|
Post by brophy on May 27, 2010 16:34:59 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by currier58 on May 27, 2010 18:10:25 GMT -6
Very interesting article. One of the most frustrating parts of coaching is to see kids with loads of potential wash out because they were unable to function in the academic environment that was in place. Studies like this are a step in the right direction to help some of these kids.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on May 27, 2010 18:36:40 GMT -6
What I thought was interesting was just how both groups were intelligent, just that they processed data differently. "Low income" may be a nice way of saying "culture", I assume
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on May 27, 2010 21:13:04 GMT -6
brophy-- I would disagree with your assessment of what Low Income means. In the educational field as well as academia...low income means low income. Low income kids in West Virginia have a different culture than low income kids in New Orleans East.
|
|
|
Post by outlawjoseywales on May 27, 2010 21:42:15 GMT -6
Man, although I find this interesting, I wouldn't touch that study with a 10 foot pole. But thanks for the article.
As usual our very own "scientist," well he writes like one, 5085, has a good point. Both he and Brophy are talking culture.
|
|
|
Post by currier58 on May 27, 2010 21:44:38 GMT -6
The point of the study that Brophy posted about was that there is a relationship between SES and a student's ability to learn or at least how they learn. Obviously the poor students in one part of the country are not exactly like those on the other side of the country, but they may process information in similar ways. That is the point of the article.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on May 27, 2010 22:01:09 GMT -6
The point of the study that Brophy posted about was that there is a relationship between SES and a student's ability to learn or at least how they learn. Obviously the poor students in one part of the country are not exactly like those on the other side of the country, but they may process information in similar ways. That is the point of the article. exactly....which is why I stated Low income =low income...and culture = culture when discussing SES in education and academia.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on May 27, 2010 22:36:11 GMT -6
'Culture" as in classism......not race or genetics.
The culture of low-income communities is the day-to-day living, if it isn't instant it doesn't matter. This visceral reinforcement is not going to respond to the curriculum/classroom that doesn't mimic in harmony the 'life' at home.
Your brain doesn't know how much your 401k is clearing, it DOES know how it has been conditioned to respond. The dissonance of a conflicting message (curriculum) to that which you have been receiving at home creates a 'lost in translation' inefficiency in absorbing material. [This is the relation to teaching football]
I'm not suggesting the study is gospel or if it has any merit at all, just that it was an interesting perspective.
|
|
|
Post by currier58 on May 27, 2010 22:58:46 GMT -6
The point of the study that Brophy posted about was that there is a relationship between SES and a student's ability to learn or at least how they learn. Obviously the poor students in one part of the country are not exactly like those on the other side of the country, but they may process information in similar ways. That is the point of the article. exactly....which is why I stated Low income =low income...and culture = culture when discussing SES in education and academia. To say that low income=low income seems dismissive of the study and the chance that learning styles may be linked to SES. If learning styles are linked throughout a majority of low income students, then it is clearly do to a culture of instant gratification as Brophy alluded to.
|
|
|
Post by currier58 on May 27, 2010 23:02:41 GMT -6
The point of the study that Brophy posted about was that there is a relationship between SES and a student's ability to learn or at least how they learn. Obviously the poor students in one part of the country are not exactly like those on the other side of the country, but they may process information in similar ways. That is the point of the article. exactly....which is why I stated Low income =low income...and culture = culture when discussing SES in education and academia. To say that low income=low income seems dismissive of the study and the chance that learning styles may be linked to SES. If learning styles are linked throughout a majority of low income students, then it is clearly do to a culture of instant gratification as Brophy alluded to.
|
|
|
Post by outlawjoseywales on May 28, 2010 0:23:22 GMT -6
Whoa, now Brophy is sounding like a "scientist" what is this world coming to? Y'all are making my head hurt at this late hour. OJW
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on May 28, 2010 4:55:54 GMT -6
Read "THe Bell Curve" Cognitive ability seems to have some genetic roots VERY detailed and well researched book with an unreal amount of supported statistics Not popular- but difficult to factually and logically argiue against Since its release it's premise seems to be being proven out Larger amoounts of $$ spent per student seems to have little to no correlation to improvements in cognitive ability or academic success Same with class size and other factors pointed out in the book, interesting and controversial read,
|
|
|
Post by brophy on May 28, 2010 5:14:49 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by airmale on May 28, 2010 6:40:55 GMT -6
If SES explains all, how do poor kids succeed? How do rich kids fail? Everyone exposed to the same set of stimuli do not react the same. That is the problem with social justice.
