Most would agree that learning (constant learning) is inherent to any scientific activity.
Communicating results, also apply;
Should Teaching also apply to a scientific job description?
Should every schollar also be a researcher?
...or should Teaching and Researcher's careers be kept independent?
In my Country, a scientific researcher's job is very poorly (hardly) remunerated. Most scientists accumulate their job with the Teaching carreer.
On the other hand, it is very difficult to publish or to present credible scientific results without affiliation to an official institution.
How do we manage the time to perform both activities, as perfectly as we would wish, or how accurately and time consuming, as both jobs demand ?
+ We cannot hang our family in the closet, as we do with overcoats, when we go to work...
Dear Maria,
For many of us, research and teaching complement each other in a well balanced academic career.our students are an important source of stimulation and enthusiasm for both teaching and research.
Basically, teaching and research ultimately have the same goal – learning and They can be considered complementary as:
- Research results provide first-hand instructional material
- Research allows for graduate student training
- The integration of teaching and research is compatible with principles of learning
In my Country, a scientific researcher's job is very poorly (hardly) remunerated. Most scientists accumulate their job with the Teaching carreer.
On the other hand, it is very difficult to publish or to present credible scientific results without affiliation to an official institution.
How do we manage the time to perform both activities, as perfectly as we would wish, or how accurately and time consuming, as both jobs demand ?
+ We cannot hang our family in the closet, as we do with overcoats, when we go to work...
Dear Maria,
Yes, I believe that research outcomes need to be linked with teaching learning process in some or the other way. I practiced this in my profession; this way encourage and motivate students to think beyond the prescribed syllabus.
Yes, scientists need to teach a younger generation of future scientists. I am strict concerning science ethics, research ethics. If students do not submit a good thesis, they should not graduate. Here, a Bachelor degree student needs to submit a thesis. Mine was on negative feedback of HMG CoA reductase on cholesterol synthesis in rats.
(I am still getting the same pay as I got when I just had a BSc. We asked that we should be remunerated according to our service and qualifications. But it was not heeded. Only fresh PhD students who just got into govt service had 1 pay increase, but we all who pursued a Masters and PhD due to interest and motivation are expected to be always motivated by intrinsic things and not by a befitting salary.)
Thanks dear @Eraldo for posting this interesting article. Here is an excerpt:
"Concentrate on your research. If your research is good, no one will care if you can teach. After all, when was the last time someone got tenure for being a good teacher?" Every new assistant professor has heard this more than once. Is it really sound advice? To answer this question, it is important first to fully understand the advice being provided.
The recommendation to emphasize research attempts to impress upon you, the young scientist, the fact that establishing yourself in the world of academic science will be difficult. The mentor (if that is the source of this advice) is telling you that you must: a) set up a lab; b) get grant money, c) get your research program running; and d) make it successful (i.e., publish, publish, publish). If the school where you are working has a tenure clock (that is, a probationary period before a permanent position is offered), then there is a sense of urgency. You have only a few years to establish a research program. Any distraction--even participating in teaching--could keep it from happening"
Findings show teaching and research are complementary. Some thought from muse.jhu.edu:
"There is a strong rationale reinforcing the claims that research should contribute to teaching. Research forms the basis of the content of teaching. Teachers who are active researchers are more likely to be on the cutting edge of their discipline and aware of international perspectives in their field. Because textbooks may not be current in many rapidly developing areas, lectures may be the first point of contact with the latest developments. Teachers who are involved in research are more likely to be at the forefront of their discipline. Results from one's research can be used to clarify, update, and amend the teaching of a topic. Research enhances teaching through the introduction of new topics and methodologies. Teachers discussing their own research provide a sense of excitement about the results and how they fit into a larger picture. Active researchers are more effective at instilling an actively critical approach to understanding complex research findings rather a passive acceptance of facts. Students appreciate teachers who present research that the teachers have actually conducted. This provides an authenticity to the presented material that differs from presentations by teachers who are only discussing the work of others in which they have no active involvement.
