So I teach like they do at St. John's - who knew?

[Chrysalis Academy]

;)  :D

 

Seeing Value in Ignorance, College Expects Its Physicists to Teach Poetry

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/17/education/17stjohn.html?smid=fb-share&_r=3&

 

In all seriousness, I found this article very interesting. Sometimes I find that I do a better job of "teaching" my 7th grader in the topics I know the least about - we are learning together, which changes the dynamic completely.  Anybody else have thoughts on the value of ignorance in a teacher?

 

(I'm not talking about elementary teachers who don't understand basic math, but about the value of being a co-learner vs. the one with the answers.)

[Penguin]

A good read! It reminded me of Beginner's Mind. I have nothing but admiration for St. Johns and their ideas for education.

For $47k a year, I'm going to want experts to teach.

 

And there's been lots of times in my education where it was very useful to have a teacher who knew more than the class covered.  One who could say things like "We're learning X now, but it's really just a simplification of something else which you'll get to later".

[Hunter]

When I am particularly inexperienced in a subject, I have to spend more money and time to teach less. I am at the mercy of the textbook writer. I often am forced to teach ALL the minutiae, because I have no idea what can be skipped. After a break, I'm not able to pick up where we left off, so easily, because I have forgotten as much as the student.

 

Sometime, though, if I was lucky enough to obtain a really good text, and just followed the text, I just taught and didn't spend all my time researching and planning. I was excited to DO the lessons, and they got done. I wasn't frozen with indecision about what was the BEST way to teach something.

 

In general. I teach my best when I have had access to ONE good and complete series and little else. If I studied ahead in that series, I have enough of the big picture and mastery to know what to skip, and to not get off track by long breaks. If I've read widely in a subject, I have too much competing information in my head and get frozen choosing what is "right" and "best".

 

I don't like the newer editions, but the FIRST edition of Saxon 54-Calculus was partly so successful, because many families had all the levels and nothing else. Moms just plugged away at the series with multiple children using multiple levels. She became an expert as teaching Saxon, not an expert at teaching math. And that was enough, and preferable to being frozen in indecision. 

[G5052]

Actually the St. John's approach isn't completely "physicists teaching poetry" the way you might think.  They don't just tell them to go teach poetry.

 

The professors are trained and mentored in the subjects they're unfamiliar with, and there are extensive teaching resources made available to them.  St. Johns has been doing this a long time, and they know what it takes.  Because their curriculum has been largely set for years, they are facilitating established ways of approaching their subjects and have colleagues who are doing the same and/or have gone before them with the same seminars. 

 

The way they hire also ensures that the professors are willing to do this, and that they are truly prepared to handle unfamiliar subjects.

[regentrude]

Actually the St. John's approach isn't completely "physicists teaching poetry" the way you might think.  They don't just tell them to go teach poetry.

 

The professors are trained and mentored in the subjects they're unfamiliar with, and there are extensive teaching resources made available to them.  St. Johns has been doing this a long time, and they know what it takes.  Because their curriculum has been largely set for years, they are facilitating established ways of approaching their subjects and have colleagues who are doing the same and/or have gone before them with the same seminars. 

 

The way they hire also ensures that the professors are willing to do this, and that they are truly prepared to handle unfamiliar subjects.

 

Certainly many of us have bungled our way through unfamiliar subjects (this year mine is welding), but the professors at St. Johns are in a little different category.

 

I don't buy into this approach. No amount of extensive teaching resources, training and mentoring is going to prepare somebody without an extensive physics background to teach theoretical physics, or somebody without extensive math background to teach higher math - they may be able to regurgitate teacher's manuals, but they can not have the in depth understanding only many years of familiarity with not only the taught, but also more complex, material develops.

I see that in the subjects where I am not an expert, I am doing a poorer job than in the subjects where I am - despite resources and outside materials. I can not teach French as well as somebody who is fluent in French, and my student receives less of an education if I insist on doing so. I know this is not a popular viewpoint on these boards, but I am convinced one can not teach what one does not know. One might be able to facilitate independent learning - but that is not teaching.

