I am still interested in hearing about your thoughts related to the question I included in the previous post and that I will again share below.
TABLE 4. In your opinion, is the ability to teach or instruct students more the result of natural talent or more the result of college training about how to teach?
Natural talent 70%
College training 28%
Don’t know/refused 3%
So, are teachers born, developed through learning at the college level, some combination, or perhaps through some other process? Does the quality of the teaching matter? If it is through natural talent then why do the major teacher unions have a problem with teachers that are in school systems through the Teach for America program?
2 comments:
In answer to the question regarding natural talent or college trained, I think it is both but the natural talent has a higher weighting then the college training. I truly believe that you have to have a certain skill set, personality, and admiration for the work being asked of you as a teacher. College can give you the ins and outs of curriculum and methodology but it is the natural born personality traits makes a good educator. NEA/union issues with Teach For America is that individuals that are “smart” are being put into these teaching jobs and taking away work from others that are trained in the field of education, a field that we are not short of individuals who want to the job. Tahoma alone has well over 100 substitutes in their system. While not all of these individuals want full time jobs many of them do. Those are my thoughts.
Any natural ability is great but it's effort that is more important. It's more than talent and college training. It's desire (coupled with hard work), resources, and good models. It's about what happens to teachers in the field in years 1-5. The effort they exert, the models to whom they are exposed in addition to ongoing specific feedback and a ton of reflection. These sort of things can empower someone to be an effective teacher.
I'd like to make an implausible connection to E-Harmony.com and its claim to match people to the appropriate mate by looking at a variety of traits. We need to do the same for teaching. There are some traits, characteristics, etc., that are inherent such as personality, presence, passion for a subject, "a way" with kids, an ability to inspire that probably cannot be gained from a teacher prep program. Many exemplary teachers also possess a high degree of emotional intelligence.
College teacher prep programs are here to stay. Colleges need to be more aware of what we need in the field. Apprenticeship would be a lovely addition to our profession. Two years would be nice; five might be better, depending on the apprentice. Notice that we aren't differentiating in the world of teacher education based on the prior knowledge and skills of the apprentice teacher. Budding teachers who possess the basic essentials could be exposed to the best practitioners in big doses. It's important to ferret out skillful teaching professionals and put them in a place where they can influence others. However, these teachers usually want to be with students. They still can be in the classroom; they'll just have company.
Note on ability: read Carol Dweck's MindSet. It will reorient your thinking about ability and effort.
Post a Comment