In your experience, what are the keys to becoming a great teacher?

[Sahamamama]

What traits make someone a great teacher?

[Bloggermom]

Developing a passion for the subjects you are teaching really helps! When I dread a subject my kids do as well.

[Daisy]

A sense of wonder

Infinite patience

A certain amount of stubbornness that lends itself to never giving up even when you've exhausted your ability to explain a concept. There MUST be a way.

 

That's about it.

 

I think I've just described why I believe my husband is the best first grade teacher on the planet earth. I ought to go tell him. :D

[Ester Maria]

An intimate knowledge of what they teach and a pedagogy of knowing how to pass it onto other people (of various ages, interest levels, levels of previous knowledge).

 

That is all there is to it, IMO. Personality is secondary, you can be the most "engaging" person in the world, but if you do not know WHAT you teach and if you cannot put yourself in the perspective of somebody trying to master it for the first time, you are not going to be a good teacher. Personally I did not find any correlation in the personality type and being a good (or a bad) teacher - it all boils down to knowledge and pedagogy. Yet for some reason people seem to think that personality is the key, while it is not, IME.

[lewelma]

In one word: preparation

[laughing lioness]

An intimate knowledge of what they teach and a pedagogy of knowing how to pass it onto other people (of various ages, interest levels, levels of previous knowledge).

 

.

:iagree:Exactly. The bolded part especially.

[Embassy]

I wanted to say a love for the subject, but when thinking about the effectiveness of teachers in my past I know it goes father than that. So I would have to say a love for the subject, a love of teaching the subject, and a thorough knowledge of the subject.

[8filltheheart]

My answer is different than the others b/c I think the answer is not so simple, especially in a family dynamic w/in a functioning home w/mom being teacher, housekeeper, cook, nurse, and nurturer. In a professional environment, knowledge of your subject and how to teach it across a broad range of abilities is going to be the key. I don't believe that is the truth in the home environment. I have managed successfully teach many subjects that I knew very little about prior to learning them w/my children.

 

So, I don't have a simple, concise answer, only my experiences as to when my children succeed and when they struggle.

 

First and foremost, when my kids are not thriving and progressing, the fault pretty consistently falls squarely on my shoulders. Whining, non-compliance, frustration, etc in my children results from my not assigning appropriate level work and not working with them at their level. Their frustration is not because they don't want to learn the material. Their frustration is because they are children and they do not know how to express what they themselves do not understand…..that what I have expected them to understand easily, they didn't. That what they don't understand is not their fault. Frustration on my part does not force them to comprehend what they don't. Stepping back and creating new ways to convey information until I find what actually connects is the only teaching method which works.

 

Here is a list of just other random thoughts that have hit home over the yrs:

 

My being distracted has a direct correlation to the quality of our educational environment. When I am actively engaged, so are they. When I treat school hours as 2nd priority, I am not respecting the effort required of them to do their best work. (and they know it. They need my respect for their daily work as much as I need their daily work to reflect their efforts.)

 

Knowing exactly what I want accomplished from assignments and what tasks I want each child to do each day must be determined ahead of time. If I wing their day's work, the quality of what I offer them educationally is diminished and equally my output expectations from them become flawed.

 

Kids need teachers that teach. They need teachers that are fully prepared ahead of time. They need teachers that check their progress and hold them accountable. They need praise for their effort mixed with appropriate age level critiquing. When any of those are missing and my kids fall behind or struggle, the fault is not theirs. It is mine and I must address my own faults before I can fairly address theirs.

 

As a homeschooling mother, all of my faults are amplified. I must be willing to train my own will and address my own weaknesses before I even consider criticizing what I see in my children. Often what I see is what I have allowed or situations I have created.

 

With our Aspie, I have to resist expecting behaviors he is incapable of exhibiting w/o coaxing/reminding. My expectations must be realistic, not simply what I want.

 

Academics is only part of home-education. The whole person must be nurtured and appropriate paths searched for for each individual. I must make sure that my children's lives are balanced and not allow "teacher of academics" dominate over the other areas of their lives.

[Penelope]

8filltheheart, I believe that is all so true, and I needed to read it today. Thanks. :)

[Daisy]

I guess it does depend upon the situation. I tend to think typical elementary classroom setting.

 

Personally the absolute worst professors/teacher I have ever known or had were the ones who were brilliant and had an intimate knowledge of their field of study but couldn't relay that information to save their lives. They knew it all and wondered why it was taking you so long to get it.

 

Getting the knowledge is easy. Knowing how to transmit that to a room full of students is a totally different ballgame.

 

I tend to agree more with the second half of what Ester said,

 

...if you cannot put yourself in the perspective of somebody trying to master it for the first time, you are not going to be a good teacher

 

I agree that isn't a personality type. Good teachers cultivate in themselves the character and skills necessary to put themselves in the position of the learner. That's what I mean by retaining their sense of wonder, the understanding of the frustration, and the need for patience.

[Ester Maria]

8, I do think the principle transfers to home education. :001_smile:

 

Sure, we do many things *other* than formal education with our children, but when you boil it down to what it is needed to teach well - the way I understood the question was that it was not about other duties, not dealing with academic areas you outsource, but with how you teach, i.e. one quite narrow skill out of many we use in HSing - the principle is the same: you cannot teach what you do not know and you cannot teach if you cannot put yourself into a mindset of a student who sees the concept for the first time. I think the two go hand in hand and are what is needed to successfully teach somebody something, whether in a professional or in a home context.

[Daisy]

8, I do think the principle transfers to home education. :001_smile:

 

Sure, we do many things *other* than formal education with our children, but when you boil it down to what it is needed to teach well - the way I understood the question was that it was not about other duties, not dealing with academic areas you outsource, but with how you teach, i.e. one quite narrow skill out of many we use in HSing - the principle is the same: you cannot teach what you do not know and you cannot teach if you cannot put yourself into a mindset of a student who sees the concept for the first time. I think the two go hand in hand and are what is needed to successfully teach somebody something, whether in a professional or in a home context.

 

LOL. I agree with you. I just think the first part is far easier than the second part. That may be because the brainy part is my strength. I'd much rather have my husband's patience. :-)

 

I didn't take the question to mean homeschooling at all at first. Since my husband is a teacher I immediately took the question to mean what makes a good public school teacher as if the op was asking because she was interested in the career. My error. I just wasn't thinking outside of that context.

 

In a homeschooling context, I could see where a greater focus would be needed on gaining the tools necessary to teach specific subject areas especially in higher grades.

 

I seem to be struggling to communicate. I should probably just give up now while I still can. :-)

Edited January 21, 2012 by Daisy

[8filltheheart]

8

the way I understood the question was that it was not about other duties, not dealing with academic areas you outsource, but with how you teach, i.e. one quite narrow skill out of many we use in HSing - the principle is the same: you cannot teach what you do not know and you cannot teach if you cannot put yourself into a mindset of a student who sees the concept for the first time. I think the two go hand in hand and are what is needed to successfully teach somebody something, whether in a professional or in a home context.

 

EM, I totally understand what you are saying and I partially agree with you. But, the blue portion I laughingly disagree with.

 

I imagine some households you can separate homeschooling into teaching as a narrow separate skill that is all that is required to be a successful teacher. But, that is absolutely so far removed from my reality that there is no way that it is even a realistic statement. Managing laundry, diapers, potty-training, Aspie melt-downs, cooking......those take place in my school room in the middle of teaching. Being well-organized and prepared can deal with some of it, but 2 yr olds do not easily comply to conforming to what I want to have happen (at least my 2 yr olds don't!!)

 

And, the green, well, I just disagree. I do believe you can teach what you do not know as long as you are willing to learn it alongside your children in completely engaged way. As an adult, what I take from what we do is at a much higher level than what they absorb from the exact same material. I have to prep before hand and get a general idea and be prepared, but with the exception of higher high school level science and math, I have been able to teach them from what I have learned along with them. It is the resources that I use for us to learn from that matters when it is material that I have not previously mastered. If we had to have mastered everything we teach, then homeschooling would not be successful even a fraction of the time.

 

Keep in mind that "outsourcing" is a new phenomenon w/in the homeschooling movement. (and for the most part, I have been extremely disappointed w/the classes I have outsourced. My "lack of knowledge" classes have often been far superior to what they have received from "professionals," especially at the CCs. As a matter of fact, completely off-topic, I filled out a survey on homeschooling that made me crazy b/c so many questions pertained to co-ops and kids' behaviors at co-ops. I detest co-ops and I really do teach my kids most things at home by myself.....whether I know the material or not. Right now we are digging deep into Shakespeare and we are all learning a lot.

