How Gritty Are You?

What are the causes of success? My college students in my Math Study Skills class have been researching this topic since each one of them desires to be successful at math. We watched a six minute video by Angela Lee Duckworth: The Key to Success? Grit on You Tube.  She relates how she left a top paying job in consulting, to teach math to seventh graders in a New York public school. She soon realized that IQ wasn't the only thing separating her successful students from those who struggled. In the video, she describes her theory of "grit" as a predictor of success.  Below is a summary of what she says.

At first glance, the answer is easy: success is about talent. It’s about being able to do something – hit a baseball, play chess, write a blog – better than most anyone else. But what is talent? How did that person get so good at hitting a baseball or playing chess? For a long time, talent seemed to be about inheritance, about the blessed set of genes that gave rise to some particular skill. Einstein had the physics gene, Beethoven had the symphony gene, and Tiger Woods (at least until his car crash) had the golf swing gene. The outcome, of course, is that you and I can’t become chess grandmasters or composers or golf pros because we don’t have the necessary anatomy. Endless hours of hard work won’t compensate for our biological limitations.

But think about this - Beethoven wasn’t born Beethoven.  He had to work extremely hard to become Beethoven. Talent is about practice. Talent takes effort. Talent requires a good coach. But these answers only raise more questions. What, for instance, allows someone to practice for so long? Why are some people so much better at deliberate practice? If talent is about hard work, then what factors influence how hard we can work?

It is deliberate (conscious, intentional, planned) practice that spells success. In other words, deliberate practice works. People who spend more time in deliberate practice mode perform much better. The bad news is that deliberate practice isn't fun and is consistently rated as the least enjoyable form of self-improvement. Nevertheless, as golfers, musicians, etc. gain experience, they devote increasing amounts of time to deliberate practice, and consistent, deliberate practice is done by grit. Not surprisingly, those with grit are more single-minded about their goals – they tend to get obsessed with certain activities – and also more likely to persist in the face of struggle and failure. Woody Allen famously declared that "Eighty percent of success is showing up." Grit is what allows you to show up again and again

While grit has little or nothing to do with intelligence (as measured by IQ scores), it often explains why an individual is successful. Thomas Edison was right: "Even genius is mostly just perspiration."

Our most important talent is having a talent for working hard, for practicing even when practice isn't fun. It’s about putting in the hours when we’d much rather be watching TV, or drilling ourselves with note cards filled with obscure words instead of getting quizzed by a friend. Success is never easy. That’s why talent requires grit.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Duckworth, A.L., & Gross, J.J. (2014). Self-control and grit: Related but separable

determinants of success. Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 23(5), 319-325

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How does your grit compare with others? I had my students take the 12 point survey developed by Duckworth to see how they rated. Some were surprised while others were well aware of their grit level. I even took it!  Want to give it a try or have your students see how gritty they are?  Just click on the word "survey."  When you have completed the survey, fill in the score grid below to find out just how gritty you truly are.

Faux Diamonds

In some preschool and kindergarten classes across the country, the geometric shape formerly known as a diamond is now being called a rhombus.  Why?  Does it matter? 

To be honest, a diamond is not technically a mathematical shape whereas a rhombus is.  When someone says the word rhombus, you know they are referring to a quadrilateral that has all four sides the same length; the opposite sides are parallel, and the opposite angles are equal.  (Mathematical Warning: A rhombus is not thinner than a diamond, AND the plural form, rhombi, is not a dance performed on the program Dancing With the Stars.)  

But what comes to mind when you hear the word diamond?  If you are a woman, you might envision a large sparkling gem setting on the ring finger of your left hand.  If you are a guy, you might think of a baseball infield. (The distance between each base is the same, making the shape a diamond.)  If you play cards, the word might bring to mind a suit of playing cards, OR you might recall a line in the song, Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star.  Calling a rhombus a diamond is similar to calling a child a "kid" (could be a baby goat), or a home your "pad" (might be a notebook).  The first is an accurate term, the second one is not. 

So how does this affect you as a teacher?  It doesn't, unless rhombus is on a local benchmark or state test.  But if you are an elementary grade teacher, please use the correct mathematical language because a middle school math teacher will thank you; a high school geometry teacher will sing your praises, (see song below) and a college math teacher, like me, will absolutely love you for it!

Rhombus, Rhombus, Rhombus

  (sung to the "Conga" tune)
(The song where everyone is in a line with their hands on each other's shoulders)

 Rhombus, rhombus, rhombus;

Rhombus, rhombus, rhombus

Once it was diamond;

Now it's called a rhombus.

Common Core Who-Dun-It Mystery

As a member of Teachers Pay Teachers, I often read and share on their Seller's Forum.  As the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) become more "common", many teachers are asking about things being omitted or totally left out.  Let's start this discussion with what the Common Core supposedly is.  CCSS is a state-led effort coordinated by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers. The standards establish common goals for reading, writing and math skills that students should develop from grades K-12.  Although classroom curriculum is left to the states (which actually had no input into the process), the standards emphasize critical thinking and problem solving and encourage thinking in-depth about fewer topics.

With that said, this is the way I perceive these standards.  When I started teaching, (I have been at it for 30+ years) the curriculum was a nice, juicy apple. Included were subjects like spelling, geography, history, and cursive writing.  In addition, areas such as effort and behavior were evaluated. I can't remember ever giving a state or national test, but I did have to teach art, music and P.E. The majority of the children went home for lunch where some adult was waiting for them.  Later, the arts were added to the curriculum and qualified teachers were hired to teach art, music and P.E. (Thank goodness!)

