<p>Grant</a> for Temple to train teachers | Philadelphia Inquirer | 11/24/2007</p>
<p>This subject was the (heated!) topic of conversation at this year's Thanksgiving dinner. One of my family members is a long-term science teacher. She expressed a lot of frustation about new teachers who don't have education degrees who think they will be better teachers than those who do. The line in the article about how we are now focusing on "what" we teach rather than "how" we teach resonates with me.</p>
<p>I, as an up and coming high school biology teacher think we ought to focus more on how to teach rather than what. At least with Secondary education you have to go through a specific area, in which you learn a lot of that area, but no formal education classes....Your told what to teach by the state anyways...when a teacher is a "bad" teacher its because they cannot get the information across to their students, they almost always know the material itself....</p>
<p>Grrr...stuff like this angers me. </p>
<p>And I'm curious as to whether or not in 5 years there will still be a critical shortage of high school science teachers...</p>
<p>
[quote]
when a teacher is a "bad" teacher its because they cannot get the information across to their students, they almost always know the material itself....
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's not what Liping Ma concluded after observing American teachers unable to explain simple arithmetic operations.
Amazon.com:</a> Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics: Teachers' Understanding of Fundamental Mathematics in China and the United States (Studies in Mathematical Thinking and Learning.): Books: Liping Ma
Having observed elementary teachers unable to depart from the textbook because that was all they knew, I'm all for more content knowledge.</p>
<p>Adey and Shayer have done interesting research on science education in Britain, but I'm not sure much of that has been translated into results over here in the States.</p>
<p>futureHsTeacher8, I'm glad you contributed to this thread. I know that you were probably typing fast so as to submit your post quickly. But it disturbs some people, myself included, to wonder if a future high school teacher doesn't know the difference between your and you're; its and it's.</p>
<p>Oh, that was just too cute! When I get excited over something, usually dealing with education, I type fast. When the subject appeals to me, like this one, I get overwhelmed in thought and tend to care less about grammar.</p>
<p>And, here's another thought for you...I'm not majoring in English. I'm majoring in Biology...so your little "crisis" is unneccessary.</p>
<p>And when did it become so vital that one must type perfectly if they are to teach? Especially since I'm not even enrolled in my University just yet. I begin in June. </p>
<p>And to respond to this statement: "One of my family members is a long-term science teacher. She expressed a lot of frustation about new teachers who don't have education degrees who think they will be better teachers than those who do."</p>
<p>For starters, what level of science does your family member teach? And I'm assuming the criteria of what one must major in has changed since she began teaching? Because the only way a Secondary educator majors in education occurs during a graduate program. Now, one must major in a specific area (Chemistry, Biology, History, Math, Physics, etc) to teach at the Secondary level. With this being the case, the teacher has a lot more knowledge of the subject than one who majored in Education alone. I think it is better to major in the specific field of interest as it gives you a much better understanding of the material that you will be teaching. This is, of course, just my opinion.</p>
<p>Now...back to the topic at hand. While teachers should know their material backwards and forwards, what good is it to the students if the teachers do not get that material across well enough? </p>
<p>And I don't see how Secondary teachers cannot get their material, since they have to major in a specific area (Biology, for example). I know that in my Biology major there are no education classes...it is made up of over 40 hours of Biology classes. The only education classes I will have, if you can call them that, is my teacher certification classes that will be added on later in my senior year...</p>
<p>And now secondary teachers do not get education degrees until (and thats an if also) they earn their Masters, in which they will major in Secondary Biology, for example.</p>
<p>And, to ask again, do ya'll think that there will still be a critical shortage of Secondary math and science teachers?</p>
<p>ecause the only way a Secondary educator majors in education occurs during a graduate program.</p>
<p>It depends on the state.
FOr example- in Wa, you can be hired to teach with a BA in education as long as you have a residency certificate which is good for 5 years. During that time you should be making progress toward your professional certificate.
To teach 6-12th grades optimally you will have an endorsement in the subject area, however because of hiring and seniority assignments, teachers may be teaching biology without an endorsement or teaching biology with an endorsment and teaching PE without.</p>
<p>In high school for example- my daughter who attends one of the best public high schools in the city/state/country has had substitutes for lenghty amounts of time in critical areas ( foreign language). Substitutes are not required to have an endorsement, and depending on circumstances ( as when she was in middle school) don't even have to have had the subject in college. ( her middle school substitute Spanish teacher, had taken Spanish in high school- he was essentially the teacher for the entire school year for both middle and high school students)</p>
<p>Needless to say- with the spotty Spanish education she recieved, she didn't feel prepared to go on to take AP Spanish senior year- and so doesn't have a language this year. ( except for Swedish ;) - after school )</p>
<p>Its also ironic that while we allow substitutes and other educators without detailed background in important subjects to teach in the high schools, we do not allow professionals with Ph.ds in those subjects to teach in the public schools, even if those professionals have been hired by the district to train teachers in areas that they are lacking.</p>
<p>For example, with the increase in demand for more detailed science instruction, those who have been teaching at the university level, have been recruited to aid teachers in the high school. One teacher has background in physics, but was assigned to teach genetics, which she knew nothing about. An acquaintance who is a bio prof at the UW, worked with the teacher to develop classroom procedures for the high school, although ultimately it was too steep of a learning curve and she had to leave out much material.
