How Well Do You Know the Subjects You're Teaching?

[eternalsummer]

Some teachers have told me that their education was a lot about crowd control.  I give most teachers more credit than that, but probably they learn in large part on the job.  They get better at it.  Some are probably very natural.  And some suck and never get better at it.  I'm sure we have all encountered teachers of varying ability in the teaching department.

 

No, this is the literal truth.

 

Crowd control is half of the curriculum of teacher's ed.  It is the half I failed, thus why I am not a teacher.  If you can't control the classroom, you can't teach anyone anything, so the other half (teaching subject matter) is completely useless.

 

I was getting a secondary ed degree (for English/History).  I have to say, subject matter expertise, especially in writing, was a very different thing from expertise in *teaching* the subject.  You could be a very good writer and absolutely suck at teaching it, or be a relatively average writer but be very good at teaching it.

[lewelma]

 I think a content expert could/would teach better than someone who is trying to keep up with the student.

 

 I feel like if he was sitting with a mathematician instead he could have gotten so much more out of his side tangent. But there's no one like that I can get to sit and do BA with him, the best person around is me, unfortunately. So we make do. In the end I think he'll end up okay, even despite me, but it still isn't optimal.

 

I think we need to define 'better.'

 

In the math example you gave, a subject matter expert might help your student to learn the content more efficiently, but hard-core problem solving requires persistence and creativity.  If you were to guide the student through the problem with leading questions or small hints, then you have improved one area of learning while sacrificing another. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

No, this is the literal truth.

 

Crowd control is half of the curriculum of teacher's ed.  It is the half I failed, thus why I am not a teacher.  If you can't control the classroom, you can't teach anyone anything, so the other half (teaching subject matter) is completely useless.

 

I was getting a secondary ed degree (for English/History).  I have to say, subject matter expertise, especially in writing, was a very different thing from expertise in *teaching* the subject.  You could be a very good writer and absolutely suck at teaching it, or be a relatively average writer but be very good at teaching it.

 

Yes this is another angle for sure.  It's my understanding that college profs in general don't have much actual teacher training.  So they could be an expert in the subject matter and be lousy at teaching it.  That's not great either!

[regentrude]

Yes this is another angle for sure.  It's my understanding that college profs in general don't have much actual teacher training.  So they could be an expert in the subject matter and be lousy at teaching it.  That's not great either!

 

College profs usually do not have any teacher training. We learn by observing senior faculty (I sat in on two semesters worth of classes by two different professors) and by learning on the job. Some departments may have mentoring programs. And then there are some professional development opportunities.

 

Generally, college students will require little to no crowd control and thus that entire portion of teacher ed is not necessary. They stay in their seats, do not usually disturb class, and usually cause no discipline issues. So very different from jr high/high school.

 

Some profs are not good at teaching. Some are outstanding. Probably not much different than in schools; there are plenty of lousy teachers with education degrees. But at least college profs usually have expertise in their fields. That is not sufficient to make a class a good one, but necessary. You don't have the Spanish prof teaching German, or the bio prof teaching physics.

[SarahW]

I think we need to define 'better.'

 

In the math example you gave, a subject matter expert might help your student to learn the content more efficiently, but hard-core problem solving requires persistence and creativity.  If you were to guide the student through the problem with leading questions or small hints, then you have improved one area of learning while sacrificing another. 

 

I understand about persistence and problem solving. Certainly, seeing me struggle through trying to figure something out has its own advantages. Sometimes I can rise to the challenge well, there was one time we were doing a Singapore word problem that we were stumped on, and I think we were supposed to do bar models or something with it, but it wasn't something I knew how to do for that sort of problem, so I instead set up two equations with two variables, and showed him how to subtract one from the other to solve for one variable. He was quite impressed with me, even though I did it wrong three times before I finally got it right.  :laugh:  There's value in that, sure.

 

But there's times he starts talking about things I don't know, or I don't know really well, like number theory. And it's not from a book where I can read along with him, he's just piecing together information in a way I don't understand. The most I can do is say "um, that sounds right, I think" or "I'm not sure about that..." He's ready to be shipped off to a math circle, clearly, but there's none around here, so....  I can listen to him, I can toss resources his way, I can try to use what I know to help him the best I can, but he could definitely do "better" with someone who knew more, cared more, and more experienced.

