For the second instalment of the becoming a teacher series, I want to explore what a teacher is and what a teacher is not. I’ve long thought about the work of teachers and what we actually do and have come to the realisation that the title ‘teacher’ is a misnomer and gives the wrong impression to potential teachers and other stakeholders about the nature of our vocation.
I remember that old teacher joke about teaching a dog to speak English: A guy tells his friend he taught his dog to speak English, the friend replies, “Really? Show me.” The guy replies, “I didn’t say he learned it.” I know it’s not really funny, but it gets to the essence of the argument here: teachers are not paid to teach, but rather to ensure students learn. Although not a revolutionary idea, it is an important distinction. I’ve heard teachers say things such as, “well I taught them that last week, so I’m not going to teach them again.” Or, the classic: “I’m paid to teach, it is the students’ job to learn.” Even those teachers who don’t go that far, sometimes say: “we went over that last week or last month.” And yes, that word ensure was purposefully used. Teachers are tasked with ensuring that students learn required content at a level deemed appropriate and in-line with their abilities. It is not enough to simply teach. As teachers of compulsory school-aged children it is our responsibility to maximise the learning potential of every student.
The name of this blog is maximising student potential, because that is what I believe the job is. It is true that not every student is going to learn everything that is taught at school, but that it not to say that it shouldn’t be the goal. There is a movement Australia-wide, and in other countries, to get more experts in the classroom, with the hope that this will improve learning, but I actually think this is the wrong way to go. People who are experts in their fields, whether they be scientists, mathematicians, historians etc are not teachers. We don’t need a PhD-qualified physicist to teach the theory of electromagnetism to year 11 and 12 students any more than we need a Nobel Laureate in literature to teach year 8 English. Competence in one’s discipline is certainly important, but the focus on expertise in a discipline does not equate to helping children learn basic concepts in the classroom. In fact, I would contend that experts, at times, are not the best people to try an explain basic concepts to children who struggle to understand the purpose of what they are learning. What I mean is that an expert in mathematics likely finds the basic concepts of algebra to be common-sense and fairly simple to comprehend; therefore they may not understand how or why a particular student can’t grasp the concept. This is actually one of the most difficult aspects of teaching, and something I wrote about in the first blog of this series, understanding that every learner is different and their experience of school and learning is unique, and likely far removed from that of the teacher. A good teacher can explain those ‘difficult’ ideas in such a way to help the most reluctant and/or struggling students learn those concepts. To assume that an expert has those same skills, in my opinion, is a little demeaning to the teaching profession.
While a teacher is only required to have a reasonable level of competence in her or his discipline, or in the case of primary school teachers, across the six broad disciplines that make up the school curriculum, their expertise lies in the nature of students’ learning. Teachers study a broad array of disciplines at a fundamental level, such as: psychology, sociology, history, philosophy and discipline knowledge. They also learn various theories on teaching and learning from a range of fields, such as those previously mentioned, but also: neuroscience, biology, cognitive psychology and anthropology. Very few of these fields, with the exception of maybe psychology and sociology are explicitly taught, instead they are integrated topically throughout a teaching degree in the context of their applicability to the classroom. Teachers study motivation, engagement, learning theory, theories of behaviour, assessment, planning and the specific teaching strategies that are common in each discipline. There are taught, learned and understood in a variety of ways; however, they all have the same end goal – to enhance and improve student learning. This is the main difference between an educator and a discipline expert.
I am not trying to say that discipline experts cannot be good teachers. My argument is that the work of teachers is different than that of discipline experts and that the teachers should be recognised as experts in their field – that of pedagogical expertise in facilitating the learning of students. One cannot assume that someone with expertise in a related discipline will necessarily make a good teacher any more than a good doctor could step into the courtroom and start practising law – it is actually offensive to teachers to think this way. The professionalising of teaching has made significant strides over the past decade and the recognition of teachers as professionals who require specialist training that takes time and experience is a significant part of that process. Good teachers recognise that their vocation serves students and the community in the best interest of the child. According to UNICEF, “quality learning requires a safe, friendly environment, and qualified and motivated teachers.”
Returning to the question of what is a teacher: I propose that a teacher is qualified professional who recognises that maximising the academic and personal potential of every student is their first and foremost charge and take heed of that responsibility.
Maximising Student Potential 