Tag Archives: Strategies

Future Tech China: Douyin’s Video Search Strategies

Future Tech China: Douyin’s Video Search Strategies


Douyin is massively increasing investment in video search capabilities. What will this accomplish, and for whom?

  1. For brands: It builds up more content angles.

  2. For creators: It increases the potential for a creator’s content to be found.

  3. For Douyin: It increases ad revenue by opening up search ads.

What’s interesting is that Douyin, as a short video platform, was originally built precisely on not having to search for anything. The app famously incorporated intuitive swipe functionality into its highly personalized feed so users wouldn’t have to search for content manually, allowing its algorithm to command the full attention of viewers.

But as the primary form of content moves from text to video (looking at you, large media publications), the search process is evolving as well. Baidu still rules in China when it comes to text search, yet brands and users alike clearly prefer mobile platforms over websites, leaving most content inaccessible via Baidu search. And Douyin, in its vast wisdom, is seizing the opportunity.

Last week, Douyin founder and Bytedance China CEO Kelly Zhang shared her hope for the platform to become an “encyclopedia of human civilization” and revealed that Douyin’s video search feature now has 550 million monthly active users (MAUs) — an announcement that succeeded in generating media attention and boosting its profile.

But the number of MAUs for Douyin search, while enormous, is not terribly significant. Douyin already has more than 600 million daily active users, so if most of them just try to do a video search within a one-month period, they would be counted in the MAU total. By way of comparison, Instagram search is notoriously poor, but users may still feel compelled to engage with it on occasion.

Instagram’s negligence in the search department may also be partly responsible for its inability to dethrone YouTube’s dominance on educational and general “how-to” content. The ability to engineer algorithms and properly categorize content so that it can be found are things YouTube learned from its parent Google and understandably took advantage of. Continue to read the full article here





Source link

Focusing the Military Services’ Arctic Strategies

Focusing the Military Services’ Arctic Strategies


There is no public Air Force Middle East strategy, no high-profile Latin America strategy from the Army, no Navy Africa strategy. So why are the services now competing to release Arctic ones? As the Biden administration fills out its national security team, new and returning arrivals will face a curious development in Arctic defense policy: the proliferation of Arctic strategies from the service branches. The Navy and Marine Corps released a new strategy in January 2021, only the latest in a series of forthcoming and updated content from the Army, the Department of the Air Force, the Navy (again, in 2019), and (in the Department of Homeland Security) the Coast Guard. Is this plethora of strategies constructive in advancing U.S. Arctic policy? What is driving this unusual phenomenon?

The answer is complex. Service branches are typically responsible for implementing strategy, not serving as the initial source identifying and setting Arctic strategy. That role lies with civilian policymakers and operational commanders. But the service branches shouldn’t be criticized for publishing strategy. They are often filling a gap left by others, and they bring a needed perspective on high-latitude training and acquisition — as long as they are sufficiently coordinated with the primary institutions responsible for producing Arctic strategy. The answer to this mixed blessing of multiple service Arctic documents is for the incoming Biden administration to reenergize White House and diplomatic strategies for the region, impose more coordination in the Defense Department above the service branches and across geographic commands, and refocus the Arctic defense conversation on critical near-term investment needs.

 

 

Arctic as the Final Frontier

To understand why the service branches would produce these documents at all, it is first necessary to explore why the Arctic is unique relative to other theaters and who is interested in its development as a growing frontier for the military.

The harsh and forbidding physical terrain of the region demands a specific approach. Arctic operations benefit from specialized training and materiel not immediately applicable in other theaters. A force that is more active in the Arctic needs distinct acquisitions, from icebreakers to high-latitude communications capabilities. A force that is more active in the Arctic also needs specialized training, including in maintaining and operating equipment in extreme cold. And because some acquisitions or trainings are uniquely suited for the Arctic, they impose opportunity costs on alternative platforms and skills with more universal applications. So service spending on the Arctic comes with a need to put the region in a much broader context than might be the case for something like a destroyer, which can operate just as effectively in the conditions of the Mediterranean as it can in the Pacific or south Atlantic.

