On 8/14/2011 10:44 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 22:47:08 -0400, wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 13:13:58 -0500, wrote:

On 8/13/2011 9:40 AM, Leon wrote:

Totally agree with that article you posted the link to, especially the
Honors College comments, The students get first pick at the professors
and have much smaller more personal classes.

It's hard to believe that 70% of the undergraduate classes at most
universities are now taught by outsourced, "paid-by-the-course", adjunct
professors!

A sad state of affairs ... this corporate model of teaching was unheard
of in my day.

It's not new. I taught a senior level CS course and a graduate level MIS
course 30 years ago. At one point I asked the dean if I taught all the
required courses, if I got my masters (I only have a BS). He didn't like the
question.

Sounds like you got in on the beginning of the end ... ;0

You know who taught the two undergraduate physics courses I took in college?

Clarence Zener, the Dean of the College of Science at that time at Texas
A&M University ... he personally taught both those undergraduate
courses, as did the department heads in Chemistry and Mathematics.

DAGS Dr Zener ...

Apparently students today have no chance of deriving the benefit from
having a physicist of that eminence teach undergraduate classes. At one
time it was an accepted practice.

Sorry, but IMO it's just more of the same with regard to the systematic
slide into mediocrity that is creeping into all levels of education in
this country.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Swingman wrote in
:

Sounds like you got in on the beginning of the end ... ;0

You know who taught the two undergraduate physics courses I took in
college?

Clarence Zener, the Dean of the College of Science at that time at
Texas A&M University ... he personally taught both those undergraduate
courses, as did the department heads in Chemistry and Mathematics.

DAGS Dr Zener ...

Apparently students today have no chance of deriving the benefit from
having a physicist of that eminence teach undergraduate classes. At
one time it was an accepted practice.

Sorry, but IMO it's just more of the same with regard to the
systematic slide into mediocrity that is creeping into all levels of
education in this country.

I think that we are forgetting that scientific brilliance as recognized
in various ways does not guarantee teaching excellence. Overbeek was
great both as scientist and teacher (Physical Chemistry, Utrecht), van
Deenen (Biochemistry, Utrecht) another. But the guy teaching Nuclear
Physics was a joke. Although, the syllabus was fine, and he read a
chapter every lecture, just about literally, advancing the overhead
projector's endless copy of the syllabus.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 8/15/2011 10:07 AM, Han wrote:
wrote in
:

Sounds like you got in on the beginning of the end ... ;0

You know who taught the two undergraduate physics courses I took in
college?

Clarence Zener, the Dean of the College of Science at that time at
Texas A&M University ... he personally taught both those undergraduate
courses, as did the department heads in Chemistry and Mathematics.

DAGS Dr Zener ...

Apparently students today have no chance of deriving the benefit from
having a physicist of that eminence teach undergraduate classes. At
one time it was an accepted practice.

Sorry, but IMO it's just more of the same with regard to the
systematic slide into mediocrity that is creeping into all levels of
education in this country.

I think that we are forgetting that scientific brilliance as recognized
in various ways does not guarantee teaching excellence. Overbeek was
great both as scientist and teacher (Physical Chemistry, Utrecht), van
Deenen (Biochemistry, Utrecht) another. But the guy teaching Nuclear
Physics was a joke. Although, the syllabus was fine, and he read a
chapter every lecture, just about literally, advancing the overhead
projector's endless copy of the syllabus.

Sure there will some exceptions ... but just try to convince Plato and
Xenophon of the benefits of rent-a-profs!



--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 09:03:42 -0500, Swingman wrote:

On 8/14/2011 10:44 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 22:47:08 -0400, wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 13:13:58 -0500, wrote:

On 8/13/2011 9:40 AM, Leon wrote:

Totally agree with that article you posted the link to, especially the
Honors College comments, The students get first pick at the professors
and have much smaller more personal classes.

It's hard to believe that 70% of the undergraduate classes at most
universities are now taught by outsourced, "paid-by-the-course", adjunct
professors!

A sad state of affairs ... this corporate model of teaching was unheard
of in my day.

It's not new. I taught a senior level CS course and a graduate level MIS
course 30 years ago. At one point I asked the dean if I taught all the
required courses, if I got my masters (I only have a BS). He didn't like the
question.

Sounds like you got in on the beginning of the end ... ;0

No, my father was a prof and I have three brothers who are a decade older than
I. This is nothing new. Slave labor has always been cheap.

You know who taught the two undergraduate physics courses I took in college?