Similarly, teaching should contribute to research. The process of teaching the subject matter of a discipline forces academics to clarify the big picture into which their specific research specialization fits. Preparation of teaching materials can elucidate gaps in the academic's knowledge base. Sharing the results of one's research with students in a teaching context helps researchers clarify their research. Students' suggestions, comments, questions, and criticisms can elucidate new research directions. Sharing the results of one's research efforts with an appreciative audience provides reinforcement for having done the research and pursuing further research."
More details in the original link:
https://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/journal_of_higher_education/v073/73.5marsh.html
It would be nice if scientists do teach as dear @Miranda have stated, not only "younger generation of future scientists" but also to teach at University level generally. Not all of students will become researchers, many of them will start University career.
The knowledge and experience of scientists should be valued properly. They should teach and share their experience and knowledge, not only for the reason of income, but for the sake of community and society. In my country, the scientific work is underestimated, so many researchers/scientists do teach all over the world.
I´m deeply convinced that scientist should teach. There are two dominant reasons. First, teaching gives some self education to point out clear statements and models. Second, to do the teaching job prevents you from getting unrealistic, quirky and isolated socially.
Yes please teach, the young students need your know how!
My opinion goes against the majority here, it seems, as I don't see any mandatory necessity that a scientist has to be also a teacher. The simple reason is that there is a large number of excellent scientists who are poor teachers and why should those persons waste their own time and the time of their students by giving poor lectures, when they can do much better work in the lab.
I also see no rule that the person who makes the scientific advance and the person who promotes this advance by teaching have to be the same person. On the contrary mostly this is not the case because if you demand that every scientist has to teach you may demand with the same right that every teacher has to do scientific research (which is illusionary in my opinion).
I would even say that the freedom of science includes also that every scientist should decide if he or she is up to teach or not and act accordingly.
Dear Ljubomir, your country has produced so many scientists. If they cannot be happy with the situation in the homeland, if they cannot bear the corruption, if they cannot fight it, they will be welcome to work in many places all over the world.
But I believe that scientists should teach and pass on the legacy of science, teach in universities and teach apprentices or students. Here is a list of the Serbian scientists who have made their mark on the progress of science.
"Although a country with turbulent history , Serbia has been a motherland to some famous scientists from various fields Their achievements have contributed largely to this world, and even, in some cases, change the course of history:
Nikola Tesla
Milutin Milanković
Mihajlo I. Pupin
Josif Pančić
Mihailo Petrović Alas
Mileva Marić
Vuk Stefanović Karadžić"
My country wants to contribute to the progress of science, but my own deputy director said that the people here who have the ability were not given the opportunity. So we do not have any Nobel laureates, not one. But the ones who are given opportunity mainly desire to get very rich...
http://www.serbiaconsulatenyc.com/en/greatscientists.html
@Muneeb Ahmad Wani: Unfortunately this is by far not allways the case, for example, Max Planck was regarded as a very dull and boring teacher but he discovered quantum mechanics - so a brilliant scientist but not so good a teacher.
In my country, to work as researcher for the State is a privilege. Few, if any, researchers work for the State in my speciality, almost all are of the universities, they are with provisional sholarship or are teachers.
A researcher should divulgate the results of its investigation the way as simplest as possible, but not necessarily as a Professor. He/she should concentrate all the energy on the research. A good Professor can and must do research, but when he/she is teaching should concentrate all the energy in the transmission of knowledge. Both activities seek and may really obtain deep knowledge, but in a different way. When I did deep research, I practically did not really nothing more, when I teach with many classes and several hundred of students under my responsibility, I practically do not make research. Is not a good Professor or a good researcher who wants that without effort and passion, but who can and is fully available for such effort and passion? Is not possible to have simultaneously: “Sol na eira e chuva no nabal” as says the Portuguese Proverb. Some careers are a pure fantasy?
http://www.linguee.pt/ingles-portugues/traducao/you+can't+have+your+cake+and+eat+it.html
I agree with Mr. Johannes Gruenwald, some scientists are not able to teach. In this case, we have to learn only from their results.
