Jason L. Riley wrote about an interview he had with Bill Gates in this weekend's Wall St. Journal, discussing Mr. Gates' $5 billion investment scheme in education over the past ten years. It's an interesting work, suggesting that a lot has been learned about philanthropy in education since the start of the century, especially the limits of individual donations. The article concludes, among other things, that the precise qualities of a "good" teacher are still unknown, and that Mr. Gates' seeks to do the greatest good with the least bit of boat-rocking.
And perhaps no issue has more potential for boat-rocking than that of judging teachers, a task hated by some and deemed essential by others. Specifics aside, effective teachers appear to be big piece of the education puzzle. As Riley points out, "Teachers have long been shown to influence students' education more than any other school factor, including class size and per-pupil spending. So the objective is to determine scientifically what a good instructor does."
It's a bold claim, yet a substantiated one, and provides the impetus for many current efforts to reform education. Yet it remains unclear precisely what makes a good teacher "good," other than the fact that their students learn substantially more than their peers, and deliver when tested on it. I've heard some people say they can recognize a good teacher when they seem one, but have a hard time articulating those qualities and/or methods that make the teacher effective. Riley asks the question like this: "What is it about a great teacher? Is it their ability to calm down the classroom or to make the subject interesting? Do they give good problems and understand confusion? Are they good with kids who are behind? Are they good with kids who are ahead?"
And it's here that Riley offers some possible insight into the problem. The possibilities he mentions are all plausibile, yet seem insufficient alone. What if one understoond them not as single qualities or methods , but rather as a cluster of related-but-different abilities found in some measure within effective teachers. Perhaps a good teacher is such a cluster in near-optimum proportions; capable of managing a class but not too rigidly; make a subject interesting while remaining true to the facts and ideas; challenge students while providing sufficient support (but not too much); work well with students of below-average ability as well as above. In short, like the star distance-runner who combines high oxygen-uptake with good mechanics, a positive attitude, and reasonable mental toughness; a star teacher perhaps combines faculties of personality, intellect, and industry which together yield good results from their students. What those qualities are is not entirely clear to me, but better research may begin to bring them to light.
Soon perhaps, it will be possible to more effectively isolate those individual qualities and methods that make a teacher "good." Such an achievment could make a scientific assessment of teaching more effective; not simply to identify stud teachers (we can already do that, more or less), but also to assist current teachers as they work to improve their craft.
Arthur Lydiard of New Zealand took a small group of boys from his neighborhood, and applying his understanding of distance-running, managed to turn two of them, Peter Snell and Murray Halberg, into Olympic champions. Neither men showed exceptional promise growing up, yet Lydiard's insights into the variables of a distance-runner helped take both men to the top of their fields. Perhaps the same will be possible with teaching.
Happy Sunday chaps :).
No comments:
Post a Comment