What Makes A Good Teacher?

[pagetheoracle]

A good teacher does not make others look small (humiliate them) A good teacher laughs with you, not at you as he sees his own early stumbles in your present ones, rather than tries to hide them, so he appears superior to you now (ashamed of his past) A good teacher tries to draw out of you what you know, what you can discover or what you can do now: He does not try to overwhelm you with his own knowledge or abilities A good teacher doesn’t rest on his own laurels (isn’t lazy or negative)but pushes himself to learn new things as well as encourages others to do likewise. He encourages you to do your best. He doesn’t discourage you from trying, seeing you as a rival for his crown. He doesn’t encourage others to bully you or do so himself (controls himself, not others). He doesn’t believe in elitism but equality of souls, all struggling to get things right, not perfectionists lost in competition with others but found in self-discovery (aware of what they got wrong, so they can go on to get it right - not stuck in shame of failure in the past but joy of discovery in the present, releasing you into the future through more effort) He is quiet, patient and tolerant with his students, wanting them to enjoy what he enjoys - the discovery of new lands, new islands of hope A good teacher doesn’t complain that you got something wrong, he explains why you got it wrong and compliments you on trying, encouraging you to think about it more, based on the new information / skill he’s given you (Mr Miyagi or Bruce Lee with his pupils in real life) A good teacher emphasizes future effort, not past failure. He encourages independent thought but joint effort, wherever appropriate, to complete a project (original ideas come from within but co-operation is needed for big dreams in the outside world, to become reality) He goes slow, to demonstrate what to do, so that the student can see in detail how to replicate the effect and talks in depth, so they understand the subject fully, repeating the material as often as necessary to ensure the lesson sinks in. He does not rush through and skip over material on a once only basis. I'm sure there are ideas I've missed and others I've repeated here but I've tried to get to the essence of the subject but unfortunately am a little tired because of missed sleep over three nights, so this may be the cause. Apologies again.

 

Moderation note: replies to this post have been moved to "Flame War Split From 'what Makes A Good Teacher?'" because they wander far off this thread's subject of what makes a good teacher.

[ErlyRisa]

He/she doesn't promote "their" propaganda ... especially in a smug underlying stance that THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE too agree with in order to be a part of MY SOCIETY. ,in my day it was all too obvious... and I presume the creationistas seem to be working a similar path. I understand that parents/institutions should in effect through freedom of thought be allowed to instill whatever they want (and that may even include "Terrorism") -but I say that is boring.

 

There are also the other types of teachers that do "Anti Teaching", teaching completely worthless knowledge to pupils that think that the future holds something in the department that they are being taught. I haven't seen this too much, but there is the case where sometimes the "elders" don't want to let go and just want robots for the future (even though most of them (teacher) grew up listening to Pink Floyd).

 

As for Primary education: I think a good teacher is an attractive one, makes me want to be taught a lesson.

 

There is parental love to consider when working with kids, and many children succumb to the learning and wanting the lesson somewhat based on love. Remember your first day/week in a new level at school...you assessed the teacher just as much the teacher assessed you. I presume this is called hell week for most teachers (Getting the attachy ones to go to the back of the class and the introverts too sit at the front.)

 

The new hell for teachers is the hidden bullying that goes on through the new medium(s) (internet). Teachers have to now , by default become mind readers...this is unfair on them. I find that parents that should know full well what a western education is like should have the decency to stifle "at home socialisation via external mediums", and go back to holding proper sleep overs: At least in those days a child that knew they weren't wanted knew it openly from the start. Now the new bullied mindset procreates "guessing" what has been WRITTEN about behind your back, rather than just knowing that again the bullies are ganging up on me at the back of the class - planning what they will do to me at the sleep over. It's much worse now, now kids just plainly omit and select friends as if life was a shopping centre.

