[Phys-L] Re: teaching +- experience in the trenches

[edmiston at BLUFFTON.EDU (Michael Edmiston)]

John has written something I almost wrote when we were discussing PhD,
MS, teaching, etc.  His post has prompted me to write it now.

In terms of mastery of subject I strongly agree that "book learning" is
generally not sufficient.  The most valuable part of my PhD was not the
coursework; it was several years working on a project and learning from
the successes as well as the failures.

The grad-school project I worked on taught me a tremendous amount about
all kinds of things.  My grad-school project somewhat parenthetically
earned me a PhD because I was in a PhD program, and I also did the
coursework, passed the qualifying exams, wrote and defended a thesis,
etc.

Later, when I worked at Los Alamos, I embarked on another project.  This
project also taught me a tremendous amount about all kinds of things.
This time I did not earn a PhD or any other degree.  Rather, I earned
money.

In my teaching career I have embarked on many research-like projects
over the last 27 years.  These projects did not earn me any degree, and
they did not earn me any extra money.  A few publications resulted, but
that's minor.  This research didn't even earn me tenure because at the
time my institution considered teaching as the primary criterion for
tenure.  But I did learn a tremendous amount about all kinds of things.

In all of these projects, the most important thing was the experience.
The PhD is nice, the money is nicer, the publications are a feather in
the cap... but the experience is priceless.

It is clear you do not need a degree to have these experiences, and it
is clear having a degree does not guarantee these experiences.  A PhD
program is supposed to require these experiences; therefore it is likely
a PhD has had a fairly extensive scientific experience.  On the other
hand, many MS recipients are coursework diplomas.  A coursework MS does
not compare to a PhD, but a thesis MS might.  I had a couple friends in
grad school who did not score high enough on qualifying exams to stay in
the PhD program, but they stayed to do a thesis MS.  They each spent
about two years doing the thesis work after their coursework was
finished.  Several professors remarked that the research and theses of
these two were every bit as good as the typical PhD research and thesis.

Anyway, if it were my call (which it is not) as to whether we could hire
an MS candidate over a PhD, I would say we could, but I would strongly
prefer that the MS was a thesis MS that involved actual scientific
research.  When I waded through applicants for the faculty searches I
have been involved in, it seemed to me the MS applicants were mostly
from coursework programs.  Thesis MS applicants did not seem very common
(at least in our applicant pool).  And by the way, for the thesis I
would expect an experimental thesis or a true theoretical-science
thesis.  I would not want a thesis that involved the study of teaching
physics, because at this point I am still focusing on mastery of subject
as opposed to fundamentals of instruction.

I also have worked with people with BS degrees, and people with only HS
degrees, that have been technicians and have learned so much from their
years of experience that they can do circles around some MS and even
some PhD folks.  Again, if it were my call, I would consider a person
with no degree, but a lot of experience, for a teaching position.  (But
it isn't my call.)

As for "fundamentals of instruction," I agree it is vital.  I think some
people just have it, some people can learn it, some people never get it.
Just like mastery of subject, a person might learn some fundamentals of
instruction from coursework in an Education Department,  but it mostly
comes from experience.

Since mastery of subject and fundamentals of instruction are both vital
for good teaching, perhaps it is unfair that we often place more
emphasis on mastery of subject during the hiring phase.  I do not think
this is inappropriate.  If a very important part of mastery of subject
is experience working in the subject area, doesn't it make sense that an
important part of mastering the fundamentals of instruction is actual
teaching?  We don't learn the subject from a book (or in a class) and
likewise don't learn to teach by reading a book or attending a class.

Therefore I think it is fine to take a chance on inexperienced teachers
because they need to learn from teaching.  Someone has to give them that
first teaching job so they can acquire the fundamentals of instruction.
I am less inclined to take a chance on people who have not demonstrated
mastery of subject because it is more difficult to accomplish in a job
that is primarily teaching.  I expect that a good deal of mastery of
subject be accomplished before a person begins teaching.

Of course a problem arises when someone who has mastery of subject, but
not fundamentals of instruction, fails to believe he needs fundamentals
of instruction or otherwise fails to be open to learning from her
teaching experience and feedback from students and colleagues.  There is
further complication if the employer allows the person to get away with
this.

In summary, I demand reasonable mastery of subject before the person
begins teaching, and experiencial science is an important part of
gaining this mastery.  Demonstration of fundamentals of instruction
(i.e. prior teaching experience with good evaluations) is nice, but I am
willing to take a chance on inexperienced teachers.  (Someone has to.)
Finally, I would not tenure someone if it turned out I was wrong about
them having mastery of subject, or it became clear they did not have
fundamentals of instruction and were not showing adequate progress
toward getting it.


Michael D. Edmiston, Ph.D.
Professor of Physics and Chemistry
Bluffton University
Bluffton, OH 45817
(419)-358-3270
edmiston@bluffton.edu