Yes there is a difference.

No, professional excellence and excellence as an educator are not synonymous. We get good professionals who are good educators; good professionals who are bad educators; bad professionals who are good educators and finally bad professionals who are bad educators.

Maybe there is, if you think of the professional educator in the sense that professional is a good thing. So a professional educator focusses their professionalism on education. They research , update an reflect on all of the aspects of education as opposed to the professional who educates focussing on their particular professional interest and educating as the side issue.

In my opinion, there is still difference between them since professionalism are specific in each area. Everyone could be an educators (philosophy : change others' mind) but they won't be so professional with the professional educators (understand on how education delivered in manners, effective way) . For example, I am a professional in medicine, a physician who usually face patients, having a specific jobs (serving them to solve their medical problem (which is very different with teaching, facing patient would be not same with teaching students). If I do not learn about education and somebody ask me to teach, I would teach students as far as I can. Thus would be without any knowledge on effective teaching (how good in delivery material, so students can easily accept, react, adapt, and apply what I've told them to do so). As opposed, professional educators, they would prepare teaching, teach, and evaluate teaching professionally.

I have to agree to some extent with all three of your responses. Professional educators are individuals who have specialized knowledge in a subject field (i.e medicine, psychology, research). Additionally, they also have a specific focus and experience of teaching methodology, student learning and development, assessment, pedagogy etc. I will even add that professional educators need to systematically investigate (research) what and how they teach and how their students are affected by certain approaches and techniques. They need to know that presenting 120 powerpoint slides in an hour session is not conducive for learning. They need to know, that talking for an hour and allowing questions at the end of a session is not conducive for learning. They need to know, that motivating students with the use of threat and punishment does not promote individual development.

Based on your categorizations Ian I would guess the ideal is a good professional who is also a good educator. In higher education, however, we need people who know what they are doing when they step in the classroom.

Few people say it better though than Sir Ken Robinson: “We have to go from what is essentially an industrial model of education, a manufacturing model, which is based on linearity and conformity and batching people. We have to move to a model that is based more on principles of agriculture. We have to recognize that human flourishing is not a mechanical process; it's an organic process. And you cannot predict the outcome of human development. All you can do, like a farmer, is create the conditions under which they will begin to flourish.”

― Ken Robinson

Watch: http://www.ted.com/talks/sir_ken_robinson_bring_on_the_revolution.html

I have edited my initial statement.

From my reading on education and expertise, experts in the subject area do not make the best teachers. They work a lot by intuition and have difficulty explaining how they arrived at a result. They will tend to focus on telling rather than encouraging exploration and self discovery.

The professional educator focuses on how to transmit an idea and looks to open up the space of learning to the learner. To do so, they may vary their technique from telling to simply questioning so that the learner discovers for themselves.

However there are some who are "professionals who educate" (i.e. have expertise in the subject area) and are professional educators. To me this is the best combination since they understand the subject and are able to stimulate learning in it. Some would argue that this was/is the apprenticeship model

Well, thanks all for the good responses - well, as I understand it - the professionals who educate are usually lawyers who teach at university or accountants who teach at university - and this differentiation is quite importance when it comes to accreditation... as those might not hold a PhD but are specialized in their area of study.

Theodora what you said suggests another aspect. How much do we value accreditation ie PhD vs reflected experience ie a thoughtful professional in education?

Interesting and thought-provoking contributions! Mark, you sure raise another important aspect to the discussion: High in research vs high in teaching lecturers. And how about lecturers who research teaching and learning in higher education?

See the attached document for a discussion of this...

Do professionals who teach at university teach students to confirm to current practice or are they helping students question current knowledge and practice?

Does a reflective practitioner make a better teacher than a research oriented academic who teaches simply because it is part of the job description or a 'good' or 'expert' practitioner who doesn't question practice?

I am not a great believer in accreditation. My experience of certification is that it doesn't lead to better anything. It simply makes sure people conform to the currently accepted standard.

Yes there is a difference. I belong to the former category of 'professionals who educate'. Though we are specialised in a particular branch of science, our acumen in imparting quality education depends on our own teaching expertise and thus is highly subjective. Professional educators are adequately trained in superior educational methods and thus can be believed to be better educators as their skills are more objective.

As far as teachers are concerned, "professional educators" are most appropriate for grades K-8. "Professionals who educate" are most appropriate for grades 9-12, and beyond.

I have been in both camps briefly: I received a Bachelor of Arts in Mathematics, then I received a Diploma in Education. I have an innate gift/talent/urge for teaching.

I felt the Dip. Ed. was an attempt at making "Education" a "respected" profession - It could have been condensed from a 9-month course into a 4-week short course, with student teaching the most valuable part. In fact, I know that some of what was taught as methodology in teaching math was absolutely wrong! I went away thinking that the Dip.Ed. course would make an innately good teacher better, but it could not make a bad, ill-suited teacher good.

To be a good teacher in any subject, grades 9-12 and beyond, you need to most of all be empathetic with your students, especially the ones who are struggling, so you can diagnose the root cause of their problems and work with them to improve.

Thank you all for the suggestions and the ideas included... Appreciated.

Well, Mark in response to your question ... How much do we value accreditation is PhD vs reflected experience is a thoughtful professional in education?

Those qualified professionals were sought after earlier, but with the accrediting agencies - the concentration is on a PhD ... And those holding PhDs not all are of the same caliber - and the university and its students might be the losers if the trend continues as it is the case now.

In addition to qualifications, I would concur with Antonio who said:To be a good teacher in any subject, grades 9-12 and beyond, you need to most of all be empathetic with your students, especially the ones who are struggling, so you can diagnose the root cause of their problems and work with them to improve.

Regards

Theodora Issa

In another question / answer I just read that to be a good teacher required one to have many qualifications ;- subject matter psychology sociology ethics etc. I just have a science degreeand a post grad teaching diploma which had some psych & some sociology, however at the time I wasn't able to use the psychology and sociology effectiveIy because of lack of maturity. My point is that I needed to spend time practicing, reflecting and testing my ideas, to even begin to think effectively about these other ( Maybe more important) aspects of teaching. I have since learned psych, Sociology, some cultural theory, mulched term together, tested ideas, learnedfrom it, hypothesised, tested etc etc. In some ways, I value my learning trajectory more than a straight forward academic pathway. However, Ithib it is my nature so it may not suit everyone nor pbe He most productive pathway for everyone. But! How do I get valued without credentials for all this work?

Very true Mark! You first have the passion for education and teaching, your students realise this and most likely benefit from this, and then it sometimes feels like you need to convince the system of your value. This can also happen in situations where good professionals (i.e. psychologist, sociologist, doctor) are regarded as good teachers, based on their professional outputs and not their educational prowess. Difficult situation, which is why professional educators often feel obliged to attain further educational qualifications.

Professionals with proven field experience can provide students valuable practical inputs. However, without educational training and/or some kind of feedback, their lectures could be less undestanable, simply because such professionals tend to expect at least basic knowledge in given area for granted.