|
|
Re: Rubin's trolls
Posted:
Mar 4, 1997 12:22 PM
|
|
On Mon, 03 Mar 1997 16:07:04 -0700, mikevano@ix.netcom.com wrote:
I had written:
>>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.
[snip]
>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. Many of the
>projects his students worked on required such specific knowledge of the subject that many
>of the professors at the local university had to defer to their colleagues.
[snip]
First, I think that you will agree that he was exceptional. Secondly,
in a most important sense he *did* know his subject: he knew his
limitations, and he knew how to find out what he didn't know. Any
teacher will have limitations in respect of subject knowledge; the
good ones know what those limitations are.
Please don't confuse detailed factual knowledge with real
understanding. I'd much rather have a teacher, especially at that
level, who thoroughly understood a few fundamental principles than one
who merely knew an encyclopaedia of facts.
Brian M. Scott
|
|