Edited January 21, 2012 by 8FillTheHeart

[regentrude]

I do believe you can teach what you do not know as long as you are willing to learn it alongside your children in completely engaged way. As an adult, what I take from what we do is at a much higher level than what they absorb from the exact same material. I have to prep before hand and get a general idea and be prepared, but with the exception of higher high school level science and math, I have been able to teach them from what I have learned along with them. It is the resources that I use for us to learn from that matters when it is material that I have not previously mastered. If we had to have mastered everything we teach, then homeschooling would not be successful even a fraction of the time.

.

 

Maybe we are running into semantics again: what is your definition of teaching?

I do agree with EsterMaria that one can not teach what one does not know. I can still learn alongside my children and help them learn, but to me, this is facilitating, not teaching.

Teaching, to me, absolutely requires to have a much deeper understanding of the material and the concepts than the student has. Teaching requires that I not only answer questions, but also anticipate them; that I can design a course of study and know what to teach in what order, that I have the expertise to evaluate materials for their quality and content, design assignments and examples that illustrate precisely the aspect I mean it to illustrate, evaluate their learning.

Following a curriculum that has reading assignments, exercises and a grading key is not yet teaching.

 

For me personally, that means that I am competent to teach math and physics, but nothing else. Even with a PhD in physics, I am not competent to teach chemistry, for example - I am not even qualified to evaluate the quality of a chemistry textbook.

I can not teach a foreign language that I am not proficient in. I can assist my kids in learning one, but I can not teach DD French if I am only a bit ahead of her: I will be unable to correct her usage. Basically, I am unable to go beyond what is spelled out in the curriculum we use. Grading written assignments with the help of a solution manual is not what I would consider teaching.

 

Maybe we just have different ideas what we consider "teaching".

[regentrude]

An intimate knowledge of what they teach and a pedagogy of knowing how to pass it onto other people (of various ages, interest levels, levels of previous knowledge).

 

That is all there is to it, IMO. Personality is secondary, you can be the most "engaging" person in the world, but if you do not know WHAT you teach and if you cannot put yourself in the perspective of somebody trying to master it for the first time, you are not going to be a good teacher. Personally I did not find any correlation in the personality type and being a good (or a bad) teacher - it all boils down to knowledge and pedagogy. Yet for some reason people seem to think that personality is the key, while it is not, IME.

:iagree:

 

1.Thorough subject knowledge, and some knowledge about pedagogy - but much of the latter can be obtained through teaching (and observing other teachers). I learned to teach by working with students, not before.

 

2. Enthusiasm for the subject. I do not think one can learn from teachers who are bored by what they teach.

 

I also agree that personality does not give an indication of being a good or bad teacher. It can be that a certain personality of teacher is a better fit for a certain kind of student.

(I have a friend who is more the rough diamond, drill-sergeant type. He is a great teacher and gets good results, yet his methods do not work for some of his students. I am more a caring type, and some who can't work with him do well with me, but my style does not work for some students who would greatly benefit from a -figurative- kick in the behind which my personality makes me unable to deliver)

[serendipitous journey]

What traits make someone a great teacher?

 

... just thinking, if y'all are getting semantic, the post title "what are the keys to becoming a great teacher" is different to "what traits make someone a great teacher". Esp. since the title is nicely modified by "In your experience".

 

I like The Elements of Teaching as a teacher-growth source. Don't own it, though; I keep checking it out from the library :).

Edited January 21, 2012 by serendipitous journey

[8filltheheart]

Maybe we are running into semantics again: what is your definition of teaching?

I do agree with EsterMaria that one can not teach what one does not know. I can still learn alongside my children and help them learn, but to me, this is facilitating, not teaching.

Teaching, to me, absolutely requires to have a much deeper understanding of the material and the concepts than the student has. Teaching requires that I not only answer questions, but also anticipate them; that I can design a course of study and know what to teach in what order, that I have the expertise to evaluate materials for their quality and content, design assignments and examples that illustrate precisely the aspect I mean it to illustrate, evaluate their learning.

Following a curriculum that has reading assignments, exercises and a grading key is not yet teaching.

 

For me personally, that means that I am competent to teach math and physics, but nothing else. Even with a PhD in physics, I am not competent to teach chemistry, for example - I am not even qualified to evaluate the quality of a chemistry textbook.

I can not teach a foreign language that I am not proficient in. I can assist my kids in learning one, but I can not teach DD French if I am only a bit ahead of her: I will be unable to correct her usage. Basically, I am unable to go beyond what is spelled out in the curriculum we use. Grading written assignments with the help of a solution manual is not what I would consider teaching.

 

Maybe we just have different ideas what we consider "teaching".

 

I have no idea if it is semantics or differing opinion. The majority of homeschooling parents do not have degrees in elementary education, yet they manage to teach their children to read. Are they "facilitating" their child in learning to read or are they "teaching" their child to read? My POV is that they are teaching their children. I don't really believe education of little children is "facilitated." To me, facilitated implies an equally active level of pursuit from both parties. I might be able to "facilitate" my 10th grader's passion for astronomy by researching and finding the appropriate resources that assist him in pursuing the subject, but I have to teach him spelling.grammar/mechanics/writing b/c he really doesn't like those subjects and he doesn't actively engage in learning them w/o direct intervention.;)

 

I learned how to teach grammar with my oldest. I learned to teach writing with my oldest. I learned how to teach literature with my oldest, etc. Basically that flows across the full spectra of subject matter. I don't have degrees in those areas.

 

It takes researching materials, studying what I have purchased and determining if it covers everything I need it to, and prepping/planning how we are going to cover the material. If we come across areas I do not understand and cannot adequately explain at a higher level, I find more resources. With the exception of higher level science, math beyond alg 2, and foreign language (b/c my kids want to take French which I know nothing about and my brain cannot learn a foreign language at the same pace as theirs), finding resources that help me teach has been enough for me to learn those subjects well enough to teach my kids at their level. I do have to be actively involved in the process, though.

 

Semantics or no, I have successfully taught my children to master subject matter at the high school level that I am not an expert in. My kids have gone on to perform extremely well at the collegiate level, even in subjects that they detest and aren't personally engaged in w/o direct mom intervention. If parents couldn't do that at the K-12 level, then the critics of homeschooling would be correct that there is no way homeschooling can provide adequate education.

Edited January 21, 2012 by 8FillTheHeart

[Jess4879]

My answer is different than the others b/c I think the answer is not so simple, especially in a family dynamic w/in a functioning home w/mom being teacher, housekeeper, cook, nurse, and nurturer. In a professional environment, knowledge of your subject and how to teach it across a broad range of abilities is going to be the key. I don't believe that is the truth in the home environment. I have managed successfully teach many subjects that I knew very little about prior to learning them w/my children.

 

So, I don't have a simple, concise answer, only my experiences as to when my children succeed and when they struggle.

 

First and foremost, when my kids are not thriving and progressing, the fault pretty consistently falls squarely on my shoulders. Whining, non-compliance, frustration, etc in my children results from my not assigning appropriate level work and not working with them at their level. Their frustration is not because they don't want to learn the material. Their frustration is because they are children and they do not know how to express what they themselves do not understand…..that what I have expected them to understand easily, they didn't. That what they don't understand is not their fault. Frustration on my part does not force them to comprehend what they don't. Stepping back and creating new ways to convey information until I find what actually connects is the only teaching method which works.

 

Here is a list of just other random thoughts that have hit home over the yrs:

 

My being distracted has a direct correlation to the quality of our educational environment. When I am actively engaged, so are they. When I treat school hours as 2nd priority, I am not respecting the effort required of them to do their best work. (and they know it. They need my respect for their daily work as much as I need their daily work to reflect their efforts.)

 

Knowing exactly what I want accomplished from assignments and what tasks I want each child to do each day must be determined ahead of time. If I wing their day's work, the quality of what I offer them educationally is diminished and equally my output expectations from them become flawed.

 

Kids need teachers that teach. They need teachers that are fully prepared ahead of time. They need teachers that check their progress and hold them accountable. They need praise for their effort mixed with appropriate age level critiquing. When any of those are missing and my kids fall behind or struggle, the fault is not theirs. It is mine and I must address my own faults before I can fairly address theirs.