Research is conducted in different places: research institutes/centers where the main focus is to study problems and seek solutions and in universities where teaching is part of the job. Therefore the type of place a scientist works determines whether he/she has to teach, but in universities, teaching has to be an integral component of the job. It is when we teach that we motivate the young to be inspired, follow and continue with the work we do. But it does not mean that scientists who work in research centers do not teach, in fact they have to go out and teach to students how and what they are doing, what their research is all about. It is always the case that a person of knowledge has to teach to transfer the knowledge he/she has to society, for otherwise simply doing research is merely producing results without telling to society what he/she is doing and how which seems like a magician.
The dream of most scientific researchers is to be well paid, to have a full-time job....
I had to work to pay for the costs of my research for PhD. I accepted two full-time jobs, teaching in two Universities, and I kept my medical practice. (I remember handwriting quick notes and ideas when the car stopped in traffic lights... On weekends, I proceeded with organizing and typing those hand-notes, and completing with bibliography. This lasted for 6 years, non-stop work. Teaching in one University early in the morning, driving madly across town to proceed with teaching in a different University, practicing in the evening and researching in the lab and the microscope until late at night. I The next morning I hand-wrote notes in the traffic, again and again... - I believe that this is why everybody forgives me for being a bit of a lunatic ! -)
I wonder how my thesis and even my results would have turned out if I did only research. (I would probably have gotten so bored that I wouldn't finnish it.)
I consulted patients til late in the evening before the day of my Viva, and I believe that this great stress reliever brought me luck. I am always so tired that I never have insomnia...
I have gained this pleasant habit to handwrite notes and ideas while driving. I never look up to the colour of traffic lights. I wait for the noisy disruption from otherr drivers, to proceed with driving.
Please be gentle in the town-traffic, if you happen to come across a nice lady who writes notes instead of paying attention to the colour of traffic lights!
Hi for all
Its controversial issue, but I highly appreciate the researcher if he is a teacher at the same time.This is my opinion
Dear Maria,
People should do what they are able to do fine, efficiently and enthusiastically.
Dear Maria,
Portugal is a wonderful country where people can get even two university jobs too.
Dear Maria,
My dream is to paint pictures I am satisfied with them. Most mainstream research as it is cultivated in Hungary seems to me to be boring and without real interest.
Yes, dear András !
Portugal is a great country for hollidays. You are most welcome here, anyday soon, especially if you bring American dolars... You'll find the most extraordinary light and colours for painting, early in the morning.
Nevertheless, it is difficult to work because the wages are low and the cost of living is high.
I had to find a legally tricky way to accumulate jobs. I only earn half of the regular full-time wages, to get legal permission to accumulate my medical practice with the University teaching job, as I give up the so-called «exclusivity». I had to request permission from the President of the University to go teach elsewhere.(great burocratic ordeal, that nearly drove me mad. But it worked alright.
I never applied for scholarship or grants, because I didn't know if I could resist the strain to comply with stressful time-limits for my work.
I believe that any scientific research becomes totally boring and tedious, when you overspecialize... in any subject. That's the price you get when you know too much... (kkk)
Should teaching be a part of every scientist's job ?
I think it should because how much a scientist learns can be reflected by how much s/he can share / teach (teaching is just an enabler / vehicle to share the knowledge). Moreover, the more the scientist teaches, the more s/he will learn. In addition, the learning curve to acquire teaching skills (if the scientist doesn't have such skill) is comparatively easier than a person who can teach but doesn't have the scientific domain knowledge (which might take years to gather). In case the scientist doesn't know how to teach, perhaps some training can help or as s/he teaches more this skill can be mastered.
Should Teaching also apply to a scientific job description?
