Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think what we are saying is that different. You should thoroughly understand the subject you are teaching. But I don't think you have to be 8 classes later to understand it enough to answer beginner questions, even for smart beginners. Nor do you have to be that far to understand how to apply chemistry to everyday life. Do you need to truly understand it and love it? Yes. Do you need to be the world's most accomplished chemist? No. I guess we can agree to disagreee on that.
8 classes? Seems strangely arbitrary. To teach secondary level courses you need an education in the subject at the next level, the next level is a bachelor's degree. To teach AP courses (which should be college level) the next level of understanding would be a graduate degree or at least some graduate work in the field.
To teach both introductory chemistry and AP courses, I need not only chemistry classes but physics, biology, math, etc all at the NEXT level.
Quote:
If that were true, there would be no college professors that can't teach. And we know that is not true.
No one is saying that teaching is not also an art as well as a science but you appear to be downplaying the amount of content knowledge a good teacher needs to have. Because much of the real learning and sparking of passion occurs by discussing more than what is found in the text book. My kids are endlessly fascinated by the "weird" tidbits of quantum physics that are hinted at in chemistry and if all I had was a chem class or two beyond what they are at, I would not have the knowledge base to explain where we are going only where we are now.
Quote:
So if someone LOVED high school math but didn't major in it in college, even if they took a few advanced science/math classes while there, they can't teach algebra? Why? They understand it, love it and understand how students use it later.
I would not want someone without a degree in math or a related field teaching my child math. Now the best AP calc teacher in our school has a PhD in plasma physics, obviously not math, but he had to take well beyond calculus and took many classes that incorporated that knowledge down the road. That would just not be true of a English lit major who took algebra and "loved it".
Quote:
I think that is a huge assumption. It is possible to have a non-rigid understanding of science (or whatever) without having majored in it. Especially if you had a good teacher.
Nope, not unless you majored in a related field like math or engineering. I do not care how good your teacher is, mastery of scientific method, research, etc comes from the "doing" that occurs as part of a degree in the field or an advanced degree in a related field. I loved political science, I got really good grades and had one of the best teachers in a well known program in poli sci. I am not remotely qualified in anyway to teach high school students about political science because I am not a content area expert.
I am from a thinking that if you have the drive and decent intelligence, you can self teach yourself a lot.
This is so vague that you're not actually saying mmuch. Drive? How much exactly? How many people, in particular teachers, posses such levels of drive? How does one quantify "decent intelligence"? "A lot" what is that exactly?
One can easily teach themselves things that don't go beyond their general intellectual abilities. For example, someone that studied mathematics and biology would probably be able to learn physics by themselves because they've already developed the critical skill base in other fields. On the other hand an English major may as well use the books for toilet paper, they aren't going to posses any of the underlying skills required to develop a serious understanding of physics.
This "you can teach yourself" line is usually asserted by people that didn't go to college, I guess its a comforting belief....
I always wondered why people cared so much about the salaries of teachers and the military etc. There are clearly other salaries we need to be concerned about:
There is definitely a problem when people are upset about the pay of the people teaching children and going to war.
strange, those ceo's salaries are not paid with taxpayer funds, but the goverment jobs are.
but I would be just satisfied with public unions going away or public unions not being allowed to support any candidate and not being involved with the political process.
This is so vague that you're not actually saying mmuch. Drive? How much exactly? How many people, in particular teachers, posses such levels of drive? How does one quantify "decent intelligence"? "A lot" what is that exactly?
Are you serious? I was stating about average intelligence, with focus and drive to learn something. Why do you need a quantitative number.
Quote:
This "you can teach yourself" line is usually asserted by people that didn't go to college, I guess its a comforting belief....
Uh oh, are we trying to start a people that go to college and people that don't go thread?
I must be unusual, I have completed about 150 college credits and I believe it strongly "you can teach yourself alot", and I will even take it further, I also think you can breeze through some classes and not learn a thing but pass it with a decent grade.
Are you serious? I was stating about average intelligence, with focus and drive to learn something. Why do you need a quantitative number.
Uh oh, are we trying to start a people that go to college and people that don't go thread?
I must be unusual, I have completed about 150 college credits and I believe it strongly "you can teach yourself alot", and I will even take it further, I also think you can breeze through some classes and not learn a thing but pass it with a decent grade.
Sent from my autocorrect butchering device.
The problem with self teaching is that you are limited by what the teacher doesn't know.
As a child, I wanted to take piano lessons but we couldn't afford them. I took lessons here and there, when I had the money, but I was mainly self taught. I THOUGHT I'd taught myself a lot. Then I put my dd into Yamaha classes. I was taken back by how much I didn't know as I went through the program with her. The problem with self teaching is you don't realize when you've got something wrong or that there may be other things out there you need to learn. The teacher holds you back.
It's one thing to teach yourself "more" in an area you're already an expert and quite another to teach yourself something from scratch. I think the more education you have, the more able you are to teach yourself and vice versa. Because I sat through my dd's Yamaha classes, I'm now in better position to teach myself but I now also appreciate the value of a good music teacher.