 

As a homeschooling mother, all of my faults are amplified. I must be willing to train my own will and address my own weaknesses before I even consider criticizing what I see in my children. Often what I see is what I have allowed or situations I have created.

 

With our Aspie, I have to resist expecting behaviors he is incapable of exhibiting w/o coaxing/reminding. My expectations must be realistic, not simply what I want.

 

Academics is only part of home-education. The whole person must be nurtured and appropriate paths searched for for each individual. I must make sure that my children's lives are balanced and not allow "teacher of academics" dominate over the other areas of their lives.

:iagree:

 

yeah, what she said!:001_smile:

[Ester Maria]

I just think the first part is far easier than the second part.

I agree with you, I have seen this in practice a lot. People who are the best teachers are often not the best experts, because a lot of experts have problems getting into the mindset of a learner and they tend to assume many things to be "obvious" - which are obvious to them, but not to the teacher. However, they still need to know what they teach in order to be able to pass it on. In short, we agree. :001_smile:

I filled out a survey on homeschooling that made me crazy b/c so many questions pertained to co-ops and kids' behaviors at co-ops. I detest co-ops and I really do teach my kids most things at home by myself.....whether I know the material or not. Right now we are digging deep into Shakespeare and we are all learning a lot.

I detest co-ops too :tongue_smilie:, but I do not have a problem with private tutors or online stuff or having the kids work on something on their own only loosely overseen by somebody else, if I think that allows for the greater quality than what I would be able to provide.

Maybe we are running into semantics again: what is your definition of teaching?

I do agree with EsterMaria that one can not teach what one does not know. I can still learn alongside my children and help them learn, but to me, this is facilitating, not teaching.

Teaching, to me, absolutely requires to have a much deeper understanding of the material and the concepts than the student has. Teaching requires that I not only answer questions, but also anticipate them; that I can design a course of study and know what to teach in what order, that I have the expertise to evaluate materials for their quality and content, design assignments and examples that illustrate precisely the aspect I mean it to illustrate, evaluate their learning.

Following a curriculum that has reading assignments, exercises and a grading key is not yet teaching.

 

For me personally, that means that I am competent to teach math and physics, but nothing else. Even with a PhD in physics, I am not competent to teach chemistry, for example - I am not even qualified to evaluate the quality of a chemistry textbook.

I can not teach a foreign language that I am not proficient in. I can assist my kids in learning one, but I can not teach DD French if I am only a bit ahead of her: I will be unable to correct her usage. Basically, I am unable to go beyond what is spelled out in the curriculum we use. Grading written assignments with the help of a solution manual is not what I would consider teaching.

 

Maybe we just have different ideas what we consider "teaching".

:iagree:

Thanks for verbalizing it for me, yes, this is the distinction I had in mind.

I have no idea if it is semantics or differing opinion. The majority of homeschooling parents do not have degrees in elementary education, yet they manage to teach their children to read. Are they "facilitating" their child in learning to read or are they "teaching" their child to read?

The rule of thumb that I adhere to (you may or may not agree with it, but I found it to be a good general rule) is that it takes at least "a distance of one educational phase in content" to be able to successfully teach. IOW:

- To teach early years / elementary school, you need a solid 8th grade education;

- To teach middle school, you need a solid high school education in the subjects you teach;

- To teach a high school level course, you need at least a first degree (or the equivalent knowledge) in the subject;

- To teach lower college, you need at least a second degree / masters' / specialization in the subject;

- To teach upper college and beyond, you need a doctorate.

 

So, that is the difference we are talking about here, I think. Of course that you can teach elementary school because any person with a strong 8th grade education, some passion and some teaching skills, is technically capable of teaching the littles the 3 Rs. :) But, just like you noticed, about high school it gets tougher, especially with more "specialist" subjects. At that age you pretty much either know what you teach, either facilitate your kids' learning in some ways.

 

When my kids were younger, say until about 10-11 years old or so, I was VERY independent in how we homeschooled. VERY much so. I did not even use curricula for the most part, other than having the standard textbooks for math, etc. and their equivalence exams. 90% of it was off my head, my own design, my own mishmash of things, and I was really on the top of it and thought I was awesome. :tongue_smilie: But then I slowly started to hit some plateaux and figure out that, while it was fun while it lasted, I was beginning to handicap them because they had "outgrown" me - so I started compromising. I delegated some subjects to some other people, started to have kids learn on their own some areas with other people's oversight, while I continued to do my own thing and improvize in the areas in which I was capable of doing so. But as they grew bigger, about high school (we are still there), they "outgrew" me exactly according to the above scheme - the only things "left" for me to be able to teach to a satisfactory degree are my degree stuff and related humanities. Everything else, somebody else has taken on and/or I facilitate rather than teach.

 

My eldest is in school this semester, but the last semester at home I fully taught her and was fully on top of her in exactly two areas - literature and Latin. Some areas were a mix of my teaching, her learning on her own, and other people overseeing that (such as history, Bible, checking her math, etc.), some areas I was almost completely divorced from, other than being vaguely aware of what she was doing (music, modern languages, even sciences), because those areas were so out of my comfort zone on high school level that I estimated that the amount of effort needed for me to be able to be on top of her "properly" was simply greater than what I was willing / capable of putting in, with two other kids, my need for my own free and adult time (as selfish as this sounds :), but I am simply not a "normal" person, mentally, if I do not take some time off for myself), and just general life. If she had stayed at home, we would probably ultimately hit the stage at which I teach her only my degree subjects and delegate everything else to other people and/or have her work independently with outside evaluations. Not saying this is how things ought to be - maybe some people are capable of doing what I am not, or their other options are still lower in quality than what they can do at home on their own - but for us, this generalized scheme definitely makes a lot of sense, in that I can only teach what I am "at least one phase ahead" of the student. Other things I can chat about, be in touch with how they are doing, provide materials and outside support, but I cannot actually teach.

[regentrude]

I have no idea if it is semantics or differing opinion. The majority of homeschooling parents do not have degrees in elementary education, yet they manage to teach their children to read.

 

It would be safe to assume that all those parents are proficient readers themselves. I never said they had to have learned "how" to teach - but they need to have mastered the content. Which they have.

Same for writing at elementary and logic level: those parents can write, spell, use grammar. (If they could not, they would not be able to teach; an illiterate parent can not teach her child to read and write)

 

I learned how to teach grammar with my oldest. I learned to teach writing with my oldest. I learned how to teach literature with my oldest, etc. Basically that flows across the full spectra of subject matter. I don't have degrees in those areas.

 

My hat is off to you - I do not think I am qualified to teach literature. Sure, I can pick up a book and learn about literary terms, discuss literature, have my kids write about literature, but a full blown scholarly literary analysis I can not teach because it requires years of study to be thoroughly familiar with the discipline. Just ask Ester :)

 

With the exception of higher level science, math beyond alg 2, and foreign language , finding resources that help me teach has been enough for me to learn those subjects well enough to teach my kids at their level. I do have to be actively involved in the process, though.

 

See, you are making exceptions. And why can't you teach these things? Because you have not mastered them. That is exactly what I am talking about.

 

Semantics or no, I have successfully taught my children to master subject matter at the high school level that I am not an expert in. My kids have gone on to perform extremely well at the collegiate level, even in subjects that they detest and aren't personally engaged in w/o direct mom intervention. If parents couldn't do that at the K-12 level, then the critics of homeschooling would be correct that there is no way homeschooling can provide adequate education.

This is not what I am saying. I do not say that parents can not help children learn these things at home. I say I can not be an active teacher of material I do not know.

In no way do I mean to imply that your children could not learn these things. But, as you yourself admit, you did not teach them upper math and science and foreign language - you helped them learn.

That's my whole point.

[Beth in SW WA]

:lurk5:

[Embassy]

{SNIP}

The rule of thumb that I adhere to (you may or may not agree with it, but I found it to be a good general rule) is that it takes at least "a distance of one educational phase in content" to be able to successfully teach. IOW:

- To teach early years / elementary school, you need a solid 8th grade education;

- To teach middle school, you need a solid high school education in the subjects you teach;

- To teach a high school level course, you need at least a first degree (or the equivalent knowledge) in the subject;

- To teach lower college, you need at least a second degree / masters' / specialization in the subject;

- To teach upper college and beyond, you need a doctorate.

