6 ms·

I've been teaching for over 20 years, and I've loved it. One of my biggest frustrations over the years, though, has been this notion that good teaching can't be

by japhyr 8y ago

I've been teaching for over 20 years, and I've loved it. One of my biggest frustrations over the years, though, has been this notion that good teaching can't be taught. There's this notion that you have to be born a teacher, which is ridiculous. Certainly talent has a role in the profession, as it does in any profession, but there's a whole lot that can be taught. Here's a few ideas that can be taught: - Relationships are important. Students learn best from people they trust, and you can do things in a school and in a classroom that develop trust between students and their peers, and staff. - Formative assessment is critical to growth. Formative assessment is assessment for the purpose of growth and learning, not for the purpose of grading. It's written and verbal feedback. - When conflict arises, restorative approaches are more effective than punitive approaches. Restorative approaches look at what happened, why it happened, what harm was caused, and what can be done to address the actual harm that was caused. Restorative approaches are not weak if they are done well. - Classroom management is important, but if you go at it by being too controlling you won't be a good teacher. A healthy amount of interaction is more effective than a silent classroom where everyone is afraid to talk. - There's no place for zeroes in a grade book. A zero doesn't represent a student's learning, and it throws off all other measures of learning. I could go on, but the bigger point is that there are many techniques and ideas that can be taught and modeled in the school and in the classroom. I think many student teachers get pulled into old, ineffective ways of teaching because of how it's modeled to them. They're taught many good approaches to teaching, but their ed school teachers just lecture at them. They're told to use well-researched, effective techniques, but then they're paired up with a mentor teacher who only uses an old-school lecture style, an overly strict approach to grading and assessment, and a punitive approach to discipline.

lisper 8y ago
Another item that I think it vitally important but often overlooked: put yourself in the mindset of your audience, particularly with respect to vocabulary. For every word you choose, ask yourself: does the person I'm speaking to know what this word means? It's really easy to lose sight of this because you (obviously) know what the word means, and so it's easy to assume that your audience does too. But they may not, and if they don't, then as soon as you say the word, you will lose them because you'll be going on but they'll be back on that word thinking, "What the heck does that mean?" This is particularly important in STEM education. Grant Sanderson (3blue1brown) is a master at this. He will go out of his way to coin and define new vocabulary in order to sound less intimidating. My favorite example is his invention of "squishification" as a synonym for eccentricity when talking about ellipses. It's a much better word because it's friendlier, it doesn't have semantic baggage related to weird mental states associated with it, and no one can ever forget what it means.
- japhyr 8y ago
  That reminds me of a great technique for introducing diagrams. Say you're giving everyone a diagram of mitosis. Instead of giving everyone a labeled diagram, you give out a diagram with the labels removed. You ask everyone to make up a name for every thing they can see on the diagram that seems to be important. Then you ask them to use these names to write a caption for the diagram, or a caption for each step in the diagram. You get some really funny sounding names and captions, but the point is people are processing the parts of the diagram and looking for what's happening in the diagram. They're engaging fully with the process that's being represented, rather than just accepting terms and descriptions that are being given to them. You don't need to go through this lengthy process for every diagram you share, but it's a great way to introduce diagrams about key processes. To bring it back to the article, many talented teachers discover techniques like this, as I imagine Grant Sanderson did. But every teacher can be taught this technique.
- dorchadas 8y ago
  Your first point was something I had never thought of until I started teaching Hispanic students last year. Most of them come from Guatemala, though we've gotten a few more from Mexico and Puerto Rico recently, and I never thought of how how difficult math must be until I tried to imagine myself in their shoes, trying to learn math through a second (for some, third) language that they often didn't even know well. Especially daunting when you're even discussing basic vocabulary that English-speaking students have heard forever that they might not know, which is something often taken for granted. It's much easier this year, in my opinion, as my class consists solely of the Hispanic students, and is co-taught with the ELL teacher. This makes it much easier to go through things slower, and make sure they understand the vocabulary that I'm using, which has facilitated their learning.
- icc97 8y ago
  Is it similar to parenting?
- mncharity 8y ago