Then came the slicing of the apple.  One test was introduced and given each year.  (We gave the ITBS.)  Objectives were written that were different from the textbook, and more children were staying at school for lunch.  As time progressed, additional slices of the apple were removed as "before and after" school programs became necessary for children and free lunches became common place.  In addition, more than one test was required because now the district and the state wanted data.  History and geography became social studies, and phonics and spelling were replaced with the whole language approach.  I was directly a part of our district's benchmark test writing project where much money and time were devoted to the test that would reveal all, make teachers better, and students smarter.  Of course, none of those things occurred, and the money wasted could have been better spent on teachers who really make the difference in the classroom.  (By the way, all of those assessments are now gone.)

Many advocate that the CCSS will become the tool that can successfully turn around education.  Let's remember that these standards are merely the minimum each grade level is to master.  Think of the CCSS as the core of an apple; there is no "meat" on the core, just the left over part of the apple.  The basics are there; but teachers need to add the meat, but will they, especially since the high stake tests that are imminent will most likely only test the core?  My question is: How much testing will be required; how often, and at what expense in money and time?  And who will pay the price?

I did some of my own reading of the CCSS, particularly those for the "key" grades of K-3.  Yes, the CCSS requires the multiplication tables be taught through 10, but does that mean a teacher shouldn't go to 12?  I personally want all of my algebra students to know the doubles through 25 because it makes finding the square root so much easier.  Since the multiplication fact is in the student's head, no calculator is required!  I also observed that money is not mentioned anywhere in the common core for grades K-3 except in second grade.  Covering that standard is going to be a daunting task for 2nd grade teachers if students have never seen it before.  (I did find the money standard in grades 4th, 6th, and 7th, and after that, money was considered Consumer Science.)  In addition, there is no standard for patterns in kindergarten which I find quite disturbing since all math is based on patterns.  Time and introductory place value have also been deleted.  If students do not get these basic concepts in kindergarten, it is obvious they cannot grasp the more complex ones in later grades.

As I read the many different responses on the TPT Forum as well as various articles about the Common Core, I realized that many teachers are viewing them as the all-in-all.  If that is all that will be taught, education is in BIG trouble.  I would suggest reading a rather thought provoking and eye opening article by Carol Burris, principal of South Side High School in New York. She was named the 2010 New York State Outstanding Educator by the School Administrators Association of New York State, and she is co-author of the book Opening the Common Core.

My primary concern is that the Common Core will become so focused and fixated on a limited number of standards that little will be left of well-rounded education except a very inadequate and flimsy core. If a teacher only follows the common core and nothing more, students will miss important building blocks in between. I believe education is an exciting and engaging lifetime journey, not a final destination or a binding contract with any government. I trust and hope parents (families) are the constant in this equation (a math word!) while schools and teachers are the variable. (both will change over time) How can any test adequately measure that?

Here is a ten minute video which explains the Common Core so that

anyone can understand it. Check it out at: Common Core

Much Ado About Nothing

I have decided to post (this is an updated previous post from 2011) some questions about zero that my college students have asked me in class.  I will say this, "Zero can surely give you a severe headache unless one knows its properties."  

Question #1 - Do you know why zero is an even number?    All mathematics is based on patterns.  Because of this, I know that an even plus an even number will always give me an even answer; an odd number added to an odd also gives me an even answer, and an odd number plus an even gives me an odd answer. In other words:    E + E = E     O + O = E     O + E = O



The numbers 4 and -4 are both even numbers. If we add them together, their sum is zero.  Based on the math pattern of  E + E = E,  then zero has to be even as well.  If we substitute zero in other problems such as 1 + 0 = 1, it fits the O + E = O  rule just as 2 + 0 = 2 fits the E + E = E  rule.

In Algebra, even numbers can be written as 2 x n where n is an integer.  Odd numbers can be written in the form of  2 x n + 1.  If we have n represent 0, then  2 x n = 0 (even) and  2 x n + 1 = 1. (odd)

I say all of this to relate an actual incident that occurred in my classroom.  I wrote the number 934 on the white board, and commented that since it was even it was divisible by 2.  One of my students was perplexed because he did not understand how 934 could be even when it contained two odd numbers and only one even number.  He actually thought that all the digits of a number had to be even for the number to be even.  Funny?  Not really!  Amazingly, he had made it through 12 years of school without understanding Place value as it relates to even numbers. Unfortunately, I had assumed that everyone (especially my college students) knew what an even number was.  I no longer make assumptions about students and their math knowledge!

Question #2 - Is zero positive or negative? The definition for positive numbers is all numbers greater than zero, and the definition for negative numbers is all numbers less than zero. Therefore zero can be neither positive or negative.

Question #3 - Is zero a prime or composite number? To be a prime number, a number must have only two positive divisors, itself and one. Zero has an infinite number of divisors so it is not prime. A composite number can be written as a product of two factors, neither of which is itself. Since zero cannot be written as a product of two factors without including itself, zero, it is not composite.

Question #4 - Why can't you divide by zero? I love this question. Back in the dark ages when I asked it, I was always told, "Because I said so." Being an inquisitive student was not a blessing when I was growing up. Math teachers who knew all did not want to be questioned!!!! Anyway, I don't mind the question, and here is my practical answer.

First, we must understand division. Division means putting or separating a number of items into a number of specific groups or sets. When you divide, such as in the problem 12 divided by 2, you are really putting 12 things into two groups or two sets. Therefore, if you have the problem 8 divided by 0, it is impossible to put eight things into no groups. You cannot put something into nothing!



Hopefully, this clears up a few things about zero.  I leave you with this math cheer.  (I always wanted to be a cheerleader!)

                            Zero, two, four, six, eight,

Who do we appreciate?

Even numbers! Even Numbers! Even Numbers!