Culture=racism. We can not even discuss culture as it relates to learning unless we blame a different culutre for another culture's failings.
All cultures are equally valid and should be respected. No they aren't. Is today's Hip Hop culture working wonders for our youth? How about the backwoods hillbilly culture of Appalachia?
If Johnny's parents don't value reading, Johnny won't read. We have lowest of low Southeast Asians moving into our community everyday. Why do they succeed? Parents value education. Only problem is kids are getting caught up in our latest high value culture, Gangsterism, and falling off the block.
Irish immigrants preyed on Irish. Italian immigrants preyed on Italians. Asian immigrants prey on Asians. Hatian immigrants prey on Haitians. The problem is blacks have been kept on the plantation by politicians. Keep us dumb, ignorant, blame the white guy, and give us a check. Now we can sit back and wait for Science! to provide us with a reason we allow our children to join gangs, have children in their teens, and fail in school.
We need to quit waiting for Science! to come to our rescue. Leave the Jacksons and Sharptons at the pass. How about reading the likes of Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, Jesse Lee Peterson? How did these people become leading intellectualists in the most racist place in the world? Why are these guys not trotted out as often as the race traders? Because they don't excuse failure. They understand that if we sit back waiting for Science! and White Guilt to level the playing field we will lose another generation. Sorry for the rant.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on May 28, 2010 6:43:39 GMT -6
please.....please....please
just read the article before y'all jump in with your political rants (sigh) based on reading the title alone
I assumed it was an interesting article for discussion amongst teachers of the game - not a jump off point for propaganda
|
|
|
Post by flexoption91 on May 28, 2010 6:43:44 GMT -6
From reading the article, thinking about my experiences over the last few years in a lower socioeconomic school district, and previous experiences in higher socioeconomic districts, the research makes sense.
Strictly, from educational observation perspective, I agree with the research when it states that students from SES families are more aware of everything around them. This can be very frustrating in the classroom, because often these students are all over the place worrying about 100 things instead of the presented task. Students from SES homes have a very hard time summarizing material, because they focus on everything instead of main ideas/important concepts. That being said, when these students are able to guided onto the correct thought path, they are extremely insightful because they have internalized their surroundings.
That being said, students from high socioeconomic families can get tunnel vision at times. This, at least from my social studies perspective, can be equally as frustrating an SES student’s over-awareness of surroundings. The student’s from higher socioeconomic families get so locked on “academic success” that they can lose focus on broader issues.
I will be interested to see where this research goes, but as I said, based solely on classroom observation and experience reality seems to fit the findings. Both low and high socioeconomic status has their good points and bad. The hard part comes when you have both in one class and trying to determine how to best serve each.
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on May 28, 2010 6:54:59 GMT -6
please.....please....please just read the article before y'all jump in with your political rants (sigh) based on reading the title alone I assumed it was an interesting article for discussion amongst teachers of the game - not a jump off point for propaganda The very same can be said of the Bell Curve Not popular or politically correct= instant critcism Piles of in depth numbers and studies from huge sample sizes to back up their premise Instead of googling what the left pundits say, better to read it for ones self and make their own open minded conclusions
|
|
|
Post by coachwoodall on May 28, 2010 7:42:09 GMT -6
Brain development is affected by many different factors, from the time of conception all the way through childhood.