{SNIP}

 

 

I see your point here, but from what I have seen a degree does not equal knowledge and no degree does not equal no knowledge. The smartest person I know self-educates and has no college degree. I agree that that individual would need to have a degree to teach at a school. I've also seen people with degrees who were good at memorizing for tests and didn't come out with real knowledge of the subject. In graduate school I taught a undergraduate class. It was a basic class, but it was normal for graduate students to teach some undergraduate classes.

 

I'm over my head with some subjects already. I have to be careful about choosing curriculum or resources since I know little about the subject. My child responds well to learning along with me. Whether that is officially called teaching or facilitating I don't know, but I pretty much use both terms when talking about a class where I learn along with my child. Even if I know little about the subject I have skills that can help correct, guide, or teach my child how to learn the material. So I am kind of teaching and facilitating at the same time.

[Mrs Twain]

I don't know all that you need to teach well, but from my experience passion and enthusiasm are a big deal. I have known professors who got me interested in subjects in which I really had no interest just because they had overwhelming passion for the subjects. Passion and enthusiasm in the teacher have a way of infecting the students.

 

Of course the better one knows a subject, the better he can teach it. I have a doctorate in the science field, and science is quite easy for me to teach from any textbook or resource without any preparation. However, there are other subjects about which I know little or nothing. I find that the more I research, self-educate, and pre-read in those subjects, the better I do at teaching and presenting the information. Some subjects I won't attempt to teach much but will likely primarily outsource (art being one of them for my kid who aspires to be an artist).

[MrsMe]

A sense of wonder

Infinite patience

A certain amount of stubbornness that lends itself to never giving up even when you've exhausted your ability to explain a concept. There MUST be a way.

 

That's about it.

 

I think I've just described why I believe my husband is the best first grade teacher on the planet earth. I ought to go tell him. :D

 

I love this! This is awesome Daisy!!!!:hurray:

[Ester Maria]

I see your point here, but from what I have seen a degree does not equal knowledge and no degree does not equal no knowledge.

You are right, I should have phrased it differently: principally I have in mind the coverage of content, with or without a formal recognition of that in terms of a degree (although there are some downsides to not having that formal recognition in some cases if you want to work with what you learned on your own, because nobody "guarantees" for your expertise if you are an autodidact).

 

For example, I do not have a degree in Latin, but between many years of Latin at school, a few years at university (even audited some classes for classical philology majors for my own joy) and my own philological and literary research which included working with many original texts, and with the ultimate result of all of this that I have a knowledge of Latin at least equivalent to that of many first degrees in Latin (I know many classical philology majors, especially non-European ones and younger ones, who are not there yet), I am pretty confident that I can teach high school level Latin. But this is an exception rather than a rule. Subjects like history, Greek, art history or even philosophy are something I already get slightly nervous about (even though I studied all of those in high school for 3-5 years and almost majored in art history, which was my greatest passion after letters) and prefer to facilitate rather than be on top of them at some stage.

Edited January 21, 2012 by Ester Maria

[JMDRAD]

 

And, the green, well, I just disagree. I do believe you can teach what you do not know as long as you are willing to learn it alongside your children in completely engaged way. As an adult, what I take from what we do is at a much higher level than what they absorb from the exact same material. I have to prep before hand and get a general idea and be prepared, but with the exception of higher high school level science and math, I have been able to teach them from what I have learned along with them. It is the resources that I use for us to learn from that matters when it is material that I have not previously mastered. If we had to have mastered everything we teach, then homeschooling would not be successful even a fraction of the time.

 

 

I disagree with this too, having to have intimate knowledge of what you're teaching. We are studying Latin this year and I have absolutely NO experience at all. Yet, my dd is doing great with it. We watch the DVDs together, do the exercises together, etc. I'm learning it right along with her. I think my enthusiasm goes a long way even though I stumble over the lesson at times when I'm trying to get a grasp on it.

 

Maybe it's different when you are teaching teenagers. :bigear:

[kristinannie]

My answer is different than the others b/c I think the answer is not so simple, especially in a family dynamic w/in a functioning home w/mom being teacher, housekeeper, cook, nurse, and nurturer. In a professional environment, knowledge of your subject and how to teach it across a broad range of abilities is going to be the key. I don't believe that is the truth in the home environment. I have managed successfully teach many subjects that I knew very little about prior to learning them w/my children.

 

So, I don't have a simple, concise answer, only my experiences as to when my children succeed and when they struggle.

 

First and foremost, when my kids are not thriving and progressing, the fault pretty consistently falls squarely on my shoulders. Whining, non-compliance, frustration, etc in my children results from my not assigning appropriate level work and not working with them at their level. Their frustration is not because they don't want to learn the material. Their frustration is because they are children and they do not know how to express what they themselves do not understand…..that what I have expected them to understand easily, they didn't. That what they don't understand is not their fault. Frustration on my part does not force them to comprehend what they don't. Stepping back and creating new ways to convey information until I find what actually connects is the only teaching method which works.

 

Here is a list of just other random thoughts that have hit home over the yrs:

 

My being distracted has a direct correlation to the quality of our educational environment. When I am actively engaged, so are they. When I treat school hours as 2nd priority, I am not respecting the effort required of them to do their best work. (and they know it. They need my respect for their daily work as much as I need their daily work to reflect their efforts.)

 

Knowing exactly what I want accomplished from assignments and what tasks I want each child to do each day must be determined ahead of time. If I wing their day's work, the quality of what I offer them educationally is diminished and equally my output expectations from them become flawed.

 

Kids need teachers that teach. They need teachers that are fully prepared ahead of time. They need teachers that check their progress and hold them accountable. They need praise for their effort mixed with appropriate age level critiquing. When any of those are missing and my kids fall behind or struggle, the fault is not theirs. It is mine and I must address my own faults before I can fairly address theirs.

 

As a homeschooling mother, all of my faults are amplified. I must be willing to train my own will and address my own weaknesses before I even consider criticizing what I see in my children. Often what I see is what I have allowed or situations I have created.

With our Aspie, I have to resist expecting behaviors he is incapable of exhibiting w/o coaxing/reminding. My expectations must be realistic, not simply what I want.

 

Academics is only part of home-education. The whole person must be nurtured and appropriate paths searched for for each individual. I must make sure that my children's lives are balanced and not allow "teacher of academics" dominate over the other areas of their lives.

 

 

:iagree: My own faults have really been amplified through homeschooling. I have had to treat homeschooling as a job. Of course, life sometimes gets in the way, but it can't consistently get in the way. We have a plan for the day and stick to it. As we train the wills of our children, we also have to train our own wills. I understand sometimes when they whine about doing school because some days I wake up and would rather stay in bed than do school. This experience has also taught me that I need to stay on top of housework more. My free time in the day is much more limited now.

 

I agree that we can learn along with our children, but we also need to have a plan and be prepared. A whole day can be thrown off when you realize you don't have the supplies you need, etc. I spend 30-60 minutes over the weekend planning the week and then spend about 10 minutes each evening before bed making sure that everything is set for the next day. That has really helped us!

 

Honestly, I do think we need to teach what we enjoy since it just makes the whole experience better. However, we also need to teach things we don't love. I try to at least find some method I am excited about using even if the subject matter doesn't excite me!

[jamajo]

:iagree:

 

I agree that we can learn along with our children, but we also need to have a plan and be prepared. A whole day can be thrown off when you realize you don't have the supplies you need, etc. I spend 30-60 minutes over the weekend planning the week and then spend about 10 minutes each evening before bed making sure that everything is set for the next day. That has really helped us!

 

 

 

 

So are you saying I should get off of the computer and plan my lessons for next week?:tongue_smilie:

[Sahamamama]

OP here. :seeya: I appreciate the feedback and various points of view. I ask because a strong desire to be an effective, great teacher has been growing in me steadily, especially this past year. To tell the truth, I have been looking back over my own journey, in and out of school, trying to resurrect memories of those who were called my teachers. What did they teach me? So many "teachers" have come and gone in my life, but only a few stand out as having shaped me, positively or negatively. I began to wonder why? Why are so many teachers "forgotten," some gladly, while a very few special people stand out in my memory as being good teachers?

 

Mrs. B______, my fourth grade teacher stands out as my first good, solid, dependable, very traditional teacher. I adored her. She was a widow, with five children, Roman Catholic, beautiful penmanship, a sweet smile, a musical laugh, and I adored her. I don't remember what she taught me, besides state capitals. :D But her warm motherliness stirred up in me a deep longing to go home. I had had only cold, harsh teachers before this time, so Mrs. B______ triggered a sense of homesickness! She was so much like my own loving mother, and it dawned on me that if Mrs. B_____ and I could choose for ourselves, we would both be home. That was my first glimpse of "homeschooling," standing at the end of the school hallway, looking out the window and wanting to go home to learn.