 

I guess this is where this conversation intersects for the AL. When it comes to a subject like English grammar, which is not something CP enjoys but which he picks up easily and quickly, I can do what I'm doing right now and condense together about five different resources so that he gets "done" with basic grammar this year. The same for history, which I do not use any curriculum, and very few pre-made resources, for. I know where these subjects are going, what is the most important elements, and see how to present them to him within an interest-based and inquiry-based framework without giving him any unneeded "fluff." But when it comes to math I just don't. I mostly run around in circles throwing things at him and seeing what happens. I think I'll manage not to ruin him, but it seems to me like he'd largely be better off with someone who knew math.

[eternalsummer]

College profs usually do not have any teacher training. We learn by observing senior faculty (I sat in on two semesters worth of classes by two different professors) and by learning on the job. Some departments may have mentoring programs. And then there are some professional development opportunities.

 

Generally, college students will require little to no crowd control and thus that entire portion of teacher ed is not necessary. They stay in their seats, do not usually disturb class, and usually cause no discipline issues. So very different from jr high/high school.

 

Some profs are not good at teaching. Some are outstanding. Probably not much different than in schools; there are plenty of lousy teachers with education degrees. But at least college profs usually have expertise in their fields. That is not sufficient to make a class a good one, but necessary. You don't have the Spanish prof teaching German, or the bio prof teaching physics.

 

 

The difference is simple:

 

On the whole, college professors have greater subject expertise.

 

On the whole, high school/elementary ed teachers have greater "teaching" expertise (for what it's worth  -which varies depending on the pedagogy of the moment)

 

There are some kids for whom subject expertise is enough, combined with decent teaching skills

 

there are some kids for whom actual skill and knowledge about teaching itself, regardless of subject, is absolutely necessary

[eternalsummer]

 

But this is the thing, I am NOT *teaching* my kids, so I don't have to stay one day ahead.  I am learning *with* them.  There is a difference.  Do you understand the difference?

 

As for doing them a disservice, I got my ds into the NZ Olympiad Math Camp that first year. Me.  And I did it with knowledge only up to Algebra 2, because I had forgotten all the rest of the math I had learned in high school.  I got him up to olympiad problem solving level by getting myself up to that level *at the same time*.  3 hours a day for 6 months at least.  Who are you going to outsource to?  That is simply not the way the material works. You can't read a book or watch a lecture and become an olympian problem solver.  Just won't work.  

 

I have also co-learned every high school class my ds has taken with the exception of Mandarin, Music, and Math.  Physics, Chemistry, Economics, Philosophy, English, etc.  I have no subject matter expertise in these fields, but my ds has taken nationally moderated exams and consistently scored in the top 1%. 

 

I'm with those who have said that children are not buckets to fill.  We do high level work over here.  Yes, we outsource, but I also co-learn a LOT of courses with great outcomes.  Perhaps there is a distinction that some are missing.  Does *learning* have to do with having material explained efficiently?  Or does learning have more to do with the skills of learning?  The skills of learning are much better modeled than taught explicitly.  As a subject matter tutor, I do WAY more work on modeling/helping with learning skills than on *teaching* content.  I was a teacher in a previous life and I have an education degree, and I will have to say that teachers can teach, but then the kids come to me to figure out how to learn.

 

Ruth in NZ

 

 

 

Also, a lot of teaching pedagogy these days (okay, 7 years ago when I got 3/4 of a teaching degree in NZ of all places) is/was concerned with a greater mutuality of learning than ever existed when I was a kid in school.

 

I'm only talking about the humanites though - I have no idea about current ideas re: math/sci instruction.

 

For English and History, though, there was less focus on imparting certain information or skills from a position of knowledge and more emphasis on developing skills along with the student by means of guided collaboration.

[8filltheheart]

I understand about persistence and problem solving. Certainly, seeing me struggle through trying to figure something out has its own advantages. Sometimes I can rise to the challenge well, there was one time we were doing a Singapore word problem that we were stumped on, and I think we were supposed to do bar models or something with it, but it wasn't something I knew how to do for that sort of problem, so I instead set up two equations with two variables, and showed him how to subtract one from the other to solve for one variable. He was quite impressed with me, even though I did it wrong three times before I finally got it right. :laugh: There's value in that, sure.

