Criticism is important to relay direction and guidance from an expert to a novice, or from someone would feels they are an expert to someone who is believed to be a novice. I can offer criticism well to others only for subject areas that I have a considerable amount of knowledge to draw from.
Criticism only works when there is a measure of understanding between the two parties. I am highly reluctant to receive criticism, especially if it is harsh, from a stranger than someone who knows me at least somewhat. On the receiving end the person needs to accept that the critic:
(1) is knowledgeable in the subject of work
If my cousin who works in construction says that my interview suit is too flashy, I may brush the comment off. If a corporate executive suggests that my pink tie dominates the interview suit, I will probably take that criticism to heart and change my tie.
(2) is familiar with the environment, background, and circumstances the criticized person
If I am criticized for turning in an assignment late by my professor, I may tell myself that they are in the dark on how busy a student’s life can be. If my roommate recommends that I should use a day-planner to better manage my time for homework, I will probably consider doing it.
(3) is motivated exclusively by wanting to improve the person
If a salesman suggests that I can improve my life by buying a product, I immediately shut out the drone of his voice. If my mom suggests the same idea, however, I know that she wants the best for me and she must sincerely believe that product ABC will help me sleep better at night.
One main way I believe I am effective at giving criticism is making my comments both specific and general. There is an essential balance in good criticism between making specific statements and making general suggestions. Be too specific, and the other person may not come away with a gauge of their achievement on the task. But be too general, and it becomes near impossible for the other person to make corrections in the right areas or improve specific techniques. Because I tend to think in a deliberate and logical manner, I prefer to lean towards specific criticisms. When receiving criticism, it is hard for me to bear the correction of someone who expresses an overall sense that my work needs to improve by moving in one direction or another. I am much more accepting and am able to apply myself to utilizing others’ criticisms when they direct me to correct X by improving Y which comes from practicing Z. When I give criticism in an area of my own expertise, I try to be specific as possible so as to provide the other person with a high level of clarity. However, a measure of generality is needed to make sure criticism has a maximum effect. This is an interpretation of the popular saying, “Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.” The specific can be limited in how helpful it is if context is not built, and students can easily forget nuggets of information not attached to a broader system of understanding.
In light of a mentoring program, it is important that the mentors are mature enough to understand that helping others to learn is not ultimately about memorizing facts, or techniques, or methods, or protocols, or formats, or heuristics. When you commit to helping others learn, you commit to making sure that the mentee receives the ability to generalize to situations that come from diverse areas of study, areas of study that may only exist in the future, and perhaps even life outside study.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Social Impacts and Social Problems
While reading chapter 5 of Drucker, “Social Impacts and Social Problems” I was somewhat shocked that there are politically active men and women (an example is Ralph Nader) who promote unlimited social responsibility for big business. They have asked themselves, “should businesses bear the burden of having both responsibility and authority in all matters of social problems occurring in their communities and societies?” And their answer has been an emphatic, “yes, responsibility in all matters.”
This philosophy necessarily urges businesses to assume a position of authority in the realm already served by other (non-profit) institutions. For example, to say that Du Pont is responsible for using its economic success to push for racial equality, health care reform, and the improvement of public schools is to say that Du Pont should usurp a large amount of authority outside its area of expertise. Du Pont should take over the role of several non-profits- including the government- that already concentrate on these issues and prove themselves a boon to society by accepting all authority to solve these problems.
The first problem with this expectation to me is a glaring probability of conflict of interest. The implication of a profit-biased company running multiple “noble” efforts to curb and correct social problems, is that each correction must ultimately be profitable or it becomes doubly a cost to the business. If Du Pont believes (correctly or incorrectly) that promoting racial equality will decrease the quality of workers it can hire in its factories, the company must pay to run a program for racial inequality and it must pay the cost of decreased profits from poorer quality workers. To expect such a sacrifice from a company in a capitalist economic system is unrealistic in my mind. It immediately brings the danger of insincere and damaging social authority by businesses to replace the clear-minded goals of non-profits.