 

Fifth grade, sixth, seventh, eighth.... I can't think of one other "good" teacher until.... my third year of college. I had two good teachers in college, one because I respected her life and work ethic, how she rose up from being a migrant worker's daughter to a college department chair, and the other prof because we mentored each other (LOL) -- I helped him write and edit his dissertation, and he helped me get over needing to earn 102% on every assignment. He actually marked my papers WRONG (when they were not), just so I could "get over it." :)

 

Those two college professors were "great" (for me), not because of their mastery of content (though they knew their "stuff"), but because they allowed me (as a young adult) to be in a relationship with them that was more than that of come-and-go, student-teacher. One professor took great interest in my writing and research, to the point of insisting on it being published, she was that excited about it. :blush: The other professor... well, to this day we consider each other colleagues (and I am not even practicing in his field at present). He knows that he mentored me, and he knows that I sincerely appreciate it. He also knows that his dissertation would have FAILED if I hadn't bailed him out of his own atrocious writing, so... :toetap05: :lol: A great teacher is one you can laugh with and grow with, who also laughs and grows with you. An encyclopedia holds a lot of content, but a great teacher lives out a genuine, fully-human life with his or her students.

 

In seminary, I had one good, perhaps great, teacher. His motto was: Always learning. He was humble, brilliant, knowledgeable, soft-spoken, warm, demanding, hard-working, and he and his wife practically adopted me as their daughter for those otherwise lonely years. I don't remember a thing he said in class, but it must have been something about the New Testament....

 

I agree that great teaching -- imparting content -- is probably not so much about personality, but about knowing the content (obviously). For example, a great teacher in a lecture class, tutoring session, or music lesson must know the content. You can't fumble around for the objective or the vocabulary during the lesson, right? OTOH, I think I'm pondering more what makes a great teacher -- the person who guides another on the journey of learning, the person who, yes, is a master of the content, BUT also invites another to come in. Who says, "Join me, as we enjoy _______ together, I am so enamored of my subject, :001_wub: I'm sure you will agree." And so, in that sense, I am asking about who we are as people who teach, and how do we develop within ourselves those traits which make us great teachers?

 

What is a great teacher? Not just someone who "has" the content, as important as that is (or may be), but as someone who passionately invites another person to come along on the journey, with full expectation that this person will eagerly follow -- Literary Analysis? How could anyone resist the joys and temptations of Literary Analysis? ;) -- and who also knows how to lead the learner to have a successful experience.

 

In looking back over my own list of teachers, the only people who stand out are the ones who either (a) hated me, and made it obvious, or (b) loved me, and made it obvious. I've had plenty of both types. And, most of what I know, I taught myself, encouraged by the example of teachers (and others) who never stopped learning.

Edited January 21, 2012 by Sahamamama

[Xilka]

I think that making learning exciting is the ultimate goal.

[Ester Maria]

Nice post, Sahamamama (I hope I got the number of "ma"s correctly, I always mess that up :tongue_smilie:) - but what you are talking about right now are those almost "mystical" qualities that are related to a personality and that help another person GROW. What you are talking about is a kind of a general life / growth mentorship more than specifically academic teaching (in the way I understand those terms).

 

Some of my best professors were those I did NOT click with as a personality. They were not "loving" (for lack of a better expression) and they had a "business only" approach with their students - but that business was done on such a high level that anyone truly interested in learning the concrete material dealt with was capable of doing so very well with their support and guidance. And yet, any "personal sphere" was almost completely absent. For most of these people I have no idea who they were, where they came from, what were their hobbies and interests unrelated to what they taught, what were their family situations, almost nothing. They did not "share their lives" with us nor did they exercise any kind of a life mentorship role with us - but boy, did they know what they taught. And if you knew how to set your priorities in your mind, and forgo connecting with them on any more intimate level, you could learn SO MUCH from them.

 

Others yet attempted to "raise" us - but if not done in a very clever and subtle fashion, these professors were more likely to be met with our silent scorn rather than appreciation. There is a very fine line between being a bit of a "parent" in addition to being a teacher on one hand, and moralism on the other hand. The "parent-like" ones, in moderation, were loved by all - but Heaven save me from moralists. They were the worst, even if they honestly shared what they believed to be true and just, and honestly tried to "correct" and "guide". Maybe I was just an extra rebellious personality that was hard to impress, but I found it very hard to truly respect people who did not respect some boundaries in terms of "influence" on me. I firmly believe that, if in doubt, teachers should err on the side of professionalism rather than on the side of personal involvement.

 

Maybe I am extra good at "compartmentalizing", but I am really capable of respecting somebody as a person, yet honestly believing they are lousy from a professional standpoint in their teaching - and vice versa. I have always wanted to learn from the best rather than from the nicest, if that makes sense (provided they were professional, of course). Looking back, the people I consider my best teachers were good teachers rather than, or in addition to, having been good people - because I can mentally keep the two apart.

 

Now, if we are talking about teaching from a mentorship / discipleship type of perspective, then things obviously change. Then you want a strong personality with a rich life behind them, shaped by their experiences, who have grown in ways you are yet to grow - but this is something I separate in my mind from teaching the academic content. I know several people who are like that, who just have that "something" and they manage to teach by simply being who they are. I love my kids to spend time around those people to feed off their vibes, but I am not sure to what extent I "am" one of those people, and even if I am not, I am not sure I could "artificially" become who I am not, if you get what I mean, because I got shaped as a person by my life, like any other person.

 

Ideally, one gets both - expertise AND a personal charisma; but when we are talking about actual academic learning, I choose expertise over charismatic personality anytime. For general parenting, life guidance, etc., I agree that personal growth and some personality traits are much more important than how learned one is.

[regentrude]

Some of my best professors were those I did NOT click with as a personality. They were not "loving" (for lack of a better expression) and they had a "business only" approach with their students - but that business was done on such a high level that anyone truly interested in learning the concrete material dealt with was capable of doing so very well with their support and guidance. And yet, any "personal sphere" was almost completely absent. For most of these people I have no idea who they were, where they came from, what were their hobbies and interests unrelated to what they taught, what were their family situations, almost nothing. They did not "share their lives" with us nor did they exercise any kind of a life mentorship role with us - but boy, did they know what they taught. And if you knew how to set your priorities in your mind, and forgo connecting with them on any more intimate level, you could learn SO MUCH from them.

.

 

Funny that you should mention this, because I had exactly the same thought.

Except for one math teacher in Middle school who was our homeroom teacher and who did take a personal interest, none of the teachers I remember as outstanding in college ever had any sort of personal relationship with me.

They were outstanding teachers because of their command of the subject, their enthusiasm for the subject, and their skill for making the subject understood to a learner.

Interestingly, among my fellow students there was a perfect consensus about who these teachers were - their qualities were noticed by everybody, top and struggling students alike.

[woolybear]

Just read this today and thought I'd add it here.

 

 

"You cannot teach anyone anything. You can only help them to discover it within themselves."

--Galileo

[Sahamamama]

Nice post, Sahamamama (I hope I got the number of "ma"s correctly, I always mess that up)

 

I am SArah, HAnnah, and MAry's mother (mama). ;)

 

What you are talking about right now are those almost "mystical" qualities that are related to a personality and that help another person GROW. What you are talking about is a kind of a general life / growth mentorship more than specifically academic teaching (in the way I understand those terms).

 

Yes, this is the aspect of being a "great teacher" that I am talking about, because (IMO) mystically helping a person to grow :) is more applicable to my situation as a homechooling parent than an emotionally-distant classroom model of teaching ought to be.

 

And yet, any "personal sphere" was almost completely absent. For most of these people I have no idea who they were, where they came from, what were their hobbies and interests unrelated to what they taught, what were their family situations, almost nothing. They did not "share their lives" with us nor did they exercise any kind of a life mentorship role with us - but boy, did they know what they taught.

 

I think that in future years, when my children are older, and moving away from my sphere of influence, I will be thrilled for them to learn from teachers who know their subject to this extent. But now, while the girls are young, of course I want them to know who I am, what I believe, and where I come from. This is primarily parenting, but some of it comes out through school-generated discussions. Do you think that, at least in the early years, the personal warmth of the teacher plays a role in how the child receives and processes the body of knowledge?

