Test

Ethos, Pathos, and Logos

Aristotle's three book collection, now called Rhetoric, remains the core of the art of Rhetoric. In this post, I'd like to outline three key concepts to Rhetoric: Logos, Ethos, and Pathos. They are the means of persuasion.

Logos is simply an appeal to the intellect of the audience. This is where logical argument and factual evidence enter the argument. Since humans are not totally rational, this appeal alone will rarely win the day.

Ethos is the attempt to make the speaker look honest and respectable to the audience. Ethos become more important in many political debates, especially in current America, where many citizens are not nearly as knowledgeable about topics as they would need to be to understand the logos of a claim.

Pathos is an appeal to the sympathy and empathy of the audience. The speaker uses pathos to create an emotion within the audience to buttress his claim.

Obviously, a speech or argument doesn't need all three, but it really helps. Try to establish the aura of trustworthiness, respectability, and expertise (Ethos). Then attempt to connect with your audience and set an emotional tone (pathos). Only then, once the audience trusts you and is emotionally primed, should you use your logical argument to explain your points. After that, try to reiterate the emotional connection you have with them, and how your experience and expertise has led you to your conclusions.

Good luck!

The Present Evil

I don't believe evil exists. Perhaps said less provocatively, I believe that Evil is in the eye of the beholder. Whether some act, person, or thing deserves the moniker "evil" is a matter of opinion, or a matter of perspective. People don't do things and think "I'm doing evil right now." They typically think they are doing good things, but history opines that they aren't. Stalin, for example, did things we typically consider evil, but from his perspective, he did them for what he believed was the greater good. Was he wrong? Yeah, probably. Was he evil? It depends on where you are looking from. He had millions of supporters from whose perspective Stalin was a great man.

What about murders, rape, or other crimes? Those criminals probably didn't think they were evil. They had reasons and justifications in their hearts. Bad ones, from our perspective to be sure, but at least the time they thought they were good reasons.

This seems like a useless distinction. What's the difference, whether a criminal is evil in his own mind, as opposed to society's view? I think it's important to think this way, that evil does not objectively exist, because it humbles us. If we blindly think "there are people or actions which are evil and some which are not evil", it blinds us to the mistakes and crimes History may condemn us for. For example, 30 years from now, someone may say to me, "Hello Sir, may I ask what YOU did to help save the whales? How evil of you to have done nothing!"

In a sense, they are right, or at least History may condemn me/us for doing nothing. We musn't be so arrogant as to think that we know evil when we see it. We simply don't.

In the Christian religion, Satan (or the Devil) is typically seen a a man with horns, carrying a pitchfork, in Hell. Do not be lulled into believing that the supreme symbol of evil doesn't have a skill of disguise. Evil will not surface in your life with a sign saying "evil" on it. Evil isn't the red man with horns and pitchfork. Evil will offer you exactly that which you love, respect, and admire.

It's often called "Presentism". A bias toward the present. It works in both directions. For example, some people have faulted Thomas Jefferson for owning slaves, using today's negative view of slavery as the absolute moral compass. On the other side, some people praise older generations for walking to school uphill both ways (which they wouldn't have done if there were school buses.)

The point here is to consider your actions carefully, While others in the present see them as OK(possibly because they themselves are committing the same evil acts), history may not be so generous.

Rhetoric

Oration and rhetoric were among the highest arts of ancient Greece and Rome. Then, as now, it is vital for the Renaissance Man to have the ability to influence people, emotionally or politically, through one’s communication rather than actions.

Probably the first goal would be to reflect on the types of connections you are trying to develop. While it’s good to have some ready-made facts at your disposal to create conversations, these tools only work at a superficial level of communication. People with a more intricate or deep level of connection with you will require different tools. Elocution, for example, becomes more important professionally, while word play and trivia can be more socially useful.

Many shy people believe they need to ‘say what is on’ their mind. I don’t agree with that, generally. Saying what you are thinking implies a sort of “presentism” or a bias toward the given moment, which might change quickly. Secondly, often our thoughts aren’t socially acceptable, or may be awkward and disorganized. Discretion usually reduces misunderstanding and insult. Far better to learn how to make a point or barring that allude to a point than to run roughshod over others while still being ‘shy’. The worst outcome would probably be the most probably; the listeners start disagreeing with (or retort stronger to) the shy person, who then crumbles.

