Posts tagged as:

teaching

I did an experiment in my Living Skills class the other day, a little free association. I wrote words on the board and asked students to write the first thing that came to their minds.  Then we compared answers. Predictably many–but not all– the students made the same associations.  Both the commonality of answers and the few odd-ball responses intrigued and disturbed my 15 year olds.

I said “yellow.”  Several students said “green.”  One student said “duck.” Nobody said “submarine.”   If you “get” why that’s funny then you are probably a lot older than my students.

I used this exercise to continue our discussion of the brain.  They’ve learned about neurons and neural networks.  The associations they make reflect their neuronal networks. They aren’t all the same.  What implications this has.  The teacher speaks and the students understand. That’s the way its supposed to work.  It often doesn’t because  understanding really means making connections and for that to happen the maps in our brain need to match pretty closely.

I don’t  know what is worse–a complete mismatch between the students’ cognitive map and mine, or that maps that are just slightly “off.”  Certainly the later is the cause of much mis-communication, argument and strife.  When a student is completely clueless, at least there is a chance the hand will go up and some version of “I don’t understand” will come forward.

yellow_submarine_1999
Image by Brian’s Tree via Flickr

I am going to greatly simplify a recent conversation that illustrates this.

Background

Several staff have come to me about a female student that I work with, complaining that her behavior is rude, arrogant, and disrespectful.  When I ask for more details, I usually find out that the student has “barged into my office,”  “interrupted in the middle of the conversation” or “took it upon herself” to make a change or fix a problem without permission.

If this student was younger or a new arrival at The Family Foundation School, I think the staff would be more tolerant. But she has been here for several months, is 17 years old, generally well spoken, takes good care of her appearance, is lively and out going.

If you ask her about any of the specific situations you can sense her frustration.  In each and every case, she feels both justified in her actions and mystified by the criticism.

The conversation

We spent some time working with the words “rude”, “arrogant” and “disrespectful”.   We needed to find out what those words meant to her first, before we tried to explain the perceptions of others.  I needed to build a bridge from her understanding to the common understanding of those words.  Explaining the perceptions of others

“Rude” is the best illustration.  To my student rude=unnecessarily and intentionally, impolite.  That is a distillation of about twenty minutes work, reviewing events and having her explain why she felt the people who criticized her were unfair.  When I made the connection rude=thoughtless.  The light bulb went off.

How do I know?  We were examining her most recent encounter with a staff person that she respects.  This was the “barged into my office” scenario.  The second the word “thoughtless” came out of my mouth, the student turned red, starting with her ears and throat and extending to her entire face.  She had no difficulty doing the next right thing; going to the staff person in question and making an apology.

Application

The cognitive work we did to get to the new equation rude=thoughtless required that I not act on thoughts I was having like, When will she stop blaming everyone else for her problems? and remember my living skills students–communication depends upon making connections between similar mental maps.

The most common mistake I see is that we start from the wrong end. The bridge must be built from the student’s point of view outward.  If your student says she doesn’t get it, dive in and figure out what she does get. See if she has any wrong ideas and correct them. Then work out to new knowledge and new understanding.  Too often, we just repeat our explanation, possibly with some variation in example or modality.  Sometimes that works–a connection is made.  And when it doesn’t work we are likely to blame the student.

The same principal applies to misbehavior.  In this case,  I began with her point of view.  Many therapists would say that I “validated” her experience or reality.  Perhaps. But the relief I senses from her, didn’t seem to come from validation as much as from connection, that is, mutual understanding: she of me, and me of her.

I would see it that way. I am sociologist, not a psychologist and, for me, connection is everything.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

{ 1 comment }

Why common sense is nonsense

by Rita Argiros on December 24, 2008

I’ve been reading The Drunkard’s Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives, by Leonard Mlodinow.  No, no, don’t click away yet.  The ideas in this book are important.  For anyone who has ever tried to change herself, or to teach something to somebody else, the most important is on page 9. Its called “regression toward the mean.”

Here’s the short version.

When we do something well its usually a combination of skill and luck. Ditto the reverse. When we perform badly its lack-of-skill and/or lack-of-luck.  Examples–SATs, golf shots, investments, job interviews, sales calls, first dates (do people still date?), Yorkshire pudding.  Whenever luck is involved there will be variations in performance–we will do better sometimes than others. These variations will tend to cluster around their true value, or average value.  If you have a really good day on the golf course, chances are your next day will be worse.   Conversely, if you have a really bad day, then the next game you play will most likely be an improvement.   In both cases, the scores are tending to move in the direction of your true or average score.   This means you can’t really tell very much from one or two observations.  Its only by watching and recording outcomes consistently, time after time that you can discern whether your golf game, investments, or cooking is getting worse, getting better or staying about the same.

The problem is that our brains have difficulty holding on to this concept.  We are hard-wired to make associations (to find patterns).  We naturally tend to discount the role of chance and to see patterns where they don’t actually exist.

Daniel Kahneman
Daniel Kahneman Image via Wikipedia

Mlodinow tells this story to illustrate.  In the 1960’s Daniel Kahneman was teaching behavioral psychology to Israeli flight instructors to help them improve their teaching.  A basic principle is that rewards(praise) work better than punishment (scolding).  A flight instructor  disagreed with this, saying when he yells at a student,they do better next time but when he praises a student that student does worse the next time.  Therefore, the flight instructor concluded,  scolding was more effective than praise.

What was going on?  Chances are that a performance worthy of a good verbal thrashing is way below average and, because of regression toward the mean, it is highly likely that a better performance will follow.   The student does better next time but its because of random variation, not because of the the instructor’s tirade.  Conversely, that excellent performance that the instructor praised was also partly a matter of luck and, statistically speaking, the most likely outcome next time will be a  worse performance but that too had nothing at all to do with the instructor’s praise.  (By the way, Kahneman devoted much of his career to studying how humans consistently misinterpret random events.  In 2002 he received the Nobel prize in economics along with Tversky for his work.)

Still seem a little “out there?”  I’m going to follow up with a few examples in my next post.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

{ 1 comment }