I think technically it should because re points mentioned above. However, think remuneration / compensation can be a different issue that might need to be handled separately e.g. more pay, perks etc for more work or reduce workload, KPI, time spent for the same amount of salary package etc.
Should every schollar also be a researcher?
I think the scholar should also be a researcher because through research i.e. new discovery, new development & further knowledge contribution is also an avenue to enhance his or her scholarship.
...or should Teaching and Researcher's carreeers be kept independent?
I think these 2 roles i.e. teaching & researching are intertwined & complementing a person to become a more complete scholar.
In my humble opinion, "honest" teaching is a much more hard job than "academic" research. Given the declining quality of the current university students, this points to the widespread mistake of considering research as top priority in evaluating scholars. In some 3rd world universities, a single published research paper of any quality gets 10 points for promotion purposes while 3 decades of "good" teaching get 4 points only! This resulted in driving some scholars to get their names on papers by any means.
It is well known now, that there are fake "co-authors" who do not have knowledge of the contents of papers which carry their names. Research has turned into a game that is full of many frauds. Teaching, on the other hand, is a challenge for those who do or do not carry out research. In teaching, the scholar stands in front of an audience which may include very smart students who have the ability to judge who is better & who is worse.
Even if some one "claims" dedication to research, it is required that s/he teaches the outcome to others so research cannot be terminated after the results are sent to a certain journal. Teaching has to be done & ought to relate research to the ongoing topics that are of concern to the world of academia.
Dear Maria,
Thanks for your kind answer. Of course, it is a trouble and a socially difficult situation if somebody is forced to have two jobs. My apropos was the similarly difficult Hungarian situation where it is difficult to find a fine single university job. Thus, I admire you that you were able to perform even in two jobs. Regarding the average EU wages, that of Portugal is 1001 Euro and the Hungarian value is 503. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_average_wage Our physicians are so badly payed that they are escaping from their homeland. You can see low wages are relative. In Russia which is a country with almost the richest resources and natural opportunities, the average wage is 378 Euro.
Dear Maria: In fact all people wants a job, but anybody (or few) want (much) work. Work does not give much curriculum ... I would like to see many of the current papers taught in the university courses (many may be evaluated as without real contents and as fast food research, or garbage with a score?). It would be nice to see what the students and their families would say. Intellectual honesty is one of the most important obligations for being a real Professor. Unfortunately it looks that there are many actors that represent a fake personage. It looks that there exist a downvoter that does not like teaching, good teachers, and the sincerity of a genuine Academician like Nizar. Untruthfulness is a much more challenging path?
All the models that I developed really work, and some are already taught in my University/Department since long time ago.
Great discussion dear RG friends!
Johannes, Miranda and Maria show clearly: there is no easy answer.
And as András said, the HEART must be involved, if it should make any sense. And the heart is a very individual Thing. - So answers may be different for every Person. And that´s fine!
For my last PhD Thesis like for the others i also did not ask for a scholarship. Why? Because at the Moment i would have found out a possible way and finished writing all the many pages and waiting for the answer and may be add something and finally get the permission, i would have either died because of being bored to death or overexcitment... - and on the other Hand by doing everything on my own besides the normal work, i did not have to ask anybody (nearly) and could finish the whole Thing in a reasonable time, means much more quicker. -- But the disadvantage is, that in this case you lack the official Support and publication in a Journal is extremely difficult.
So every way has benefits and disadvantages.
Like sir Harshvardhan Singh said every scientist is not good at communicating with students.On the other hand, if a scientist teaches students, we can say a great mind of today is teaching great minds of tomorrow. In this way, both the scientists and students share ideas and get benefit out of it. They may explore uncharted territories and the outcome may result in an earth-shaking invention. The students get exposer to a better research world and they learn how research work is done. It is like a symbiotic relationship where the scientist can train the next generation of researchers and in return he may get new ideas from the students and gain more knowledge.But sometimes too much teaching can hamper the scientist's research work. So there must be fine balance between teaching and research work. So it is better to leave is as a personal choice.