 

I firmly believe that, if in doubt, teachers should err on the side of professionalism rather than on the side of personal involvement.

 

This might be valid for classroom teachers, but homeschooling teachers are parents first, so I will err on the side of personal involvement.

 

Now, if we are talking about teaching from a mentorship / discipleship type of perspective, then things obviously change. Then you want a strong personality with a rich life behind them, shaped by their experiences, who has grown in ways you are yet to grow - but this is something I separate in my mind from teaching the academic content.

 

Yes, according to my husband, it is like a spiritual substance. He tells me not to worry about being a great teacher, he says I have plenty of this strong, genuine-human substance. Then I say, "Did you just call me fat?" ;)

 

I know several people who are like that, who just have that "something" and they manage to teach by simply being who they are. I love my kids to spend time around those people to feed off their vibes, but I am not sure to what extent I "am" one of those people, and even if I am not, I am not sure I could "artificially" become who I am not, if you get what I mean, because I got shaped as a person by my life, like any other person.

 

You are wonderful just the way you are, and your children are BLESSED beyond belief to have your as both their mother and their teacher.

 

Ideally, one gets both - expertise AND a personal charisma; but when we are talking about actual academic learning, I choose expertise over charismatic personality anytime.

 

Yes, I agree with this. When you need to learn and know it, and understand it, and pass exams in it, then, yes, you need a teacher who knows and can teach it, whatever "it" may be. I had the world's worst line-up of math teachers in the entire existence of mankind. I always thought I was truly stupid. If only.... Better teachers do make a difference. So, yes, when it's time to buckle down and learn the material -- to master it -- then I'll take the cold-as-ice, encyclopedic master-teacher anytime over the nice guy who's a clueless idiot.

 

I do think that a student has to work up to that level of maturity to be able to handle those types of teachers, though. How is this done in your part of Europe? From what I've read, European students are thrown into those sink-or-swim classrooms early on, but they know it's the norm, and they've been raised to handle the impersonality, abrasiveness, and aloofness of the teachers, and the pressure of the intense academics. Is that how it works?

 

I'm not sure what I as a homeschool mom can glean from these (draconian! severe! :001_smile:) practices, except for the idea that an overly-protective homeschooling parent :rolleyes: might delay maturity by insisting on too much "warmth" from all her student's teachers, at the expense of expertise. IOW, throw them into that course with the expert, even though he does not acknowledge their existence, let alone mentor them or serve as a spiritual role model. Hmmm.... this is a new way of thinking for a how-does-that-make-you-feel-and-are-you-happy-about-it American. :001_huh: LOL.

 

For general parenting, life guidance, etc., I agree that personal growth and some personality traits are much more important than how learned one is.

 

EM, thanks so much for posting. Sigh. When I get into one of these philosophical moods, my husband's amiable gruntings somehow just don't cut the mustard, KWIM? He could spend all night talking about anesthesia :sleep:, until no one on earth would ever need any, while I would wax on and on about whether or not we should study Greek in second grade. :chillpill:

[ebunny]

OP here. :seeya: I appreciate the feedback and various points of view. And so, in that sense, I am asking about who we are as people who teach, and how do we develop within ourselves those traits which make us great teachers?

 

What is a great teacher?

 

Teaching my own DD has been the toughest job EVER. I have taught children (as a tutor), but that was a different ballgame.

 

As a 'teacher', I've learned that an open mind, a solid knowledge base and enthusiasm are extremely important. The children I taught learned best when I led discussions, a la the *socratic method*, presented probing questions, encouraged them to question me and expected a certain standard of involvement which corresponded to mine.

 

As a mom+teacher, I've learned that I need to be a little more detached. Detached from the pressure of being her teacher. Not take every mistake she makes, as *my* failure.

 

And of course, being in charge of DD's education is a responsibility that I take very seriously, that leads to skewed expectations and stress.

[8filltheheart]

EM, thanks so much for posting. Sigh. When I get into one of these philosophical moods, my husband's amiable gruntings somehow just don't cut the mustard, KWIM? He could spend all night talking about anesthesia :sleep:, until no one on earth would ever need any, while I would wax on and on about whether or not we should study Greek in second grade. :chillpill:

 

This comment made me :lol: !!! I went out to lunch this week w/a friend whose kids have all graduated from her homeschool. It was so blissful; she is about the only other person I know IRL that likes to discuss the things I do! My dh is a dear but a conversation on Shakespeare would be met w/glazed eyes. ;)

 

I don't know the answer to your defined original question. I don't think there is a single "right" answer. I know that respecting my kids as "working individuals" (meaning that I recognize that school is hard work and effort for them and is their day job), as well as respecting their interests and abilities goes a long way in how things play out in attitudes and productivity. My kids like school, so the approach hasn't been detrimental anyway.

 

I'm over my head with some subjects already. I have to be careful about choosing curriculum or resources since I know little about the subject. My child responds well to learning along with me. Whether that is officially called teaching or facilitating I don't know, but I pretty much use both terms when talking about a class where I learn along with my child. Even if I know little about the subject I have skills that can help correct, guide, or teach my child how to learn the material. So I am kind of teaching and facilitating at the same time.

 

I guess this is sort of where I am. For standard high school level subject matter, when I have the appropriate resources, I do not find it difficult to put together solid courses, I guess both teach and facilitate ;), as well as grade/evaluate what my kids are doing by providing appropriate feedback. Once they are beyond high school level science (AP or college level material) and with pre-cal up and French......the balance swings where the amt of effort I have to put in outweighs the realistic boundaries of what I am able to do. At that pt, I am no longer teaching or facilitating, more along the lines of providing educational opportunities. Whatever terminology you want to use is fine b/c whatever it is, it is works.

 

It is way past my bedtime, I have no idea of any of that is even coherent. :tongue_smilie:

Edited January 22, 2012 by 8FillTheHeart

[justamouse]

I think this conversation is going to circle around to Hunter's How Many Generations.

 

I agree and disagree that we can teach everything to our kids. First, it's a pretty arrogant stand. And, my most worrisome thought is that a new homeschooling mom is going to think that they can learn right along side their kids and yeah, it'll be easy. Till they start to realize it's NOT that easy and there are huge gaps in their own education and that they should, to be really well prepared, start learning the curriculum one year in advance. Books, curric and all.

 

I've been doing this 9 years and every year I realize how much I don't know, and, had I a first class classical education, that I would probably be able to give my children the education I want for them. But I don't have it, and though I can use excellent curriculum, I'm not going to be able to make all of those connections that a truly educated person would be able to. And in that I am shorting them. I fix it as I go along, but it's not within the first stones laid in the foundations.

 

So, for me, to be a great teacher, it would be mastery of a subject (that one was teaching) and to be highly educated, to have a passion for people, as individual human beings who deserve my personal best (respecting the divinity within every person)*, and a thirst for knowledge that is insatiable.

 

With that said, I totally understand and agree with the idea that above all, to be a master at what you teach, regardless of the emotional connection. I love those types of people, myself, because for the most part, I don't want to be their friend, I want to learn what they know.

Edited January 22, 2012 by justamouse
clarity

[8filltheheart]

I think this conversation is going to circle around to Hunter's How Many Generations.

 

I agree and disagree that we can teach everything to our kids. First, it's a pretty arrogant stand. And, my most worrisome thought is that a new homeschooling mom is going to think that they can learn right along side their kids and yeah, it'll be easy. Till they start to realize it's NOT that easy and there are huge gaps in their own education and that they should, to be really well prepared, start learning the curriculum one year in advance. Books, curric and all.

 

I've been doing this 9 years and every year I realize how much I don't know, and, had I a first class classical education, that I would probably be able to give my children the education I want for them. But I don't have it, and though I can use excellent curriculum, I'm not going to be able to make all of those connections that a truly educated person would be able to. And in that I am shorting them. I fix it as I go along, but it's not within the first stones laid in the foundations.

 

So, for me, to be a great teacher, it would be mastery of a subject (that one was teaching) and to be highly educated, to have a passion for people, as individual human beings who deserve my personal best (respecting the divinity within every person)*, and a thirst for knowledge that is insatiable.

 

With that said, I totally understand and agree with the idea that above all, to be a master at what you teach, regardless of the emotional connection. I love those types of people, myself, because for the most part, I don't want to be their friend, I want to learn what they know.