 

But there's times he starts talking about things I don't know, or I don't know really well, like number theory. And it's not from a book where I can read along with him, he's just piecing together information in a way I don't understand. The most I can do is say "um, that sounds right, I think" or "I'm not sure about that..." He's ready to be shipped off to a math circle, clearly, but there's none around here, so.... I can listen to him, I can toss resources his way, I can try to use what I know to help him the best I can, but he could definitely do "better" with someone who knew more, cared more, and more experienced.

 

I guess this is where this conversation intersects for the AL. When it comes to a subject like English grammar, which is not something CP enjoys but which he picks up easily and quickly, I can do what I'm doing right now and condense together about five different resources so that he gets "done" with basic grammar this year. The same for history, which I do not use any curriculum, and very few pre-made resources, for. I know where these subjects are going, what is the most important elements, and see how to present them to him within an interest-based and inquiry-based framework without giving him any unneeded "fluff." But when it comes to math I just don't. I mostly run around in circles throwing things at him and seeing what happens. I think I'll manage not to ruin him, but it seems to me like he'd largely be better off with someone who knew math.

I am not a mathematician. But, my kids, otoh, are all strong math students. When we run into questions I cannot answer, we search for answers online. There are so many resources online that it is unusual to not be able to find a YouTube or website talking about most math concepts. Have you googled number theory for kids or number theory for middle school students? I just did and pages of information came up.

 

If you feel inadequate, then maybe you need to see if you can find a local tutor or find an online class. If you feel like you are not serving your child well and think they would be better off with someone else as a teacher, perhaps you should consider sending them to school.

 

This is what this conversation boils down to

 

Just bc I am confident that I can do this at home and find resources to meet my kids needs does not mean that others will feel confident in achieving the same for their children or are capable of creating an environment where the teacher does not need the answers and yet the children are challenged by the teacher and thrive at very high levels of academic success.

 

But the converse is equally true. Just bc others feel incapable of finding ways to teach concepts that they are not familiar with and cannot answer questions in a way that they feel are appropriate for their child's needs and therefore find homeschooling is doing a disservice to their children does not mean others are not able to create that positive learning environment.

 

My math beyond half way through alg 2 stinks, but I have graduated a chemE and a physics and math major (who is taking grad level physics classes as a college jr bc he has finished all UG physics courses.) My physics and chemistry skills are worse than my math. ;) But I know how to find excellent resources. I know how to ask questions that require them to teach me what they are learning. When they are teaching me, they are equally aware of when they understand a concept and when their understanding is shaky. If it is shaky, we look for other resources to explain it and repeat until they are solid in their understanding.

 

What I do is absolutely not traditional teacher passes on information to student. My students have to be able to understand information well enough to teach me and then move on to create examples explaining what they are learning. My kids want to learn, so this is a method that works well for us. I don't know if it would work for other families or not. I don't have to bc homeschooling is 100% family dependent.

 

What does matter is when people take their teaching methodologies and their perceptions and project them onto other people's homeschools and emphatically declare that bc they can't do something that way, then others cannot as well and therefore it must be inferior. To be cliche: the proof is in the pudding. Some people can cook without a recipe and what turns out is far superior. Chefs creating superb recipes might be insulted that an at home cook's dish turns out better, but it doesn't change the results. My teaching methodologies may be atypical, but my kids not only learn their subjects' materials, they know how to think about them.

 

But that is only me. I am not anyone else and I don't have anyone else's children. I do not believe that just bc it works for us that means everyone else should be able to replicate it in their own homes.

 

Each of us has to do what we believes is best for our own children. Homeschooling is not the appropriate choice for all families. Only parents and children in individual families know if their homeschool is meeting their child's needs.

 

Just don't make assumptions that bc a parent doesn't know a subject and the child is learning it at home that it automatically equates to inferior. Equally true is that homeschooling should not automatically be assumed to be superior to ps. Outcomes differentiate.

Edited September 18, 2016 by 8FillTheHeart

[Dmmetler]

The difference is simple:

 

On the whole, college professors have greater subject expertise.