Good question by dear @Abedallah. There are so many good answers related to this particular question dear @Maria.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_do_you_prefer_research_or_teaching
I think that a research always teach althought the manners or ways will be different in their proffesional life. In my case, in the beginnigs, I was very interesting in teaching in the traditional classroom with (sometimes) a houndred of young students in basics physics. Then, I changed to more reduced groups interested in more specific topics. Now, fourty years later, I teach to students who follows a titulation (Msc or PhD) under my tutorial. I wish to teach until my reasoning will allows to say something interesting for somebody.
Thank you, dear Harshvardhan.
Merry Christmas to you and your family.
May all the joy and harmony of the season accompany you and all our good RG friends, throughout the Year.
I think it will be best if the knowledge creator could also be its giver or transmitter.
Dr. Iva Kuznetsova's good contribute:
Dr. Iva Ninova Kuznetsova to you 6 minutes ago
It is generally so in many country, unfortunatelly... Yes it is popular also to find some additional hours as Uni teacher in order to have more money, but it doesn't really solve the probleme with poverty of the scientists,,,The best is to gain your own grant, but for all this you should have the ambiance, the conditions (facilities etc. support and permitions...).
Thank you, dear George. Good to know.
Nevertheless, even if I sometimes feel a little «envy» for those that can dedicate themselves 100% to researching, with proper salaries, I might not be able to abandon my activities in University teaching, nor my medical career, as they pay themselves from the joy we take at work...
Money is nothing, as compared to the youthful joy from our students eyes, or from our patients, when we notice success in our tasks. (also nothing as emotionally positive, as witnessing the first results from our rsearch experiences... Money is worthless...)
Yes dear Maria,
you must experience the interest and pleasure of students to understand the meaning of academic teaching.
In my humble opinion, resarchers are the best teachers.
Research propels you to read wide, think fast, be resolute in achieving the best, interpret succinctly and make appropriate inference.
A good teacher does not need more than these to succeed!!!
No dear Ibrahim,
they are not automatically the best teachers, but they should try to get there.
Every researcher must devote part of his time to teaching. Especially to young teenagers to introduce them to scientific research as this is the one and only engine of the world.
Dear Maria
Contrary to what one might think, I think it not always a good researcher is a good teacher, and should be valued more the profession of knowing how to transmit knowledge. As Einstein would say "not really understand something unless you're able to explain it to your grandmother", and that is not always achieved by one who has discovered, even if the characteristics of research and good teacher coincide in the same person, so be it I could explain to others their findings.
Regards and good wishes in the new year!
Dear @Hanno, let me add a short comment to @Ibrahim's answer. I think, if I am right, that he has meant that the best teachers may come from researchers' population. Of course, there is no automatism as well as without passion there is no good teacher.
I agree with Kouser that a scientist must teach to motivate young minds . It would be interesting to ask researchers , what motivated them to take up research as career . There should have been a mentor who influenced them . In addition , discussion with young minds would bring in new ideas . It also helps the scientist to prepare & also improves his creativity . It is a two way process in which both the scientist & students benefit .
I think many persons miss the observation that "the best way to learn a topic very well is to teach it". When one is obliged to teach "honestly", then there has to be good preparation that goes into the bits & pieces of the subject. Unfortunately, since research papers (of any quality) are rewarded much more than many years of teaching, many scholars are seen to be busy in finding out a way to have their names placed in journals (by all means) in order to be promoted or to get a title which allows for higher salary.
Assuming there has been "honest" research, isn't it required that the research results be taught to others? Well, we are than back to teaching.
Agree, Knowledge, research/results should be share as much you can. That's always great if "They" deliver talk or teaching. It improve both learners and speakers
Researching (searching for new knowledge) and teaching (transmitting existing knowledge) are different jobs requiring different skills?
