Secondly, your little spinny things gave me a flashback to an art exhibit I went to about 15 years ago, which I have inexplicably not thought about since becoming a math teacher. The artist was Arthur Ganson. He makes machines. One of them is a series of twelve gear setups that each reduce the revolution rate to 1/50 of the previous. A motor turns the first gear at 200rpm; the last gear is embedded in concrete. All Ganson’s machines are charming, whimsical, and sort of mathematically provocative. (For example.)

@MatrixFrog, Maria and Touzel – a propos of the motivation question I read a compelling post by Jesse Johnson on how the question “what’s it for?” is actually usually a code for “I’m bored” or “I’m lost.” MatrixFrog I think you’re right that it’s the wrong question to focus on, or at least those of us teachers who are not engaged by the question should feel free to not focus on it. It is enough to focus on keeping the problems provocative, the level of challenge appropriate, and making sure the students are getting opportunities to be creative.

For example, most kids these days are motivated to produce social media, so any class that helps them make better YouTube videos, become better bloggers, or figure out networking opportunities of FaceBook is hugely motivating. Right now, I am co-teaching an unclass about physics, modeling and math in the context of programming and computer game design. All kids in the group are gamers, and the opportunity to develop their own games and share with the world (we use Scratch for now) is motivating them rather long-term. Math and physics enters powerfully.

Then particular kids have particular long-term interests. For example, kids from my daughter’s “writing circles” – little clubs and online groups for writing – are very interested in metaphors, linguistics (even as an area of math – look at Eastern European linguistic Olympiads for a sample), visual literacy and diagramming work (http://www.visual-literacy.org/pages/documents.htm), logic and definition-making and anything else that can help them become better writers – now, not when they graduate college.

I don’t think kids say to themselves, “I need to focus on this lesson about properties of chords because I will use it in life some day,” but rather “I need to focus on this lesson because I need to get good grades because I need to get into college.” And that’s if they don’t first think “I don’t give a shit about this”.

So, from a motivation standpoint, I don’t think it motivates most kids to do something because they might use it some day, as much as it demotivates them to not do boring bookwork because it is contrived and uninspiring.

In what remedial class do all students have those relevant prior skills? Only if the teacher starts on the first day building from the very basics, includes everyone, and avoids no drop zones will the class and the kids succeed.

A textbook can’t do that. But textbooks are developed by phds. They are “research based” and “peer reviewed.” Teaching from the text covers a teacher’s ass.

You are among the few who can say that the texts suck because you’re operating from an understanding of math and how it works that most teachers can’t grok.

You not only teach the class but you develop your curriculum as you go. That requires a much higher understanding of the process, a higher order of brain development. The vast majority of teachers, regardless of education level, can’t do this. If asked to do it, they will be in over their heads. Read Robert Kegan’s In Over Our Heads: The Mental Demands of Modern Life.

There aren’t enough of you and there never will be.

The problem is the system. School as factory assembly line, where the standards march on. A place where the teacher is the sole source of knowledge and, if the teacher is junk, you lose. A system that creates Behind, a miserable place of no drop zones.

I’m working on something that can help. Meanwhile, thank God for teachers like you. And thanks for the great metaphor.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by Dan Meyer: Teachers, beware no-drop zones. http://bit.ly/3kllDR…

I won’t argue with you, but I find it rather sad that there are really no long-term motivators available to kids at this age. Actually, quite a few parents in local homeschool groups where I belong make it a top priority to help kids find such motivators. Career is only one possibility. While I don’t like them for several reasons, math competitions provide another. Then long-term involved projects, such as robotics or software design, can do the trick. For some, it is college entrance tests.

Learning tools because old tools are weak is good; it’s beautiful really! I love the pedagogical device. I think it’s necessary. Not sufficient, though, and something long-term – career, project, team work, something – has to be in place as a motivator, as well.