Mitigated speech is becoming a bigger topic as of late. Malcolm Gladwell's new book "Outliers" is bringing light on the concept. Mitigated speech is when people weakened their point or don't make it at all. This is usually done out of respect and draws on cultural and gender mores. East Asians and women, for example, tend to say things more indirectly. This is can be nice when discussing politics or biscuits, but fails when trying to land commercial jets, as Karl E. Weick notes in (and Gladwell takes from quite liberally) "Making Sense of the Organization". It's in Google Books.

Then again, better to make a point in a respectful and weak manner than not make it at all. In my time in Japan, often conversations exist solely for the listener to figure out what the speaker is trying to say. ("The project is under budget" may mean, when said to a boss, "Can I have tomorrow off?” or “Can I have a raise?” or even “Congratulations!”)

For people who have difficulty saying anything for fear of recrimination, perhaps the best practice might be to find more subtle (read: ambiguous) ways to state an opinion and note the listener's response, and go from there.

Moderation or extremism?

As people gain wisdom, they often struggle with right vs. wrong. In my case, I’ve tended to see more of the gray in life and less of the black and white of issues, whether personal or political (is there really a difference?), and usually this leads to a moderation, a tending toward the middle. Often this is because the extremes of pretty much everything are excessively harmful in some manner. We often meet people with differing opinions and views, and by talking to them one can see another way. Sometimes this leads to what I call issue transcendence, but that is another topic.

But one need not become a fuddling moderate Demographic Average for the world to ignore (never make the papers) or focus on (Joe Average’s vote is the most important in any election). Sometimes the “right” thing to do, the “right” opinion to have, the “right” action to take isn’t easy, common, or normal. Sometimes people must stand up and point to the naked emperor. Sometimes standing up is uncomfortable, inconvenient, and lonely. Most people run far away from the charge.

Worse, people with a need to strike edgy poses adopt a culturally correct version of a politically incorrect opinion. For example, Gilette casts its women’s disposable razors with pink plastic, but for marketing to the rugged individualist American Male, it casts the razors in blue or, for the ultra-testosterone-fueled, black. Even sacred American institutions like motorcycling are a bit silly. How exactly does “weak or non-existent muffler” equate with masculinity? Real, true political incorrectness is so uncomfortable that the media (and most of your friends) run and hide when the real stuff comes out. Sad, really, that these metabehaviors are taking the place of real ideas, dialogues, and actions.

In my own life, I have encountered, with much regret initially, areas in my own life where I felt I was being inauthentic. Example abound, but perhaps the easiest to describe is people’s response to the Iraq War. Most people at this point are against the war (no one was against it more quickly than the paleoconservatives, I might add) but they continue to reap benefits such as cheap oil and do little if anything to actively reduce the continuance of said conflict, most of which is due to the region’s ‘strategic importance’ which is a euphemism for being home to the largest oil reserves on the planet, and being in proximity to America’s close ally, Israel. But, if one is against the war, what does that mean other than voicing empty unheard opinions? What more active, and perhaps more painful, ways can people do something to reduce our need for this war? Most people do incredibly little. SUV sales are dropping because gas prices went up, not because of some sort of war protest. If the war continues, and oil prices drop, I guarantee the big cars and trucks will come back. If oil prices rise, people will buy smaller cars. This has nothing to do with the war and the American soldiers we’re told to care about. This has to do with our wallets.

So, to reduce my own oil consumption, I gave up hot water. Totally. Cold showers, cold water in the sink, cold water to dry dishes. (I have no car and can’t control my thermostat.) It’s not much, but it’s one person doing something except chatting over tea.

All this is to buttress the point that moderation and extremism should be a consequence of knowledge, wisdom, and experience, not the other way around. If you believe something, if you can’t reject a behavior, strike out and adopt it even if you risk ostracism. Far easier said than done.

Good, Fast or Cheap – Pick Two

Organizations need a mission. It took a long time for enlightened leaders and corporate managers to see that, but nowadays every success story in the business world mentioned a single-minded multi-bodied group “toiling upward in the night” (as Longfellow called it) until the project was completed.

Problem is, we’re all doing that now. It’s expected that folks are in the zone for most of the waking hours. We’ve hit “peak work” and simply working harder isn’t enough. If anything, it’s time to stop working and (gasp) think. Gone are the days where burning midnight oil is ALL it takes (although it helps a lot).

Say you want to design and build a car. What type of do you want to build? The Ford Model T, whose price tag enabled America to get to work relatively cheaply and reliably? Or the Maserati GranTurismo, which will get you there much, much more quickly, and in more style, but at a cost of $150,000? Or how about a Volkswagen Beetle, which went from idea (it was Hitler’s) to rolled out (by Ferdinand Porsche) in roughly 4 years?

