|
|
Re: Rubin's trolls
Posted:
Mar 4, 1997 8:03 PM
|
|
In article <331B5998.3A7F@ix.netcom.com>, mikevano@ix.netcom.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his understanding of evolution was 10 years out of date, etc.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.
;-)
< snip >
|
|
