrees in pure math later...
From: far, far away | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mazie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4957
|
posted 12 January 2005 05:17 PM
quote: Originally posted by abnormal: I read the book and bought the course notes. If any of the authors stories are true, it would seem that his methods are effective. I do stress the word "seem" since it's always possible that he's lucked out and a disproportionate percentage of his students have a lot of native ability that was previously hidden.
Which begs the question, how many other students, in how many other subjects,have a lot of native ability that was previously hidden? To learn anything I have had to break things down into 'learnable portions' on my own. It would have been nice to have been taught, rather than relying on teachers that just assumed I was 'not bright'and having to work much harder than necessary. And,Yes, I have been known to start to 'Froth at the Mouth' when, after working as hard as I knew how, people just 'blow me off' with "it's easy for you with your natural talent" Just wondering?
From: Williams Lake, BC | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
abnormal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1245
|
posted 12 January 2005 08:56 PM
Mazie,Good question. I have no idea how many students have hidden talents that their teachers managed to hide (or destroy for that matter). I do think that math is a little unique because of the average grade school teacher. I think a lot of kids end up believing math is hard because they had a teacher somewhere in the early days of elementary school that found math hard when they were in school and let the kids know it (probably subconsciously). Once kids have decided that math is tough it's incredibly difficult to convince them otherwise. (Anyone remember the stink about the talking Barbie doll that said "Math is hard!"?) A lot of Mighton's book is based on the simple concept of spoonfeeding kids and telling them how smart they are. If it works, great. I see no reason his techniques can't be adapted to other subjects. Having said that, his book and the underlying concepts are about how to teach math, not how to learn math. I doubt it will do the average student any good whatsoever but it may help the average teacher a lot.
From: far, far away | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wellington
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4462
|
posted 12 January 2005 09:51 PM
quote: Originally posted by abnormal: I have no idea how many students have hidden talents that their teachers managed to hide (or destroy for that matter).I do think that math is a little unique because of the average grade school teacher.
I recall the point once being made: If you ask a room full of three-year olds how many of them can draw, they'll all put up their hands. Ask a room of, say, Grade 12s, the same question and maybe one or two will say "yes". Why? Because what the Grade 12s have been taught is that they can't draw. Same thing with music. I wouldn't entirely single out teachers, because this seems to me to be a cultural/social phenomenon. However, there's no doubt that math teaching at the elementary level is an issue. To generalize, there's not enough teachers with a background in math (that is, teachers who studied math at the postsecondary level)and more teachers who specialize in math instruction would be a big plus.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|