Education and the individuals who oversee such
learning—teachers—can have a powerful and profound effect on a student. A good
teacher can help inspire you to learn, help you get excited about furthering
your knowledge and deepening your understanding of the world. A bad teacher can
make learning distasteful, even hated. But what makes a good teacher? What differentiates
good teaching from bad? From experience, I have encountered good teachers, such
as my chemistry teacher Mrs. C, and bad teachers, such as my English teacher
Ms. H. From my experience with these teachers I have learned that the best
teacher motivates you to be independent, think on your own and teaches you to
love learning, while a bad teacher does the opposite.
One of America’s most quoted authors
of inspiration maxims, William Arthur Ward, once said of teachers, “The
mediocre teacher tells. The good teacher explains. The superior teacher
demonstrates. The great teacher inspires” (Goodreads.com).
This is a powerful summation of the essence of good teaching. A good
teacher must go beyond a simple impartation of knowledge: they must inspire students
to seek learning on their own, and above all, impart to a student a love of
learning itself. One teacher who exemplifies these features is my high school
chemistry teacher, Mrs. C.
One aspect of Mrs. C’s teaching was the way she pushed her students toward independent thought and discovery. An example of this was her general method of teaching, in which she would rarely give students a concrete outline of in-class labs. Instead, she would tell her students what she wanted them to achieve and then require that the students create, write, and execute their own labs in order to achieve that goal. As she would often say, a gleeful glint in eye, “Figure it out!”
Being required to write their own labs led students to a realm of free thought. No two students had to do the same lab—if one student considered one method to be best, they could explore that method, while another could explore their favored method. It helped students build confidence in their own original ideas. They were no longer constrained to a single process, and that bred freedom and inspired students to discover new systems of achievement and learning. Another example of how Mrs. C inspired independence was the way she conducted in-class time. Where many teachers would dedicate such time to study, Mrs. C used class time for lab execution and expected students to study on their own time. This forced students to become accountable to themselves. Without the teacher to check if they were studying, it was their decision as to whether or not they did. This taught students to independently seek the knowledge they needed to do well in class, leading them to free learning and discovery.
Another aspect that made Mrs. C a good teacher was her ability to help students love learning. For example, Mrs. C would draw students in and connect to them by giving explosive—literally—demonstrations of scientific concepts. She would combine chemicals, light reactive metals on fire, anything to get a big, exciting reaction that would animate students. Students would laugh, jump and applaud the unorthodox examples, enjoying the show. This helped students get excited about learning and science. Rather than boring monotony, reading through textbooks or filling out worksheets, they were able to see and experience science, and it was fun!
One aspect of Mrs. C’s teaching was the way she pushed her students toward independent thought and discovery. An example of this was her general method of teaching, in which she would rarely give students a concrete outline of in-class labs. Instead, she would tell her students what she wanted them to achieve and then require that the students create, write, and execute their own labs in order to achieve that goal. As she would often say, a gleeful glint in eye, “Figure it out!”
Being required to write their own labs led students to a realm of free thought. No two students had to do the same lab—if one student considered one method to be best, they could explore that method, while another could explore their favored method. It helped students build confidence in their own original ideas. They were no longer constrained to a single process, and that bred freedom and inspired students to discover new systems of achievement and learning. Another example of how Mrs. C inspired independence was the way she conducted in-class time. Where many teachers would dedicate such time to study, Mrs. C used class time for lab execution and expected students to study on their own time. This forced students to become accountable to themselves. Without the teacher to check if they were studying, it was their decision as to whether or not they did. This taught students to independently seek the knowledge they needed to do well in class, leading them to free learning and discovery.
Another aspect that made Mrs. C a good teacher was her ability to help students love learning. For example, Mrs. C would draw students in and connect to them by giving explosive—literally—demonstrations of scientific concepts. She would combine chemicals, light reactive metals on fire, anything to get a big, exciting reaction that would animate students. Students would laugh, jump and applaud the unorthodox examples, enjoying the show. This helped students get excited about learning and science. Rather than boring monotony, reading through textbooks or filling out worksheets, they were able to see and experience science, and it was fun!
Beyond that, Mrs. C connected to students through humor and
jokes. She was always poking fun at students, as well as making jokes at her
own expense. This created an environment of comfort and enjoyment. It was hard
for students to dislike a class in which they were always laughing. When you
enjoy the class, you are not far from enjoying the learning that takes place
there.
