The Second Tier

by Rod Mitchell

Having read Sheila Tobias's book, They're Not Dumb, They're Different, I believe there are some parallels between what is happening at the large university to her second tier students and what is happening at the secondary level. Tobias describes undergraduates as occupying concentric rings around a center much as one would find in a shooting target. The center or bull's-eye is composed of well prepared, bright, committed students with an already well developed interest in science and math. They will thrive, one might say, in spite of their teachers. The second ring, or tier, comprises equally able and prepared students who occupy the center ring or bull's-eye in other fields, but for one reason or another don't reside in the first tier in math and science. They are good, thinking students, but somehow they don't connect, often don't have a good experience and usually terminate their interest and exposure to math and science. The third tier comprises students who are not intellectually engaged. They have a utilitarian approach to education and simply want to know what is required of them to pass the course.

It is Tobias's thesis that university courses are targeting only the first tier students who reside in the bull's-eye and the second tier is being lost. This is a tragedy for two reasons. The fields of math and science are losing some exceptional minds, some of which might be divergent enough in their thought processes to make significant contributions. At the same time, these high quality students are not gaining the benefits of further exposure to the exciting arenas of math and science.

In Tobias's research there are some common threads that students of the second tier find missing in their science and math courses that contribute greatly to their disengagement. They are: a lack of overview - students are asked to work on isolated details out of context; a vertical subject matter structure - everything seems to build on the premise of mastery of something else and the ladder seems to have no end. They also experience a lack of creative interaction with the subject and complain of an exhausting pace.

Some of these experiences are the result of poor teaching pedagogy and are a warning worthy of the ear of all math and science teachers. We can ill afford to dismiss these fine minds because they don't conform to a rigid presentation agenda. We must vary our presentation to both attract and educate these students in math and science. I believe there are two aspects of this problem worthy of consideration. The first is, how we can vary our presentation so that it is friendlier to the second tier. We need to look at the common threads these students find missing and incorporate them into our pedagogy. Many people are currently addressing this problem, especially at the secondary level. I am confident that, as teaching strategies are refined, more second tier students will move into the first tier, or at least feel good and productive in the second tier.

The aspect I wish to address is C.P. Snow's description in 1959 of the emergence of two cultures. Perhaps there are two ways of looking at the world - two realms or arenas from which Westerners view their intellectual interactions. One is the culture of the mathematician and scientist; the other the realm of the social sciences, humanities and art. Furthermore, I believe most people feel more comfortable in, get more excited about, and operate more freely in one of these realms than the other. Some people make connections by manipulating data and symbols. They like puzzles that build upon one another. Their analysis is quite linear. Others make synoptic connections. They are no less analytical, but look at essences and are comfortable with the aesthetic.

I don't want to make too much of this dichotomy, nor do I want to allow it to become an excuse for not trying to meet the needs of all our students. I believe some people can operate well in both cultures. I further believe it is our charge as educators to increase the proficiency of our students in both cultures. I would go so far as to say that a person who is not proficient in both realms is not really educated. However, I do accept the fact that most will operate more dynamically in one realm than another.

What does this mean to us as math and science educators? I believe we have two challenges. First, we must educate ourselves in both cultures. It is impossible to get into the minds of our students if we have never been from whence they come. We need to develop our own interests in the arts and humanities to know our students and ourselves, and also because it is fun and challenging. We need to read, to draw, to play and to argue in arenas other than those in which we teach. We must educate ourselves to be good educators. If we do this, then the second charge becomes possible. With our connection to the realm of students who don't naturally reside in the realm of science and math, we can start to help them make connections so they can read, and calculate, and play and argue in our realm. Both realms have experiences beyond the exhaustion of the most gifted, and there is sometimes a tendency to want not to venture into the other arena. We must resist this temptation and help our students do the same. Because both realms are part of a whole, an insight into one can sharpen insight into the other.

If we meet both these challenges, then I believe the persons Tobias found in the second tier will have welcome access to the first and will at least visit this tier from time to time. If such is the case, it doesn't really matter to me if they take up permanent residence in this first tier.

Woodrow Wilson Leadership Program in Mathematics lpt@www.woodrow.org
The Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation webmaster@woodrow.org
CN 5281, Princeton NJ 08543-5281 Tel:(609)452-7007 Fax:(609)452-0066