Study: It'S Not Teacher, But Method That Matters

[rijb]

A study by a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, now a science adviser to President Barack Obama, suggests that how you teach is more important than who does the teaching. study

[Ijustwannateach]

Lecturing has been poor educational technique for a long time. However, it is misleading to say that the personality of the teacher never matters more than the method. An entertaining, brilliant, and engaging lecturer can do much better than a hateful, dysfunctional destructive person using even the most effective techniques. And it is hardly surprising that if he/she does not understand how to teach or engage the imaginations of others, even a Nobel level academic might not be a better teacher than a simple but highly experienced B.Ed teaching the same material to the same group.

[trisailer]

Good article.

Strange and sad that the science of education hasn't kept up.

[Scott]

Yes a very good article.

[MacWalen]

Sounds like Walen. I believe strongly in following a method when teaching but I also know that teachers do matter! (tested it)

[Rhys]

Some time back.. Thai students (college) were asked this same question...the personality of the teacher came first.. Fairness, professionalism...proficiency in the subject matter...methods...well the rub is cooperative learning, peer assessment do not match the many of the course syllabus.. they are dropped in without critical thought...other than just hmmm.. give it a try.

MC test sadly rule the day in Thai education..factors.. class size, efficiency, ADM policy and OTHER..

It is comming soon...a MOE that actually has educational professionals rather than politically appointed adminstrators..

[IMA_FARANG]

The personality of the teacher certainly comes into play when you concider the interaction between the STUDENT and the TEACHER. It can be very negative for the STUUDENT. I know this from personal experience and I'll be glad to say so to the investigators. But I doubt they will be coming to Bangkok to look for me for that purpose.

For exmple, I was labeled a a "retard" (the TEACHER's own written evaulation) in my first year in public school. I was so traumatised by that TEACHER and her domination of the class I simply refused to answer her questions even when I knew the correct answer.

Fortunately, my mother was also a trained teacher with a degree in Education whose specialty was Children's Education. She convinced the school authorities that she could teach me to read at first grade level over the school summer break. She did, and when I tested at the beginning of he 2nd year to determine my reading skills I tested at 4th grade level in reading ability. For that reason I was alowed to go on to the 2nd grade and not held back for one year in the 1st grade. My mother was the first teacher who showed me that reading, and more importantly writing a story could be fun, not just a chore.

My original offense was telling the 1st grade teacher that the word Balloon also started with the letter B not only the word Ball. My 1st grade teacher taught as an absolute rule that, "A is for Apple, B is for Ball", and so on. I made the mistake of saying innocently,"Yes, but the word Balloon also starts with a B". For that offense I was dragged up in front of the class, had to wear a sign saying "I Am Stupid" and was harranged in front of the class by that teacher.

Fortuneately I survived it with the help of my mother. But that incident was amost 60 years ago, and I still remember it clearly.

[Scott]

I think we need to understand that this particular study was conducted with University students. I believe that the results might be quite different with young learners and might vary with different subject material.

[Xangsamhua]

Surely it's both the teacher and the method, or perhaps sometimes the teacher is enough. Anyone who's seen Sir Ken Robinson's 2006 TED lecture on schools killing creativity can see that a deeply engaged teacher can draw in his listeners simply by talking.

http://www.ted.com/t...creativity.html

I'm not sure that brilliant visual aids or small group activities would have been helpful in getting Ken Robinson's message across. Just the strength of his personality and his passion for the message is enough in this case. (Incidentally, he walks like that as a result of childhood polio.)

In a later TED talk on Changing Education Paradigms, Sir Ken presents using RSAnimate, a brilliant support medium for what he is saying. Perhaps as much focus in this case on "method" as on the person.

http://www.ted.com/t..._paradigms.html

[Scott]

Thanks for the information. There are, and also will be, some people who are so charismatic that they could recite the phone book and enthrall people.

The original study is interesting, but it needs a lot more study to determine the best methods of learning.

First, there is the motivation of the student. I have taken subjects in which I was very interested. I found the subjects stimulating. I loved the teachers and was surprised to find that other students described them as dull and boring. How much and how well we listen has something to do with how much interest we have.

Second, it's much nicer to have a teacher who is excited about the subject he teaches. The teacher's enthusiasm helps increase motivation, IMO.

Finally, anything that assist in keeping a students attention and focus will help. This can include visual aides or some other diversion that allows the mind a few moments of 'breathing' time.

[Kilgore Trout]

I think we need to understand that this particular study was conducted with University students. I believe that the results might be quite different with young learners and might vary with different subject material.

Agreed. With young learners; especially when considering a homeroom/all subjects teacher; it is the teacher that matters the most; the most decisive element in the classroom, if you will.

[PlanetX]

Its just promoting the agenda of dehumanizing the classroom

Put the students infront of digital screens for 8-10 hrs a day

They have already done that with the workforce and you see how great that has turned out

[Scott]

It's a study that needs a lot of studying before it's adopted as a model. I don't think it's about dehumanization, I think it's about method.

As I noted earlier, I don't know that this would work with young learners; at least not as well. It works with physics at the university level. What age group does it work best with? Are the results sustainable over a period of time--in other words, is this a novel method that quickly becomes boring and the advantage ceases?

Does the method work better with males or females?

Does it work with with other subjects, Social Studies? Languages?

What is the optimum number of students in a class?