Although putting all responsibility of social problems squarely on the shoulders of big business is not reasonable, it is always important for companies to be mindful of social problems surrounding their customers, as this can be directly linked to their effectiveness as an institution. If the main objective of a business is to create a customer, it should behoove the business to see customers coming from the pool that is the local community as living in a society that has problems. I do not feel like it is good or possible to separate the needs of a customer (or potential customer) from his or her relationship to the society that has problems that affect everyone. Although Drucker made a good point by stating that some social problems can be seen as economic opportunities, and thus the connection to the customer make sense, the connection of the customer to problems that are not solvable by business innovation are just as important or more important to consider. It seems that these problems, because they are less likely to be “solved” in a defined and specific way, are going to be a part of the customer’s everyday context for some time into the future, which influences the wants, needs, practices, and habits of the customer.
So, is Ralph Nader correct for pointing out that companies neglect social problems too much and congratulate themselves for positive social impacts too much…probably. Is Ralph Nader right in demanding complete responsibility for correcting social problems from big business… for the ultimate good of society, probably no.
This philosophy necessarily urges businesses to assume a position of authority in the realm already served by other (non-profit) institutions. For example, to say that Du Pont is responsible for using its economic success to push for racial equality, health care reform, and the improvement of public schools is to say that Du Pont should usurp a large amount of authority outside its area of expertise. Du Pont should take over the role of several non-profits- including the government- that already concentrate on these issues and prove themselves a boon to society by accepting all authority to solve these problems.
The first problem with this expectation to me is a glaring probability of conflict of interest. The implication of a profit-biased company running multiple “noble” efforts to curb and correct social problems, is that each correction must ultimately be profitable or it becomes doubly a cost to the business. If Du Pont believes (correctly or incorrectly) that promoting racial equality will decrease the quality of workers it can hire in its factories, the company must pay to run a program for racial inequality and it must pay the cost of decreased profits from poorer quality workers. To expect such a sacrifice from a company in a capitalist economic system is unrealistic in my mind. It immediately brings the danger of insincere and damaging social authority by businesses to replace the clear-minded goals of non-profits.
Although putting all responsibility of social problems squarely on the shoulders of big business is not reasonable, it is always important for companies to be mindful of social problems surrounding their customers, as this can be directly linked to their effectiveness as an institution. If the main objective of a business is to create a customer, it should behoove the business to see customers coming from the pool that is the local community as living in a society that has problems. I do not feel like it is good or possible to separate the needs of a customer (or potential customer) from his or her relationship to the society that has problems that affect everyone. Although Drucker made a good point by stating that some social problems can be seen as economic opportunities, and thus the connection to the customer make sense, the connection of the customer to problems that are not solvable by business innovation are just as important or more important to consider. It seems that these problems, because they are less likely to be “solved” in a defined and specific way, are going to be a part of the customer’s everyday context for some time into the future, which influences the wants, needs, practices, and habits of the customer.
So, is Ralph Nader correct for pointing out that companies neglect social problems too much and congratulate themselves for positive social impacts too much…probably. Is Ralph Nader right in demanding complete responsibility for correcting social problems from big business… for the ultimate good of society, probably no.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Alignment of the "Saltshaker"
Alignment is “a state of agreement or cooperation among persons, groups, nations, etc., with a common cause or viewpoint” according to dictionary dot com. I immediately thought of the house where I live on campus, endearingly referred to as the “Saltshaker”. Eight young men from my church live there including me, and we generally are supposed to function as a unit in order to maintain a pleasant “home away from home”. In addition to this main purpose, objectives outlined include such things as: keeping the house clean, cooking dinner four nights a week, and providing a healthy atmosphere physically, emotionally, and spiritually.
Formal management of the house is responsibility of a “house dad”, but because of the small size of the group, personal accountability to each other is a significant part of how the house of managed informally. Because we each come from different families and different hometowns (albeit all in central Illinois), we will each naturally deviate to operating according to our own ideas of “how things should be” if not aligned.