The single biggest factor may be the number of words directed at the child. To quote Thomas Sowell:
A heartbreaking social statistic is that children on welfare have only about half as many words per day directed at them as the children of working-class families-- and less than one-third as many words as children whose parents are professionals. This is especially painful in view of the fact that scientists have found that the actual physical development of the brain is affected by how much interaction young children receive. So far as the study, while it may be of merit, I would question whether or not this scan actually gives the answer to Dr. Swain's question or whether is giving an answer to a totally different query. Not to mention whether this scan actually tells anything at all.
We know so little about how the brain works. The more scientist look into the functioning of the brain, it seems the more questions arise. Could the reason for: He found that children from low SES families tend to use far more parts of their brain during the test than kids from middle-income families. It was as if the low SES children paid equal attention to every sound they heard, he says. Children from high-income homes only paid close attention to the two tones they had been asked to identify. Be that the kids from low SES were processing the sounds with more parts of the brain, as suggested, or could it be a higher level of fear/anxiety? Could they think that the test was a form of punishment? Could it be the fact that maybe they didn't eat a meal before hand?
I tend to take 'brain research' studies with a grain of salt. Have our brains evoled/devolved that much in the last 2-3 generations? Has our level of technology advanced so much that we can actually understand what the brain does at all?
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on May 28, 2010 7:51:16 GMT -6
'Culture" as in classism......not race or genetics. The culture of low-income communities is the day-to-day living, if it isn't instant it doesn't matter. This visceral reinforcement is not going to respond to the curriculum/classroom that doesn't mimic in harmony the 'life' at home. Your brain doesn't know how much your 401k is clearing, it DOES know how it has been conditioned to respond. The dissonance of a conflicting message (curriculum) to that which you have been receiving at home creates a 'lost in translation' inefficiency in absorbing material. [This is the relation to teaching football] I'm not suggesting the study is gospel or if it has any merit at all, just that it was an interesting perspective. I wasn't discussing race or genetics either. I was speaking strictly about SES classes. The day to day living is one part of the culture of poverty. However I do think it is important to recognize that there is a difference between urban low income and rural low income (REGARDLESS OF RACE--RACE NON FACTOR). That was what I was trying to point out. That in the academic world, and in the educational world, low SES is simply conveying numbers on a piece of paper, and not delving into other things. Using the word "culture" starts to bring in things such as the tenement building in the picture, etc etc. Currier I think you misunderstood my point. I wasn't being dismissive at all. I was stating that as used in the article as well as in other academic work, low SES simply describes #'s on the paper, and not any particular other characteristics of that demographic as the word "culture" does. Maybe it is just ME, but when I hear "culture" I think of other things simply than a number on paper. That is why I don't think they are synonymous in this article. As far as coaching/teaching... I think this idea has been "understood" for quite a while, but it becomes the third rail politically when trying to discuss it (especially in my part of the country) because all too often the SES line mirrors race.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on May 28, 2010 8:22:23 GMT -6
Be that the kids from low SES were processing the sounds with more parts of the brain, as suggested, or could it be a higher level of fear/anxiety? Could it be the fact that maybe they didn't eat a meal before hand? all good points worth exploring Have our brains evoled/devolved that much in the last 2-3 generations? Has our level of technology advanced so much that we can actually understand what the brain does at all? but I thought we didn't know much about the brain to begin with, so if we didn't recognize cognitive patterns of the brain 2-3 generations ago, how can we quantifiably say that they have 'evolved'? the academic world, and in the educational world, low SES is simply conveying numbers on a piece of paper, and not delving into other things. Using the word "culture" starts to bring in things such as the tenement building in the picture, etc etc. great points and it serves as a perfect buoy to the study (not to get ahead of ourselves jumping to foregone conclusions....it was just a scientist in the infancy of a study) As far as coaching/teaching... I think this idea has been "understood" for quite a while, but it becomes the third rail politically when trying to discuss it (especially in my part of the country) because all too often the SES line mirrors race. true (coaching part) And unfortunately, 'your situation' is rather unique and the recipe for that particular brew is unlike any other part of the country on so many levels (not just 1 or 2 particular elements), and the educators there are up against a fatiguing challenge. However, if we can better identify the stimuli that better reach a certain demographic by exploring effective trends, maybe WE (all) can benefit. It would appear the main thrust of this study is not WHAT, but how information is presented ( as flexoption91 alluded to) and what factors coaches can be mindful of when teaching the game
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on May 28, 2010 8:29:31 GMT -6
I took Ed Psyc about 30 years ago. The professor made this statement on my first day of college "If mother is idjot and father is idjot, most probably, child will be idjot!"