  > invention of "squishification" as a synonym for eccentricity I wish I could find a community with which to work on innovation like this. Instead, people largely work in isolation, without the benefits of collaboration. So for instance, I thought "squishification" didn't have quite the right emphasis - process rather than property - and wondered if something like "squishedness" might have been better. Perhaps a new ImproveThisExplanation subreddit, sort of a cross between ELI5, "What If?", and AskAScientist...???
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
PopeDotNinja 8y ago
I am not (yet) a good teacher of others in a formal sense. I am good at teaching myself things I don't know, and that comes from curiosity, persistence, determination, and doing/repetition/practice. If I wanted to become a good teacher, I think that I could maybe I could learn from a good teacher. Thoughts?
joe_the_user 8y ago
yes, the basic model for good education is cooperation, with grades and evaluation just used for feedback to allow someone to improve rather than as a tool for punishment. However, the competitive paradigm can easily be defended if one regards the education process as simply a sorting process. Suppose different people have different intelligence levels and the purpose of education is to find those with the highest intelligence. Then you don't need to have the education system teach students more than average. Students will learn or not and it is on them. And here, if the "real world" works this way, hey, you giving students a taste of this and in a limited sense that's "education". So overall, this good, cooperative approach to teaching certainly exists and if you're a student you should seek it out. But there are reasons punitive education remains and those reasons have to do with the structure of this society and society would have to change for this go away significantly.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- _Tev 8y ago
  Current education process does not seem to be successful at sorting by "intelligence", "success in life" or any other metric I can think of. So this seems actually like a good argument to change it (maybe towards cooperation), because it fails even at one thing it is supposed to be good at.
jacobolus 8y ago
> When conflict arises, restorative approaches are more effective than punitive approaches. Restorative approaches look at what happened, why it happened, what harm was caused, and what can be done to address the actual harm that was caused. Restorative approaches are not weak if they are done well. The best “restorative approaches” engage the students in solving the problem (often teachers don’t even need to make a decision, the students can work out something more effective and satisfactory for themselves), whereas “punitive approaches” just add conflict and amplify problems and students reject the imposition on their autonomy.
mikekchar 8y ago
I taught as an "assistant language teacher" in a Japanese high school for 5 years. "Assistant language teacher" means you generally have no qualifications or experience, but you are a native speaker of the language :-) Your role can be anything from sitting around doing nothing all the way to taking on a full set of teaching responsibilities. My job luckily tended to the latter. In my first year of teaching, my colleagues had a meeting that I wasn't invited to. After that meeting, every time I bumped into one of them, they "casually" gave me a tip on how to improve my teaching. Literally, "Hello X-Sensei. How are you today?", "Hello Mike-San. I'm fine. If you do Y in your class, I think it would be good. What do you think?". Obviously they had brainstormed ways for me to improve and then dished them out to each person. Amazing team. I was so grateful to them because it was the beginning of how I could start to improve as a teacher. As you say, there are so many things to learn as a teacher. Even in the 5 years I did it, I felt that I managed to get to a competent level, but I was nowhere close to the really great teachers in my school. It is a very deep subject and the idea that it can't be taught is ridiculous in my eyes. One thing that Japan does with "assistant language teachers" is that usually they teach together with another teacher in the classroom. You are really supposed to be assisting (potentially just modelling language), but often they allow you to lead the class. And if they are happy with what you are doing, they may no longer show up any more and trust you to handle things. This was a such a ridiculously good way to learn how to teach, for me. I taught together with 10-15 different teachers in my 5 year term (teachers in Japan move to different schools at least every 5 years, so you cycle through colleagues rather quickly). Each teacher taught me something new (even the bad ones :-) ). I'm a programmer by training, and I am back to programming again. I like teams that do pair programming frequently (although it is difficult since I work in a timezone 9 hours shifted from my colleagues). Both with teaching and with programming, I think the idea of spending your first few years doing a lot of pair programming or team teaching is really valuable. I wish schools had the budget to do it.
wisty 8y ago
The blame doesn't just go to crusty old mentors. A lot of the traditional approaches are much better than the fads that education academics try to push. If you look at Hattie's work, I'd say most of the highly effective techniques are more likely to be used in a classroom than advocated for by education academics.
throwawaycanada 8y ago
I'm sure it can be taught. I'm not sure everyone can be taught it successfully, and that includes a few working teachers.