 

On the whole, high school/elementary ed teachers have greater "teaching" expertise (for what it's worth -which varies depending on the pedagogy of the moment)

 

There are some kids for whom subject expertise is enough, combined with decent teaching skills

 

there are some kids for whom actual skill and knowledge about teaching itself, regardless of subject, is absolutely necessary

And the same applies to adults. One of my graduate assistanceships was a Research Assistanceship in a completely different department, working with a professor who had industry funding, which was partially dependent on putting his work on the then relatively new WWW. He hadn't found anyone in his department who had the experience-not surprising, since at the time, it was relatively difficult to get an account on the university servers, so unless you were a student in a department that provided such access as part of your program, you probably didn't have one. He'd tried students who were in the technical fields, and found that they weren't good at teaching an old dog new tricks (his own words)-they would create the website for him, but not teach him how to do it himself, which is what he wanted.

 

So, enter me. Lots of experience in teaching children, and enough experience doing such projects as an amateur to be able to lead someone else through the process.

 

The corporate trainer for DH's division has a similar story-she was hired to train end users to use the software and how to train their employees in it. She was hired because of her experiences teaching high school math after they found that the actual software engineers who created the software couldn't adequately explain and teach it. So, she was hired to create materials and teach classes.

 

There have also definitely been times that my DD has needed a subject matter expert because she wanted to learn content beyond that which I had knowledge or even knew where to access (From having to find a native Spanish speaker who knew the common names for dinosaurs in Spanish when she was 3 to yesterday when her bio mentor explained the changes in the phylogenetic tree for invertebrates).

 

There is a place for both.

[ebunny]

I've been following this thread with great interest.

To me, a subject matter expert who is also a gifted teacher is priceless. If I can't find an SME+gifted teacher in one person, then I'd rather settle for a gifted teacher than a SME. A *teacher* can do so much more than just explain or instruct. S/he motivates, inspires, gudes, facilitates and shares a part of herself/himself. They are also quick to acknowledge their limitations. I've had some superlative teachers in my life; and although I would qualify as an auto didact, given a choice I would always choose a teacher. (v/s a textbook, a website or another non human resource)

To answer the OP- I don't teach my AL any subject that I don't have a K-12 background in.

given the breadth of subjects that India (and my birth state covers), I seem to be comfortable *teaching* most subjects upto a certain level.

 

I wouldnt go so far as to say that I'm doing a disservice to my DD of I cannot *teach* her a subject; but that I am acknowledging my limitations as a teacher. Every teacher would have limitations. The fun part is what does a learner do when s/he reaches the boundaries of the *source*. I think that is a valuable learning experience by itself. :-)

 

ETA: Although I can teach my DD most subjects better than her recent B/M teachers; there are times when I choose not to. Often it's because I want her to have the experience of learning from other competent people too. Competent is the key word I guess.

Edited September 19, 2016 by ebunny

[Crimson Wife]

 

 

What does matter is when people take their teaching methodologies and their perceptions and project them onto other people's homeschools and emphatically declare that bc they can't do something that way, then others cannot as well and therefore it must be inferior.

 

The OP only has an 11 y.o. so HSing for high school is all just theoretical to her/him. It's someone with an education degree steeped in the whole "credentialism" model of PS criticizing something that he/she has no actual experience in doing. The analogy to me is when my kids look at some ethnic cuisine new to them, proclaim it "weird", and ask how people can eat it. It's scary to step outside one's comfort zone but once you do, you just may find that it's actually pretty good. :)

[Arcadia]

ETA: I think, since we're on the ALB, that most of the kids discussed here are well able to learn by having a facilitator, as opposed to having a teacher. I wonder if that holds true for neurotypical kids.

... To be a really great teacher, I need to know material in that topic that is well above and beyond the level that I am teaching. But all of that is based on my own understanding of the difference between "teach" and "facilitate".

By the time I was in 11th grade (Cambridge A Levels system), classmates could have thrived on the flipped classroom as most of us were doodling or napping during math, physics and chem lectures. What we were awake for was for tutorials and labs. Our core chem textbook was by E. N. Ramsden and another textbook by Morrison and Boyd.

 

Now my kids are using Thinkwell as a spine for chem while we pick up some more chem books. While I do have engineering chemistry subject knowledge because of Civil Engineering coursework, I find it more fun to direct my kids to dig for more explanations than explain to them off the bat. If they can't find after some effort I do discuss and explain. So a person, whether parent or lecturer, could both teach and facilitate.

