Comments on: Why Teach?

By: Chris L

Chris L — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 06:35:48 +0000

I believe in many irrational things… that teachers make a limited– but positive and sometimes necessary– contribution to the lives of more of their students than they harm is one of them.

In the context of critical thinking studies I’ve seen the kind of inverse correlation you mention, but it’s at least as likely that the problem comes in what we are measuring (if we are bad at teaching, we are even worse at assessment) as the possibility that we are actually having a negative impact.

More importantly, my own experience has taught me that there is good teaching and good teachers. Most of the time I think pursuing being– and making– more of that and them is as good a bill-paying pursuit as any.

By: Joe McConda

Joe McConda — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 18:46:38 +0000

Why teach? The bottom line answer, sadly, is to give out the instruction that is required to graduate. Somebody has to do it. While it may seem arbitrary, the graduation requirements are things that provide a base and yes, as Nate stated, to help them become socially acceptable and not a drain on society. It may in fact be counter productive, but students take certain things for granted. They know that students have always been required to “learn” certain things. It goes along with the idea that if something is readily available and “forced” on us, we don’t want it. I wonder what would happen if it weren’t required. Would they want to learn the things that have been required previously? It would be nice if students could arrive on their own to the place where they see the need to understand algebra or world history and say to the teacher,”Help me learn this.” Then, as a math teacher, I could help them learn what they need and want to know. I could use any method that works (even lecture) to help them learn what they want to know. Maybe we need to have teachers who teach “Learning Appreciation” or spend time in other ways to help students realize what is important for them to learn.

By: Jady

Jady — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 03:56:41 +0000

I get it now. You are talking about teaching only in a lecture type mode. As a primary teacher, I don’t give lectures. I guide my students in math to discover the different was they can solve problems using manipulatives and peers. As a learner, I don’t like to be lecture. I need hands-on or active play. I guess you could say I am still a concrete learner myself. You can’t learn an abstract idea until you understand what it is by using manipulatives or visuals. I think I teach or guide to teach students how to become self-sufficient learners in todays world. I would not be taking this class if I did not want to be able to help guide them in today ever changing world.

By: lowell

lowell — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 15:52:48 +0000

And Heather unravels the lesson succinctly.

I’ve purposely confounded the process of teaching and the institution of teaching.

We teach because we have an obligation to at least offer a guide. The degree to which the guide is found to be useful, that’s up to the relationship between the guide and those ostensibly guided.

By: Heather

Heather — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 15:28:43 +0000

Yes, it’s too cynical. And it must be really cynical if I find it cynical.

On the one hand we’re talking about the larger system and on the other, we’re talking about individual contributions or a more intimate relationship between a teacher and those they teach. In the big picture view, yes, education, while ostensibly about teaching and learning ideas is about apprenticing students into society appropriately. You’d better learn to act and speak in an “educated” way, or you will miss out on economic opportunity. It is simultaneously unjust to give people this message, and unjust to deprive people of understanding how this system works.

But on a more personal level, a teacher operating in this system can encourage and inspire students. The frustrating part is the lack of causality. A student might not know for years what impact a teacher had. Practices or ideas that someone thinks of as a waste of time when they are 14 or 18 or 22 might start to resonate as useful years later.
Most real-world constructs are too complicated to be directly causal.

By: lowell

lowell — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:48:00 +0000

There *is* a correlation between teaching and learning, but I’m not sure that it’s causal. I need to find the link to the study that actually shows an inverse relation between time spend in lecture and outcomes on assessments. According to that study, the more “teaching” a student is subjected to, the stupider they get.

“Point the way” … interesting idea. Makes it kinda sound like a suggestion. Which is why we lock kids in school until they’re — what? 16 years old?

Students DO learn on their own. Every. Single. Day.

The problem is that they don’t learn what we think they should learn.

I like the idea of “opening their eyes.”

But culturally — what are we talkin’ about here? It’s not about the welfare of the student, is it? It’s about the continuation of the society. We don’t really care that kids learn cool things — only that we maintain the power structures and make sure they’re not going to grow up and be a drain on the economy.

Is that too cynical?

By: Barbara Nantz

Barbara Nantz — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 03:06:21 +0000

If students would learn on their own, then we wouldn’t need the teacher to guide the students to the “proper” learning that is condoned by the government. Who is to say what the students should learn and thus who should have to attend classes to learn what we want them to learn. Ok, enough questions. If we had high schools that were more like what the Germans do, we would have a better turn out each day. The Germans have students going to specialized high schools depending upon what career or field they want to go into. I’m not for sure of all the facts surrounding that, but I know that not all students have to attend high school. This brings up the question, “why do we teach”? I guess that would be to please the government who thinks that all students should learn every subject. I also think we teach so that we don’t have illiterate students and ignorant students of the basic things in the world. I am really stumped on this question because anything that I need to know I can learn or find the answer too it I need to. I assume the same would be true if you were not taught in a classroom, but in the workforce. Most people start and the bottom and work their way up by learning each position as they get to it. Again, why do we teach. I guess if I had to give an answer it would be to educate all the students to not limit anyones ability. Also, to open the students eyes to what is available that they might not know if it wasn’t for school. One last thing before I leave you with my rambling remarks: The world is changing so fast and the jobs of today are not the same jobs that will be offered in the future, so how do we teach what hasn’t occurred yet. (I will look for another job in the morning, lol)

By: Lexie Centers

Lexie Centers — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 01:25:09 +0000

Because there is a correlation between teaching and learning. Learning is a process and I believe that teachers are merely a piece of the process. Plus there are those that would never be pushed to learn anything that didn’t interest them. I have some students who have absolutely no interest in learning anything that doesn’t directly interest them. I am thinking here of young children in primary that are merely being pointed in the right direction by the teacher. We teach to point the way. This is a cause and effect situation. It is more complex than that. The teacher is a facilitator of learning, not the only cause of learning.

By: Angie Hinson

Angie Hinson — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:53:44 +0000

I was all prepred to write about why I decided to be a teacher, which I am not one yet, and am beginning to wonder if it was the right decision now if what I may teach—may or may not–help someone learn. At least I will get paid for trying though.