Recent searches
Search options
1. Do they seem to have been taught a different method for something you remember? Not a problem: get them to #teach you theirs, and encourage them to try to understand yours. See if you can spot similarities. Why do both work? Can you find reasons why one may be "better" than the other (there are no right answers here, but just being more familiar doesn't count)?
2. Are they doing something you don't recognise, or maybe you do recognise but never got the hang of it? Get them to #teach you as much of it as they can. Work together on it. Admit that you don't understand it YET but don't use this as an excuse to not engage. Learning new things is a positive thing. Not understanding something is a prerequisite for learning something new.
4. That's not just in front of your children, either: stop doing it with other adults. Better still, challenge other adults to stop doing it. If you want your child to succeed in #maths you MUST genuinely have a positive attitude towards it, not just fake it in front of them.
Challenging adults to stop being openly negative about maths is hard because it's a pretty sore spot for some & we don't want to make anything worse (or start an argument). But leaving it to fester isn't good either.
So when *you* call out public negativity towards maths... How?
Sometimes I like to dig around a bit and find out what they actually *mean*. "I [hate\am bad at\etc] maths" doesn't really contain much info when you think about it: what do you mean by "maths"? How would you recognise it if it entered the room? What are your criteria for not being able to "do" it? What does "doing" and "not doing" maths look like to you? What do you think the difference is between people who "can do maths" and those who "can't do maths"?
There's another version of this which comes from framing mathematics or mathematical thinking as cold/ inhuman/ evil, etc—those conversations can be quite toxic, when the other frames any attempt at abstraction or analysis as 'anti-decent'
I think behind both your point and the above, is that some individuals access (and arbitrarily use, or simulate) their internal models of the world more than others – (with good reason for both types of thinking) – and until we learn to translate across that divide, we are fairly doomed to misinterpret one another
My take, is that any person will slowly shift towards independent modelling for survival, but that there are side effects (which relate to increasing aversion to interruption while modelling), which means (as a species), that we default to not independently modelling, to more easily get along in larger groups (with respective increase in interruption)
- a recall/ derivation (or simulation) distinction, if you will
> aside: the middle ground is that modellers can recall the result of previously run simulations – which is less averse to interruption (I imagine that this is essential for maths teachers, etc! does this relate?)
I suggest this same aversion to interruption also plays a part while attempting mathematics in sub optimal environments. And that this aversion can become associated with the topic of focus, mathematics, rather than the problematic circumstances of the environment.
At this point the situation might appear as though mathematics is the problem, but really, the only fix, is dedicated interruption free time, to reset previous emotional association with interest or joy, etc. Essentially therapy!
Thoughts? 
@themanual4am I think your points fit with the idea that negative associations with mathematics are the problem and that these are not genuine aspects of mathematics, but perceptions.
Hello! It's been a while!
Sure, yes. I was pointing at a pavlovian type association, attributing negative consequences of a suboptimal learning environment to "insufficient personal capability", or similar: typically toward the task at hand in the moment; in this case mathematics
I think that sometimes when can't do something and don't understand why, we blame ourselves, and almost unconsciously conclude that "we simply can't do that thing, no matter how much we try"
I suggest that this is a selected for operational optimisation. In principle: once x attempts to "climb a tree" (or whatever) prove unsuccessful, with undetermined cause, stop wasting finite energy/ resources; in effect, flag the task-category to be avoided in the future
At that point (speculating), any attempt to persuade an individual to retry in earnest, must include sufficient concrete information to resolve either:
1. "what went wrong originally". To reevaluate causal circumstances enough to try again given new circumstances
2. "what must be done now, explicitly". A literal cognitive step-by-step, to lead a persons focussed-attention though sufficient conceptual waypoints to reach some related objective, thus directly demonstrating to them "perhaps they *can* do this after all"
So yes, absolutely -- whatever the topic/ task at hand (including mathematics), I think that 1 and 2 relate to operational mechanics of cognition, learning and autonomy; and that for some, no amount of "damn the fruit up there is swee-eee-eet" will be enough to persuade them it is worth trying again
I suppose, if madness is repeating the same thing again expecting different results, then we need to demonstrate *this time isn't the same*
@themanual4am yeah, I found the response in my drafts (which means internet access had failed when I tried to post but I didn't notice).
I think both 1&2 can be made harder where the person is / has been immersed in a culture of negativity towards maths, and eased (however slightly, but I suspect proportionally) if they've generally been surrounded by maths-happiness. This is a large part of why I think it's important to work towards better attitudes to maths in society, and that this can't happen if the responsibility for this is entirely on maths teachers.