Making that Difference

   So last night I got the first result I thought - 'hmm, should have done better' at. The result in question was a B, for a pupil who in the mocks got an E - so on the face of it - fine. And yet, and yet, he should have got an A, at least that was what I thought - that was what he was working to in the sessions.
   The problem is of course the ghost that haunts maths tuition, the one I seem to spend my life exorcising and thinking about. The simple fact is that pupils behave differently in tuitions than they do in exams and under the 'pressure' of an exam; and this was a pupil who had this track record of under performing. The game was therefore to ensure that he knew the sorts of questions well enough, and had enough practice, enough mathematical 'bottom', to fight the gremlins of 'sitting the exam', which given that the second exam this year (a calculator paper) was very tricky, was certainly needed. Hard exams require bottom (call it confidence if you like), and he now had it, so did not go to pieces, and yet, did not keep it enough to perform to grade.
   My beef (with myself) is that I should have done better. At issue here, is one of the real arts and mysteries of teaching. Put simply, teaching 'how to answer questions' is a dark science. To take in a 'perfect answer'  is as bad as to try to get pupils to questions they simply cannot do. The game is always to start them off, and get them sparking, get them thinking for themselves - asking the right question, and moving the perspective around, and showing them how one does it and why. In short it is to get them thinking -  and most of them, bless them, all can do that. The trouble of course is how they then react to the fact they are 'thinking'. Many are frankly scared by it. They are not used to it, and are forever coming up with reasons why they cannot really think, if you are not in the room, and say so even as they are working through the questions themselves. I think the question here is really one of trust and the courage that goes with it. To think is to risk one's own genius, and to trust the examiner with that genius, and perhaps with some justification (given how GCSE maths appears to be something of a political football at the moment) they are simply very very unwilling to do this. However good the pupil is, one has to work through this scruple and this fear, and I do so. The risk is that a hard exam knocks them back into 'form'. That is to say, all those doubts re-surface, and the entire issue becomes impossible again...
   This I am sure, happened to this pupil. Hence the lack of an A. The B is then the result of the fact that I taught him well. That is, well enough even under strain not to go to pieces, and to do those bits he could (a vital second line defence). Meaning that I think I did him good (well if you look at his form I am sure I did), and yet, and yet, I still regret that fact that I did not get that 'virtual catechism' which  typifies 'thinking in a maths exam', quite internal, quite strong, enough.
   So that I am left with this feeling that I must do better next time - and am working out how now. For even after twenty years, I feel that I am still learning how to teach - and hope I never stop learning.

To find out more and me and my teaching practice see my website at:

http://www.cartwheels-collective.co.uk/And_Maths_Tuition_too....html