I should be working on the project, but I have to shine some light on this piece by Christopher Sessums (brought to my attention by Stephen)
His post is an exploration of some of the ideas of/quotations from The Courage to Teach (is this worth reading? - comments welcome on this), and its connection to connectivism. One thing that Christopher says
teaching is not about the methods you employ, but instead about the personality, the disposition, and scruples one brings to the learning environment
Too right! I’d even add one more item to the description of what teaching is not about - teaching is not about the content, its about the process - what we do much more than the course/subject/teaching. One of the difficulties teaching at the secondary level is that we tend to lose track of this, misdirected by being “subject experts”, whereas Kindergarten teachers seem to do the best job of this. Perhaps that is why Kindergarten is the place where we learn all we really need to know, at least according to Robert Fulghum. The Kindergarten teachers I’ve met all understand that teaching is about process.
I attended a teachers convention last week (brief aside from the depths of my addled brain - why are they called teachers conventions instead of teaching conventions? Perhaps that is where our focus begins to be misdirected). There were actually two teachers conventions in the same building, and I followed the crowd into the other opening keynote address. The speaker (sorry - name is forgotten) was talking about the power of media in the lives of our students. I appreciated her emphasis that we are not helpless or unimportant in the lives of our students. In fact, she said that the greatest predictor of school success is a strong connection with a caring adult. That connection is a greater influence in a young person’s life than all the media that permeates their lives. (This was in the week following the fabulous online connectivism conference, so the word connection had a particular resonance.) Often, that caring adult will be a teacher. What an incredible responsibility! Years ago, in one of the schools I taught at during my “temporary contract” career phase, there was a great thought written up on blackboard in the staff room - they don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care. That’s a thought I try to keep in my head as the faces turn toward me when the class bell sounds.
Entries (RSS)
March 5th, 2007 at 09:41
I think most of teaching is an art, not a science. That said, I struggle mightily with the issue because there are several difficulties with focusing on process, dispositions, personality, etc.
How do we assess / screen for these things so that we ensure that we get / retain high-quality teachers?
Are these things teachable? If not, why do we have teacher ed programs in universities? Why do we do staff development? Are we completely at the mercy of the personality types of the people who apply for teaching positions or can we teach folks how to be effective teachers?
We have LOTS of research evidence that students do better academically when they have teachers with better CONTENT knowledge.
Thoughts / reactions?
March 6th, 2007 at 14:07
Good questions, Scott. It took me some time to reflect upon them, but here are my thoughts/reactions (so far):
How to retain high-quality teachers? I’m coming at this from a Canadian perspective, so my thoughts may not be relevant to you. I think that a good salary with a high degree of job security (for all teachers or only after a probationary period? Another point for discussion). A good pension at the end of one’s teaching career helps too. I know that some teachers are, legitimately, burned out by 20 or more years of teaching, but these are the people who would be the best mentors to apprentice teachers. I think many teachers who are just working those last few years until they can retire with a pension are genuinely interested in the future of the teaching profession - let’s use their wisdom and experience.
See above for part of the answer. These qualities are teachable, but not by sitting as a student in a classroom. Basketball players learn by playing basketball, welders learn by welding (along with some theoretical background, but most time is spent welding), etc. Why should teaching be different? Again, I think the mentorship/apprenticeship style of training would be best. As for personality types of education students, my experience is that they are generally pretty positive and dedicated to the idea of being a teacher.
Hmmm - good point, and I’d be interested to read some of the research. My reaction is that subject expert teachers (I’m mostly referring to secondary school) are more confident and engaging than non-experts. But I’ll admit, I need to reflect on this a bit more.
Your thoughts/reactions? I’d be interested to hear your perspectives on these questions!