8 classes? Seems strangely arbitrary. To teach secondary level courses you need an education in the subject at the next level, the next level is a bachelor's degree. To teach AP courses (which should be college level) the next level of understanding would be a graduate degree or at least some graduate work in the field.
To teach both introductory chemistry and AP courses, I need not only chemistry classes but physics, biology, math, etc all at the NEXT level.
No one is saying that teaching is not also an art as well as a science but you appear to be downplaying the amount of content knowledge a good teacher needs to have. Because much of the real learning and sparking of passion occurs by discussing more than what is found in the text book. My kids are endlessly fascinated by the "weird" tidbits of quantum physics that are hinted at in chemistry and if all I had was a chem class or two beyond what they are at, I would not have the knowledge base to explain where we are going only where we are now.
I would not want someone without a degree in math or a related field teaching my child math. Now the best AP calc teacher in our school has a PhD in plasma physics, obviously not math, but he had to take well beyond calculus and took many classes that incorporated that knowledge down the road. That would just not be true of a English lit major who took algebra and "loved it".
Nope, not unless you majored in a related field like math or engineering. I do not care how good your teacher is, mastery of scientific method, research, etc comes from the "doing" that occurs as part of a degree in the field or an advanced degree in a related field. I loved political science, I got really good grades and had one of the best teachers in a well known program in poli sci. I am not remotely qualified in anyway to teach high school students about political science because I am not a content area expert.
I think you need to actually master a major to understand how mastery changes everything. I can teach things six different ways if I need to because I understand the material. IMO, all you can do is follow a prescribed path if you do not have a good understanding of your material and I think that takes, at least a degree beyond the level you're teaching. Probably more in the sciences.
You know, there's this crazy class of people that actually enjoy being around kids and helping them to learn AND know more than enough to teach a group of students who won't be specializing in that particular field in college or choose it as a career.
Plus I keep seeing this assumption that all those high GPA'ers would have chose the teaching field if only the paychecks were better. Really?
First of all, no one has provided any real numbers to back up that assertion and second, you're assuming those people have a desire to be a teacher in the first place. Hate to tell you but even before the current highly-stressful school atmosphere appeared (e.g. discipline is old-fashioned, parents who don't parent and spineless admistrations) few people EVER wanted to be a teacher. It is (duh) very people-oriented - how many people do you know that have told teachers "Jeez I could never stand to be around kids all day - you must be a saint!" - and requires a boatload of patience. At the risk of sounding arrogant, yes, it takes a special person to be a teacher and not everyone has those qualities.
I'd love to see an experiment over a five year period where a high school paid all teachers, including those fresh out of college, a minimum of $100K per year. We'll see how many last because I highly doubt most will stick with it.
How many schools require teachers to take subject area tests every few years? Few.....and the reason teachers always fight any such tests is that most would fail.... But seriously, how crazy is it that subject area tests aren't required!?
I think that's a different point than what we are talking about. All I said is that a teacher needs to understand the subject. You are talking about how to make sure they understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
8 classes? Seems strangely arbitrary. To teach secondary level courses you need an education in the subject at the next level, the next level is a bachelor's degree. To teach AP courses (which should be college level) the next level of understanding would be a graduate degree or at least some graduate work in the field.
To teach both introductory chemistry and AP courses, I need not only chemistry classes but physics, biology, math, etc all at the NEXT level.
No one is saying that teaching is not also an art as well as a science but you appear to be downplaying the amount of content knowledge a good teacher needs to have. Because much of the real learning and sparking of passion occurs by discussing more than what is found in the text book. My kids are endlessly fascinated by the "weird" tidbits of quantum physics that are hinted at in chemistry and if all I had was a chem class or two beyond what they are at, I would not have the knowledge base to explain where we are going only where we are now.
I would not want someone without a degree in math or a related field teaching my child math. Now the best AP calc teacher in our school has a PhD in plasma physics, obviously not math, but he had to take well beyond calculus and took many classes that incorporated that knowledge down the road. That would just not be true of a English lit major who took algebra and "loved it".
Nope, not unless you majored in a related field like math or engineering. I do not care how good your teacher is, mastery of scientific method, research, etc comes from the "doing" that occurs as part of a degree in the field or an advanced degree in a related field. I loved political science, I got really good grades and had one of the best teachers in a well known program in poli sci. I am not remotely qualified in anyway to teach high school students about political science because I am not a content area expert.
Of course the 8 classes is arbitrary. LOL. It was just a number thrown out to illustrate a point.
This is totally a judgment call and one we are just going to have to part ways on.
I think you are assuming that people who didn't go all the way in a subject are only going to teach "what is in the text book". I don't think that is true at all.
