High school student gives his teacher a lesson in education

Vojera

I had two teachers for junior cert that were at complete opposite ends of the scale.

One was for science, and I've never met another man like him. He was enthusiastic, interesting, and tailored all his examples to things that we, as rural kids, could understand. He understood that some people learn by listening, others by doing and others visually, and he catered to all those as much as he could. We didn't open a textbook once, it was all his own teaching plans that we learned from. I got an A in his class.

The other was for geography (and anyone who was in the class will instantly know him from the description). He didn't give a balls about teaching. He wrote things on the blackboard without explanation, told us to read from the textbook, played poker with the messers and smoked cigars out the window. A fairly extreme example, but he was there to collect his paycheck, nothing more. I got a C in his class.

As another example of how their attitudes differed, I missed two months' of school in my junior cert year due to illness. When I returned I approached all my teachers to see what I had missed. Most had been keeping notes for me and gave me the handouts and a caveat to come back if I needed help. My science teacher personally tutored me through what I had missed at lunchtimes, even though he had absolutely no obligation to. My geography teacher? He said "Eh, I dunno, why don't you ask the girl you sit beside?"

The messers preferred the geography teacher, of course, but which teacher do you think got better results for his students?

fishy fishy

sup_dude wrote: »

Cian and fishy, believe what you would about teachers only having to do the bare minimum but if you go into ANY school in the country, it's the teachers that put in the effort that get the results. It's not about spoon feeding the kids, no one said it was. It's about presenting information in a fun, relatable way.
Fine, you can keep your ideas about how children should be taught but if you do, you clearly don't have a strong enough grasp of what it is to educate, as opposed to just waffle on.
But, sure, why should teachers do what's best for children... that's what the kids themselves are for, right? :rolleyes:

and the parents - you forgot the parents. Or do they not have to bother because its all left to the teachers.

teachers that teach the curriculum with no entertainment involved and which the students think is "boring" are doing what they are paid to do - teach the curriculum to pass the exams. They don't need to add flourishes or flowers. They don't need to pamper or coax - its up to the students to cop on and realise they must pay attention or fail. Thats reality.

elefant

fishy fishy wrote: »

totally agree.. its up to the student to motivate himself - its all part of growing up.

I suppose its the sign of the times that everything is somebody else's fault and nobody takes responsibility for themselves. People now have to be coerced and pampered into things or and if not, they blame others for their lack of interest or laziness

Its funny too, how poster here quote Sister Act and Dead Poets Society to get their point across - hollywood movies. :D

I did quite well during my studies in second and third level and was perfectly aware that, as you said, school is about learning. Your attempts to dismiss peoples' desire for actual education in lieu of just fact-dumping as being merely a smokescreen for laziness on students' part are nonsense.

To be honest, your conviction that teachers should do nothing but disseminate information without actually trying to engage students is bemusing to me. If that was the case then why bother having schools at all now? Google may as well replace secondary schools.

Ave Sodalis

fishy fishy wrote: »

and the parents - you forgot the parents. Or do they not have to bother because its all left to the teachers.

teachers that teach the curriculum with no entertainment involved and which the students think is "boring" are doing what they are paid to do - teach the curriculum to pass the exams. They don't need to add flourishes or flowers. They don't need to pamper or coax - its up to the students to cop on and realise they must pay attention or fail. Thats reality.

Oh yes, the parents too, no doubt but take my earlier example when it comes to parents and these teachers.

They don't pass though... or they just scrape a pass and no more. Any high achievers coming out of those classes is merely because they have a good memory. I don't think you quite understand what it is to go that extra step. Read my last post, it's not about spoon feeding the students.
Here's another example (of which you have plenty at this stage), I did well in english, I had a fanastic teacher who really put in the effort. I would consider myself a hard worker anyway but when it came to one subject, we had a teacher who really did not care anymore. I found it really difficult to focus in her class, and even harder to get motivated. I did okay in that subject, but it was a struggle and now, I don't like the subject.
A teacher who cares gets results, one that is just there for a paycheck, does not. That's reality.

IzzyWizzy

fishy fishy wrote: »

and the parents - you forgot the parents. Or do they not have to bother because its all left to the teachers.

teachers that teach the curriculum with no entertainment involved and which the students think is "boring" are doing what they are paid to do - teach the curriculum to pass the exams. They don't need to add flourishes or flowers. They don't need to pamper or coax - its up to the students to cop on and realise they must pay attention or fail. Thats reality.

Why go to school at all then? If it's just memorising information from books and slides, what's the point?

dark crystal

IzzyWizzy wrote: »

Why go to school at all then? If it's just memorising information from books and slides, what's the point?