 

Interesting perspective. My thoughts have been the exact opposite. I have been reading it thinking that new moms will think that they won't ever be able to teach their kids through high school b/c they aren't highly qualified masters in subject matter. (ETA for clarity: I read the predominate view as being that college degrees in subjects are required in order to teach them at the high school level.) My POV is that homeschooling parents over the yrs have proved that they can and many managed w/o all of the multitudinous options that exist today.

 

It isn't easy. I personally don't find much about homeschooling easy. I really don't think it even takes difficult subject matter for a parent to recognize that this is going to take huge amts of effort. Teaching a child to read can actually be far more painful experience than teaching algebra. ;) Homeschooling is mostly a whole lot of work with rewards that pay far more than the effort.

Edited January 22, 2012 by 8FillTheHeart

[serendipitous journey]

What is a great teacher?

 

Really, you might like The Elements of Teaching.

 

One could also start, from a Christian perspective, with Jesus. And Paul. ;) I do not mean that lightly; I know that neither were expert in the subjects we teach, but Jesus was a renowned and complicated teacher, and could be a good start for such reflections. Other traditions have similarly exalted teachers to reflect on ...

 

You seem to have in mind a person who is a great teacher and a great mentor, Sahamamama. A great mentor ought to have great character; and growing in character is something there are many resources for.

 

To teach very well requires understanding where the student's knowledge is accurate and strong, where it is shaky, and being able to meet them where they are and move them forward. Getting a grasp of your student's beliefs and understanding, and correcting or moving or informing them, is tricky.

 

In this I think auto-didacts can have an advantage. Certainly, when I worked in the sciences folks found me to be a very effective teacher, and I think it helped that I came to science late in life and could remember having to figure everything out! Science is generally a great model for being a non-expert teacher, because even the experts are always engaged in learning something new; they are guiding students in waters that are uncharted, and must necessarily be learning with the students as they go.

 

blessings; and my thanks to all the PPs who have brought a great deal of reflection, passion, and conviction to the discussion and helped me refine my own ideas and goals ...

Edited January 22, 2012 by serendipitous journey

[TGHEALTHYMOM]

It helps me to have the sense of wonder as I learn along with my children. Or even dig deeper into a subject I think I know alot about!

Getting enough sleep, taking time out for me, and having a good relationship with my husband, and Lord also help tremendously!

**Thinking back on my great teachers, and professors, as well as mentors, is always inspiring me in tough times especially.

[justamouse]

Interesting perspective. My thoughts have been the exact opposite. I have been reading it thinking that new moms will think that they won't ever be able to teach their kids through high school b/c they aren't highly qualified masters in subject matter. (ETA for clarity: I read the predominate view as being that college degrees in subjects are required in order to teach them at the high school level.) My POV is that homeschooling parents over the yrs have proved that they can and many managed w/o all of the multitudinous options that exist today.

 

It isn't easy. I personally don't find much about homeschooling easy. I really don't think it even takes difficult subject matter for a parent to recognize that this is going to take huge amts of effort. Teaching a child to read can actually be far more painful experience than teaching algebra. ;) Homeschooling is mostly a whole lot of work with rewards that pay far more than the effort.

 

Obviously you are correct. There are parents with no degrees that have taught their kids through HS. But did they give their children the best, or better than themselves (if that was their only goal)? But I don't think you need a college degree to have that knowledge, you can have it without, but you better know the material.

 

From Marva Collin's Way p. 147 (remember, these are grammar aged students, who were either not reading or reading grades below level when she got them)

 

Once the children learn how to learn, nothing is going to narrow their minds, the essence of teaching is to make learning contagious, to have one idea spark another. A discussion of Little Women, included everything from a lesson on the Civil War to an explanation of the allegory in The Pilgrim's Progress, which the little women in Alcott's novel loved to act out. When the children studied Aristotle, they learned the principals of logical thinking. Plato's Republic, led to de Tocqueville's Democracy in America, which led to a discussion of different political systems, which brought in Orwell's Animal Farm which touched off a discussion of Machiavelli, which led to a look at Chicago's city council.

 

Through the riddle of the Sphinx, which appeared in the second grade reader, the children were also introduced to Sophocles' Oedipus Rex, the Greek theater, and other heroes and legends of ancient Greece. Mention of the Roman deity Jupiter, lord of heaven and prince of light, triggered a science lesson on the solar system, which brought in the ancient geographer and astronomer Ptolemy, then Copernicus, then Issac Asimov, Carl Sagan, and the US space program. Archimedes' discovery of water displacement and specific gravity tied into Sir Issac Newton's work with gravity and light, which in turn spurred an introduction into Einstein's theory of relativity. When I taught Voltaire's Candide, I pulled in Pope's "Essay on Man" and Leibnitz and the 'optimistic' school of philosophy. If I was teaching Chaucer, I introduced Boccaccio, telling the children how Chaucer drew his Clerk's Tale from Boccaccio's "Patient Grisel".

 

These weren't discoveries that the teacher and student made together. They were taught, by the teacher, there's a difference.

 

The first thing a homeschooling mom needs to do is educate herself. You're not going to able to teach and draw comparisons to what you don't know.

 

Now, the good news is that Marva taught all of this to herself, too, because she became a teacher when you didn't have to have a teaching degree to teach, just a degree. But she taught herself because she knew that she had to.

 

I get worried when too many homeschooling parents say, "I just learned along with the kids." There's too much permission to be lazy in that statement. That's not a good teacher, that's a facilitator, and though facilitating is something I want to do for my children. it's not the best I can do for them (Unless I farm out a subject, in which I'm giving their education over to someone with a mastery in said area because of my obvious lack).

 

Truly, the first thing a new homeschooling parent needs to do is buy The Well Educated Mind, if they don't have the knowledge from their own education.

 

Ordinary Children, Extraordinary Teachers, by Marva Collins

Edited January 22, 2012 by justamouse

[8filltheheart]

Obviously you are correct. There are parents with no degrees that have taught their kids through HS. But did they give their children the best, or better than themselves (if that was their only goal)? But I don't think you need a college degree to have that knowledge, you can have it without, but you better know the material.

 

From Marva Collin's Way p. 147 (remember, these are grammar aged students, who were either not reading or reading grades below level when she got them)

 

These weren't discoveries that the teacher and student made together. They were taught, by the teacher, there's a difference.

 

The first thing a homeschooling mom needs to do is educate herself. You're not going to able to teach and draw comparisons to what you don't know.

 

Now, the good news is that Marva taught all of this to herself, too, because she became a teacher when you didn't have to have a teaching degree to teach, just a degree. But she taught herself because she knew that she had to.

 

I get worried when too many homeschooling parents say, "I just learned along with the kids." There's too much permission to be lazy in that statement. That's not a good teacher, that's a facilitator, and though facilitating is something I want to do for my children. it's not the best I can do for them (Unless I farm out a subject, in which I'm giving their education over to someone with a mastery in said area because of my obvious lack).

 

Truly, the first thing a new homeschooling parent needs to do is buy The Well Educated Mind, if they don't have the knowledge from their own education.

 

Ordinary Children, Extraordinary Teachers, by Marva Collins

 

:confused: Your posts leave me confused. Since you are replying under mine, are you suggesting that I have promoted the idea that parents do not need to be willing to spend the time required to be prepared to teach the material? B/c if so, I have certainly not communicated my view well.

 

I actually believe the exact opposite to be true. I spend months researching and gathering materials for the school yr. (I have already started gathering my materials and pre-reading them for next yr.) I spend the summer reviewing. I spend a week every 6-7 weeks previewing the exact lessons and generating plans.

 

I am most certainly not suggesting that I pull out a book and wing our way through a day's lesson and the only info is what is on the page in front of us and that is the sole depth encountered.

[Embassy]

 

I get worried when too many homeschooling parents say, "I just learned along with the kids." There's too much permission to be lazy in that statement. That's not a good teacher, that's a facilitator, and though facilitating is something I want to do for my children. it's not the best I can do for them (Unless I farm out a subject, in which I'm giving their education over to someone with a mastery in said area because of my obvious lack).

 

 

I don't think one can help but learn along with the kids for some things. It is good to read ahead and prepare ahead of time, but I think there are benefits to facilitation in some cases. Just this week my son and I sat down to figure out how to do this worksheet on scientific notations from our physical science curriculum. I don't remember ever doing that in school, but I probably did. I figured it out and then taught him how do it. My kid likes coming to a topic where we have to figure it out together. Figuring it out together also gives me the opportunity to model how to comprehend something new. I vocalize my thinking processes as I figure out how to do it. It is also beneficial, I believe, for a child with a perfectionistic temperament to sometimes have two people figuring out an answer rather than a teacher-student dynamic. We took turns doing the problems on the worksheet and at the end he wanted to finish on his own while declaring that scientific notations are fun.