Clarence Zener, the Dean of the College of Science at that time at Texas
A&M University ... he personally taught both those undergraduate
courses, as did the department heads in Chemistry and Mathematics.

We had bigs in the Chemistry and Physics departments teach the 10x level
courses, too. 500 students in a lecture hall at a time. What a disaster.

DAGS Dr Zener ...

Know the name.

Apparently students today have no chance of deriving the benefit from
having a physicist of that eminence teach undergraduate classes. At one
time it was an accepted practice.

The 499 other seats canceled any possible benefit of the eminence of the prof.
My second semester of Chemistry (organic) I chose a section with no lecture,
rather four quiz sections with an instructor; a *far* better solution.

Sorry, but IMO it's just more of the same with regard to the systematic
slide into mediocrity that is creeping into all levels of education in
this country.

If it's a slide, nothing has changed for over 50 years.

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 01:53:48 -0400, Bill wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 22:47:08 -0400, wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 13:13:58 -0500, wrote:

On 8/13/2011 9:40 AM, Leon wrote:

Totally agree with that article you posted the link to, especially the
Honors College comments, The students get first pick at the professors
and have much smaller more personal classes.

It's hard to believe that 70% of the undergraduate classes at most
universities are now taught by outsourced, "paid-by-the-course", adjunct
professors!

A sad state of affairs ... this corporate model of teaching was unheard
of in my day.

It's not new. I taught a senior level CS course and a graduate level MIS
course 30 years ago. At one point I asked the dean if I taught all the
required courses, if I got my masters (I only have a BS). He didn't like the
question.

Sometimes there are people in industry who know more about a subject than you
can find to teach.

That may be very true, but that doesn't mean it's safe to assign them
total responsibility for a class if they haven't taught before.

And the choice is, don't teach the class?

It's the department chair's call. Offering a substitute class may be
viewed as more appropriate than the possibility of having to deal with
an angry mob of 20 students (and their parents) with legitimate
complaints. Of course, the chair has to answer to the dean who has to
answer to a vice-president. Offering an alternative class starts to look
more and more attractive.

Again, you assume that only a "professional teacher" can teach. That is a
*very* bad assumption. One which is partly responsible for our ****-poor
education system.


What is likely to happen is that the "industrial expert" is likely to
assume too much.

That happens. In fact, I assumed that seniors in CS would have some idea how
to program a computer and even know something about binary arithmetic. I'm
not above learning, however.

That surely doesn't mean those industrial experts can't be put to good
use. The students love such invited speakers like that.

What good is an "invited speaker", when the subject of the entire course is
the adjunct's specialty? You assume education majors know something worth
teaching.

Here you are mixing apples and oranges.

No, you're saying that only a "professional teacher" can teach, even a
technical subject.

Invited speakers serve many
useful purposes in teaching.

Perhaps, but *THAT* is the changed subject.

I think education majors come in a wide
variety. You assume they are all useless?

Yes! But you have to admit, they're particularly useless teaching college
level Computer Science. Good grief!

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

No, you're saying that only a "professional teacher" can teach, even a
technical subject.


Yes, but, they are, well, "professionals."

Years ago I did some research. I found that the following were ineligible to
teach in the high schools of my state:

* All living Nobel Laureates (this was back when Richard P. Feynman was
alive).
* All winners of the Fields Medal
* Almost all literary prize winners, including Pulitzer, Edgar, Booker,
Caldecott, Newberry, etc.
* Virtually all members of the federal judiciary
* Virtually all members of the Congress and all living ex presidents

And on and on.

Simply because without the requisite "education" courses, it was presumed
they didn't know how to teach.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 01:53:48 -0400, wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 22:47:08 -0400, wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 13:13:58 -0500, wrote:

On 8/13/2011 9:40 AM, Leon wrote:

Totally agree with that article you posted the link to, especially the
Honors College comments, The students get first pick at the professors
and have much smaller more personal classes.

It's hard to believe that 70% of the undergraduate classes at most
universities are now taught by outsourced, "paid-by-the-course", adjunct
professors!

A sad state of affairs ... this corporate model of teaching was unheard
of in my day.

It's not new. I taught a senior level CS course and a graduate level MIS
course 30 years ago. At one point I asked the dean if I taught all the
required courses, if I got my masters (I only have a BS). He didn't like the
question.

Sometimes there are people in industry who know more about a subject than you
can find to teach.

That may be very true, but that doesn't mean it's safe to assign them
total responsibility for a class if they haven't taught before.

And the choice is, don't teach the class?

