While "What makes a good teacher?" is too big of a question to answer in any sort of concise, exhaustive, airtight manner, I feel like there could be a few pithy, right-enough answers. Perhaps, the drive to earnestly help a student think independently and deeply enough about a given subject is what makes a good teacher? Or maybe it is the intention and ability to help other human beings rise to their full potential that makes a good teacher...I can think of a few other answers depending on the kind of student I have in mind.
An optional, auxiliary rant below, lmao:
The more interesting thing about this essay was that I have almost identical experiences like the ones you have listed growing up (India-side, not Stateside) but a pretty different take on the whole. I feel like the current assault from the technology side as well as the political side is things coming a full karmic circle. We are here precisely because on the whole, for far too long, there haven't been enough good-enough teachers, on aggregate. Which is another way of saying that educational institutions and universities, for all their awesomeness, have basically been failing in their larger purpose quietly for a long time. The fact that the people who are baying for their blood are ALSO products on that same system just as you and I are, suggests that the system has on average, been failing rather than succeeding. If there had been enough good-enough teachers, this kind of idiocy wouldn't have found so many takers.
What I find interesting is that I have had my share of mediocre teachers as well, and the one thing that was starkly obvious and common across every single one of those experiences was the palpable awareness that if this experience was to miraculously disappear, it would definitely be a net positive. A bad teacher is a net negative on an individual, societal, civilizational and every other level...because the cynicism, disillusionment, and disenchantment that sets in after being on the wrong end of what is supposed to be a hallowed dynamic can get irrationally visceral. Extrapolated far enough along, that results in idiotic ideas like wanting to burn the whole thing to the ground. While that absolutely sucks for society on the whole, you could look at it as a kind of comeuppance for an establishment that basically wasn't holding itself accountable.
But all that aside, I feel like what's going on right now is something entirely different. The stated reasons for this assault are ALL BS in my opinion. What we are seeing and hearing is just messaging that seems good enough to find traction. What univs are suffering is just collateral damage. Anatomically very similar to the climate change conversation where the planet is just collateral damage. Every denier at this point knows on some level that their position is full of shit. But it works to hold that position anyway. Also, everyone alive probably agrees that the world isn't going to end while we are still alive. Kinda like the Lindy effect with universities. So for those of us who are short-sighted enough, might as well cash in on some grift right now, huh?! That's what I think we're seeing with univs too...entertaining stated arguments seriously is to be playing a losing game. The only way to win is to exit this game, find and start a different game that has a smaller surface area for assault but an outsized potential for attracting good teachers. I guess the "Exit or Bypass" quadrant in your 2x2?
Is 'what makes a good teacher' really the right question? Or should it be stretched a little wider to include makes a good learning environment (with teachers a key part that environment) or what makes a good learning process (with teachers steering and nudging along the way). Many years ago, I ran a design school in a small UK University and introduced a common module across all years of all the degree programmes called 'Learning about learning'. It required students to reflect on their emerging professional practice in a learning journal and then to consolidate these reflections into summative conclusions for termly submissions that were assessed, graded and contributed (modestly) to their honours degree classification. For some students, they were arduous, meaningless and hated. For others they were utterly transformative. In retrospect, I feel the main thing we didn't invest enough in was up-skilling the teaching staff so they were better at teaching / coaching Learning about learning and were hence able to deliver more uniform outcomes across the student cohort.
My point, however, is that I would put at least as much emphasis on the systems, tools and processes that enable students to learn as I would on the teachers. A contemporary 'learning about learning' module could also be framed explicitly around protocols. What is it that you learned this week / term / year / that you believe you could apply again to different challenges and circumstances? How would you describe that learning to make it was useful for you to apply again ... or to enable others to apply what you have learned? When you do apply that learning again, what reminders do you want to leave for yourself to make sure you advance your learning even further next time around?
The Jesuits definitely offer an example of good teaching... One might even say that a strong dispositional prior to evolution and reform rather than revolution is a Jesuit perspective par excellence. Barts and Lisa's lost cousin was a Jesuit in fact :P
Overall I do have to say I greatly enjoyed this post. I wasn't able to read too much of the March book club on hermeticism. I am very much excited for this month. All signs point to an excellent suggestion, particularly for myself where this fills a known whitespace in my mental map.
(Note the top says March reading though that should be April. The March one was the hermeticism dense thingamajig.)