[pagetheoracle]

In the UK we don't worry about creationists but hardline muslim teaching creeping in (Government report about certain schools in The Birmingham area, and immigrants from muslim countries wanting to bring Shariah law to the UK (See article by Dr Taj Hargey, Director of the Muslim Education Centre, in UK Daily Mail, on Thursday 17th July).  Do we want a society that goes forward or backward?  One that includes education for all that want it, no matter what their sex (Malala Yousafzai's stand for female education) or belief.

[ErlyRisa]

It's semi off topic, but: The whole religious school thing... strange how freedom isn't freedom sometimes. For example the cults that crop up every now and then. I presume Christianity was once a cult to.

 

...but things have changed: They (the first cult Christians) didn't have mobile phones, or youtube channels pedaling ,send all [insert religious established enemy here] to hell day. Today it's more vocal and effect to many people at once. I personally wouldn't want to leave in a Mosque suburb, but I also know people that hated the Sunday church bell too.

 

I don't mind that people uphold thier traditions: actually I think that's all there really is in the life in the end. Sadly no-one can think of a way to draw borders on some of the topics raised by archanism... b/c really in the end, sometimes us westerners take a good 50yrs to realise that our lives are actually quite empty and soul-less. (and that's when we all turn into "trend seekers")

[pagetheoracle]

I was in Scientology for less than a year until they kicked me out (Not alone in this it seems as I met a friend who'd had the same experience and seen several sites dealing with the issues involved).  From experience I'd say that it is the enthusiasm of the hungry that leads them to fandom and spreading the word over other people's dead bodies.

[Noire]

My daughter has had the same English teacher for two years.  This man makes learning a fun experience for his students.  He acts out storylines in books, even has them do it and he is always laughing and cheery.  If a child doesn't understand something he will take the time to explain it.  He has no problem admitting when he is wrong and the student is right.  Teachers need to make learning interesting for children.

Edited July 20, 2014 by Noire

[arissa]

After the last two years in dealing with the school my daughter attends I have narrowed it down to three things. The first is patience, any good teacher needs it. Add in creativity to get some of the kids who don't want to learn (or are bored) can go a long way, it is one of the best things I owe to a teacher of mine from years ago. Being able to reach a kid who either does not want to learn or has issues with learning in a specific way can better the student, and the teacher in the end. The last is thinking outside of the box, which kind of falls into my second reasoning. If you cannot reach a student, you won't be able to break through and really get a hold of them in a way that makes learning fun rather than a tedious task.

[Rade]

A good teacher would never give a passing grade to any student that does not understand 100% of what they were taught....hence, using this criterion, good teachers are rare, if any exist at all.   Or, perhaps some would argue that such a teacher is a bad teacher, I would like to hear the argument.

 

Moderation note: replies to this post have been moved to "Flame War Split From 'what Makes A Good Teacher?'" because they wander far off this thread's subject of what makes a good teacher.

[Racoon]

Bruce Lee's basic philospohy was to be as close to water as possible...

[Rade]

A good teacher would never give a passing grade to any student that does not understand 100% of what they were taught....hence, using this criterion, good teachers are rare, if any exist at all.   Or, perhaps some would argue that such a teacher is a bad teacher, I would like to hear the argument.

 

Moderation note: replies to this post have been moved to "Flame War Split From 'what Makes A Good Teacher?'" because they wander far off this thread's subject of what makes a good teacher.

I appreciate the fact that the forum moderator deleted all of the wandering prior replies to my post.   Those who study methods of teaching know that schools exist where teachers are not permitted to pass on students who do not understand 100% of what they are taught during the process of evaluation.  Keeping on target of the OP topic, can someone explain to me how students across this globe would be harmed if they were required to understand 100% of what they were taught.

[CraigD]

Those who study methods of teaching know that schools exist where teachers are not permitted to pass on students who do not understand 100% of what they are taught during the process of evaluation.

I was not aware of the existence of such schools, Rade. Can you provide a link or reference :QuestionM

 

Keeping on target of the OP topic, can someone explain to me how students across this globe would be harmed if they were required to understand 100% of what they were taught.