It's the department chair's call. Offering a substitute class may be
viewed as more appropriate than the possibility of having to deal with
an angry mob of 20 students (and their parents) with legitimate
complaints. Of course, the chair has to answer to the dean who has to
answer to a vice-president. Offering an alternative class starts to look
more and more attractive.

Again, you assume that only a "professional teacher" can teach. That is a
*very* bad assumption. One which is partly responsible for our ****-poor
education system.


I am Not saying that only a professional teacher can teach. I am saying
that my department is not willing to take the chance on someone that has
never taught a class before. It's just a matter of "prudence".
Plenty of things go astray every semester even without taking such risks.




What is likely to happen is that the "industrial expert" is likely to
assume too much.

That happens. In fact, I assumed that seniors in CS would have some idea how
to program a computer and even know something about binary arithmetic. I'm
not above learning, however.

That surely doesn't mean those industrial experts can't be put to good
use. The students love such invited speakers like that.

What good is an "invited speaker", when the subject of the entire course is
the adjunct's specialty? You assume education majors know something worth
teaching.

Here you are mixing apples and oranges.

No, you're saying that only a "professional teacher" can teach, even a
technical subject.

Invited speakers serve many
useful purposes in teaching.

Perhaps, but *THAT* is the changed subject.

I think education majors come in a wide
variety. You assume they are all useless?

Yes! But you have to admit, they're particularly useless teaching college
level Computer Science. Good grief!

Yes, but the notion of asking an education major to teach computer
science is absurd.

HeyBub wrote:
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

No, you're saying that only a "professional teacher" can teach, even a
technical subject.


Yes, but, they are, well, "professionals."

Years ago I did some research. I found that the following were ineligible to
teach in the high schools of my state:

That had to do with the fact that they would be teaching minors. The
laws are strict to protect minors. Colleges are different--they
establish their own policies. However they will act in ways to maintain
or enhance their accreditation with accreditation bodies. These concerns
are not taken lightly.




* All living Nobel Laureates (this was back when Richard P. Feynman was
alive).
* All winners of the Fields Medal
* Almost all literary prize winners, including Pulitzer, Edgar, Booker,
Caldecott, Newberry, etc.
* Virtually all members of the federal judiciary
* Virtually all members of the Congress and all living ex presidents

And on and on.

Simply because without the requisite "education" courses, it was presumed
they didn't know how to teach.

On 8/15/2011 10:16 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 09:03:42 -0500, wrote:

Sorry, but IMO it's just more of the same with regard to the systematic
slide into mediocrity that is creeping into all levels of education in
this country.

If it's a slide, nothing has changed for over 50 years.

Nothing has changed for over 50 years?

Really?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

In article ,
says...

HeyBub wrote:
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

No, you're saying that only a "professional teacher" can teach, even a
technical subject.


Yes, but, they are, well, "professionals."

Years ago I did some research. I found that the following were ineligible to
teach in the high schools of my state:

That had to do with the fact that they would be teaching minors. The
laws are strict to protect minors.

Protect them from what, getting a decent education?

Colleges are different--they
establish their own policies. However they will act in ways to maintain
or enhance their accreditation with accreditation bodies. These concerns
are not taken lightly.




* All living Nobel Laureates (this was back when Richard P. Feynman was
alive).
* All winners of the Fields Medal
* Almost all literary prize winners, including Pulitzer, Edgar, Booker,
Caldecott, Newberry, etc.
* Virtually all members of the federal judiciary
* Virtually all members of the Congress and all living ex presidents

And on and on.

Simply because without the requisite "education" courses, it was presumed
they didn't know how to teach.

J. Clarke wrote:
In ,
says...

HeyBub wrote:
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

No, you're saying that only a "professional teacher" can teach, even a
technical subject.


Yes, but, they are, well, "professionals."

Years ago I did some research. I found that the following were ineligible to
teach in the high schools of my state:

That had to do with the fact that they would be teaching minors. The
laws are strict to protect minors.

Protect them from what, getting a decent education?

I'm just presenting what I know or believe. I wasn't present at the
debate and am not even taking sides. I believe some states (including
LA?), started allowing professionals to teach a few years ago. I'm not
sure how that went. Perhaps someone can confirm.

Bill



Colleges are different--they
establish their own policies. However they will act in ways to maintain
or enhance their accreditation with accreditation bodies. These concerns
are not taken lightly.




* All living Nobel Laureates (this was back when Richard P. Feynman was
alive).
* All winners of the Fields Medal
* Almost all literary prize winners, including Pulitzer, Edgar, Booker,
Caldecott, Newberry, etc.
* Virtually all members of the federal judiciary
* Virtually all members of the Congress and all living ex presidents

And on and on.