[justamouse]

:confused: Your posts leave me confused. Since you are replying under mine, are you suggesting that I have promoted the idea that parents do not need to be willing to spend the time required to be prepared to teach the material? B/c if so, I have certainly not communicated my view well.

 

I actually believe the exact opposite to be true. I spend months researching and gathering materials for the school yr. (I have already started gathering my materials and pre-reading them for next yr.) I spend the summer reviewing. I spend a week every 6-7 weeks previewing the exact lessons and generating plans.

 

I am most certainly not suggesting that I pull out a book and wing our way through a day's lesson and the only info is what is on the page in front of us and that is the sole depth encountered.

 

No, not you, but posts I read, and when we, who've been at this a long time talk about it, we tend to talk about it in easier ways (because perhaps they're easier to us now?) that doesn't really express the hard work that homeschooling is.

 

But it's not just teaching the material, it's pulling for our own wells of knowledge to make connections for our students. And if we (universal) have shallow wells, but don't realize it until 7th grade, we've taught our kids for 7 years from a shallow well.

 

And, I'm not saying that the answer is to leave it up to the professionals, because that ship has long sailed in our country. I am saying that we can't teach our own children and neglect our ongoing self-education.

 

We (older homeschoolers) need to be more specific about what 'learn it along with the kids' is in application.

[Ester Maria]

Do you think that, at least in the early years, the personal warmth of the teacher plays a role in how the child receives and processes the body of knowledge?

Warning: lots of pseudo-psychological generalizations are about to take place now to explain my answer. :D Take it as an illustration only.

 

So. Yes. And here is why.

 

If my own former psychology is typical at all for how a child experiences the world, and if what I have observed with other children holds true, small children are quite bad at compartmentalizing experience. From what I recall / have observed with my own children, they tend to take in the WHOLE and struggle with "parsing" that experience. Because of that, personal qualities of a teacher and professional qualities of a teacher are not only not neatly separated in their minds, but coexist in a kind of an intertwined mix. I think it takes several years of education for kids - and general maturity - for the compartmentalizing of the experience to take place, for the individuation and classification of the parts of that experience.

Likewise, I think the memory of those early years tends to be more emotional than cognitive - rather than remembering the content of what one learned, one presumably remembers principally a generalized feeling of the event / years / etc. Intermixed with some content, but I think it is that feeling that prevails with most people.

 

The only truly good insight I was ever told by a psychologist was that, in terms of processing experience, I seem to be one of those people for whom the cognitive and the emotional component are fairly distinct. IOW, I grew to be for the most part better at compartmentalizing than an average person. While I do experience emotion (I am not a psychopath :D), and while I am in fact a very affectionate person with those I love, I am still capable of putting it aside, so to speak, and make strategical decisions based on ratio / interest / "cold" logic. I tend not to be overwhelmed by emotion in critical periods, and I tend not to "break", emotionally, so I keep my inner stability and make quite rational decisions in moments in which most people are so stressed that they cannot think. Because of this particular personal disposition, I tend to be a lot less prone to stress. I mean, I do stress, like any person, but I tend to cope with stress much better than most people I know. I am capable of experiencing very strong emotions, but they do not rule over me - it seems as though I keep the two components of experience on some level separate (I used to think this is how ALL people function for a long time).

 

The person of a "typical" psychology, if there is such a thing, is NOT so "logical" as I am. Their experience, presumably, is far more "chaotic" and they often have to struggle to actively separate what I separate naturally. And if this holds true for an average *adult*, square it to get a reality of an average *child*.

 

Kids tend to really struggle to like what is taught by people they dislike, or viceversa, and quite often the attitude of a teacher and their personal qualities are crucial in making or breaking a small child's interest, general attitude towards learning, etc. All because of that "non-compartmentalization" of experience, which they start developing a bit later (already in middle school, and especially in high school, an average person presumably IS capable of clearly separating the two, although, a bit unlike me, they may still be more influenced by emotion). It is difficult to explain to a small child: "Look, Mr Smith is a grumpy old misanthrope with a wicked sense of humor - but he really DOES know his math; just ignore his quirks and get the best out of educational experience." It typically does not function that ways - most kids are easily influenced emotionally, in terms of intimidation, fear, but also love, warmth, etc. They are not "tough", most small kids are of a really delicate composition and they "toughen" as they get older, as their rational component starts to prevail in how they handle life. But when they are really really small, I think most of them really CANNOT separate the two and NEED good people around them or things can go really bad.

 

Okay, off my soapbox now. :lol: Not sure how much sense I make, I am in one of my insomniac phases again.

I do think that a student has to work up to that level of maturity to be able to handle those types of teachers, though. How is this done in your part of Europe? From what I've read, European students are thrown into those sink-or-swim classrooms early on, but they know it's the norm, and they've been raised to handle the impersonality, abrasiveness, and aloofness of the teachers, and the pressure of the intense academics. Is that how it works?

I do not see it this way.

 

You must understand that, for me, what I grew up with was normal - I tend to find *you* guys to be a bit too "sweet" sometimes with kids, academically. Not that being sweet is bad, but I think the tendency to err on the sweet side brings about a certain level of "psychological diabetes" around. For example, I never understood the whole "Johnny must feel good" thing - I would be *offended* if somebody spared me honest feedback related to how I did. It is a whole different way of looking at things, in my subculture at least. Sink-or-swim is viewed as a privilege, as in, you are trusting the child enough to throw them into the situation and have them cope - it is not viewed as malice.

The more southern you go in Europe, people tend to be much MORE affectionate than Americans, actually. It is *you* guys who are impersonal (and the more northern crew in Europe). Impersonal AND diabetic. We tend to be affectionate, AND a bit "rough" at the same time, more direct and more relaxed (for the good and for the bad - it also means having a wider filter so we may say certain things which you would not say, etc.).

It is not that one or the other (or all shades of grey in between, as it typically happens in reality) is inherently "better" or inherently "worse".

 

Kids adapt to any system and culture they find themselves in. I think sink-or-swim is a good approach because the kids ultimately do swim, only with different quality, but the approach which shoots higher typically accomplishes more anyway.

 

I also do not find academics tense. They are normal :001_smile:, but since schools are more "segregated" (interests-wise), kids get taught at different levels rather than lumping everyone together, like it is done in the US.

 

I do not recall much pressure either, especially not in the early years. But then again, school was intuitively easy for me, who knows what it was like for other kids.

[justamouse]

 

I do not see it this way.

 

You must understand that, for me, what I grew up with was normal - I tend to find *you* guys to be a bit too "sweet" sometimes with kids, academically. Not that being sweet is bad, but I think the tendency to err on the sweet side brings about a certain level of "psychological diabetes" around. For example, I never understood the whole "Johnny must feel good" thing - I would be *offended* if somebody spared me honest feedback related to how I did. It is a whole different way of looking at things, in my subculture at least. Sink-or-swim is viewed as a privilege, as in, you are trusting the child enough to throw them into the situation and have them cope - it is not viewed as malice.

The more southern you go in Europe, people tend to be much MORE affectionate than Americans, actually. It is *you* guys who are impersonal (and the more northern crew in Europe). Impersonal AND diabetic. We tend to be affectionate, AND a bit "rough" at the same time, more direct and more relaxed (for the good and for the bad - it also means having a wider filter so we may say certain things which you would not say, etc.).

 

 

I totally agree. I think it's one of the reason kids are paralyzed by anything difficult.

 

Sweet does not automatically equal loving, caring, or concerned. I think administrators wanted kids to have good self esteem, and everyone translated that into teachers needing to being sweet. So far that hasn't worked.

 

 

This Marva Collins book is amazing. She is very loving, and expects a LOT out of her kids. She is demanding, but in a way that lets the child choose to pick his chin up.

 

I think the firmness of her demeanor is what gets the children to trust her. She will NOT let them fail, she is a pillar of strength, they trust her and they rise to her expectations.

[Sahamamama]

Thanks to everyone for posting their thoughts and experiences on this thread.

[...................]

I have never had that aspiration as a homeschool mom. I really figure as long as i can be involved and affirm my children often and Biblically, we will have a happy homeschool and they will thrive and learn well.