Here's once scenario:

If a school system were changed so that a student who formerly would have received credentials from it – that is, a diploma – does not, and the lack of that diploma makes them ineligible for a job, or reduces their rate of compensation for a job, that person has been harmed financially by that change. In states that allow it, if this person can show that the changes were ill-considered or unjust, they could force the school to pay them to compensate for this damage.

 

Implementing a policy of not credentialing students that don’t “understand 100% of what they are taught” could be considered such a change.

 

That said, I support changes in education that increase students’ understanding important ideas and techniques. But I can see several possible problem with very rigid requirements – which, without further explanation, “understanding 100%” appears to be:

• They may not be a good measure of how well students actually understand important ideas and techniques. If entirely test-based, they’re guaranteed only to show that the student can do well on those test. If the test is poorly designed, this information can be worthless, or worse than worthless by giving higher scores to people who understand the important ideas and techniques less well than those with lower scores.
• They’re vulnerable to corruption, especially if testing standards are set so high that hardly anyone can meet them without cheating.
• They can be indoctrinatory. If what the students are required to understand is religious or political doctrine, forcing them to master it at a high level can constitute brainwashing
• They can prevent students from studying what they should best be. If what they must “understand 100%” is not well selected, this lack of flexibility can impair the best students ability to select and study better material. A very compulsory educational system may be justified on the assumption that those setting the standards know more than subjected to them, which is not always true.

Without specific examples of the schools to which you’re referring, Rade, I’m forced to speculate widely, so I’d prefer to stop here ‘til you provide these specifics.

[Elisa]

It seems as though the experience of my son who is just out of high school now was severely different than mine when I was in school. It seems as though back in "the day" ( :eek: ) as though the teachers wanted to be teachers and did have the patience required to do the job. I'm not saying that all the teachers now just do it as a job, but I know quite a few teachers currently who are teaching because it seemed like a decent career choice, not because they love the work (or the children) or are passionate about education.

[Racoon]

Anyone who Knows Turtle knows he's a bit weird but full of knowledge.

Turtle makes me laugh.

[Rade]

I was not aware of the existence of such schools, Rade. Can you provide a link or reference :QuestionM

...

Without specific examples of the schools to which you’re referring, Rade, I’m forced to speculate widely, so I’d prefer to stop here ‘til you provide these specifics.

 

Here is one:

 

http://www.delphifl.org/demand_competence_not_time_spent.html

 

==

 

You provide many very important issues (thank you for your time to provide rational critique) that would need to be worked out, but as shown in the above link, the objective at this school is to demand competence of students, which they define as having complete understanding of what has been taught before they move on to the next lesson.   Note that this approach requires that the school experience and classroom set-up be completely different than what is the norm.  

 

I agree that one would not rate a teacher as being a good teacher if all they did was demand 100% competence of the students, if the teacher was not themselves competent to teach the subject, perhaps one issue with the school cited above.  

 

[edit]

 

The University of Wisconsin uses a version of the the approach I discuss, it is called Competence Based Education...see this link:

 

http://flex.wisconsin.edu/competency-based-education-what-it-is-how-its-different-and-why-it-matters-to-you/

 

I suggest mastery (competency) of a topic to be complete understanding of what is being taught before you move on to the next topic.  It would appear this is the approach taken.  

Edited July 25, 2014 by Rade

[ErlyRisa]

There are disciplines that do actually require 100% knowledge.

 

eg. Chemistry - or you will go boom boom

Engineering or you will kill your buyer(s)

 

engineering is actually one of the worst ones to contend with: You have to know EVERYTHING.

 

Sadly the lawyers have gone nuts on the manufacturers of simple implements: eg. warning label on a hammer.

 

I think the best profession to get into where you don't need to know anything is actually lawyer...it's somewhat like joining a church: as long as the club members accept you, you will get by just fine. Come to think of it, a Priest by comparison is akin to an Aerospace engineer, while the Lawyer would be the air hostess...actually, no the lawyer would be the guy says "bomb".