Simply because without the requisite "education" courses, it was presumed
they didn't know how to teach.

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 01:53:49 -0400, Bill wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 01:53:48 -0400, wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 22:47:08 -0400, wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 13:13:58 -0500, wrote:

On 8/13/2011 9:40 AM, Leon wrote:

Totally agree with that article you posted the link to, especially the
Honors College comments, The students get first pick at the professors
and have much smaller more personal classes.

It's hard to believe that 70% of the undergraduate classes at most
universities are now taught by outsourced, "paid-by-the-course", adjunct
professors!

A sad state of affairs ... this corporate model of teaching was unheard
of in my day.

It's not new. I taught a senior level CS course and a graduate level MIS
course 30 years ago. At one point I asked the dean if I taught all the
required courses, if I got my masters (I only have a BS). He didn't like the
question.

Sometimes there are people in industry who know more about a subject than you
can find to teach.

That may be very true, but that doesn't mean it's safe to assign them
total responsibility for a class if they haven't taught before.

And the choice is, don't teach the class?

It's the department chair's call. Offering a substitute class may be
viewed as more appropriate than the possibility of having to deal with
an angry mob of 20 students (and their parents) with legitimate
complaints. Of course, the chair has to answer to the dean who has to
answer to a vice-president. Offering an alternative class starts to look
more and more attractive.

Again, you assume that only a "professional teacher" can teach. That is a
*very* bad assumption. One which is partly responsible for our ****-poor
education system.


I am Not saying that only a professional teacher can teach. I am saying
that my department is not willing to take the chance on someone that has
never taught a class before. It's just a matter of "prudence".
Plenty of things go astray every semester even without taking such risks.

That is not what you said. YOu were making a general statement. The argument
is nuts anyway. There is no magic to teaching. ...well, other than having a
good grasp of the subject matter (something "professional teachers" *very*
often don't have).

What is likely to happen is that the "industrial expert" is likely to
assume too much.

That happens. In fact, I assumed that seniors in CS would have some idea how
to program a computer and even know something about binary arithmetic. I'm
not above learning, however.

That surely doesn't mean those industrial experts can't be put to good
use. The students love such invited speakers like that.

What good is an "invited speaker", when the subject of the entire course is
the adjunct's specialty? You assume education majors know something worth
teaching.

Here you are mixing apples and oranges.

No, you're saying that only a "professional teacher" can teach, even a
technical subject.

Invited speakers serve many
useful purposes in teaching.

Perhaps, but *THAT* is the changed subject.

I think education majors come in a wide
variety. You assume they are all useless?

Yes! But you have to admit, they're particularly useless teaching college
level Computer Science. Good grief!

Yes, but the notion of asking an education major to teach computer
science is absurd.

You're the one who was saying otherwise.

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 08:34:01 -0500, Swingman wrote:

On 8/15/2011 10:16 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 09:03:42 -0500, wrote:

Sorry, but IMO it's just more of the same with regard to the systematic
slide into mediocrity that is creeping into all levels of education in
this country.

If it's a slide, nothing has changed for over 50 years.

Nothing has changed for over 50 years?

In that regard, not really. Just more of the same.

Really?

Really. My father died in '65. He had the same sorts of issues with his
employer (a top university). The problem then was professors who didn't teach
and the flood of Indian graduate student teaching assistants and instructors
who couldn't speak English. Not a lot of difference.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Again, you assume that only a "professional teacher" can teach. That is a
*very* bad assumption. One which is partly responsible for our ****-poor
education system.

Bill wrote:
I am Not saying that only a professional teacher can teach. I am saying
that my department is not willing to take the chance on someone that has
never taught a class before. It's just a matter of "prudence".
Plenty of things go astray every semester even without taking such risks.

krw: replied
That is not what you said. YOu were making a general statement. The argument
is nuts anyway. There is no magic to teaching. ...well, other than having a
good grasp of the subject matter (something "professional teachers" *very*
often don't have).

"There is no magic to teaching. ...well, other than having a
good grasp of the subject matter"

If you took that attitude into the classroom you'd disappoint
everyone except yourself (seriously)! You may get away with it in a
class of graduate students, but at the other end of the spectrum you'll
encounter real issues if you are concerned about student success.
If you expess a sentiment like the one above during a teaching
interview, you won't be teaching.