I have found in my 26+ years as an educator that Dr. Valdez was a smart man.
|
|
|
Post by airraider on May 28, 2010 8:35:46 GMT -6
I think it very basic terms it has the most to do with what is seen as necessity.. For the low income child.. its eating that day.. for the high income child it might be getting to school early enough to finish a project...
Like Brophy said.. Its about instant need/gratification.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on May 28, 2010 9:01:43 GMT -6
This is one of those smart threads where I try to contribute and put my foot in my mouth......
To me, I think our conversation would do better if we focus on the utility of the study.
To be honest, I don't care WHY the kids are different, I care HOW I can overcome that difference and get them the information they need.
If I need to teach pass pro scheme two different ways so both demographics can get it, I will.
Problem is, I don't know how to teach different things to different kids.
If I have a kid who, when watching film, can not block out what the WR's and QB is doing and just focus on his job, how can I re-teach it?
That way, I'm not discriminating against a kid who "just didn't get it"............when in fact, I WAS THE ONE FAILING THIS KID!!!
|
|
|
Post by brophy on May 28, 2010 9:13:16 GMT -6
To be honest, I don't care WHY the kids are different, I care HOW I can overcome that difference and get them the information they need. That way, I'm not discriminating against a kid who "just didn't get it"............when in fact, I WAS THE ONE FAILING THIS KID!!! perfect I think I've been guilty of this by forcing everything through the straw of process/step-by-step and limiting the information presented (here is how I would want this presented). I assume that this would simply introduce/emphasize the need to use various different teaching methods simultaneously.
|
|
|
Post by coachwoodall on May 28, 2010 9:13:17 GMT -6
I agree this is a worthy topic to explore the use of these findings. But this one last point, I equate brain research to quantum mechanics. You have to have the math in order to understand it, because you sure can't see it. I just don't think we have the math yet. Sorry if I got us off topic
Brophy, I was taking a little bit of a jab at the 'kids ain't like they use to be' thinking.
Maybe we already do this, adjust how we teach based on the players cognitive ablity. We all have had that kid athletic enough but not smart enough to play _________, so move him to ________.
Would this be an example of adaptive teaching or would it be an example of out moded teaching models?
|
|
|
Post by brophy on May 28, 2010 9:33:23 GMT -6
To the point of rationale-conditioning, I've best heard it stated (with regards to managing money) "we spend money like its not gonna be there tomorrow"
Meaning, conventional wisdom would tell you to save for the future, plan, only purchase based on logic, etc.....but when confronted with purchasing power (when you don't always have) with it all is filtered through the trigger of immediate result/gratification. This is why so many money-making schemes prey upon the poor (easy credit ripoff).
|
|
|
Post by wingtol on May 28, 2010 9:52:43 GMT -6
I totally understand the point of the article since I teach in a school that is very low SES school and see this in motion every day. we can go round and round with all the causes of what the research is showing and argue till we are blue in the face.