The best teachers I had would impart extra information to us, other than just what was lying in front of us in print.

For instance, I had the same teacher for English and History and she would tell us the stories behind the facts.
She would enthusiastically talk about plays she'd seen in the theatre, about the romances and tragedies of great authors and playwrights and how it affected their lives and their work.
She told us stories of the holocaust and brought in a book containing real letters from soldiers in WW1.

Anyone can rattle off dates, notes and bulletpoints, but actually making a student interested in the subject they're learning is invaluable.

fishy fishy

elefant wrote: »

I did quite well during my studies in second and third level and was perfectly aware that, as you said, school is about learning. Your attempts to dismiss peoples' desire for actual education in lieu of just fact-dumping as being merely a smokescreen for laziness on students' part are nonsense.

To be honest, your conviction that teachers should do nothing but disseminate information without actually trying to engage students is bemusing to me. If that was the case then why bother having schools at all now? Google may as well replace secondary schools.

Lots of people did quite well in second and third level - and I'm sure they dealt with no-nonsense teachers, dramatic teachers - every kind of teachers The students did well because the students put the work in.

The fact of the matter is - you can yearn for interactive education and entertaining ways of teaching - but there is a curriculum to get through as put down by the state to pass exams as put down by the state - the teachers are obliged to get through this curriculum - because they don't entertain while doing it does not make them a bad teacher - they tell/show you what to do (yes believe it or not some subjects are more than just reading from a book) - its up to you to learn and practice it. They are not obliged to entertain to keep the student interested - its up to the student to pay attention and get through the syllabus to pass exams - if thats what they want to do. No use blaming the teacher when they are too dis-interested to learn.

People really do think its up to others to keep them interested - what a world we live in. Gawd help ye in real life. I'd hate to see when work gets boring for you - will you ask your boss to liven things up. :o

fishy fishy

sup_dude wrote: »

Oh yes, the parents too, no doubt but take my earlier example when it comes to parents and these teachers.

They don't pass though... or they just scrape a pass and no more. Any high achievers coming out of those classes is merely because they have a good memory. I don't think you quite understand what it is to go that extra step. Read my last post, it's not about spoon feeding the students.
Here's another example (of which you have plenty at this stage), I did well in english, I had a fanastic teacher who really put in the effort. I would consider myself a hard worker anyway but when it came to one subject, we had a teacher who really did not care anymore. I found it really difficult to focus in her class, and even harder to get motivated. I did okay in that subject, but it was a struggle and now, I don't like the subject.
A teacher who cares gets results, one that is just there for a paycheck, does not. That's reality.

trained yourself to focus more if you want higher marks - your choice. Make it interesting for yourself and stop depending on others to make things interesting for you. Bad for you too if it is so easy for you to turn off a "subject" because the teacher didn't motivate you in the way you wanted - your loss. Motivate yourself. Stop making excuses.

IzzyWizzy

fishy fishy wrote: »

trained yourself to focus more if you want higher marks - your choice. Make it interesting for yourself and stop depending on others to make things interesting for you. Bad for you too if it is so easy for you to turn off a "subject" because the teacher didn't motivate you in the way you wanted - your loss. Motivate yourself. Stop making excuses.

So again, what's the point in going to school? Why not just sit at home and read all your textbooks?

bren50c

fishy fishy wrote: »

trained yourself to focus more if you want higher marks - your choice. Make it interesting for yourself and stop depending on others to make things interesting for you. Bad for you too if it is so easy for you to turn off a "subject" because the teacher didn't motivate you in the way you wanted - your loss. Motivate yourself. Stop making excuses.

We understand that your under no obligation to be 'interesting' or make the class 'fun' but I think its amazing that you can't accept that a quality that differentiates your average joe trying to teach something from a good teacher is their ability to take a mundane topic like english grammar and make it interesting.

Surely keeping people engaged is a skill every teacher should have.

I don't see how you can keep denying that this is an element of teaching?

And to your point that students must be lazy or unmotivated - sure there are some who really don't want to be in school but I would guarantee that an interesting teacher will help a motivated student get better results vs an ' i'm here for my paycheck ' teacher.

Cody Pomeray

fishy fishy wrote: »

Gawd help ye in real life. I'd hate to see when work gets boring for you - will you ask your boss to liven things up. :o

Maybe you work for a very mediocre employer.

There are lots of well known examples of employees providing leisure activities for employees precisely because employers are aware of the dangers of boredom and lack of enthusiasm setting in.

It's a responsible, pragmatic way of inspiring motivation in many very successful workplaces.