Ironically, you don't need a "perfect understanding" of the subject
matter to be a good teacher. You might even be a better teacher if you
don't have it (and in many cases, concerning ever-changing technology
for instance, it's practically impossible to have it).

I hope you have a chance to teach someday, and I hope you get great
results! However, before you do so, you'll have to learn something
about teaching. The students will not applaud you over your knowledge,
no matter how vast--in fact, if it appears too vast, they will tune you
out even faster. The sooner you accept this, the sooner you can be an
effective teacher.

Bill

In article , " wrote:
[...]
There is no magic to teaching. ...well, other than having a
good grasp of the subject matter [...]

Absolutely untrue. That is only half the battle.

Two things are required in order to be able to teach:
1) Adequate knowledge of the subject matter
2) The ability to communicate that knowledge effectively

The latter category includes being able, when necessary, to explain the
concept in more than one way. When students experience difficulty grasping a
new concept, they often find it difficult to express exactly what it is that
they don't understand, or why they don't understand it. The best teachers are
those who can see where the students are having difficulty, and guide them
past the trouble spots. All this is part of communicating knowledge
effectively -- if I explain a concept in terms that are perfectly clear to
*me* but unclear to *you*, I have not communicated effectively. Moreover, if
the concept is unclear to you, you probably do not know *why*. It's up to me
to figure out why my explanation was unclear, and recast it in terms that will
be clear to you. If I cannot do this, my communication will continue to be
ineffective.

A person may be the leading expert in the universe on a particular subject,
but if he is unable to communicate that knowledge clearly to another person,
he *cannot* be an effective teacher.

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 19:31:20 -0400, Bill wrote:

wrote:

Again, you assume that only a "professional teacher" can teach. That is a
*very* bad assumption. One which is partly responsible for our ****-poor
education system.

Bill wrote:
I am Not saying that only a professional teacher can teach. I am saying
that my department is not willing to take the chance on someone that has
never taught a class before. It's just a matter of "prudence".
Plenty of things go astray every semester even without taking such risks.

krw: replied
That is not what you said. YOu were making a general statement. The argument
is nuts anyway. There is no magic to teaching. ...well, other than having a
good grasp of the subject matter (something "professional teachers" *very*
often don't have).

"There is no magic to teaching. ...well, other than having a
good grasp of the subject matter"

If you took that attitude into the classroom you'd disappoint
everyone except yourself (seriously)!

Wrong. THat's the only "magic". Everything else is natural.

You may get away with it in a
class of graduate students, but at the other end of the spectrum you'll
encounter real issues if you are concerned about student success.

Try teaching HS kids math without understanding math. Ditto physics....

If you expess a sentiment like the one above during a teaching
interview, you won't be teaching.

You've already made it clear that you're rather hire a "professional teacher"
who knows nothing of the subject matter. You're wrong. That's what we have.

Ironically, you don't need a "perfect understanding" of the subject
matter to be a good teacher. You might even be a better teacher if you
don't have it (and in many cases, concerning ever-changing technology
for instance, it's practically impossible to have it).

Utter nonsense.

I hope you have a chance to teach someday, and I hope you get great
results!

I have! Are you an English teacher? ;-)

However, before you do so, you'll have to learn something
about teaching. The students will not applaud you over your knowledge,
no matter how vast--in fact, if it appears too vast, they will tune you
out even faster. The sooner you accept this, the sooner you can be an
effective teacher.

You 100% wrong about everything you've said so far. ...particularly about me.

On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 00:12:18 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , " wrote:
[...]
There is no magic to teaching. ...well, other than having a
good grasp of the subject matter [...]

Absolutely untrue. That is only half the battle.

Two things are required in order to be able to teach:
1) Adequate knowledge of the subject matter

No, you really have to know it. You'll find out quickly enough how little you
really know when you have to teach the subject.

2) The ability to communicate that knowledge effectively


The latter category includes being able, when necessary, to explain the
concept in more than one way. When students experience difficulty grasping a
new concept, they often find it difficult to express exactly what it is that
they don't understand, or why they don't understand it. The best teachers are
those who can see where the students are having difficulty, and guide them
past the trouble spots. All this is part of communicating knowledge
effectively -- if I explain a concept in terms that are perfectly clear to
*me* but unclear to *you*, I have not communicated effectively. Moreover, if
the concept is unclear to you, you probably do not know *why*. It's up to me
to figure out why my explanation was unclear, and recast it in terms that will
be clear to you. If I cannot do this, my communication will continue to be
ineffective.

A person may be the leading expert in the universe on a particular subject,
but if he is unable to communicate that knowledge clearly to another person,
he *cannot* be an effective teacher.

He cannot be an effective teacher if he doesn't know the material, either.
That's what we have with "professional teachers".

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 17:54:22 -0500, "
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 08:34:01 -0500, Swingman wrote:

On 8/15/2011 10:16 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 09:03:42 -0500, wrote:

Sorry, but IMO it's just more of the same with regard to the systematic
slide into mediocrity that is creeping into all levels of education in
this country.

If it's a slide, nothing has changed for over 50 years.

Nothing has changed for over 50 years?

In that regard, not really. Just more of the same.

Really?

Really. My father died in '65. He had the same sorts of issues with his
employer (a top university). The problem then was professors who didn't teach
and the flood of Indian graduate student teaching assistants and instructors
^ and Chinese
who couldn't speak English. Not a lot of difference.

On 8/16/2011 7:12 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
In , z wrote:
[...]
There is no magic to teaching. ...well, other than having a
good grasp of the subject matter [...]

Absolutely untrue. That is only half the battle.

Two things are required in order to be able to teach:
1) Adequate knowledge of the subject matter
2) The ability to communicate that knowledge effectively

No kidding ... and 2 above leads to the other requirement: ability to
motivate the student.

IME, that is the "magic" part ... some have it some don't, and those
that do will magically transform an unmotivated student into a motivated
student.

I know, because it happened to me. AAMOF, 63 years since starting
school, I still remember the names of those few who exercised that
"magic" on me ... the rest are not even a blurred memory.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

In article , " wrote:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 00:12:18 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:
[...]
There is no magic to teaching. ...well, other than having a
good grasp of the subject matter [...]

Absolutely untrue. That is only half the battle.

Two things are required in order to be able to teach:
1) Adequate knowledge of the subject matter

No, you really have to know it. You'll find out quickly enough how little you
really know when you have to teach the subject.

It's not necessary to possess expert knowledge of a subject in order to teach
it. The ability to communicate what knowledge one has, is far more important
to effective teaching than the extent of one's knowledge. If I can
communicate clearly what I know about a particular subject, then what I can
teach you about it is limited only by the extent of my knowledge -- and if I
know everything there is to know about that subject, but cannot communicate
it, I can't teach you a damn thing.

2) The ability to communicate that knowledge effectively


The latter category includes being able, when necessary, to explain the
concept in more than one way. When students experience difficulty grasping a
new concept, they often find it difficult to express exactly what it is that
they don't understand, or why they don't understand it. The best teachers are
those who can see where the students are having difficulty, and guide them
past the trouble spots. All this is part of communicating knowledge
effectively -- if I explain a concept in terms that are perfectly clear to
*me* but unclear to *you*, I have not communicated effectively. Moreover, if
the concept is unclear to you, you probably do not know *why*. It's up to me
to figure out why my explanation was unclear, and recast it in terms that will
be clear to you. If I cannot do this, my communication will continue to be
ineffective.

A person may be the leading expert in the universe on a particular subject,
but if he is unable to communicate that knowledge clearly to another person,
he *cannot* be an effective teacher.

He cannot be an effective teacher if he doesn't know the material, either.

That, of course, is obvious. I was responding to your contention that that was
*all* that was required. Anyone who has taught for even one semester knows
that's not the case.

That's what we have with "professional teachers".

Correction: that's what we have with *some* professional teachers.

In article , " wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 19:31:20 -0400, Bill wrote:

wrote:

Again, you assume that only a "professional teacher" can teach. That is a
*very* bad assumption. One which is partly responsible for our ****-poor
education system.

Bill wrote:
I am Not saying that only a professional teacher can teach. I am saying
that my department is not willing to take the chance on someone that has
never taught a class before. It's just a matter of "prudence".
Plenty of things go astray every semester even without taking such risks.

krw: replied
That is not what you said. YOu were making a general statement. The argument
is nuts anyway. There is no magic to teaching. ...well, other than having a
good grasp of the subject matter (something "professional teachers" *very*
often don't have).

"There is no magic to teaching. ...well, other than having a
good grasp of the subject matter"

If you took that attitude into the classroom you'd disappoint
everyone except yourself (seriously)!

Wrong. THat's the only "magic". Everything else is natural.

You may get away with it in a
class of graduate students, but at the other end of the spectrum you'll
encounter real issues if you are concerned about student success.

Try teaching HS kids math without understanding math. Ditto physics....

Try teaching *anything* if you can't communicate it clearly. Let me know how
well that works for you.