[daijobu]

Saying this gently, but this strikes me as "credentialism". Back several years ago when a court case put the legal status of homeschooling in CA into jeopardy, I looked into what it would take for me to get a secondary school science teaching credential in my state. It was 12 courses but of those, only 3 were subject-specific methods or student teaching. 9 of them were complete B.S. edu-babble like "The Multicultural Foundations of a Diverse Classroom". Yeah, that's not going to make me a better science teacher. Can you imagine if to become a dental hygienist, only 25% of the courses were on cleaning teeth and 75% were on how to interact with a diverse patient population, etc., etc.?

 

 

 

Thank you for this.  I'm going to be using it the next time someone asks me if I have a teaching credential.  Seriously.  I get asked this probably every 6 months.  

[Dicentra]

This has been an interesting and thought-provoking thread to read.  Thank you, folks! :)

 

It's also making me think about, based on what I'm reading in this thread and my own experiences, all the differences between Canada and the US in almost all aspects of their respective educational systems - in terms of curricula, teacher requirements, government involvement, etc.  I hadn't really realized how much difference there was.  Fascinating!

[Crimson Wife]

 

It's also making me think about, based on what I'm reading in this thread and my own experiences, all the differences between Canada and the US in almost all aspects of their respective educational systems - in terms of curricula, teacher requirements, government involvement, etc.  I hadn't really realized how much difference there was.  Fascinating!

 

It's dated but you might really like The Teaching Gap by James Stigler. It compares teacher preparation here in the U.S. with Japan and someplace in Europe (can't remember where since it's been a few years since I read the book). Sadly, I don't think there has been any significant improvement in U.S. colleges of education since the book was published in the early 2000's.

[Dicentra]

It's dated but you might really like The Teaching Gap by James Stigler. It compares teacher preparation here in the U.S. with Japan and someplace in Europe (can't remember where since it's been a few years since I read the book). Sadly, I don't think there has been any significant improvement in U.S. colleges of education since the book was published in the early 2000's.

 

Thanks, CW - I look for it.  I've been reading "The Smartest Kids in the World (And How They Got That Way)" by Amanda Ripley and it's been interesting.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Smartest-Kids-World-They-That/dp/145165443X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1474826713&sr=8-1&keywords=smartest+kids+in+the+world

 

For as much as the title implies, it's not a manual for turning one's kids into ALs. :)  It's a comparison of the US educational system (and its teacher training system) to the systems in Finland, South Korea, and Poland as well as very brief comparisons to Canada and other countries.  I recommend it to anyone interested in this stuff.

 

[Crimson Wife]

Thanks, CW - I look for it.  I've been reading "The Smartest Kids in the World (And How They Got That Way)" by Amanda Ripley and it's been interesting.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Smartest-Kids-World-They-That/dp/145165443X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1474826713&sr=8-1&keywords=smartest+kids+in+the+world

 

For as much as the title implies, it's not a manual for turning one's kids into ALs. :)  It's a comparison of the US educational system (and its teacher training system) to the systems in Finland, South Korea, and Poland as well as very brief comparisons to Canada and other countries.  I recommend it to anyone interested in this stuff.

 

 

I read that one as well but IIRC I didn't think it was as good as the Stigler book for my own "professional development" as a teacher.

 

[Runningmom80]

I read that one as well but IIRC I didn't think it was as good as the Stigler book for my own "professional development" as a teacher.

 

I just finished it and I agree, it's not really useful for "professional development" as a teacher. I was hoping it was. Lol

[Dicentra]

I read that one as well but IIRC I didn't think it was as good as the Stigler book for my own "professional development" as a teacher.

 

 

Agreed - the Ripley book isn't really meant for educational PD.  It's more of a pop journalism read about the "big ideas" behind educational policy making.  I'm still finding it interesting, though. :)  And I've got the Stigler book in my Amazon cart. :)

 

[8Arrows4theLord]

  I agree with what 8fillstheheart posted.

 

   I  do think it is great when a mom wants to learn along with their child. Many times that child will end up doing better for the sheer fact that mom is working along side them. If you are able to outsource or have other means I think that's great! But sometimes we have to teach subjects we don't know, or our child won't go any farther than we were taught. For me that is not a pleasant thought. Grammar has been one of my learn along subjects. It is still in the works! I encourage my kids to explore new subjects, ask questions, and look up information. I am willing to admit my mistakes and lack of knowledge, and learn along with my kids! 

 

Edited because I was too blunt.

Edited February 24, 2017 by 8Arrows4theLord