So the research shows a Montessori setting maybe beneficial in these areas, but is that even possible in the football world? I know in football you can use a variety of teaching methods: demonstration, lecture, repetition etc etc but I think it's pretty much impossible to use a Montessori approach. What do you just walk onto the field and say "Ok everybody go work on some drills that you want to do."
|
|
|
Post by mariner42 on May 28, 2010 10:15:09 GMT -6
So the research shows a Montessori setting maybe beneficial in these areas, but is that even possible in the football world? I know in football you can use a variety of teaching methods: demonstration, lecture, repetition etc etc but I think it's pretty much impossible to use a Montessori approach. What do you just walk onto the field and say "Ok everybody go work on some drills that you want to do." I think you can lead them to understanding a technique a bit better. For example: I had a DB coach that, before teaching his kids to press with a certain leverage, had them try to press a receiver from a head up position. They had a really, really hard time doing it because the receiver has a two-way go. After a few reps for everyone, he stops the drill and asks "What would help you do this job better?" Almost all of them will say something like "If we knew which way he was going to go" and then he says "And how can we do that?" and then they have the lightbulb go off and say "Well, if we were only on one side of him, we'd know he can't go that way..." and then they start working it with leverage and holy cow! it's easy! This isn't a perfect technique of teaching and is somewhat time inefficient, but they certainly UNDERSTAND why it's important to have good leverage afterwards. There's a degree of self-discovery to it, while being properly monitored/coached.
|
|
|
Post by Coach JR on May 28, 2010 11:49:23 GMT -6
'Culture" as in classism......not race or genetics. The culture of low-income communities is the day-to-day living, if it isn't instant it doesn't matter. This visceral reinforcement is not going to respond to the curriculum/classroom that doesn't mimic in harmony the 'life' at home. Your brain doesn't know how much your 401k is clearing, it DOES know how it has been conditioned to respond. The dissonance of a conflicting message (curriculum) to that which you have been receiving at home creates a 'lost in translation' inefficiency in absorbing material. [This is the relation to teaching football] I'm not suggesting the study is gospel or if it has any merit at all, just that it was an interesting perspective. Low income and low education tend to go hand in hand. People that don't care that much about school tend to pass that on to their kids and also tend to be unemployed or emplyed in more menial jobs. Parents that do care, tend to pass that on. There are so many factors to look at, but generally speaking it's a chicken or egg argument. Affluent areas produce more kids that excell academically. Lower income areas produce less. Lots of ways to look at why that's true, and I'm sure you could fashion a study to say just about anything you wanted about it.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on May 28, 2010 12:19:10 GMT -6
This was a good answer Brophy gave on his site about how we as coaches can make this useful/helpful to us and our kids: it would appear that the surrounding stimuli (Gestalt 'big picture' concept) would affect the LI kids and the HI kids would be more fixated on the process (step by step).
Meaning, your LI may not have the patience or trust to slowly digest small pieces and may do better to be given an 'organic' learning milieu where they can see the entire thing put together.
Your HI kids may not respond well to that method and would appreciate the step-by-step skill set = performance (putting them in 'big picture' worlds might drown them)
They'll play the game how they play the game, but what we can control is how we deliver the information. Unfortunately, none of this is cut and dry (teach one kid one way, teach another another way), but a mixture of varying environments. So, we have step-by-step kids and big picture kids (to vastly over simplify). As a side note, I could see how standardized testing is discriminatory toward the big picture kids....... I'm going to attempt an analogy, so bear with me. I've heard more than one coach say they do not want a smart kid playing running back..........what they mean is they would rather have a doer than a thinker. Perhaps the 'big picture' learning style is what's really behind it. What we would normally consider a "dumb" kid who just "knows how to run like hell" is actually a different type of intelligence that process big picture without the minutia getting in the way. Compare this to the straight A kid, who, despite his equal physical stature and ability as the "dumb kid" is too robotic to start. Does that make sense? BTW, I think some of this is getting into "ID vs. IQ"........... Dumb linebacker sees the big picture of the blocking scheme.......smart one lacks that intuition. Again, this is very generalized, but the generalities can help us coaches understand not only how to teach the "dumb" kids, but also the smart ones. Some guys need specific stimulus clues, while others need general stimulus clues.........and of course, the muscle memory of INDY drills to take over once a launch decision has been made. Interesting.............and by "interesting" I mean "I barely get it".........
|
|