In article <331B5998.3A7F@ix.netcom.com>, email@example.com wrote:
>Brian M. Scott wrote: > >>Given the (admittedly unpleasant) choice between a teacher who knows >>his subject but isn't very good at imparting it and one who could >>teach it splendidly if only he knew it, which would you choose? Yes, >>it is certainly possible to know one's subject and be a poor teacher. >>But it is impossible to be a good teacher *without* knowing one's >>subject.
>One of the best science teachers I ever worked with was not a scientist. He did have some >knowledge of biology (the course which he taught), but he didn't know about most of the >things I did coming recently from college. His knowledge of modern genetics was lacking, >he knew little of the metabolic pathways that I was forced to memorize in my coursework, >his understanding of evolution was 10 years out of date, etc. Yet, this same teacher, one >who on this newsgroup might be described as "lacking the necessary knowledge to be an >effective biology teacher," had students win and place in the top three in the Westinghouse >Science Award (probably the most prestigious in the country), compete internationally with >their studies, win a $100,000 dollar scholarship from AmEx for a forest study conducted by >a team of 4 students, recieve 4's, 5's and 6's consistently on the AP biology exam, and get >into some of the most prestigious universities in the country, including, Harvard, Stanford >and Yale. > >What was his secret? Simple, he knew how to teach. By this I mean, even if he didn't >know the answer to something he knew how to get it or help a student find it.
By that standard, I'd say the man was a great scientist.