Developing a successful car requires a well-considered plan, and that plan requires a clearly understood (and communicated!) mission.

In whatever your life’s pursuits, personal and professional, consider whether you want it to be good, done quickly, and done cheaply. If you can get two out of the three, you're in good shape.

Are veteran teachers more effective?

In New York City, as of 2008, teachers with 10 years' experience earn approximately 50% more than their brand-new colleagues. We assume this is because they are more effective at delivering to their students a superior education, as measured by improved abilities at reading and math, the two most important subjects in education. Importantly, this relationship should be clear even within similar demographics of students.

In this post I'd like to examine the effect that teacher experience has on students’ academic achievement in Mathematics and Reading in New York City public schools in District 85. Academic achievement should be measured by increases in standardized test scores in comparison with those of similar grades. This would control for the increase of test scores due merely to another year’s educational experience.

Teacher’s Experience is generally being defined as the number of complete years that a teacher has taught in a classroom setting at the applicable grade level, or one grade level higher or lower. However, there is typically some variance in the definition; however nonetheless the initial hypothesis should remain valid.

Teacher Efficacy would be measured via test scores in Reading and Math.

One would assume that there is a positive correlation between the years of teaching experience of the classroom teacher and the test score improvements of his or her students in the elementary schools in District 85 of New York City Public Schools. There are a number of confounding factors that would need to be controlled for, but positive correlation is nonetheless expected, particularly for the first five years of a teacher’s career. The correlation is expected to grow weaker as the teacher experience variable increases. Thus diminishing incremental or marginal returns from increases in teacher experience is expected. Additionally, Teacher Efficacy is being measured, in order to determine, if the hypothesis is supported by the study, whether Teacher Efficacy is positively correlated to teacher experience, and then

Research seems to provide compelling evidence that there is generally a positive correlation between teacher experience and academic achievement. Betts (1999), Grobler (2001), and Zuelke (2001) all found significantly positive benefit to teacher experience.

However, other studies have found little or no correlation between teacher experience and students’ academic achievement. Mulholland (1992) found there was a negative correlation between years of teacher experience and estimation of student achievement, which is an important component to student success. Although this correlation was not statistically significant, the fact that it was negative is still surprising. Herman (2001) found that teacher experience was “largely unrelated to student’s motivation to learn and class achievement.”
Betts (1999) conducted a study of over 5,000 undergraduates at University of California, San Diego, examining their high school characteristics and other data to statistically explain the factors that affect their Grade Point Average. Betts looked at two year’s worth of data from the university and combined it with data for California high schools, and used statistic techniques to develop the correlations among the variables.

Betts (1999) found a strong statistically significant correlation between average teacher experience and the student’s grade point average (GPA) in college. In fact according to the study, teacher experience was more significant than variables such as teacher’s highest degree and teacher/pupil ratio. This study may not be as relevant as necessary because there are a number of factors that differ between college level teaching and elementary school teaching. Betts voices an important concern, that in fact the causal arrows may be reversed, and that students with high GPAs (i.e., those from affluent areas, more academically motivated, or merely more intelligent) will attract more senior teachers, for a variety of reasons, including higher salary, better working conditions, etc.

“However, we did find a positive and significant link between teacher experience and the student’s GPA. We expressed concerns that this apparent relationship might reflect selection of teachers with seniority into job vacancies in the schools with the best prepared students, which are typically in more affluent areas. But two sets of robustness tests suggest that this sore of reverse causation in not at work.” (Betts 1999)

Mulholland (1992) examined 42 pairs of experienced and novice teachers and asked them to predict their pupils’ scores on reading and math tests. Teacher experience was used as a variable to measure the accuracy with which teachers can estimate students’ academic achievement.

Here surprisingly there was a negative correlation between years of teacher experience and estimation of student achievement. Although this correlation was not statistically significant, the fact that it was negative is still surprising, since estimation of a student’s future achievement is paramount in developing a relevant and applicable plan of study for the students.

Harris (2000) is an interesting survey that outlines a number of initiatives that may foster school improvement. Here we see that many of the benefits that experienced teachers enjoy, such as developing lessons, exercises and even curricula, are being ignored by larger programs that are highly prescriptive:

“The most effective school improvement programmes are characterized by the fact that they have instructional strategies that are highly prescriptive in the mode of delivery.” (Harris 2000).