In Dead Poets Society, Mr. Keating says to a fellow teacher, “I always thought the idea of education was to learn to think for yourself.” Being in Mrs. C’s class taught students to do just that: think for themselves. While at the beginning of the year many were frustrated by her methods, at the end of the year most had embraced them. The students had learned to use their own brand of thinking to solve problems, found independence and built up skills of self-discipline, which in turn helped them construct confidence in themselves and their abilities. Most importantly, Mrs. C’s students learned to enjoy the actual learning process and were inspired to pursue their own interests and learning beyond the classroom.
In Dead Poets Society, Mr. Keating says to a fellow teacher, “I always thought the idea of education was to learn to think for yourself.” Being in Mrs. C’s class taught students to do just that: think for themselves. While at the beginning of the year many were frustrated by her methods, at the end of the year most had embraced them. The students had learned to use their own brand of thinking to solve problems, found independence and built up skills of self-discipline, which in turn helped them construct confidence in themselves and their abilities. Most importantly, Mrs. C’s students learned to enjoy the actual learning process and were inspired to pursue their own interests and learning beyond the classroom.
What good teaching is, in essence,
can be illustrated through examples of bad teaching. By looking at what is
classified as bad teaching, we can more clearly see what good teaching should
be. One example of a bad teacher was my middle school English teacher, Ms.
H. Her teaching succeeded in stifling
the creativity of students, forcing them to conform to rules, and making
learning into a painful, boring task.
In contrast to Mrs. C’s methods,
which bred independence, Ms. H was strictly conformed to a stale method of
teaching that taught her students conformity and constricted their
independence. For example, Ms. H always taught directly out of textbooks. Every
student had a textbook and an associated workbook, and all class time was spent
reading one and filling out the other. There was no room for abstract or
complex thought. Students downloaded the information from one book and obediently
regurgitated it into another. These methods taught students a very strict way
of thinking; textbook thinking. Students received information, but didn’t
discover how they would be affected by it. They learned what others thought on
subjects, but were never allowed to explore their own thoughts in the same
realm. As pupils, they became dutiful; as thinkers, they became stagnate.
Another example of how Ms. H restricted
individuality was in the way she reacted to deviation from her methods of
teaching. For example, in order to escape the monotony of the boring class, one
group of students got together and created a mini writers club. When Ms. H
caught wind of this plan, each of the students were punished for ‘wasting class
time’ and given lunch detention for the infraction. Where a pot of creativity
and originality had hatched, Ms. H sewed bitterness and frustration in its
place. Students in the future were discouraged from similar exploits of the
mind, and students of the time were reprimanded for something that would have
been nurtured by a good teacher.
An additional feature of Ms. H’s bad teaching was her
interaction with her students, and the way she made learning unenjoyably through
such interactions.
The punishment detailed above is one example of this
feature. Students were punished not for disrupting the class or being
disrespectful, but for deviating from what Ms. H considered to be the ‘proper’
method of teaching (and learning). This
kind of punishment breeds ill-will between students and teacher, and effective
learning is very difficult when a student is in an environment with a person
they consider unjust.
Additionally, Ms. H alienated students
by picking favorites. For instance, Ms. H had an extreme dislike for male
students, and thus favored the females in the class. If a group of students got
chatty, the males in the group would be reprimanded while the females would be
overlooked. If a male and a female did a joint project, the female would get
the higher percentage of the grade. It was an extremely biased and unfair
environment. All the students, male and female alike, resented it. The females
disliked seeing their friends get
treated unfairly and the males disliked being
treated unfairly. None of the students
wanted to be in the class, a great contrast to Mrs. C’s teaching which got
students excited and inspired.
Overall, Ms. H’s methods worked to groom students into conformity, destroy their independence and obliterate their joy of learning.
Overall, Ms. H’s methods worked to groom students into conformity, destroy their independence and obliterate their joy of learning.
The contrast between a good and a
bad teach helps reveal good teaching. Mrs. C inspired, nurtured and helped her
students. In contrast, Ms. H did the opposite. But that does not mean examining
her methods is useless to those who wish to discover what good teaching is. In
the words of famous author J.K. Rowling, “there is plenty to
be learned even from a bad teacher: what not to do, how not to be” (Goodreads.com). Ms. H’s
unyielding teaching methods, and the negative effects they had on her students
helps to exemplify the importance of flexible and nurturing approaches. Her attitude of favoritism and the way she
created a negative learning environment shows how important it is for a student
to connect with a teacher and be able to get excited about learning. In the end, we are left with a clear picture;
that of the good teacher, who elevates her students and helps them think for
themselves, and that of the bad teacher, who weighs them down and discourages
the synthesis of original contemplation.
Sources:
·
Dead Poets
Society. Dir. Peter Weir. Perf. Robin Williams. 1989. DVD.
·
Rowling, J. K., author, Goodreads.com
·
Ward, William, author, Goodreads.com
No comments:
Post a Comment