The largest practical means of aligning the group to focus on our objectives is the semesterly house meeting, where we evenly divide up all jobs (from cooking to cleaning bathrooms) based on a point basis. All jobs have rules which are written down in a list of job descriptions, and additionally include motivations like: “if dishes are not done, party responsible will acquire all subsequent dirty dishes until job is completed.” And because we know each other well enough, we can feel free to refer each other to the job description if someone is neglecting their duties. On the other hand, the reward system for doing jobs is weak in my opinion, as it consists only of a sticker chart for each person’s job each week. Although everyone is pretty honest in withholding their sticker if they failed to do their job, the chart seems to hold little importance in terms of shame or pride in completing duties.
What management (the house dad) might do to maintain alignment in doing jobs correctly and completely is to institute a better reward system by peer evaluation- perhaps a system like a rent surcharge to poor job performance as indicated by a simple survey of the house residents each month.
Another part of alignment that has become evident at the Saltshaker is difference of opinions in procedural and organizational matters. Two examples are whether the shopper can buy groceries at a more expensive store if the food quality is slightly higher or the store is easier to shop at, and the arrangement of parking to get eight vehicles in a single driveway without creating the environment for fender benders or trapping others’ vehicles. What management can do to align us in these matters is to consider the options in light of the overall house objectives and write down the procedures to give concrete direction to us all. Also, it helps that we each are thankful to have such a nice place to stay with cheap rent, and thus are somewhat internally motivated to maintain the house. “For the good of the ‘Shake’” is a popular slogan we say occasionally (when someone needs to “take one for the team”) to remind us that personal sacrifices must sometimes be made to keep the good thing we have. Thus the most effective way to maintain alignment in the situation of the Saltshaker is to well define our objectives and tasks, and then promote each resident to take a personal stake in this home of ours.
Formal management of the house is responsibility of a “house dad”, but because of the small size of the group, personal accountability to each other is a significant part of how the house of managed informally. Because we each come from different families and different hometowns (albeit all in central Illinois), we will each naturally deviate to operating according to our own ideas of “how things should be” if not aligned.
The largest practical means of aligning the group to focus on our objectives is the semesterly house meeting, where we evenly divide up all jobs (from cooking to cleaning bathrooms) based on a point basis. All jobs have rules which are written down in a list of job descriptions, and additionally include motivations like: “if dishes are not done, party responsible will acquire all subsequent dirty dishes until job is completed.” And because we know each other well enough, we can feel free to refer each other to the job description if someone is neglecting their duties. On the other hand, the reward system for doing jobs is weak in my opinion, as it consists only of a sticker chart for each person’s job each week. Although everyone is pretty honest in withholding their sticker if they failed to do their job, the chart seems to hold little importance in terms of shame or pride in completing duties.
What management (the house dad) might do to maintain alignment in doing jobs correctly and completely is to institute a better reward system by peer evaluation- perhaps a system like a rent surcharge to poor job performance as indicated by a simple survey of the house residents each month.
Another part of alignment that has become evident at the Saltshaker is difference of opinions in procedural and organizational matters. Two examples are whether the shopper can buy groceries at a more expensive store if the food quality is slightly higher or the store is easier to shop at, and the arrangement of parking to get eight vehicles in a single driveway without creating the environment for fender benders or trapping others’ vehicles. What management can do to align us in these matters is to consider the options in light of the overall house objectives and write down the procedures to give concrete direction to us all. Also, it helps that we each are thankful to have such a nice place to stay with cheap rent, and thus are somewhat internally motivated to maintain the house. “For the good of the ‘Shake’” is a popular slogan we say occasionally (when someone needs to “take one for the team”) to remind us that personal sacrifices must sometimes be made to keep the good thing we have. Thus the most effective way to maintain alignment in the situation of the Saltshaker is to well define our objectives and tasks, and then promote each resident to take a personal stake in this home of ours.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Intrinsic Motivation in My Experience
One class for which my motivation was mostly internal was an introduction to economics course offered by the Campus Honors Program. Economics and economics reasoning of how goods and services are exchanged in society and every person’s life individually was new to me- I had never taken a class on this subject before. My interest of this academic area outside of my major was enough to drive me to learn all that was taught in class and all that was taught in the textbook. Good grades were not hard to obtain; otherwise I might have been tempted to focus more on them. I was now free to ignore this most basic and essential extrinsic motivator in school and do as I was directed or recommended by the professor without biasing the direction of my efforts based on how each assignment or activity will affect the ever-present grade. This seemed to me to be the most trustworthy way of gaining a good grasp of the material and coming away from the course with a working understanding of the impacts of economics in my personal finances, my career in engineering, my home town in central Illinois, and the global markets at large. I wanted to expand my comprehension of the connections in the material that I was starting to make as a newcomer to economics, not regarding the extrinsic motivations present.