This distinction is important because it will make the results of the inquiry more difficult to see. Since these new programs have been put into place, there is far less benefit to gaining experience with either more traditional teacher directed lessons and curricula, or even with other programs.

Grobler (2001) studied a random sample of black students in Grade 9 classes in South Africa, in order to find predictors of mathematics achievement. In total there were 174 students, 69 boys and 105 girls. Many variables were measured, including self-esteem (using the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale), raw scores on standardized tests, a socio-economic status questionnaire, teacher’s training, and of course experience. A standard multiple regression was then performed on each of the 14 variables. In this study Grobler (2001) found significant correlation between teacher’s experience and academic achievement for girl students, by not for boys. Interestingly, a Teaching Certificate had a greater positive impact on teaching success than having a full Degree in Education.

Zuelke (2001) conducted a study examining 257 6th grade students in suburban Chicago, to see which variables contributed most to students’ academic achievement, including teacher experience in grades 4 to 6. In other words, the authors wanted to only examine relevant teaching experience, and therefore only counted years of experience in similar grades. The study used multiple linear regression on the 122 variables collected. Their findings were clear: teaching experience was ranked second in importance in test score improvement. The most important indicator was of course the students’ pretest score.

In conclusion, there may be good reason that it has been difficult finding relevant research on what I initially believed to be a rather simple topic. There are a number of factors that would grossly distort any findings. More journal articles on the subject need to be located, or more research needs to be done.

If the results of the study support the original hypothesis that teaching experience has a positive impact on students’ academic achievement in Elementary Schools in District 85, there would be implications for teachers and administrators to examine the reasons for this phenomenon, despite the rigid teaching curricula and the highly prescriptive nature of the curriculum in District 85. The implication for this result would essentially be the reinforcement that teaching experience is an excellent indicator of a teacher’s ability and efficacy. It would be difficult to extract from this study a useful measure of the extent to which the experienced teachers are superior to the novice teachers, which would be an excellent extension of this study, and would provide a useful tool for administrators to determine the benefits of employing experienced teachers versus other methods for increasing student success, such as reducing class size. From an instructional perspective, if this hypothesis proves supported by the study, mentoring and co-teaching may be effective ways to increase teacher productivity.

However, ff the results of the study fail to support the original hypothesis, there would be implications for more experienced teachers to examine other, less prescriptive, methods of teaching mathematics and literacy. Another major implication would be for administrators to question whether hiring experienced teachers is the most efficient use of funding.

The inclusion of Teacher Efficacy, as discussed before, is a method of finding investigating which factors specifically may account for any found difference in student achievement between the two Groups. While most literature concludes that Teacher Efficacy is positively correlated with Teacher Experience, this study does not assume this but rather includes this variable as an independent variable. If Teacher Efficacy is found to be positively correlated with Teacher Experience, this would imply that at least one of the factors that lead toward better teaching ability has been found and to some degree quantified. If Teacher Efficacy is found to be negatively correlated with Teacher Experience, this would imply that there must be other more important factor that would cause experienced teachers to improve student academic achievement over the less experienced teachers.

Further research could be done on further dividing teacher experience into more “buckets”, and extending the scope of the study to include brand new teachers and teachers with as much as 30 year’s experience.

It is important to mention the limitations of the study, especially with regard to the schools in which this study was performed. There are three factors in particular that limit the applicability of this study:
1) Location: As mentioned previously, the schools in this study are located in areas with high crime, a large proportion of minorities and ELL students, and relative poverty.
2) The prescriptive nature of the measuring tests: As noted earlier, SFA and Trailblazers are highly prescriptive, and there is little ability to vary the lessons. This obviously penalizes experienced teacher who have found alternative methods of assessment and instruction.
3) The non diverse nature of the assessment: There were essentially only two methods of assessment in this study, and therefore there may be a risk that the results lack some level of validity.

In the future, other researchers may want to improve upon this study by introducing other, more subjective variables to better examine more precisely the components of “teacher experience” that improve student achievement. Also, it would be valuable to understand what would happen if this study were to be adapted and conducted in other more wealthy Districts throughout New York City, even those that do not use SFA or Trailblazers, or in other cities with a similar population and demographic profiles.

The results of this study appear to confirm the results that were found in Betts (1999), Grobler (2001), and Zuelke (2001), which all found a positive correlation between teacher experience and academic achievement. This study contradicts the results found in Mulholland (1992), where there was a negative (albeit not statistically significant) correlation between a teacher’s years of experience and his or her ability to estimate student achievement.