While "What makes a good teacher?" is too big of a question to answer in any sort of concise, exhaustive, airtight manner, I feel like there could be a few pithy, right-enough answers. Perhaps, the drive to earnestly help a student think independently and deeply enough about a given subject is what makes a good teacher? Or maybe it is the intention and ability to help other human beings rise to their full potential that makes a good teacher...I can think of a few other answers depending on the kind of student I have in mind.
An optional, auxiliary rant below, lmao:
The more interesting thing about this essay was that I have almost identical experiences like the ones you have listed growing up (India-side, not Stateside) but a pretty different take on the whole. I feel like the current assault from the technology side as well as the political side is things coming a full karmic circle. We are here precisely because on the whole, for far too long, there haven't been enough good-enough teachers, on aggregate. Which is another way of saying that educational institutions and universities, for all their awesomeness, have basically been failing in their larger purpose quietly for a long time. The fact that the people who are baying for their blood are ALSO products on that same system just as you and I are, suggests that the system has on average, been failing rather than succeeding. If there had been enough good-enough teachers, this kind of idiocy wouldn't have found so many takers.
What I find interesting is that I have had my share of mediocre teachers as well, and the one thing that was starkly obvious and common across every single one of those experiences was the palpable awareness that if this experience was to miraculously disappear, it would definitely be a net positive. A bad teacher is a net negative on an individual, societal, civilizational and every other level...because the cynicism, disillusionment, and disenchantment that sets in after being on the wrong end of what is supposed to be a hallowed dynamic can get irrationally visceral. Extrapolated far enough along, that results in idiotic ideas like wanting to burn the whole thing to the ground. While that absolutely sucks for society on the whole, you could look at it as a kind of comeuppance for an establishment that basically wasn't holding itself accountable.
But all that aside, I feel like what's going on right now is something entirely different. The stated reasons for this assault are ALL BS in my opinion. What we are seeing and hearing is just messaging that seems good enough to find traction. What univs are suffering is just collateral damage. Anatomically very similar to the climate change conversation where the planet is just collateral damage. Every denier at this point knows on some level that their position is full of shit. But it works to hold that position anyway. Also, everyone alive probably agrees that the world isn't going to end while we are still alive. Kinda like the Lindy effect with universities. So for those of us who are short-sighted enough, might as well cash in on some grift right now, huh?! That's what I think we're seeing with univs too...entertaining stated arguments seriously is to be playing a losing game. The only way to win is to exit this game, find and start a different game that has a smaller surface area for assault but an outsized potential for attracting good teachers. I guess the "Exit or Bypass" quadrant in your 2x2?
Great article - as thought-provoking as always.
Is 'what makes a good teacher' really the right question? Or should it be stretched a little wider to include makes a good learning environment (with teachers a key part that environment) or what makes a good learning process (with teachers steering and nudging along the way). Many years ago, I ran a design school in a small UK University and introduced a common module across all years of all the degree programmes called 'Learning about learning'. It required students to reflect on their emerging professional practice in a learning journal and then to consolidate these reflections into summative conclusions for termly submissions that were assessed, graded and contributed (modestly) to their honours degree classification. For some students, they were arduous, meaningless and hated. For others they were utterly transformative. In retrospect, I feel the main thing we didn't invest enough in was up-skilling the teaching staff so they were better at teaching / coaching Learning about learning and were hence able to deliver more uniform outcomes across the student cohort.
My point, however, is that I would put at least as much emphasis on the systems, tools and processes that enable students to learn as I would on the teachers. A contemporary 'learning about learning' module could also be framed explicitly around protocols. What is it that you learned this week / term / year / that you believe you could apply again to different challenges and circumstances? How would you describe that learning to make it was useful for you to apply again ... or to enable others to apply what you have learned? When you do apply that learning again, what reminders do you want to leave for yourself to make sure you advance your learning even further next time around?
The Jesuits definitely offer an example of good teaching... One might even say that a strong dispositional prior to evolution and reform rather than revolution is a Jesuit perspective par excellence. Barts and Lisa's lost cousin was a Jesuit in fact :P
Overall I do have to say I greatly enjoyed this post. I wasn't able to read too much of the March book club on hermeticism. I am very much excited for this month. All signs point to an excellent suggestion, particularly for myself where this fills a known whitespace in my mental map.
(Note the top says March reading though that should be April. The March one was the hermeticism dense thingamajig.)
Looks like ENG 580 Teaching Engineering. What materials do they reference?