A couple of ways the professor helped the learning in this class was by providing illustrative small group activities during class and by forcing active participation in discussion when students offered an answer to his question. Activities usually involved trying to come up with a model for an interesting economic and social situation (e.g. illegal drug trade) based on our limited knowledge of basic principles in economics. In the ensuing whole-class discussion, if student Jane Doe had a reason why the studied event A would happen, could they come to the board and illustrate to the class why on a plot of supply and demand on the chalkboard?
To bring students into a joint exploration of the class material where student and teacher work together to uncover ideas and principles that have been discovered by other professionals in the past- and just happened to be our curriculum for the class- seemed to be an very effective method of making learning a more intrinsically- motivated activity. This is in contrast to the motivation resulting from a class in which the professor just lectures the material and described in a syllabus what will be covered and how grades will be determined. Students just see the syllabus and the memorizable facts from lectures and decide that “getting a good grade and getting out” consists of “playing a game” of catering to the grading rules and emphasis instead of focusing on learning as driver to work in the course.
Outside of the classroom, I am lucky enough to be working in a part time job where my motivation is intrinsic. I work developing sustainable biofuels with ADM in the University’s Research Park. The subject of this work keeps me motivated by knowing the importance of finding a renewable fuel source for the world’s energy needs in the future. Reaching the goal I am working towards would mean vastly better management of our current renewable and nonrenewable resources, a big score in the fight against global warming, and downgrading of large sources of political strife regarding crude oil extraction in unstable world regions. Even if I cannot see an end product or significant steps toward a solution during my time at the company, I am pushed onward by the “nobility” of the cause and the attractiveness of the potential solution. I also do not feel a large pull to accomplish in order to be recognized by other people, but to just be a part of a larger effort to resolve one of the world’s largest issues. Unfortunately, I don’t see how this method of motivation can be transplanted to most other areas of work. However, seeing one’s work as intrinsically positive and impactful to people is sure to lessen the presence of salary, recognition, and other extrinsic motivations which are ever-present in one’s mind.
A couple of ways the professor helped the learning in this class was by providing illustrative small group activities during class and by forcing active participation in discussion when students offered an answer to his question. Activities usually involved trying to come up with a model for an interesting economic and social situation (e.g. illegal drug trade) based on our limited knowledge of basic principles in economics. In the ensuing whole-class discussion, if student Jane Doe had a reason why the studied event A would happen, could they come to the board and illustrate to the class why on a plot of supply and demand on the chalkboard?
To bring students into a joint exploration of the class material where student and teacher work together to uncover ideas and principles that have been discovered by other professionals in the past- and just happened to be our curriculum for the class- seemed to be an very effective method of making learning a more intrinsically- motivated activity. This is in contrast to the motivation resulting from a class in which the professor just lectures the material and described in a syllabus what will be covered and how grades will be determined. Students just see the syllabus and the memorizable facts from lectures and decide that “getting a good grade and getting out” consists of “playing a game” of catering to the grading rules and emphasis instead of focusing on learning as driver to work in the course.