 

I do not understand the rationale behind letting people teach a subject in which they are not well versed - they will inevitably miss nuances and fail to clear up misconceptions, because they will not even recognize where common misconceptions exist. I am saying this as a college instructor who, after more than a decade of teaching, still discovers new approaches and ways to explain things better - and who still learns new things conceptually about simple material.

 

I would not even want my child to be taught by professors who have ONLY teaching experience and  have not been doing active research in the field, because the latter brings a unique perspective.

Why would I pay for a college education when people without subject expertise teach my child? They might as well learn it themselves from a textbook - for free.

[Chrysalis Academy]

Actually the St. John's approach isn't completely "physicists teaching poetry" the way you might think.  They don't just tell them to go teach poetry.

 

The professors are trained and mentored in the subjects they're unfamiliar with, and there are extensive teaching resources made available to them.  St. Johns has been doing this a long time, and they know what it takes.  Because their curriculum has been largely set for years, they are facilitating established ways of approaching their subjects and have colleagues who are doing the same and/or have gone before them with the same seminars. 

 

The way they hire also ensures that the professors are willing to do this, and that they are truly prepared to handle unfamiliar subjects.

 

I've thought for awhile now that teaching at St. John's is my fantasy dream job.  Not that I'm remotely qualified, but it gives me something to aspire to. 

I would not even want my child to be taught by professors who have ONLY teaching experience and  have not been doing active research in the field, because the latter brings a unique perspective.

 

 

Isn't this more true for Science and Math fields than others, though?  Take the French example -- clearly, a very experienced, and perhaps native French speaker is going to be the best person to teach someone French.  But what does it mean to be doing "active research" in the field of French grammar and vocabulary?

[regentrude]

Isn't this more true for Science and Math fields than others, though?  Take the French example -- clearly, a very experienced, and perhaps native French speaker is going to be the best person to teach someone French.  But what does it mean to be doing "active research" in the field of French grammar and vocabulary?

 

Sure, in science it is probably more important - but I would not discount it for humanities either.

To take your example of French:

I consider studying grammar and vocabulary in a foreign language to be a middle+ high school level education (even though in this country that is what is taught in introductory foreign language courses at college because school education is so poor. Back home, you have to demonstrate fluency to be admitted as  a student to a foreign language program at a university).

If I had a student major in a foreign language at what I consider college level, i.e. deeper literature and culture studies as opposed to simply language mechanics, I certainly would want an instructor who is also an active author and researcher and who not just happens to be a native speaker without further qualifications.

 

[Ausmumof3]

Fascinating.

 

I am finding with skill based subjects like reading, math etc I am doing better with my second dd where I know what I'm doing, but I feel that I'm doing a better job of content like history and science with my first because it's all new to me and I'm enthusiastic.

 

I think there is a problem with some teachers becoming stagnant in their approach because they've taught the same thing far too long, but I think someone with a passion for physics may struggle to find the same passion for teaching a poetry class.

[lewelma]

Yes!  I understand you!  I wrote this up more than a year ago. The last paragraph says it all and especially the last sentence!

 

Ruth in NZ

 

 

 

Yes, that is the book. My son is 12. We are currently able to understand only 30% of it. It is a University math majors textbook. The author states that you should read each chapter until you don't understand, then move to the next chapter. When you finish the first pass of the book, you start again. This approach allows you to work at your personal level in each topic, and allows your ability in all topics and problem solving to be increased concurrently.

There is NO way that my son could work with this book independently. We work on each problem together and then read through the proofs together. If the problem is easier, we each separately investigate it and write up a formal proof and then compare. My goal is to find ideas in each problem that will be generalizable to other problems. We keep a list, and I quiz him every day about the different generalizable skills we have learned. For example, what kinds of problems are would likely be helped by the extreme principal? or what kind of problems suggest a proof by induction? How can you recognize parity in geometry problems? These types of questions are not directly answered in the text -- they are more of a way for us to really internalize what we are reading and categorize all the ideas. Plus, it helps us review esoteric ideas by recalling specific problems that reflect them. We've decided that if there are 20 different tactics that are possible, and we can recognize that 4 are good candidates for a certain problem, we can try those four. If one works, great, if none work, then at least we have gotten our hands dirty and have a much better understanding of the problem and can go from there.