Another clear driver in the development of Arctic strategies is that they are often a function of congressional interest. This is most obviously the case with the Pentagon’s 2019 Arctic strategy, which says as much right in the name, “Report to Congress: Department of Defense Arctic Strategy,” but may also be evinced by the rise of Arctic strategies as far afield as that of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or the brand-new DHS strategy. Congressional focus on the Arctic produces churn in the services and across the government — sometimes for the better. And while much of this is driven by the Alaska delegation, Arctic interests are increasingly a bipartisan passion on the Hill. It is this demand signal that has helped force the Arctic onto the map for the Pentagon, and the service strategies are a product of this push.

There are plenty of reasons why the Arctic may be an increasingly important space for policymaking, as is intimated by the large deployment of F-35 aircraft to Alaska or the rise in Navy deployments to the Barents Sea. The region, once a final frontier of scientific exploration, may now be the first frontier in a shifting global order stressed by climate change, human migration, and resource competition. Already, Russian activity in the north Pacific Arctic has accelerated, as have Russian submarine deployments (which are historically centered around the Arctic). U.S. Arctic infrastructure, which helps detect inbound aerospace threats from missiles to aircraft, is both aged and falling prey to permafrost thaw.

So, although the Arctic is both operationally distinct and increasingly of interest to policymakers, this understanding alone does not explain how the service branches became so prominent in drafting Arctic policy.

Service Branches Should Come Second

Service branch strategies are not the usual starting point for building Arctic defense policy because the services are not the central actors for setting or implementing that policy. Ideally, they should speak to the how — organize, train, equip — but not the why, as the latter is the purview of those civilians who set national and defense priorities. Civilians may publish these strategies – the service secretaries signed the strategies of both the Department of the Navy and the Department of the Air Force – and thus lend the appearance of civilian oversight. But the services are not the nodal point for setting foreign or defense policy, which is a larger issue of the civil-military divide. The Office of the Secretary of Defense has partially answered the mail on civilian oversight with the 2019 report required by Congress, but with remaining gaps in direction from the White House and State Department.

One reason why we see service branches taking on leading roles in Arctic policy development may stem from the fact that U.S. national Arctic strategy is fragmented among civilian agencies. Extant guidance spans at least three presidents, stretching back to National Security Presidential Directive 66 in the final days of the Bush administration and on into the Obama era’s 2013 national strategy (which has yet to be replaced). There is, moreover, an unusually large interagency footprint for the Arctic as compared to some other regions. When looking at the various institutional executors for the tasks set out in the 2016 implementation framework for the 2013 strategy, it is evident that the Defense Department (let alone the services) is not the only major player. The Coast Guard, the State Department, NOAA, the Department of the Interior, and the Environmental Protection Agency dominated the taskings. The Department of Defense arises sparingly. Service strategies fit into a much more robust national civilian architecture of Arctic equities that are difficult for the services to navigate without more help at higher levels in the Pentagon.

Further, that the various service branches release separate strategies may partially be a function of the military’s own fractured command and control of the Arctic. At the joint level, Northern Command and European Command divide responsibility for the Arctic (with the former the official resource advocate). At the service level, it can be even more fractured, as with the Navy’s split of Arctic responsibilities across elements of the Second, Third, and Sixth fleets. Without a clear leader among the service branches, much less atop them at the civilian policy level, each service branch is adopting aspects of Arctic policymaking under its own aegis, further splintering the region’s responsibilities.

The result of service strategies proliferating in this context is a lot of energy being spent on thinking about what services need for competition in the Arctic (again, an important debate) but a much less robust institutional U.S. government view on what the purpose and nature of that competition should be. The more services rush to answer the how, without better guidance on the why, the harder it becomes to make informed decisions about prioritizing limited resources. And while the Arctic may be rising in prominence, so long as it remains secondary for the Defense Department to Europe and the Indo-Pacific (and even the Persian Gulf, in practice), it will remain critical to assign resources based on a comprehensive sense of strategic guidance and operational requirements. The Arctic thereby risks being a region where strategies can score rhetorical points while deferring costs to other actors, in contrast to areas where geography and commander are more clearly aligned. In such an environment, threats and challenges in the Arctic risk being framed as existing mostly in the not too distant future, which is another way of saying not right now.

Making Sense of the Policy Picture

So, what should be done to redirect the promulgation of service strategies toward the need to promote strategic civilian guidance, operational voices, and near-term investments?