Outside of the classroom, I am lucky enough to be working in a part time job where my motivation is intrinsic. I work developing sustainable biofuels with ADM in the University’s Research Park. The subject of this work keeps me motivated by knowing the importance of finding a renewable fuel source for the world’s energy needs in the future. Reaching the goal I am working towards would mean vastly better management of our current renewable and nonrenewable resources, a big score in the fight against global warming, and downgrading of large sources of political strife regarding crude oil extraction in unstable world regions. Even if I cannot see an end product or significant steps toward a solution during my time at the company, I am pushed onward by the “nobility” of the cause and the attractiveness of the potential solution. I also do not feel a large pull to accomplish in order to be recognized by other people, but to just be a part of a larger effort to resolve one of the world’s largest issues. Unfortunately, I don’t see how this method of motivation can be transplanted to most other areas of work. However, seeing one’s work as intrinsically positive and impactful to people is sure to lessen the presence of salary, recognition, and other extrinsic motivations which are ever-present in one’s mind.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Effortful Study and The Expert Mind
The article “The Expert Mind” had a number of interesting points made about the mechanism of forming, retaining, and recalling memories in novices and experts. The learning of an expert is to be desired over that of a novice not because more knowledge is committed to memory, but because experts learn material in a way that allows them to demonstrate a mastery and deep understanding of the subject area that novices lack.
The difference between novice and expert learning was one of stark contrast. According to the article, the novice and expert both have similar memory skills outside the bounds of their very specific training, such as the mental catalogue of chess board configurations. Inside this area of training, however, the expert has a huge advantage from a long term memory organization system that has fine structure to help bring the right connections quickly out of storage. The novice, on the other hand, may have nearly the same amount of information learned and stored in long term memory, but because of the lack of structure only random (however correct) recall of individual pieces of information is possible.
My question which was not answered in the article- perhaps because it cannot be- is how, or when does the transition take place between the novice learning and expert learning in an individual pursuing “effortful study”? Does the structure to the memories of an expert just emerge on its own after a certain number of hours of study, or does the structure more or less need to be put in place as expert learning begins, neglecting the alphabet soup of previously learned novice memories? My guess is that when starting to put forth effortful study, by definition structure is sought and added to the learning mind. This is in contrast to the novice who does not decide to put forth effortful study, and thus subjects the mind to repetition and anarchical organization of individual pieces of information.
Another interesting point was made that in developing an expert mind, effortful study matters much more than innate talent. One fascinating example was Laszlo Polgar’s three daughters, who were all trained rigorously in chess, resulting in one international master and two grandmasters. There was also a study of British chess players that found no correlation between playing strengths and visual-spatial abilities. This emphasis on effortful study tells those who want to educate effectively that in order to get students to learn like experts, motivation for them to put forth this “effortful study” is key. When a child is having trouble learning, it is not that the teacher has reached the limit of the student’s innate ability, but that the child perhaps needs more motivation from a variety of sources to provoke focused, structured, intense, time-consuming study to reap intellectual dividends. Somehow aspiring chess players developed expert minds through tens of thousands of hours of effortful study, and each had to have his or her own motivation to put in the time and sweat. Is it possible for educators to develop the minds of students everywhere by finding the right motivations to push each one to their own “effortful study”? I would venture to say, “yes”.
The difference between novice and expert learning was one of stark contrast. According to the article, the novice and expert both have similar memory skills outside the bounds of their very specific training, such as the mental catalogue of chess board configurations. Inside this area of training, however, the expert has a huge advantage from a long term memory organization system that has fine structure to help bring the right connections quickly out of storage. The novice, on the other hand, may have nearly the same amount of information learned and stored in long term memory, but because of the lack of structure only random (however correct) recall of individual pieces of information is possible.
My question which was not answered in the article- perhaps because it cannot be- is how, or when does the transition take place between the novice learning and expert learning in an individual pursuing “effortful study”? Does the structure to the memories of an expert just emerge on its own after a certain number of hours of study, or does the structure more or less need to be put in place as expert learning begins, neglecting the alphabet soup of previously learned novice memories? My guess is that when starting to put forth effortful study, by definition structure is sought and added to the learning mind. This is in contrast to the novice who does not decide to put forth effortful study, and thus subjects the mind to repetition and anarchical organization of individual pieces of information.