To help in proof writing, I drill him on specific phrases like "This specific case is generalizable because the only special feature of 11 that we used is that it is odd." (yes, I am memorizing all this too, so that just popped out of my brain). This drill has really helped him not only with the language of math, but also helped him realize different approaches he could use to prove a conjecture. For example, the above case showed us that you can use an example as your proof in many cases of parity. This is very important to know, because most proofs do not allow this. Our overall goal is to get as many tools in our tool box as we can, and then remember what tools we have in there!

All this is really working. I cannot believe how far we have come in 2 months.

I told someone last week that I could only go through this process once because what I am giving my son is not a knowledgeable tutor, but rather a skilled learner who is at his exact level in math. If I ever go through this material again with a student, I would be much much more knowledgeable and I would loose the confusion that has been so critical in helping him battle through this material. What I am finding is that because I don't know the answers and I cannot teach him how to do it, I am instead teaching him how to learn problem solving -- what questions to ask, what answer to hunt for, how to compare problems, how to really interact with this material. No tutor who knows the material well could do this as well as I can, because once you have the knowledge, it would be virtually impossible to relive the confusion.

But then I realized that because my memory is so shaky, I could probably do it one more time. :001_smile:

[prairiewoman]

I think that having professors teach something they don't know about might help keep them fresh.  It sounded like St. Johns focuses on this practice primarily for freshmen, so perhaps it could work.  But I know that for subjects in which I have become "expert" (after teaching them several times), I am much more likely to remember all the finer points students need to know but which took me a few rounds of teaching to finally acquire.

[momacacia]

Haven't read the article , but am looking forward to it. Just saying that oldest is going to be lead teaching science this year. Doing Science in the Beginning. Very approachable, she can read it to us and lead the experiments. There's something g to shifting more load to the student (which the article probably says nothing about. Lol).

[Chrysalis Academy]

Yes!  I understand you!  I wrote this up more than a year ago. The last paragraph says it all and especially the last sentence!

 

Ruth in NZ

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, Ruth, you totally get me!!!   :001_wub:

[Lecka]

I do not think that if I know a subject well, that means I can only give out answers and not get to my child's level and support him in meeting the subject at his level.

 

Yes, it is harder.  Yes, I have to make an effort to really know how *he* is relating to the material.  Yes, I have to research *how* I will meet him where he is.  No, it is not *intuitive* to me to understand exactly where and why he is having a problem, because it is an area where *I* have never had any kind of struggle at all.  

 

But -- I believe I can take my experiences of struggling to learn another skill, and empathize with my son.  I can certainly remember what it is like to have a recipe and be in the kitchen and get that stomach-clenching feeling of not understanding what the next step is -- and then having to take a leap of faith and try something, or having to call for advice on the phone.  

 

But I think of a struggling younger child, trying to master basic skills that adults cannot even remember learning.  

 

I believe -- I can try to see the world as they see it and have empathy, I believe I can search out the best ways to help them learn. 

 

But -- I think it is an advantage that I know the subject material.  I don't think I *must* learn at the same time in order to be engaged.  I also believe I can be open to children making attempts in the search of understanding, and dwell with them, even if I already know the final answer.  But if they are stuck I can also give some guidance, b/c I do know more.  But I do think I can give guidance without just giving the answer and short-circuiting their learning process.  

 

I just don't agree.  I think it is better to teach what you know.  

 

What I do think -- that teaching poetry is likely to make them better physics teachers.  

 

I have learned a lot from teaching a child who struggled in an area that is my strength and in which I have never had the slightest bit of struggle or effort.  It has taught me a lot, it has made me a better person, it has made me a better parent, it has made me better at trying to see the perspective of others and to meet them where they are.  

 

I have also had to search, and search, and search for how to teach my son things that were so easy for me that I never even had to be taught them.  I do think -- if it was not my own child, maybe I would not understand the necessity of doing this, and just keep teaching the same old way, and wondering why he wasn't learning.  But my commitment to him is deep.  