First, the new administration should consolidate top-level White House and defense Arctic policy to better organize and subsume the service products. Updating the 2013 national Arctic strategy and its accompanying implementation framework is low-hanging fruit and would impose an interagency benchmark against which defense policy can align. The Defense Department should mirror the State Department’s move to (re)establish an Arctic coordinator to implement more coordination. This is not a new proposal. The Navy commissioned a study on a Pentagon executive agent for the Arctic back in 2015. And at an interagency level, the Obama administration established the Arctic Executive Steering Committee to introduce more coordination on Arctic policy across the bureaucracy. Emulating those moves inside the Department of Defense, with an eye toward internal harmonization of the department’s Arctic policy, would help streamline and integrate the myriad strategies emanating from across branches and ensure that services aren’t inadvertently setting regional foreign policy in the absence of higher guidance. A coordinator can also help the services integrate into the larger network of civilian agencies with their own robust Arctic equities. The requirement in the Fiscal Year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act to formalize a new bureaucratic home for the Arctic in the Office of the Secretary of Defense could be co-opted to build momentum toward the larger goal of an Arctic coordinator.

Second, the Navy in particular should reconsider its Arctic command lines. Critically, new commands are often easy but ineffectual proposals to fix deeper-seated issues, and thus simply adding an “Arctic Command” may not be the best way to produce consolidated strategic leadership on the region. Still, there is reason to believe that the Navy’s lines are not optimally drawn in light of the growing attention on the Arctic. At a Center for Naval Analyses event this past summer, one expert called for the establishment of an Arctic fleet. In response, the Second Fleet commander proposed exploring revisions at the component level. The Arctic has long been a domain for aerospace defense, as testified by the existence of NORAD. Yet the region’s evolving littoral character, given the opening of the Arctic ocean, makes its emergence as a maritime theater for surface naval operations the greatest stressor on legacy command lines. The debate on how to rectify the maritime Arctic’s status as caught between commands highlights how acutely the Navy will feel these seams as climate change progresses. Larger combatant command revisions are unlikely and potentially unhelpful but at the component level, the Navy faces a real incentive to elevate a clearer operational Arctic voice to set the requirements that feed into its service statements.

Finally, all stakeholders should think of the Arctic in the present tense. Is the region the most important theater in an era of strategic competition? Probably not. But climate change is molding the Arctic, politically and physically, right now. Permafrost thaw and rising sea levels threaten military infrastructure. Runways, ports, support sites, and radar stations are all vulnerable as the Arctic warms at twice the global rate. Aging installations and infrastructure are sitting atop a slipping topography. Simultaneously, and even in the absence of an expansive regional threat from Russia or China, climate change means that the Navy and Air Force will likely operate in the north more than they did in the past. Shifting the debate toward near-term improvements that are needed no matter the region’s geopolitical future is a good way to start focusing on what expenditures are important and who is responsible for executing them.

Conclusion

Service Arctic strategies are part of the toolkit for building a force capable of operating in a uniquely austere environment. Yet they have gained an outsized prominence in the Arctic policymaking process in part because of conditions beyond the services’ control: congressional demands, misaligned command and control lines, and limited development of higher-level strategic guidance. And so, the solution to the prominence of service strategies is not to simply stop their publication but rather to reform the Arctic strategy process they exist  within. This includes reinforcing the obligation for institutions like the White House and the Department of State to set the foreign policy agenda and place service strategies in a context that accounts for the robust footprint of other interagency stakeholders. A Defense Department node for internal coordination and external engagement on Arctic issues would further serve to streamline a process that often seems to lack central guidance. Reforming the strategy process also means putting service strategies in a context that better includes the requirements of combatant commands and their components, some of which (as with the Navy) might benefit from the creation of a clearer operational Arctic voice. Finally, even as Arctic strategies must wrestle with the implications of long-term changes in the region, policymaking would benefit from a renewed focus on nearer-term commitments in order to help prioritize limited resources. Without such reforms, these documents risk generating more heat than light. Through these changes, however, the Biden administration’s new Pentagon arrivals can make the best use of the many policy innovations that service Arctic strategies represent.

 

 

Dr. Joshua Tallis is a maritime and polar analyst at the Center for Naval Analyses, where he is a research scientist in the strategy and policy program. In 2018, he deployed with USS Harry S Truman as the civilian analyst on the Navy’s first Arctic carrier deployment since the end of the Cold War. He is the author of the 2019 book The War for Muddy Waters: Pirates, Terrorists, Traffickers, and Maritime Insecurity. The views in this article do not necessarily reflect those of his employer.

Image: NASA/Kathryn Hansen





Source link

Strategies for Pushing North Korea Toward Denuclearization

Strategies for Pushing North Korea Toward Denuclearization


What Does South Korea Herald for the Biden Administration?

South Korea appears to be running on all cylinders to build relations with U.S. President-elect Joe Biden, with President Moon Jae-in and his team busy issuing public statements and arranging high-level meetings with key players in the incoming administration. What can the Biden administration expect from South Korea on critical foreign policy issues?



Source link

5 Strategies To Use When Looking To Expand Your Staff

5 Strategies To Use When Looking To Expand Your Staff


The most important component of any business is its employees. Employees are the ones who get work done, communicate with customers, and help shape the company’s strategic vision for the future. Unfortunately, finding the right staff that can help your business achieve its goals and prosper for the long term is easier said than done. Recruiting talent can be a very hard task indeed. If you are looking to expand your staff, below are five proven strategies you can use.

1. Recruit From Colleges and Universities

While it may not produce applicants with a wealth of experience in your industry, recruiting directly from colleges and universities is still a sound strategy. It really works well for many companies. There are many ways you can do so. You can launch a college internship program to give students experience in your industry. You could attend career fairs at different campuses to collect applications and resumes. Your company could have speakers at campus events related to your industry. College recruits are likely to be energetic about diving headfirst into the job market. You need that kind of energy at your business to help develop the talent you will need to lead your company into the future.

2. Integrate the Right Recruiting Software

Businesses are likely to receive a plethora of applications for an open position. Depending on the economy, this number can be very large indeed. However, you really only want to interview a small portion of those applicants.

One thing that can certainly make this process far easier is an employment online application software. Such software can allow you to take digital applications. It also removes the data entry work that traditionally went along with receiving applications. All of the work is automated and you’ll be able to more efficiently analyze those applications to choose the best candidates. Such a software even automates the process of following up with applicants to schedule interviews and expand your staff.

3. Institute a Referral Program

In the business world, networking is key. It allows you to find the partners you need to take your company to the next level. It’s also a good idea to integrate the natural benefits of networking into your recruitment efforts, This could be by instituting a referral program. This will allow you to rely on other parties you trust to help you find the qualified candidates you need for important positions within the company.

Also Read: 10 Tips For Safely Growing Your Small Business

Sticking to only using a generalized open application process to expand your staff may not always give you the right candidates. You many not get access to the kinds of specialists you are looking for. Supplementing that process with referrals from industry professionals will help give you the right mix of talent you need for your business.

4. Create a Talent Pool

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate in November of 2020 was 6.7 percent. That is a decent amount of Americans to draw from for your company. Still, you should always be compiling information on the individuals most likely to fill certain positions if you can’t find who you need through other means. You can do this by creating a “talent pool.”

Strategies to expand your staff
Talent Pool (Representative Image, pic credits: fauxels)

This would be a database of industry professionals and applicants for previous positions that were passed over. Make sure to include contact information, resumes, and more along with these entries. If you need an opening filled as quickly as possible, having a talent pool to draw from can be extremely advantageous.

5. Seek Out Passive Candidates

A term you should know as an employer is a passive candidate. Passive candidates refer to individuals that are currently employed and don’t appear to be looking for new employment. The reason why you should be looking at such individuals as a company is because they are often the most qualified person for a job. For example, if someone is already a production manager for one of your direct competitors, chances are they would also do a good job managing your own production lines. It’s a good idea to reach out to these individuals. Even if through back channels, let the person know talent is appreciated in your company. Try convincing them to somehow switch over. Also keep in mind, however, that your competitors could do the same thing with your own talented employees.

Also Read: What Do I Need To Make It In Business – Must Have Entrepreneurial Skills

Put a lot of effort into finding the right people for your company. Who you hires matters. They will be the ones that create your products, interact with customers, and direct the future of the company. The five options above are good strategies for recruiting the talent you need. Always put the right amount of effort into finding the best candidate for an open position.



Source link

Afghan Peace Process and Plausible Strategies under Biden Administration:


   Paper No. 6724                             Dated 4-Jan-2021

By Dr. Manoj Kumar Mishra,

Initial steps towards the peace process in Afghanistan were taken in mid-2018 with senior American officials secretly traveling to Doha to open talks with the Taliban. This breakthrough was geared up with the appointment of Zalmay Khalilzad as the US State Department’s special representative for Afghan reconciliation in September 2018. However, each round of talks, though starting out with some optimism, fizzled out, followed by enhanced insurgency and violence.

