A
word
already
exists
to
describe
an
endeavor
that
is
both
art
and
science.
These
activities
are
called
"crafts"
and
craftsmen
and
craftswomen
carry
them
out.
Carpenters, to select one of many kinds of craftworkers, know a lot about wood and joints, nails and screws and glue, and varnish and paint. They know their tools as well. Mainly, though, carpenters know designs. They know how to make what you want. You just want a chair, but a master carpenter knows that there are hundreds of chair designs. Some of those designs are good because they work well, as the have strong joints and comfortable seats and others are lousy because they fall apart and hurt to sit on. Even among the good designs, there are some designs that are better than others because they are not only structurally sound but also well-suited to the situation. The master carpenter finds the design that meets the needs of the client, transforming acceptable into great. A brilliant carpenter adapts even great, well-suited designs to the very person likely to use the chair, making the chair narrower or wider, taller or shorter, yet remembering that
some changes will damage or weaken the overall strength. No carpenter can succeed without understanding the basics of woodworking, but knowing the skills is insufficient without the judgment of when and how to use them.
So, it is also true of teachers. Teaching is a craft with knowledges, skills and judgment. Teachers must know their subjects and they must know methods of instruction. They should know that there are lots of ways to teach, but they also must know that not all of them work. Even among the methods that work, some are better in some situations and with some students better than others. Master teachers have the judgment to select the right technique for the right time, even knowing when to pick something that wouldn't work most of the rest of the time. Brilliant teachers know how to fashion the instruction for the student in the moment with the tools at hand.
Like most crafts, teaching is hard to learn. The combination of engineering knowledge and judgment is not easy to obtain. Individuals can learn on their own from experience but it is slow. Perhaps it is time return to apprenticeships where masters help the novices learn.
Marc "Zeke" Kossover
The Jewish Community High School of the Bay
San Francisco, CA
-----
Original
Message
----
From:
Richard
Hake
<rrhake@earthlink.net>
To:
CHEMED-L@MAILER.UWF.EDU
Cc:
PHYSHARE@LISTS.PSU.EDU;
ap-chem@lyris.collegeboard.com;
phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu;
ap-physics@lyris.collegeboard.com;
PHYSLRNR@LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU;
POD@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Sent:
Thursday,
February
7,
2008
10:04:48
AM
Subject:
[Phys-l]
Is
Teaching
an
Art
or
a
Science?
(was
valid
assessment)
Marty
Weiss
(2008),
in
his
Chemed-L
post
of
5
Feb
2008
titled
"Re:
valid
assessment;
was
pre&post
testing"
wrote:
"I
have
said
this
before
and
I
will
repeat
it
here.
.
.
.
.
education
and
teaching
is
an
ART
NOT
A
SCIENCE!"
Marty
echoes:
a.
The
75-year-old
statement
of
physicist
F.K.
Richtmyer
(1933):
'Teaching,
I
say,
is
an
art,
and
not
a
science.
.
.
in
no
sense
can
teaching
be
said
to
be
a
science."
b.
The
30-year-old
statement
of
Ralph
Goodwin
(1978):
"After
more
than
two-score
years
[Richtmyer's
statement]
has
not
been
proven
wrong."
In
response
to
Goodwin,
David
Hestenes
(1979)
in
"Wherefore
a
science
of
teaching?"
wrote:
"Let
us
agree
at
the
outset
that
good
teaching
is
an
art,
fully
deserving
our
respect
and
admiration.
It
does
not
follow,
however,
as
Goodwin
seems
to
think,
that
there
cannot
also
be
a
science
of
teaching.
.
.
.
.
.
Medical
practice
is
widely
acknowledged
to
be
an
art,
but
who
doubts
the
possibility
of
medical
science?
Is
teaching
so
different
because
it
ministers
to
the
mind?"
For
a
recent
discussion
consistent
with
Hestenes
(1979)
see
"Can
Scientific
Research
Enhance
the
Art
of
Teaching?"
[Hake
(2007)].
"The
academic
area
is
one
of
the
most
difficult
areas
to
change
in
our
society.
We
continue
to
use
the
same
methods
of
instruction,
particularly
lectures,
that
have
been
used
for
hundreds
of
years.
Little
scientific
research
is
done
to
test
new
approaches,
and
little
systematic
attention
is
given
to
the
development
of
new
methods.
Universities
that
study
many
aspects
of
the
world
ignore
the
educational
function
in
which
they
are
engaging
and
from
which
a
large
part
of
their
revenues
are
earned."
Richard
Cyert,
former
president
of
Carnegie
Mellon
University,
in
Tuma
&
Reif
(1980).
REFERENCES
Goodwin,
R.A.
1978.
"Chalk
and
Chalk,"
Phys.
Teach.
16(6):
367-372
(1978);
online
to
subscribers
at
<http://tinyurl.com/2zu8wc>.
Hake,
R.R.
2007.
"Can
Scientific
Research
Enhance
the
Art
of
Teaching?"
invited
talk,
AAPT
Greensboro
meeting,
31
July,
online
at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/Sci&Art3.pdf>
(1.2
MB),
or
as
ref.
50
at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/>.
See
esp.
Sect.
V.
"University
Leaders
Bemoan
the
Inertia
of
Higher
Education:
Why
Is
It
So
Slow
To
Recognize
the
Value
of
Interactive
Engagement
Methods
in
Promoting
Higher-Level
Learning?"
Richtmyer,
F.K.
1933.
"Physics
is
Physics,"
Am.
J.
Phys.
1(1):
2-5;
online
to
subscribers
at
<http://tinyurl.com/364ns6>.
Tuma,
D.T.
&
F.
Reif,
eds.
1980.
"Problem
Solving
and
Education:
Issues
in
Teaching
and
Research,"
Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Amazon.com
information
at
<http://tinyurl.com/2947ky>.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs