From Merriam-Webster:
Art (noun)
1 : skill acquired by experience, study, or observation, 2 : a branch of learning, 3 : an occupation requiring knowledge or skill.
Science (noun)
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding, 2 : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study, or something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge.
So, is teaching an art or a science. I think that when people think of an occupation as an art, they are often thinking in terms of “being born to it” or that “it comes natural”. However, when you look at the definition of “art”, it is really skill born from study or observation. However, to me this does not negate the fact that there are some people who have an innate ability or desire to teach, so the acquiring of the skill necessary to be a good teacher comes more easily. It’s the same with “science”. It’s learned skills, the knowledge of said skills which can be used to teach others.
I think anyone can learn to teach, but the real question is whether they can be good teachers? Any skill can be learned. However, it not only takes knowledge and desire to teach, but it also takes an ability to be a good listener and communicator. As we’ve discussed in previous lessons, collaboration and interaction are essential to learning, and on the flip side is also essential in teaching. Students are more likely to be open to learning and sharing of ideas when their teacher is also open to sharing ideas and is as willing to learn from the students. Learning occurs on both sides and is a life-long process. A teacher just starting out in teaching still has the opportunity to continue learning a throughout their career in teaching, not only from books and their own study, but also other teachers, and as I mentioned their own students.
Another aspect of good teaching is the teacher’s willingness to change. Over the years, different generations of students will have many different learning styles. It’s important for a teacher to be willing to adapt to these differences. A way to do this is through observation, almost like a scientific study of the students. Knowing what makes the next generation of students “tick” is a way to better communicate with them and foster a community of learning.
I’m not sure that I could be considered a natural teacher. I like to learn, and I do like to share my thoughts and ideas with others, but I’m not sure that the desire is in me. However, until I’ve tried it someday, I won’t rule it out.
References
“Art.” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2010. Merriam-Webster Online. 12 May 2011 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art
“Science.” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2010. Merriam-Webster Online. 12 May 2011 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science
3 comments:
I think that in many ways we responded so similarly to this question. A good teacher should be a lifelong learner, someone who is always will to be flexible and to adapt to the changing world and along with that, changing students. Teaching can be very rewarding and it has its ups and downs like any other profession, but it's worth it!
It’s very interesting how you mention teachers having to be flexible to change with the flow of different generations. I think that another essential ingredient of good teaching is an enduring curiosity about the world. Good teachers are always asking insightful questions and they are always interested in new information. I also think of good teachers being open to new ideas and new ways of thinking. Their openness and curiosity allows them to change with the need of different generations.
Hi Tracey!
It is interesting that everyone is commenting on your statement about teachers changing their styles as new learning styles evolve. So too shall I, but I am going to play devil’s advocate for a moment: Is it really that the learning styles have changed or have we (society in general) given them new names? When my Grandpa tell stories about being in school, he always mentioned this one boy that could not sit still and focus, was always fidgeting and moving around (my Grandpa remembers him because the boy was punished so often for this); today we might say he could be ADHD. Gardner might say the boy is a Kinesthetic Learner. So have learning styles changed or are we better able to describe how people learn? And because of that better description, are better able to meet the needs of our students?
Post a Comment