“Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire.”

– William Butler Yeats.

Just wonderful!

I would partially agree on this one. While I do agree that not every student is prepared to tackle advanced material, there are some that do and crave for that guidance. I think that teaching to a general audience would be a bad teaching approach but maybe relegate that advanced knowledge to elective courses where the students enrol on the class because they want to learn and this environment is more appropriate for advanced material.

Placed argument is in my opinion very correct and approved of for a long time in many respected academic centers.

The problem may be with the efficiency of its implementation. It seems to me that it is not the highest, because pursuing academics lacks consistency in adhering to this thesis, and too often "smuggle" of additional teaching material to the learning cycle. Such unplanned "inclusions" does not help build by the pupil/student the proper image of issues that they have to master.

In my case, I find that not require an appropriate return on knowledge (coupled with understanding and personal interpretation of it) is extremely negative for the teaching - learning process.

this mainly because (and in my professional specialty) if you do not raise the stressor agents required to cause adaptation to the situation, it is impossible to reveal potential changes and thereby limit growth.

In short, if we do not see good interaction between the delivery of knowledge (at appropriate rates and with normal levels of demand and described phylogenetic level) and the phases of learning (as a stressor), we can not positively affect the significance the same learning, and less on the meaning of this life.

"We will someday computers"

Dear Francisco,

I understand and largely support your point of view.

Inevitably, however, we are in such situation in front of a dilemma: who is to be a teacher/lecturer? Does it have to be primarily an expert in a particular field, or to be first and foremost a consummate teacher and methodologist of science, to inculcate students primarily self-learning mechanisms, and preferably also the basic principles of self-study, because without it nowadays do not you can get an effective education in any field.

Andrzej

The issue is that we can no longer speak of "wise" but "specialists" and that is what makes us see a reductionism inherent in the teaching - learning, that is why when we talk about experience often speak of skills acquired over time rather than knowledge applied correctly. I think there is the dilemma of the situation. It is true that self - learning is a valuable tool, but if you do not have a specific guide that knowledge becomes an error or a fine (and there entered the probability that it is effective or not) is why I see necessary have "experts" even one drop of alienation and being free to think, that can guide this knowledge concretely and thanks to that meaningful learning is achieved.

Dear Ciro Sanchez, if knowledge was transmittable (epistemologically speaking), teaching would be an easy game.

Unfortunately, not all teachers are experts in the concerned fields of teaching. This is an unwanted truth.

The term expert is used here in a very wide sense: it just means that the teacher knows better and more than the student. For example, one doesn't need to be an expert mathematician to teach math at the primary level. At the university level, at least, one would need to be an expert to teach math.

At the primary level, the teacher might use the number rhymes (comptine numérique, in French) as of teaching strategy. The question is: what do the pupils really learn? What knowledge do they learn? Is it mathematical knowledge or just a kind of applying a word to each of the objects they are counting? And, is the teacher teaching math through this strategy?

Dear Domenico, first of all, I would like to thank u so much for the question. No one is the owner of the trust, I believe. But I will humbly put my thoughts as I live, I eat, I feel the sacred art of teaching - which is a two-way street, always.

I wrote at the end of my thesis for Associate Professor: "A quem pertence o conhecimento?"- I will try to translate straigth from Portuguese, sorry, it is a free translation: KNOWLEDGE BELONGS TO WHOM ? "Since our parents generated us, they have taught us, and we live learning with them. And they learning from us, even with our mistakes. At school, our teachers taught us and we learn from Them. And they learned from us. Even with our mistakes. Today we teach our students, and they learn from us. And we learn from them. Even from our mistakes. The lifetime is so, as well as knowledge. Both are cyclical, and cyclic beying, if in an hour we teach, we learn in another... even with our own mistakes. There is a key role of communication in maintaining this cycle, dominant within the triad: learning / life / knowledge. And this interdependence leads us inevitably to reflect: knowledge withheld is lost information, it is life that is gone, with no owner, with no reason to be!" Best Regards, un grande abbraccio, Vinicius Pedrazzi.