by japhyr 8y ago

lisper 8y ago

Another item that I think it vitally important but often overlooked: put yourself in the mindset of your audience, particularly with respect to vocabulary. For every word you choose, ask yourself: does the person I'm speaking to know what this word means? It's really easy to lose sight of this because you (obviously) know what the word means, and so it's easy to assume that your audience does too. But they may not, and if they don't, then as soon as you say the word, you will lose them because you'll be going on but they'll be back on that word thinking, "What the heck does that mean?" This is particularly important in STEM education. Grant Sanderson (3blue1brown) is a master at this. He will go out of his way to coin and define new vocabulary in order to sound less intimidating. My favorite example is his invention of "squishification" as a synonym for eccentricity when talking about ellipses. It's a much better word because it's friendlier, it doesn't have semantic baggage related to weird mental states associated with it, and no one can ever forget what it means.

japhyr 8y ago
That reminds me of a great technique for introducing diagrams. Say you're giving everyone a diagram of mitosis. Instead of giving everyone a labeled diagram, you give out a diagram with the labels removed. You ask everyone to make up a name for every thing they can see on the diagram that seems to be important. Then you ask them to use these names to write a caption for the diagram, or a caption for each step in the diagram. You get some really funny sounding names and captions, but the point is people are processing the parts of the diagram and looking for what's happening in the diagram. They're engaging fully with the process that's being represented, rather than just accepting terms and descriptions that are being given to them. You don't need to go through this lengthy process for every diagram you share, but it's a great way to introduce diagrams about key processes. To bring it back to the article, many talented teachers discover techniques like this, as I imagine Grant Sanderson did. But every teacher can be taught this technique.
dorchadas 8y ago
Your first point was something I had never thought of until I started teaching Hispanic students last year. Most of them come from Guatemala, though we've gotten a few more from Mexico and Puerto Rico recently, and I never thought of how how difficult math must be until I tried to imagine myself in their shoes, trying to learn math through a second (for some, third) language that they often didn't even know well. Especially daunting when you're even discussing basic vocabulary that English-speaking students have heard forever that they might not know, which is something often taken for granted. It's much easier this year, in my opinion, as my class consists solely of the Hispanic students, and is co-taught with the ELL teacher. This makes it much easier to go through things slower, and make sure they understand the vocabulary that I'm using, which has facilitated their learning.
icc97 8y ago
Is it similar to parenting?
mncharity 8y ago
> invention of "squishification" as a synonym for eccentricity I wish I could find a community with which to work on innovation like this. Instead, people largely work in isolation, without the benefits of collaboration. So for instance, I thought "squishification" didn't have quite the right emphasis - process rather than property - and wondered if something like "squishedness" might have been better. Perhaps a new ImproveThisExplanation subreddit, sort of a cross between ELI5, "What If?", and AskAScientist...???

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

PopeDotNinja 8y ago

I am not (yet) a good teacher of others in a formal sense. I am good at teaching myself things I don't know, and that comes from curiosity, persistence, determination, and doing/repetition/practice. If I wanted to become a good teacher, I think that I could maybe I could learn from a good teacher. Thoughts?

joe_the_user 8y ago

yes, the basic model for good education is cooperation, with grades and evaluation just used for feedback to allow someone to improve rather than as a tool for punishment. However, the competitive paradigm can easily be defended if one regards the education process as simply a sorting process. Suppose different people have different intelligence levels and the purpose of education is to find those with the highest intelligence. Then you don't need to have the education system teach students more than average. Students will learn or not and it is on them. And here, if the "real world" works this way, hey, you giving students a taste of this and in a limited sense that's "education". So overall, this good, cooperative approach to teaching certainly exists and if you're a student you should seek it out. But there are reasons punitive education remains and those reasons have to do with the structure of this society and society would have to change for this go away significantly.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
_Tev 8y ago
Current education process does not seem to be successful at sorting by "intelligence", "success in life" or any other metric I can think of. So this seems actually like a good argument to change it (maybe towards cooperation), because it fails even at one thing it is supposed to be good at.

jacobolus 8y ago

> When conflict arises, restorative approaches are more effective than punitive approaches. Restorative approaches look at what happened, why it happened, what harm was caused, and what can be done to address the actual harm that was caused. Restorative approaches are not weak if they are done well. The best “restorative approaches” engage the students in solving the problem (often teachers don’t even need to make a decision, the students can work out something more effective and satisfactory for themselves), whereas “punitive approaches” just add conflict and amplify problems and students reject the imposition on their autonomy.

mikekchar 8y ago

I taught as an "assistant language teacher" in a Japanese high school for 5 years. "Assistant language teacher" means you generally have no qualifications or experience, but you are a native speaker of the language :-) Your role can be anything from sitting around doing nothing all the way to taking on a full set of teaching responsibilities. My job luckily tended to the latter. In my first year of teaching, my colleagues had a meeting that I wasn't invited to. After that meeting, every time I bumped into one of them, they "casually" gave me a tip on how to improve my teaching. Literally, "Hello X-Sensei. How are you today?", "Hello Mike-San. I'm fine. If you do Y in your class, I think it would be good. What do you think?". Obviously they had brainstormed ways for me to improve and then dished them out to each person. Amazing team. I was so grateful to them because it was the beginning of how I could start to improve as a teacher. As you say, there are so many things to learn as a teacher. Even in the 5 years I did it, I felt that I managed to get to a competent level, but I was nowhere close to the really great teachers in my school. It is a very deep subject and the idea that it can't be taught is ridiculous in my eyes. One thing that Japan does with "assistant language teachers" is that usually they teach together with another teacher in the classroom. You are really supposed to be assisting (potentially just modelling language), but often they allow you to lead the class. And if they are happy with what you are doing, they may no longer show up any more and trust you to handle things. This was a such a ridiculously good way to learn how to teach, for me. I taught together with 10-15 different teachers in my 5 year term (teachers in Japan move to different schools at least every 5 years, so you cycle through colleagues rather quickly). Each teacher taught me something new (even the bad ones :-) ). I'm a programmer by training, and I am back to programming again. I like teams that do pair programming frequently (although it is difficult since I work in a timezone 9 hours shifted from my colleagues). Both with teaching and with programming, I think the idea of spending your first few years doing a lot of pair programming or team teaching is really valuable. I wish schools had the budget to do it.

wisty 8y ago

The blame doesn't just go to crusty old mentors. A lot of the traditional approaches are much better than the fads that education academics try to push. If you look at Hattie's work, I'd say most of the highly effective techniques are more likely to be used in a classroom than advocated for by education academics.

throwawaycanada 8y ago

I'm sure it can be taught. I'm not sure everyone can be taught it successfully, and that includes a few working teachers.