Let's do a thought experiment. For the purposes of the experiment, we will
stipulate that you have expert knowledge of chemistry, and that you speak,
understand, read, and write only Polish, and no other language. Your
assignment is to teach high school chemistry in Birmingham, Alabama.

How helpful is that expert knowledge of chemistry in teaching a classroom full
of students who can't understand anything you say?

There is no magic to teaching. ...well, other than having a
good grasp of the subject matter [...]
----------------------------------------------------
Talk about total BULL ****.

Lew

On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 00:57:07 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , " wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 19:31:20 -0400, Bill wrote:

wrote:

Again, you assume that only a "professional teacher" can teach. That is a
*very* bad assumption. One which is partly responsible for our ****-poor
education system.

Bill wrote:
I am Not saying that only a professional teacher can teach. I am saying
that my department is not willing to take the chance on someone that has
never taught a class before. It's just a matter of "prudence".
Plenty of things go astray every semester even without taking such risks.

krw: replied
That is not what you said. YOu were making a general statement. The argument
is nuts anyway. There is no magic to teaching. ...well, other than having a
good grasp of the subject matter (something "professional teachers" *very*
often don't have).

"There is no magic to teaching. ...well, other than having a
good grasp of the subject matter"

If you took that attitude into the classroom you'd disappoint
everyone except yourself (seriously)!

Wrong. THat's the only "magic". Everything else is natural.

You may get away with it in a
class of graduate students, but at the other end of the spectrum you'll
encounter real issues if you are concerned about student success.

Try teaching HS kids math without understanding math. Ditto physics....

Try teaching *anything* if you can't communicate it clearly. Let me know how
well that works for you.

Try teaching *anything* you know nothing about. Let me know how that works
out for you.

Let's do a thought experiment. For the purposes of the experiment, we will
stipulate that you have expert knowledge of chemistry, and that you speak,
understand, read, and write only Polish, and no other language. Your
assignment is to teach high school chemistry in Birmingham, Alabama.

How helpful is that expert knowledge of chemistry in teaching a classroom full
of students who can't understand anything you say?

Reverse it.

In article , " wrote:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 00:57:07 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 19:31:20 -0400, Bill wrote:

wrote:

Again, you assume that only a "professional teacher" can teach. That is
a
*very* bad assumption. One which is partly responsible for our
****-poor
education system.

Bill wrote:
I am Not saying that only a professional teacher can teach. I am saying
that my department is not willing to take the chance on someone that has
never taught a class before. It's just a matter of "prudence".
Plenty of things go astray every semester even without taking such risks.

krw: replied
That is not what you said. YOu were making a general statement. The
argument
is nuts anyway. There is no magic to teaching. ...well, other than
having a
good grasp of the subject matter (something "professional teachers" *very*
often don't have).

"There is no magic to teaching. ...well, other than having a
good grasp of the subject matter"

If you took that attitude into the classroom you'd disappoint
everyone except yourself (seriously)!

Wrong. THat's the only "magic". Everything else is natural.

You may get away with it in a
class of graduate students, but at the other end of the spectrum you'll
encounter real issues if you are concerned about student success.

Try teaching HS kids math without understanding math. Ditto physics....

Try teaching *anything* if you can't communicate it clearly. Let me know how
well that works for you.

Try teaching *anything* you know nothing about. Let me know how that works
out for you.

I never contended otherwise. You, on the other hand, contended that knowledge
of the subject was the only necessary attribute to be able to teach.

Let's do a thought experiment. For the purposes of the experiment, we will
stipulate that you have expert knowledge of chemistry, and that you speak,
understand, read, and write only Polish, and no other language. Your
assignment is to teach high school chemistry in Birmingham, Alabama.

How helpful is that expert knowledge of chemistry in teaching a classroom full
of students who can't understand anything you say?

Reverse it.

So you think that you'd be able to teach that class -- after all, you have
expert knowledge of the subject, and (according to you) that's all that's
necessary.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message ...
Let's do a thought experiment. For the purposes of the experiment, we will
stipulate that you have expert knowledge of chemistry, and that you speak,
understand, read, and write only Polish, and no other language. Your
assignment is to teach high school chemistry in Birmingham, Alabama.

How helpful is that expert knowledge of chemistry in teaching a classroom
full
of students who can't understand anything you say?

============

University Professors are typically prime examples of that concept at work.
It works there, barely. Sometimes their tape players are hard to understand
in a classroom of 500 students too.