[pagetheoracle]

Erly, you make a very good point.  Technology, science and anything practical has to be known as thoroughly as possible or disaster happens as with the Tacoma Narrows bridge or the collapse of The Twin Towers (Who knew that it was structurally weak until this kind of unexpected action disclosed it?).

 

The lawyers point is true in the UK too.  We call it the Nanny State because it fears danger and fusses like an old woman (See the Maturing post you added to that I wrote)

[CraigD]

I was not aware of the existence of such schools, Rade. Can you provide a link or reference :QuestionM

http://www.delphifl.org/demand_competence_not_time_spent.html

Thanks! :thumbs_up

 

That link is to the Delphi School in Clearwater, FL. I’ve mixed feelings about these schools, because they are based on the works of L. Ron Hubbard, and connected to the Church of Scientology – mixed, because I think L. Ron was a very smart fellow, and have much enjoyed his science fiction, but find many Scientology practices deeply pseudoscientific. I expect one of the Delphi Schools would provide a high-quality primary education, especially literacy and writing, but worry that it might include pernicious indoctrination in Scientology. I also notice from browsing their website that their high school math and science programs offer only minimal math and science programs, substantially less than those of the public primary and secondary schools where I live (Montgomery County, MD).

 

I’ve mixed feeling, and almost no direct knowledge, about educational ideas and initiative promoted by the Church of Scientology in general. On one hand, it seems no worse, and generally better than that promoted by more mainstream churches. Perhaps a sound education is not affected by unsound beliefs of those promoting it. On the other hand, I find some things about Scientology alarmingly cultish, and would have qualms about affording a Scientologist too much and undivided influence on a child, or on some adults.

 

The University of Wisconsin uses a version of the the approach I discuss, it is called Competence Based Education...see this link:

 

http://flex.wisconsin.edu/competency-based-education-what-it-is-how-its-different-and-why-it-matters-to-you/

:thumbs_up These ideas seem excellent to me, and much in agreement with my personal ideas and intuitions about education.

 

Extrapolating from them, I imagine the ideal school would be one where students would have their studies reviewed and guided in an “ungraded” way by teachers, but assessment and credentialing would be done via testing, where the tests were designed to resist “teaching the test” and “learning to take tests well” strategies.

 

To some extent this has long existed and exists today in primary and secondary schools such as those following the Montessori approach. When I was in school ca. 1980, something like it could be done in undergraduate college utilizing “test for credit” tests such as CLEP tests, though only for introductory subjects, and only with special permission.

 

Technical professions are, to some extent, like extensions of academic educations. In technical professions, something like this approach has long been practiced, especially, IMO, by the best and most successful software companies. For example, when I interview prospective computer programmer/analyst hires, I essentially test them, both informally via conversations, and formally, with short technical problems and longer training programming assignments. My recommendation to hire of not depends more on the outcome of these tests than their educational resume – I will recommend a non-college graduate who performs well on my tests over a PhD who doesn’t.

 

Some “testing based education” ideas remind me of Imperial examination important in Chinese society from about 200 BC until 1279 AD and 1315 until 1905, in which students and parents were responsible for their own private instruction, while credentials and appointment to government jobs, depended on government-administered tests. These tests, though a battle place of sophisticated cheating and anti-cheating tactics, and rife with bribery and coercion, were intended to be as objective as possible, with strong measures taken to blind examiners to the identities of the examinees, as is the case with present day standardized tests. Their emphasis on rote memorization, however, was IMHO terribly misguided, and a reflection and cause of societal attitudes that caused Chinese science and technology to fall behind that of Western society.

 

Accepting the premise that a “learn and teach, then test” approach is best, then a variation of original question “What Is (rather than ‘Makes’) A Good Teacher?” can be answered “a good teacher is one who enables their students to pass tests.” IMHO, if the test to be passed are well designed, the many positive traits described in this thread – “encouraging”, not intimidating, etc. – are among those making up a good teacher.