Which is a shame because some of these kids are very motivated and prepared to process a lot of information, but the way that the district handles hiring leaves much to be desired.
Much depends on the principal to attract and keep good staff, but the way that principals are shuttled around the district doesn't give many enough time to build a team.</p>
<p>Math and science professors at top U.S. universities have little or no training in pedagogy before they begin teaching and research careers. In graduate school, the top engineering students, many of whom later become faculty members, receive fellowships or research assistantships rather than teaching assistantships and hence have little or no exposure to teaching courses. The only training most of these students receive in grad school is when they have to present their research at conferences and meetings. Nevertheless, the U.S. is the envy of the world in terms of its universities. In my opinion, in-class training is somewhat helpful for improving lecturing style (e.g. I had some of my lectures videotaped and critiqued when I was a first-term assistant prof), but thoroughly understanding the material well enough to confidently explain all aspects of it is the primary requirement for being able to teach math or science.</p>
<p>When I interview H.S. students applying to MIT and ask who were their favorite h.s. teachers (which, by the way, is a mixture of literature, science, and art teachers), the explanation for WHY a particular teacher is a favorite is almost always the same: because the teacher knew the material very well and so obviously loved the material that it was contagious and therefore all the students enjoyed the class. I do not see how you can teach this love for material in an education course. American high school science and math departments are rated very poorly compared to those of other countries. In my opinion, a high school wishing to develop an excellent math and science department would do well to emulate our successful university programs. A retired engineer with a M.S. or Ph.D. in mechanical or electrical engineering who loves physics would be, in my opinion, a far superior hire for a high school science department than would be someone who majored in high school science education and did not know, understand, and/or love physics as much. Unfortunately, many school districts would not allow the former candidate to even apply to be a teacher.</p>
<p>FutureHSteacher:</p>
<p>Students do not learn materials "backward and forward." Most learn just enough to pass tests; and many of those tests are multiple choice exams. Asked to explain how they arrived at their solution, they don't have a clue. That is precisely what Prof. Mazur of Harvard was trying to overcome. And believe me, Harvard does not make a practice of admitting below average students. </p>
<p>As for your specific query, the answer is yes.</p>
<p>Pafather - Your post says it all. The teachers who truly inspire have a fire for the subject, and they bring it to the classroom. Nearly everyone else is just covering ground.</p>
<p>I know that my Biology teacher (10th grade) who is now my anatomy teacher (12th grade) whom I chatted with regularly in 11th grade is a huge reason for me wanting to teach Biology. He loves teaching, loves the material. Always loved his class...looked forward to it, because he made it so very enjoyable. And, I've always been a science nerd...and boy, he knows his stuff. He's going for his Ph D right now... and he teaches part time at the technical college.</p>
<p>He has helped me so much. He doesnt mind me chatting his ear off about something dealing with Education or college. I have discussed retirement, salary, insurance, paper work, lesson plans, getting the material across, etc. </p>
<p>I am thrilled to start college in June as a Biology major. Cannot wait...I cannot wait to be in a classroom that I can call my own.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I cannot wait to be in a classroom that I can call my own.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is actually the most noticeable difference between countries with effective secondary teaching and countries without it. In countries with effective secondary school teaching of math and science, every teacher works collaboratively with the other teachers of the same subject, planning lessons and discussing student problems in understanding the material together. Staffing ratios in most of east Asia and in the United States are roughly the same, but the Asian teachers teach classes that are almost twice as large (sixty students was the typical high school class size when my wife grew up in Taiwan, although classes are smaller now), but then have prep hours during the school day to confer with other teachers. You can read all about it in </p>
<p>and </p>
<p>A good teacher needs to both know and love the material, and be able to teach. A lot of people have one ability, and not the other. I've seen plenty of smart people who know the material backward and forward, but can't teach worth a damn (and had a few as teachers, in grade school and college). They don't know how to relate to people who don't pick it up the way they do. I've also had teachers who were great at communicating the info that they did know but didn't have a good grasp on their subject.</p>
<p>One of my friends, from my year at MIT, has a physics degree from there, coupled with student teaching and all the few educational courses that MIT offers, and now teaches high school physics. She's a true believer as far as the teaching profession goes, and very good at explaining things to people. I think she'll do great.</p>
<p>Having been in the teaching profession for all my working life, I have come to realize that the "how" in teaching is as important as the "what" you teach. The best professors in our university are those with outstanding teaching skills, not necessarily those with the best academic credentials.</p>
<p>My only direct experience with teaching at the ms/hs level was when I taught Sunday school with an experienced hs history teacher. The teaching skills that she brought to those classes were quite amazing and helped me greatly in the classroom. I am a far better college instructor as a result.</p>