 

This is not the same as having an option of teaching in a top-down way and just choosing not to take it ----- but now that I have done it, I think I do take the experience with me.  

[maize]

I think a good teacher is one who remembers having to struggle to grasp the material themselves. Sometimes those who have the most ability in a subject area make for lousy teachers because things came easily and were obvious to them and they don't know how to understand and help a student who struggles. The same can be true for someone who has been teaching the same material for so long that they have forgotten what it was like when that material was all fresh and new.

 

Good teaching requires the ability to view the subject matter from the student's perspective and then to help the student work through to seeing it from the teacher's perspective. Experienced teachers with depth in their subject matter who maximize this ability are rare and incredibly valuable.

 

Neither years of subject matter experience nor recent learning experience can guarantee good teaching.

[Ausmumof3]

This probably relates to whether or not you aim for a discovery model for learning or not. Or partly.

[wintermom]

 

Seeing Value in Ignorance, College Expects Its Physicists to Teach Poetry

 

 

My dh's comment (he's a PhD in Math/Physics and prof), "That seems like a waste to both the physics teacher and all the poets who would like to teach poetry."

 

I have to agree. If a person spent all that time becoming an expert in their field, gaining the depth and breadth that this entails, then it is a complete waste of time to ditch all that and try to frantically learn poetry. 

 

And from the perspective of university students who have to take courses from non-experts in field, it's a waste of time for the students as well. They have to try and learn the material the non-expert didn't teach them either on their own from the next expert teacher they have.

[Beth S]

I'll add this personal note:

 

Our son has a very fun-loving Civil Engineering professor.

He had a take-home exam over Thanksgiving.

The final question was (and I kid you not):

Write a 14 line sonnet extolling the virtues of Transportation Engineering (or something like that).

 

And my super-STEM son loves that his professor stretches them in ways that are new to him.

He loved the idea of having to write poetry for this class?!?

 

[Roadrunner]

St. John's is the college I wish I graduated from. Love, love, love them.

[Corraleno]

I don't buy into this approach. No amount of extensive teaching resources, training and mentoring is going to prepare somebody without an extensive physics background to teach theoretical physics, or somebody without extensive math background to teach higher math - they may be able to regurgitate teacher's manuals, but they can not have the in depth understanding only many years of familiarity with not only the taught, but also more complex, material develops.

 

In the case of St John's, though, they are exclusively a "Great Books" program — they don't have courses like Physics 101 or Calculus 1/2/3. The "science and mathematics" portion of the program involves reading Euclid, Newton, Ptolemy, Aristotle, Copernicus, Lavoisier, etc. So it's much less of a stretch to have someone whose PhD is in literature or philosophy or history leading a seminar on Euclid or Aristotle, versus having someone with a PhD in literature trying to teach a standard Calc 1 class.

[happybeachbum]

For $47k a year, I'm going to want experts to teach.

 

And there's been lots of times in my education where it was very useful to have a teacher who knew more than the class covered.  One who could say things like "We're learning X now, but it's really just a simplification of something else which you'll get to later".

 

Sometimes it's the experts who are horrible teachers, because they've known a something so long they don't know how to break it down for those who are new to it.

 

This is also interesting http://chronicle.com/article/Teaching-What-You-Dont-Know/135180/

[Moonhawk]

In the case of St John's, though, they are exclusively a "Great Books" program — they don't have courses like Physics 101 or Calculus 1/2/3. The "science and mathematics" portion of the program involves reading Euclid, Newton, Ptolemy, Aristotle, Copernicus, Lavoisier, etc. So it's much less of a stretch to have someone whose PhD is in literature or philosophy or history leading a seminar on Euclid or Aristotle, versus having someone with a PhD in literature trying to teach a standard Calc 1 class.

 

I keep trying to write a post, but the above says it better than my drafts.

 

You don't go to these colleges for a typical college degree or experience.  It is a totally different aim, and so the approach/requirements of teaching a science class is not going to be what is expected/required at most other institutions.