|
|
Re: Rubin's trolls
Posted:
Mar 3, 1997 10:42 PM
|
|
x.netcom.com>:
Organization: Concentric Internet Services
Distribution:
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: his understanding of evolution was 10 years out of date, etc.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. 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. He knew how to
: motivate kids - the area he taught in was lower middle class and the kids were no different
: than most others in this country, yet he brought out the best in them. He was exceptionally
: creative and came up with projects and activities that challenged students to become
: responsible for their own learning. He didn't care if his studets learned mountains of trivial
: facts, he had the vision to see the big picture and the ability to get students to do the same.
:
: Oh yes, his degree was in physical therapy from a small, public university with no name and
: he admitted himself that he floated through and was hardly a top student. So in response to
: the post above. I would take an exceptional teacher any day of the week over a poor teacher
: who "really knew the subject." I have seen students suffer at the hands of content experts
: and flourish under "teachers" who some might argue didn't know enough about the facts in
: their subject area.
:
: Mike V.
:
Mike:
I agree with you. But, keep in mind that the person you describe is a rare
bird, definitely the exception. I personally think it is essential (with
the very rare exception that you've mentioned) that the instructor be
knowledgeable in that subject area.
However, that is hardly sufficient.
In graduate school I had a number of professors who held "Distinguished
Chair" positions. One of them was the worst excuse for a teacher I ever
had. He STUNK (pardon the vernacular). But, he was a very famous
mathematician.
-- Mel Billik in Michigan
Remember: if you can keep your head about you when all around you are in a
panic ... perhaps you don't totally understand the situation!
|
|
