[Phys-L] Re: SACS question

[Michael Edmiston <edmiston@BLUFFTON.EDU>]

It seems to me that Marc Kossover's comments (below) are right on
target.  I suspect we have all seen someone with minimal coursework and
minimal degree teach more effectively than someone with a PhD in the
specific course being taught.  If that were generally true we would
question the value of formal education even more than we already do.  In
the end we have to rely on a set of minimum qualifications and hope
these, on average, help assure the teacher is teaching the right stuff,
and doing so effectively.

After "No Child Left Behind" there are fairly specific paths by which a
K-12 teacher can (and must) become a "highly qualified teacher" (HQT).
As always, there is no guarantee the HQT will be better than one who has
not yet met the HQT requirements.  On average, we would expect the HQTs
to be better, unless the standards for HQT are completely bogus.

At the college level there isn't any equivalent to HQT, but most places
require instructors to have an MS in the field being taught, and the PhD
is required for advancement and for tenure.  At my institution I am
aware of at least one MS person who is considerably more knowledgeable,
experienced, and effective than some of the PhDs, yet the MS person is
not eligible for tenure.  It's sad, but that's the way it is.  No one
questions that he is qualified to teach the courses he teaches or that
he is effective.  But he can't break into the tenure track without the
PhD.

Notice that I said "in the field being taught" rather than "course being
taught."  In an earlier post I stated we would typically have an
inorganic chemist teaching teaching inorganic chemistry rather than,
say, an analytical chemist.  Although this is true, there is nothing
that prevents a college from having a PhD analytical chemist teach any
of inorganic, organic, physical, and analytical.  Although ACS might not
bless that, the overall accreditation of the college would not be in
jeopardy.  Only a very large institution would have the capability of
having each course taught by a PhD with specialty in that field, and
even then it would probably only happen in upper-level undergraduate or
graduate courses.  I once was TA at Michigan State for a sophomore
analytical chemistry lab for which my advisor (a nuclear chemist) was
the professor.  Additionally, introductory undergraduate courses might
actually be taught completely by graduate students.  My son and daughter
both attend a large university and many of their courses (mostly courses
taken for general education) are taught by graduate students, yet the
institution is highly respected.  Thus, there seems to be a lot of
wiggle room.

Like Robert Cohen, I have had pre-service and in-service teachers say
they can teach junior-high physical science without ever having taken a
physics course.  That may or may not be true in terms of knowledge and
effectiveness, but on average is probably is not true.  I start out by
telling them that the Bluffton University program that leads to
licensure for teaching middle-school science has been approved by the
State of Ohio, and we require a year of lab general-physics (plus a
course in each of astronomy, earth science, botany,  zoology, and
chemistry.

To this they respond, "But I won't be teaching anything near the level
of what you make me learn in those college courses."

I respond, "Yes, but the rule of thumb is that you need to demonstrate
you have some mastery of the subject at a level higher than the level at
which you teach.  College physics teachers generally have a PhD in
physics even though they teach undergraduates.  You are supposed to have
a BS in Physics to teach high-school physics.  For middle school, you
don't have to complete a BS in physics, but you do have to take the
first year of college physics."

Once they see this tiering it helps with many (but not all) students who
are questioning how much science we make them take before they teach
middle-school science.

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

Marc Kossover said...

> Of course, the answer is that they might be. Those
> with the course work might not be.
>
> Since it is often hard for someone to measure another
> person's content knowledge without seeming arbitrary,
> evaluators often fall back on outside arbitrators of
> knowledge like successfully completing course work.
>
> For example, I have been studying economics on my own
> for the better part of ten years. At this point, I
> think that I am more than competent to teach high
> school economics, but it would be an uphill battle to
> convince my colleagues of that fact.
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l