A conditional peace deal between the US and the Afghan Taliban was signed in February 2020, which nonetheless, could not stop the Taliban from launching and intensifying attacks against the Afghan Security Forces as the group still believed battlefield successes would determine the final outcome of the ongoing peace exercise. The tactical advantages of the asymmetric war allowed the insurgents to respond effectively to predictable attacks by leaving the area under aerial and artillery bombardment and come back after the pro-government forces had returned to their bases. On the other hand, the insurgents’ unpredictable offensives dampened the patience of the government forces. While confronting the Afghan Taliban, the second half of 2020 witnessed cases of civilian casualties swelling in view of more frequent airstrikes conducted by the Afghan security forces with the assistance of the US air power.

In September 2020, intra-Afghan peace talks – a condition of the US-Taliban peace deal generated new hopes that an understanding would emerge through deliberations between the Afghan government representatives and the Taliban in the Gulf state of Qatar which would end up in designing the modalities of future governance. However, this encountered hiccups from the beginning as the Taliban resisted the very nomenclature that the other party to the negotiation used – the official name of the Afghan government, “Islamic Republic of Afghanistan”. The Taliban not only questioned the legitimacy of the Afghan government, it insisted the talks to be held under the banner of intra-Afghan dialogue and negotiations. Later, even while both parties reached agreement on the rules and procedures for the talks on December 2, 2020, agreement as regards the substantive issues appeared a very complicated and next to impossible exercise. For instance, the Taliban’s insistence that the Hanafi School of Islamic jurisprudence be the guiding principle for all decisions as regards the future of the country has been resisted by the government in view of its negative repercussions on the rights of minorities.

Agreements pertaining to permanent cease-fire and power-sharing arrangement seem inconceivable in view of the trust deficit between the two parties and Afghan President Ashraf Ghani being skeptical of his own survival in power. The President appeared apprehensive that the Taliban might win sway the opposition leaders and form an interim government. Further, the Afghan government entered into negotiation from a position of weakness possibly anticipating quick reduction of American troops in the country, thus it could not be expected to negotiate in the interests of peace and stability of the country rather it may pander to the hard-line demands of the Taliban. On the other side, the Afghan Taliban continued to resort to violence as a tactic in the hope that the peace negotiations would tilt in their favor and the war-fatigued US would withdraw sooner or later by making big concessions in favor of the group.

Plausible Afghan Strategies

In this larger context,  the outgoing Trump administration’s decision to further reduce US troops in Afghanistan is likely to be reviewed by the incoming Biden administration in view of perpetration of violence by the Taliban resorted to as a tactic and continued dependence of Afghan forces on American air support, intelligence and logistics. The new administration may be propelled to develop strategies either to rework the old agreement with the Taliban or persuade or coerce the group to meet key conditions of the agreement including pledges to reduce violence and to prevent the Al-Qaeda network from operating on Afghan soil.

The peace talks between the US representatives and Afghan Taliban indicated the American desperation to put an end to Afghan insurgency which had cost lives of more than 2,300 US troops while 20,589 returned home wounded by the end of 2019 as per US Defense Department statistics. The insurgency continues to take lives of civilians, American soldiers apart from frequent tragic killings of Afghan security personnel. In view of this, the incoming administration’s strategy may be just to continue phased withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan irrespective of success and failure of peace talks so that the administration would be able to focus on areas of more strategic significance such as the Indo-Pacific region. This is the path that the Trump administration was already committed to.

The Afghan government has been overly dependent on the US for air operations, training and logistics to counter growing insurgency especially to provide for semblance of stability against violence perpetrated by the Afghan Taliban. Thus,  the incoming administration may still be inclined to maintain a strategic presence in the war-torn country to keep supporting the Afghan security forces which could quickly be overpowered by the Taliban once the US leaves them to fend for themselves.

The other plausible and effective strategy for the Biden administration may be to work with other stakeholders and regional powers in order to bring in their contacts with and influence over the Taliban and persuade the group to accept the key conditions of the deal with the US and carry forward talks with the Afghan government in the interests of peace and stability of Afghanistan.