I also think the job of, say, the algebra teacher is to teach the subject sufficiently so that the next teacher gets students that have a good handle on the material. Students need to know the equations, why they work, and how to apply them enough to get through the next level. Teachers should also try to infuse some students with a passion for the subject. Will a extremely deep understanding of the subject infuse your teaching? Probably. But can someone who does not have a deep knowledge accomplish the mission too? Yep. Do you have to be able to answer questions about quantum physics to teach an introductory class? Nope. Only people who know quantum physics (or something like it) can come up with compelling ways to teach intro physics? Nope. Do you have to know how physics is used in the possible next few classes to understand just what they need to know in terms of application? Yup.
You think I'm underselling context knowledge. I think you are OVER selling it. Of course you have to know the subject well, and of course if you are going to teach an AP level class you should have a good handle of college level material. I am not saying someone who took algebra 20 years ago should jump into teaching the subject. But if you took lots of math, had a proclivity for it, and remember a lot of it, there is nothing wrong with refreshing your memory and teaching an intro level class IMO. And by refreshing your memory I don't necessarily mean cracking open a textbook. I mean doing the work teachers do to prepare.. taking a class perhaps, talking to other teachers and asking questions, reading up on new methods to teach the subject... etc.
But again, this is clearly an agree to disagree kind of thing to me. That's fine.
I think that's a different point than what we are talking about. All I said is that a teacher needs to understand the subject. You are talking about how to make sure they understand.
Of course the 8 classes is arbitrary. LOL. It was just a number thrown out to illustrate a point.
This is totally a judgment call and one we are just going to have to part ways on.
I think you are assuming that people who didn't go all the way in a subject are only going to teach "what is in the text book". I don't think that is true at all.
I also think the job of, say, the algebra teacher is to teach the subject sufficiently so that the next teacher gets students that have a good handle on the material. Students need to know the equations, why they work, and how to apply them enough to get to the next level. Teachers should also try to infuse some students with a passion for the subject. Will a extremely deep understanding of the subject infuse your teaching? Probably. But can someone who does not have a deep knowledge accomplish the mission too? Yep. Do you have to be able to answer questions about quantum physics to teach an introductory class? Nope. Only people who know quantum physics (or something like it) can come up with compelling ways to teach intro physics? Nope. Do you have to know how physics is used in the possible next few classes to understand just what they need to know in terms of application? Yup.
You think I'm underselling context knowledge. I think you are OVER selling it. Of course you have to know the subject well, and of course if you are going to teach an AP level class you should have a good handle of college level material. I am not saying someone who took algebra 20 years ago should jump into teaching the subject. But if you took lots of math, had a proclivity for it, and remember a lot of it, there is nothing wrong with refreshing your memory and teaching an intro level class IMO. And by refreshing your memory I don't necessarily mean cracking open a textbook. I mean doing the work teachers do to prepare.. taking a class perhaps, talking to other teachers and asking questions, reading up on new methods to teach the subject... etc.
But again, this is clearly an agree to disagree kind of thing to me. That's fine.
Looking back on how I learned, and when it started to click, had I only taken a few chemistry courses, I would be nowhere near as prepared as I am to teach chemistry today. You may not think so, but from where I sit, that extra education made a HUGE difference. It's the difference between memorization and understanding. Understanding means I can teach things from whatever angle I need to. I see all the angles.
I have all the proof I need that my background is valuable. The passing scores in the charter school I taught in jumped 30% my first year teaching and 5% the next year only to fall back right where they were after they fired me. My students tell their parents that they like me as a teacher because I can actually answer their questions. Because of my industrial experience, I can tie what I teach to the real world and offer career advice to students. I can't imagine teaching science without having majored in science.
Looking back on how I learned, and when it started to click, had I only taken a few chemistry courses, I would be nowhere near as prepared as I am to teach chemistry today. You may not think so, but from where I sit, that extra education made a HUGE difference. It's the difference between memorization and understanding. Understanding means I can teach things from whatever angle I need to. I see all the angles.
I have all the proof I need that my background is valuable. The passing scores in the charter school I taught in jumped 30% my first year teaching and 5% the next year only to fall back right where they were after they fired me. My students tell their parents that they like me as a teacher because I can actually answer their questions. Because of my industrial experience, I can tie what I teach to the real world and offer career advice to students. I can't imagine teaching science without having majored in science.
I never meant to imply that your background is not valuable. I am sorry to give that impression. Of course if you are a good teacher, that can make you an even better one. I agree with that.
My only point that you don't need that level of understanding to teach entry level high school subjects. Not that one couldn't possibly teach better with it, but the job can still be done without it. I think a deeper understanding is different from no understanding. I think the bolded sentence assumes no real understanding from people who did not major in that for all 4 years of college, and I don't think that is a correct assumption.
I am also talking about more than the sciences, so that can be a difference as well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think you need to actually master a major to understand how mastery changes everything. I can teach things six different ways if I need to because I understand the material. IMO, all you can do is follow a prescribed path if you do not have a good understanding of your material and I think that takes, at least a degree beyond the level you're teaching. Probably more in the sciences.