--

Eric

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

I have! Are you an English teacher? ;-)


I'm sorry, if I forgot certain personal details that you shared.
Among details I don't try hard to remember are peoples ages, for
instance. AFAIC, everyone here is either young or young at heart.

Bill

Bill wrote:


I am Not saying that only a professional teacher can teach. I am
saying that my department is not willing to take the chance on
someone that has never taught a class before. It's just a matter of
"prudence". Plenty of things go astray every semester even without taking
such
risks.

Understand that - but... what is your your department going to do when the
last experienced teacher (professor) dies? That really strikes me as an odd
position for an academic institution.


--

-Mike-

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 00:57:07 GMT,
(Doug Miller) wrote:


Try teaching *anything* if you can't communicate it clearly. Let me
know how
well that works for you.

Try teaching *anything* you know nothing about. Let me know how that
works out for you.

I have not really been following this thread very closely, but at a casual
glance, I'm not aware that anyone proposed effectively teaching something
that the instructor knew nothing about. Maybe I missed something, but this
one seems to have come out of left field.



Let's do a thought experiment. For the purposes of the experiment,
we will
stipulate that you have expert knowledge of chemistry, and that you
speak,
understand, read, and write only Polish, and no other language. Your
assignment is to teach high school chemistry in Birmingham, Alabama.

How helpful is that expert knowledge of chemistry in teaching a
classroom full
of students who can't understand anything you say?

Reverse it.

If you reverse it, Doug's point remains equally valid.

--

-Mike-

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:


He cannot be an effective teacher if he doesn't know the material,
either. That's what we have with "professional teachers".

Did this come right out of the Teacher's Union magazine? You have just
mixed two separate thoughts in that one paragraph.

--

-Mike-

Mike Marlow wrote:
Bill wrote:


I am Not saying that only a professional teacher can teach. I am
saying that my department is not willing to take the chance on
someone that has never taught a class before. It's just a matter of
"prudence". Plenty of things go astray every semester even without taking
such
risks.

Understand that - but... what is your your department going to do when the
last experienced teacher (professor) dies? That really strikes me as an odd
position for an academic institution.

People routinely change jobs or retire. The tenured faculty members
represents both an asset and a liability to a college or university and
their number is carefully monitored. The supply-demand situation, in
general, favors academic institutions over job-seekers. Teaching
experience is not difficult to get, at least in popular courses, if
someone is really interested in acquiring it. Mere acceptance in many
graduate programs will bring that teaching opportunity. Getting
experience teaching in areas like "history" may (will) be more difficult.

Bill wrote:
Mike Marlow wrote:
Bill wrote:


I am Not saying that only a professional teacher can teach. I am
saying that my department is not willing to take the chance on
someone that has never taught a class before. It's just a matter of
"prudence". Plenty of things go astray every semester even without
taking
such
risks.

Understand that - but... what is your your department going to do when
the
last experienced teacher (professor) dies? That really strikes me as
an odd
position for an academic institution.

People routinely change jobs or retire. The tenured faculty members
represents both an asset and a liability to a college or university and
their number is carefully monitored. The supply-demand situation, in
general, favors academic institutions over job-seekers. Teaching
experience is not difficult to get, at least in popular courses, if
someone is really interested in acquiring it.

Mere acceptance in many
graduate programs will bring that teaching opportunity.

Sorry: I meant "admission", not "acceptance".



Getting
experience teaching in areas like "history" may (will) be more difficult.

Doug Miller wrote:

I never contended otherwise. You, on the other hand, contended that
knowledge
of the subject was the only necessary attribute to be able to teach.

Let's do a thought experiment. For the purposes of the experiment,
we will stipulate that you have expert knowledge of chemistry, and
that you speak, understand, read, and write only Polish, and no
other language. Your assignment is to teach high school chemistry
in Birmingham, Alabama.

How helpful is that expert knowledge of chemistry in teaching a
classroom full of students who can't understand anything you say?

Reverse it.

So you think that you'd be able to teach that class -- after all, you
have
expert knowledge of the subject, and (according to you) that's all
that's
necessary.

Consider the "teaching experience" of a retired, Ph.D. chemical engineer,
who, by law, is deemed incompetent to teach in the public schools.

He's got 20 years experience as a student in a classroom. As a grad student,
he most likely has at least four years experience teaching undergraduate
students in basic college chemistry, organic chemistry, and quantitative
analysis.

As head of a commercial lab for, say, ten years, he's had to keep up with
professional publications and teach the newer techniques to his
subordinates.

It is incredible to believe he can't muddle through high school chemistry
(or, for that matter physics, algebra, and other math courses).