The incoming administration may also prefer privatization of war to underscore battlefield successes and coerce the Taliban to accept the deal with the US as well as force it to negotiate with the Afghan government in the interests of peace and stability of the country. Thus, it is not be farfetched to believe that US defense firms such as Blackwater, could be brought into the Afghan theatre by the incoming administration to register battlefield successes vis-à-vis the Taliban. This strategy has relevance as it can fulfill the war objectives at the behest of Washington, absorb pressures from public to end the war abruptly and appease the war contractors. However, such a strategy can backfire in view of the possibilities of rise in civilian deaths as the war contractors are not bound by the similar and strict code of conduct like army and this can turn public opinion in the US and outside against the strategy.

To conclude, it can be argued that the US appears to have entered into peace talks from a position of weakness in a hasty attempt to end the prolonged Afghan war. Arguably, it is pursuing peace talks at a time when the Taliban’s sway is undeniable both concerning territorial expansion and confidence following successive ground operations. Continuing attacks by the group aim at pushing the Afghan government further to a position of weakness. The peace process is far from being Afghan-led and Afghan-owned thus far as the Afghan government and civil society groups have been sidelined in the process.

Peace talks and negotiations approached from a position of strength can only nudge the Taliban to bring to the table pursuable objectives within the framework of a stable and inclusive Afghan polity and society. Biden administration’s strategies would largely be directed at enhancing the American and Afghan government’s negotiating ability vis-à-vis the Afghan Taliban. Further, any successful peace deal that the incoming administration would strive to aim at must be able to address the problems of widespread insecurity, endemic corruption, violation of women’s rights and rampant drug trafficking in the Afghan society. Any hasty negotiation with the Afghan Taliban would mean the US is not negotiating peace in Afghanistan rather making attempts at a managed exit.

Dr. Mishra teaches Political Science at SVM College, Jagatsinghpur, Odisha

 

 



Source link

Seven Strategies For Teaching Mathematics

Seven Strategies For Teaching Mathematics


Is it a struggle for you to get through to your math students? If you have been tasked with teaching math, then you realize that it’s not only a struggle for your students to learn it, but it’s also a struggle for you to TEACH it as well. If your students are just not getting it, don’t fret. There are plenty of techniques that you can utilize in order to help them (and help yourself). Here are seven ideas for you to consider to be more effective at teaching mathematics:

Encourage Hands-On Learning

Math is a very abstract concept for many people, but the good news is that there are actually quite a few ways to teach it in a hands-on style. First of all, you can utilize LEGO bricks to teach a number of different math skills, including such things as understanding place value, mastering perimeter, grasping multiplication tables, and many other math skills.

Observe and Adjust Accordingly

Are there times where you get stuck in the “one lesson per day” mindset? This is okay but can have a tendency to get stuck in a rut if you do that too often. Of course, this will require some analysis of your pacing, but don’t be afraid to monitor. First of all, take a long hard look at the dynamics and look at who seems to be getting the material and who doesn’t. Additionally, don’t be afraid to talk to the students individually if need be.

Connect the Math to Other Subjects

Do your students have other subjects that they are interested in over math? Well, that’s understandable, and there’s no reason for you to fret. Even if your students have other interests, this is the perfect opportunity for you to show them how math is connected to the greater world. You can read books that are connected to math and you can even show them how math is connected to the world of art or music!

Do Some Math Games

Who doesn’t enjoy playing games? Use this to your advantage by turning your math instruction into a game! One of the advantages of games is that they can make learning more fun. Games can assist you in promoting computational fluency, a mathematical mindset, and an understanding of operations. Moreover, the home-school connection can easily be strengthened with this method.

Make Some Testing Pathways

Yes, you have to teach to the test, but there are definitely ways that you can “sneak it in”, so to speak. Giving quick five-minute quizzes is one great way to do this. You also should incorporate some digital resources to monitor your students and you should be in good shape.

Keep Your Own Math Demons at Bay

Solid math instruction is often entirely contingent on your own personal attitude. If you have had some personal issues with math yourself, make sure that you do all you can not to let that transfer to your students. For example, make sure that you avoid consoling a student if they are encountering difficulty. Instead, encourage them to keep working hard to try to grasp any difficult math concept they encounter.

Don’t Necessarily Rule Out Traditional Math Worksheets

There is nothing wrong with practicing these skills! Traditional math worksheets are a great way to sharpen your students’ skills. You not only can practice traditional multiplication and division skills, but you also can give them worksheets to practice ratios and proportions. Simply put, as long as you stay as organized as possible, you will be able to teach math effectively to your students.

Comments





Source link