From: clin@eng.umd.edu (Charles Lin)
Subject: Re: What can we have for an educational system?
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 01:50:33 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, Maryversity von Uniland, College Park
Originator: clin@modulation.eng.umd.edu


In article <By3CFt.4HJ@eis.calstate.edu>, kmushal@eis.calstate.edu (KAYE MUSHALIK) writes:
>
>I had a teacher in high school who had a PhD but couldn't teach worth
>"beans". It was obvious that he knew his subject well but he couldn't 
>convey any excitement to us. I don't claim to be brilliant, but there
>were kids in my class who were and they even had trouble with the subject.
>Yes, it's important to know the subject matter, but it is more important to
>know how to make that subject EXCITING and RELEVANT to the students' lives.
>

   Part of the problem with using Ph.D.'s is that they are trained to
do research, and not teach.   Even with TA (teaching assistant) experience,
one can get comfortable talking in front of a group, but not necessarily
motivating students.   Teaching well requires many skills which are
typically not taught.   First, one has to be organized.   Even if a lecturer
is not exciting, having presentations that are logically thought out, and
that make sense is important.   Second, the teacher must be responsive to
the students.   Even the most clear lectures will be too confusing if the
students do not have the appropriate background.   Assessing the
classes's abilities well is another factor in teaching well.   For
example, if students always get confused by some point, this
should be noted, and examined as to why this confusion arises.  

   Third, teaching requires a little bit of acting.   Even if the subject matter
is old hat to the teacher, being at least somewhat enthusiatic for the
material will make students more enthusiastic for the material.  This
is one aspect that is almost never taught.   At the college level, I
don't think it's crucial, but it certainly helps.   Fourth, the teacher
needs to know the material.   While this aspect is quite important, a
teacher who understands, but can not communicate his or her own 
understanding, is almost as bad as someone who can clearly communicate,
but has a weak grasp of the material.   I don't think one is really better
than the other.   Finally, a teacher needs to be able to evaluate new
ideas in teaching, and figure out new ways to present the same material.
It is often the case that teaching becomes too routine.   It is also
the case that you see teachers getting frustrated by the students not
attempting to do what the teacher wants.   So, patience is also a
key.

   One problem I've noticed as a teaching assistant, is that no matter
how much you think you are doing a good job, someone thinks you are
not good.   And, no matter how well you think you explain, and
are motivating the students, some students have a hard time planning
and being committed to studying the subject at hand.   This may,
in fact, be a frustration that a Ph.D. who teaches high school may
encounter.   That is, students who still, for some reason, don't 
understand, and worse, blame it on the teacher.   Humans being
what they are, not so good at taking criticism, often shield
themselves from the criticism and place the blame back on the
student's lack of motivation.   

    Ultimately, students blame teachers for not producing a good 
product, and teachers blame students for not being well-motivated.
If each could see the other's role, they might be more sympathetic
to the other person's viewpoint.   

    I should also add that teachers, if they are good, ought to
try to tell students how to try to learn the material.   This
can be a difficult task as many people find it difficult to
introspect, and explain how they do the things that they do.

--
Charles Lin
clin@eng.umd.edu

Newsgroups: misc.education,alt.discrimination,soc.culture.african.american,soc.women