Research informed teachung is an ideal. The combination of both should produce the best of both worlds. In reality there are researchers with very little skills in teaching and there are also some who prefer teaching over researching. We should still try to realize the ideal, which would also mean to value teaching more. In the current state of academia one's career depends on researching, not on teaching. Unfortunately.
Quite right, dear Claus. I agree with all your important views of the problem.
The evaluation system of our peformance ,as academics, is of course greatly biased. But are there any evaluation systems without bias ? Even our own evaluation of our students may have to be reviewed, from times to times.
(as it is, I usually tell my students to only think of their exams as a necessary ordeal to classify them, and to promote the essencial creditation to their university diplomas. Nothing else. It is just a tool. )
I should think of our own evaluation system of teaching, just the same way. It is only a necessary tool to keep our acreditation as schollars. Only time will show our real performance, both as researchers, as of teaching . Only time will show our real results.
( In my personal case, I find better payment from the fact that several happy former students come back to tell me of their career successes as medical professionals, yet still remembering the ones who taught them the elementar basis of their profession, in the first semester...The joy and pridfe in their eyes is more valuable than any form of payment, and no other evaluation should prevail... )
Many researchers/scientists do teach, and share their experience and knowledge.
I don't think that it is mandatorty, in contrast the scientist continues the life-long selfeducation
I think in order to extend their reach in the academic community scientists should teach so that their work can have a wider utility.
many thanks,
Debra
I think teaching and research should be kept independent of each other. The fact that one can teach does not necessarily make one a good researcher. The opposite also holds true. A very good scientist may therefore not be a very good teacher and a very good teacher may not be the best of scientists too. So, even though some scientists can take up the job of teaching, teaching and researching should be kept independently.
Maria yo diría que todo docente universitario debe tener las competencias para desarrollar procesos didácticos de cursos universitarios, no obstante, no todos los docentes han desarrollado las competencias investigativas, la mayoría de los docentes deciden hacer carrera de Docencia, con ausencia de procesos de investigacion. e pregunto ¿como se puede actualizar procesos didácticos universitarios si no se hacen investigaciones???
La gestión de las universidades debe apostar con políticas de fortalecimiento de investigaciones con la formación de competenctivasias investigativas. para enseñar yo utilizo la tecnica de la investigacion como técnica de enseñanza y de aprendizaje para enseñar a pensar, a reflexionar a los estudiantes hoy , profesionales mañana. debemos exigir organizadamente a las sociedades que los investigadores tengan todo el apoyo de la sociedad a fin de crear nuevos conocimientos.
saludos Arturo Rivera
not necessarily, its unto the scientist to chose the research or teaching or both, there is no set rule unless there is a requirement at a particular place.
Dear Maria,
I guess it depends on many factors. A person who is working in basic sciences, which consists of constant individual work, should teach in order to get rid of frustration. It is another important question whom you are teaching and what you are teaching. I mean if your students are interested only to pass the exam then the “teaching” can be another source of frustration.
Thank you, dear Chun Liu, and all, for your wonderful contributes. I brought up this question, because I always have in mind the medical practitioner's code of honour, since ancient times, that includes in our list of tasks, the obligation to further teach our Art to disciples, and in particular to our colleagues sons...
I have been wondering weather this code of honour shouldn't include all practitioners of Science in general...
(I should appreciate that my descendants and disciples should be well taught by my colleagues and former disciples.)
It will, of course, be nice and beneficial to both academic and scientific community if all scientists can teach in the universities and all teachers can contribute to scientific works. But the sad fact is that not all scientists can teach (orally) effectively and not all teachers can give significant contributions to science.
Dear Maria,
Talents and abilities are various. Not everybody is apt to teach or to be a good researcher. In most cases it would be enough to be fine but really fine at least in one of them. Unfortunately, there are many scientists who have a meagre performance as a teacher and a lot of good teachers whose research working is weak. Even there is the third class of scientists that is neither teacher nor researcher but official.
I utterly concur with Dr. Debra Sharon Ferdinand and Dr. Desmond Agyemang.