Another interesting point was made that in developing an expert mind, effortful study matters much more than innate talent. One fascinating example was Laszlo Polgar’s three daughters, who were all trained rigorously in chess, resulting in one international master and two grandmasters. There was also a study of British chess players that found no correlation between playing strengths and visual-spatial abilities. This emphasis on effortful study tells those who want to educate effectively that in order to get students to learn like experts, motivation for them to put forth this “effortful study” is key. When a child is having trouble learning, it is not that the teacher has reached the limit of the student’s innate ability, but that the child perhaps needs more motivation from a variety of sources to provoke focused, structured, intense, time-consuming study to reap intellectual dividends. Somehow aspiring chess players developed expert minds through tens of thousands of hours of effortful study, and each had to have his or her own motivation to put in the time and sweat. Is it possible for educators to develop the minds of students everywhere by finding the right motivations to push each one to their own “effortful study”? I would venture to say, “yes”.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Opening up Conversations
To start, I am not an expert on conversation, and as a natural introvert I doubt I ever will be. There are some recurring rules of thumb in my experience, though, that I might mention. In order to open up a prospective conversation partner, in most cases where the other is not a very close friend it is best to start small and build meaning as the conversation progresses. Beginning a conversation with profound or controversial topics can most often discourage participation or provoke passionate, unthoughtful monologging of someone’s personal absolutes. I usually try to start conversation on mundane topics such as weather, school, news, or the surroundings. This allows most people to begin to feel comfortable whether they be outgoing or not. As conversation progresses, I try to wean away from the mundane to more personal subjects that are largely unobtrusive such as one’s family, weekend plans, state/town of origin, hobbies, or pets.
When in conversation, I usually try to talk in a straightforward and clear manner of vocabulary and voice. I generally have not had good conversational experiences with overly “elegant” (a.k.a. confusing) speech or someone that speaks in mumbles or too softly or quickly to be heard. Eye contact is important to a point, although I realize that I naturally look away from time to time to reduce the possibility of becoming imposing or too intense. It is also helpful if the speaker tries to not make excessive movements with the rest of his or her body, as this can be quite distracting.
For troubleshooting conversations, I usually try to be a defensive driver. When resistance is sensed, I usually maneuver to a different topic. Despite what anyone else may think, I believe that there is always something on a person’s mind that they want to share or discuss. And it is usually worth finding, if the other person is in a fair mood. When someone has high resistance to continue conversation, I usually feel fine stopping. Ultimately, it is not my obligation to continue, and sometimes the sound of silence can bring forth more mutual understanding and respect between people than hot air could ever hope to yield.
When in conversation, I usually try to talk in a straightforward and clear manner of vocabulary and voice. I generally have not had good conversational experiences with overly “elegant” (a.k.a. confusing) speech or someone that speaks in mumbles or too softly or quickly to be heard. Eye contact is important to a point, although I realize that I naturally look away from time to time to reduce the possibility of becoming imposing or too intense. It is also helpful if the speaker tries to not make excessive movements with the rest of his or her body, as this can be quite distracting.
For troubleshooting conversations, I usually try to be a defensive driver. When resistance is sensed, I usually maneuver to a different topic. Despite what anyone else may think, I believe that there is always something on a person’s mind that they want to share or discuss. And it is usually worth finding, if the other person is in a fair mood. When someone has high resistance to continue conversation, I usually feel fine stopping. Ultimately, it is not my obligation to continue, and sometimes the sound of silence can bring forth more mutual understanding and respect between people than hot air could ever hope to yield.