Teaching is one way to view our efforts to gain understanding of our work. As a whole, there are a number of disciplines that require sales skills: how well do you explain yourself and your ideas?
My motto in the business world was, "Being right is the booby prize".
Dear Maria, teaching is a talent not every scientist or intellectual has. Teaching techniques must be learned, according to my experience as Chairperson of the Human Resources Committee at the School of Architecture of my university. Great architects may be poor teachers, devise stupid exercises, give poor grades to student projects they do not understand or like, even if these projects are good. Not anyone can or may be a good teacher. But this could be overcome by teaching scientists and other researchers how to teach. Yours is the most important and urgent question I have read in RG since I came in a few months ago. I see your heart is in this difficult issue.
Un abrazo, Lilliana
Scientist plays an important part in the education ,in the academic performance & for the research project for which their study ,& their method of performance demand a special training .With this it is not necessary that teaching should remain a part of scientist job.
Teaching & academic areas have a very vast range of study & scientist should not be restricted for this areas .For this the study of literature ,psychology ,Religion,Philosophy Music,Art ,Painting ,& such other related areas may remain a part of academic training but this can not be a function of scientist .
This is my personal opinion
I do not think so.
Every scientist is not necessarily a good teacher.
Dear George,
The saying you mentioned is well-known everywhere. It is right mainly for the “official or clerk” teachers.
Science has a language for communication among scientists in different discipline, so I can not imagine that scientists can communicate with this science language. I think that teaching is essential and basic for science job for the sack of communication in a common language
More, for completeness:
And I also think that a very good teacher may not always be "great scientist". The notion of a scientist rather squanders today, it seems.
It is not necessary for scientist to be teacher but it will certainly add something if there are mixed together.
Agreed, it is better to do both, if the opertunity is there. There seems to be more teachers around than there are good researchers. Research requires tenacity, patience, creativity, aptitude..... as well, and is not always appreciated.
Dear Maria,
I consider teaching as being helpful in enhancing communication between human beings. Science is essential to provide evidence-based knowledge. However, experience counts also. So amalgamation of teaching-learning process of both areas through communication provides more comprehension and understanding. Some individual persons possess an intuition based on both science and experience which is a perfect match.
Regards
Carmen Camilleri
If you explain something to others they don't know, you teach right?
Therefore, scientists always teach when they communicate/publish!
Scientist always inform hopefully. But that is not the same as teaching. A lot of scientific publications is without any didactical effort.
Dear Maria,
The teaching should be reserved to correct persons who practice the teachings. In much cases it requires a previous time of research, but it is not sufficient to assure that the researcher will be a good teacher. I do not believe in a research of all the life without a dimension of help to other students.
It is good to give at least one lecture per month if not per week to all Scientists to teach to students. That keep them in touch with very basics they have detached while doing advance research. And that brings new ideas to their research. Also they may communicate their higher level science to students which will enhance student's imagination.
When we teach , we need to become very clear on the main points of knowledge content and theory that we wish to communicate and devise the clearest and most effective ways to present that knowledge..So yes, we should be teaching Fromm time to time. And besides, that may galvanize us to read up on others' newest research and addt to our fund of knowledge as well as the students; fund!.
Yes, dear Alice. Although it may sound as the funniest of paradoxes, that those who research on a subject are doing so, because they know that we don't know much of the subject... and teaching that subject should sound strange,( We teach certainties, and we research on uncertainties ! )... Although a bit paradoxal, I feel that we learn a lot from our students, as we teach, and this is helpful for our research, and on the other way round, we also learn some great certainties from our research, that we should feel obliged to transmit to our students, to our future generations that may help fulfil our dreams to discover scientific truth and future certainties.
That is my belief !
Probably yes since teaching enhance scientific ideas and good way for brain storming
... "We teach certainties, and we research on uncertainties !"
Dearest Maria, you are a gem. :-)
Warm regards, Lilliana
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology
- Mental Processes
- Learning