Friday, September 4, 2009
The Motivation of Numbers
One item of discussion from class which I felt especially interesting was the effect that numbers have on the direction and magnitude of someone’s efforts. As simple and impersonal as numbers are, they are routinely able to profoundly push and pull our motives. The Apgar score, a way to quantify the health of a newborn baby, was able to bring about a push from doctors to strive for best practice when their effort could be quantified, maximized, and compared among others. There are other examples of “grades” or “scores” which have been effective in other areas as well, and some that are not (e.g. ICES results for full professors). But the question I want to bring up is something else.
Is there a danger to numbers? Can a counterexample be found in which the influence of objectivity in professions or social situations offered by numbers is negative? My answer is yes. One area where positive change can be at odds with numbers nowadays is the public school system. The increased emphasis of former President George W. Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” program on standardized test scores has furthered a gap between what teachers want to teach and what teachers feel they need to teach. One the one hand, what teachers want to teach foundational material in ways that can be effective and stimulating to students. This includes activities beyond the textbook such as taking fieldtrips to art museums, making advertisement posters in Spanish, and building Rube Goldberg contraptions in physics classes. One the other hand, teachers in lower-performing classrooms of high-minority, underfunded public schools feel the need to teach material that will raise the class’s standardized test scores to secure their job and secure the school’s future funding. This includes cutting out peripheral activities that may be more interesting for kids, paring down class material to only that covered in standardized tests, and investing a certain amount of class time to specifically teach standardized test-taking skills and techniques.
What’s the effect? Well, if my actual objective for America’s future generation is to have them be taught to be creative thinkers with a broad knowledge base in a way that has made learning fun for them (thus encouraging further education), numbers can really get in the way. Teachers at poorer schools in inner city districts that are striving for acceptable test scores are hamstringed by fear of losing their job for bad (or stagnant) student performance, as administrators become keen on the new ties of public funding to standardized test performance. Even worse, some teachers are tempted to allow their students to cheat on these tests to help out the class’s results.
Thus, as mentioned in class, numbers can prove powerful agents for effective change as standards of measurement. Competition can drive men and women to achieve best practice, and numbers can provide the metric. However, numbers can also pull motivation away from the goal of overall excellence and push motivation toward a narrow, confined definition of achievement. When looking to bring about effective change, one must know if the difference between an “A” and an “F” is the difference between success and failure, or simply a matter of how much help you had taking the test.
Is there a danger to numbers? Can a counterexample be found in which the influence of objectivity in professions or social situations offered by numbers is negative? My answer is yes. One area where positive change can be at odds with numbers nowadays is the public school system. The increased emphasis of former President George W. Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” program on standardized test scores has furthered a gap between what teachers want to teach and what teachers feel they need to teach. One the one hand, what teachers want to teach foundational material in ways that can be effective and stimulating to students. This includes activities beyond the textbook such as taking fieldtrips to art museums, making advertisement posters in Spanish, and building Rube Goldberg contraptions in physics classes. One the other hand, teachers in lower-performing classrooms of high-minority, underfunded public schools feel the need to teach material that will raise the class’s standardized test scores to secure their job and secure the school’s future funding. This includes cutting out peripheral activities that may be more interesting for kids, paring down class material to only that covered in standardized tests, and investing a certain amount of class time to specifically teach standardized test-taking skills and techniques.
What’s the effect? Well, if my actual objective for America’s future generation is to have them be taught to be creative thinkers with a broad knowledge base in a way that has made learning fun for them (thus encouraging further education), numbers can really get in the way. Teachers at poorer schools in inner city districts that are striving for acceptable test scores are hamstringed by fear of losing their job for bad (or stagnant) student performance, as administrators become keen on the new ties of public funding to standardized test performance. Even worse, some teachers are tempted to allow their students to cheat on these tests to help out the class’s results.
Thus, as mentioned in class, numbers can prove powerful agents for effective change as standards of measurement. Competition can drive men and women to achieve best practice, and numbers can provide the metric. However, numbers can also pull motivation away from the goal of overall excellence and push motivation toward a narrow, confined definition of achievement. When looking to bring about effective change, one must know if the difference between an “A” and an “F” is the difference between success and failure, or simply a matter of how much help you had taking the test.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)