Domenico, I would like to add some points to your proposal "Teach only what the student is able to learn. Or better, teach only the most of what your can actively share with your student", and to the initial question.

First, a teaching tendancy has to be fought, based on the idea that the best to be taught is what the best which is performed - that is "expert's knowledge" (with your meaning for "expert"). In fact this tendancy mixes two ideas: 1) that concepts and methods used by "experts" are key elements to be learned - what seems me right, and 2) that expert's regular activity can be a "model" for student's behaviour - what seems me impossible, as the regular activity of expert is based on reiterated experience (leading to adequate schemes of action, which enable to thing ahead), and on experimenting particularly meaningful situations : almost by definition, students cannot get such an "experiencial" level. As a teaching consequence, "experts" have to think deeply on what is supporting their "expert" knowledge and activity, and try to identify what can be introduced for promoting a well-oriented student's activity.

Secondly, I would call for reading Vygotsky' chapter on natural and scientific concepts, and the twofold movement: from what is soon understand (constructivist approach) and to what is to be learned for developing, through the help of a "more knowledgeable one". The methodology proposed by Bruner in this line can be transposed for teaching purposes.

Third, when teaching is concerning a whole class, not only the teacher by also the other students may be the "more knowledgeable ones" helping other students to grasp what is at stake in a learning process, even if this help is not intentional - but the teacher might catch the opportunity of student's interventions for using them for "scaffolding".

Clearly, this call for teachers training as "professionals of teaching" the knowledge for which they became "experts".

Knowledge perhaps is the only thing that does not get reduced even if you continue to donate it everyday.

Hello Domenico Masciotra,

The principle that I like is to teach the student to learn. Not teach what we want. Not only teach what students are capable of learning. In a society where information is available online I think the best thing we can teach is to show students that knowledge is available and that they can learn what they want.

Maybe leaving students to learn what they want to find out what they can do quite deep and complex things. It seems a bit chaotic in terms of pedagogical organization. But who said that our mind is governed by the pedagogical organization? What governs my mind is curiosity and willingness to do (build) or understand something ... I also think a good start. Encourage students to do something with what they know, or seek knowledge to build something they want.

See you later,

S.

Hi,

The questions are : Do we want to teach the students or do we want to teach the book?And what's the point if what we teach is not understandable to the students? In other words, is it worth teaching something lying beyond students' zone of proximal development, to use Vygotsky's term? Of course not. The greatest challenge to any teacher, I believe, is how to guide the students to acquire knowledge within their zone of proximal development.

Goof luck

There are so many true gems in these replies. Mr Le Canh has certainly stated the main question in his first sentence and offered the true riddle of teaching in his last.

Teaching is a form of art. Keep the expert as a source of knowledge, but put a guide in front of the classroom. Students truly learn best by doing. Students meet the needs of society through structured programs of education and training. The goal is to combine the structure of education in a form that permits the student to explore, to internalize, to have fun within the realm of the learning environment. That is where "Guide" comes into play. ":Learning" is simply not measureable. We provide students with an opportunity to display their acquirement of a knowledge or skill and we call that learning, but what they actually have done is shown the ability to discuss, to define, to debate, to perform, etc.

Teaching as a task is in my opinion not connected to being an expert (in knowing about and/or having experience in) one specific domain. Good teaching (and there a lot of interpretations about what this means) is a competence itself. The topic that is taught needs domain knowledge (that influences also the methodology used in teaching as different domains might require different methodological teaching approaches).

Thus: Being a good teacher would as far as I see it mean to be competent in teaching (pedagogical knowledge AND skills) AS WELL AS in the specific domain that is to be taught.

Depending on the educational level in which the teaching is executed (e.g. primary, secondary, tertiary/higher education, continuing education with adults, etc.) the needed pedagogical skills (including social competences and methodical skills) AND the necessary domain competences (theory/practice, depth of understanding, knowing of practical examples, etc.) will be very different.

when you teach assuming the students know a little- Your message should reach even the dullest student - Really if you are an expert answer doubts like a scholar - clarify all - irrespective of the level - do not assume all are of the same level

As an expert (what a big word!) of a subject I can found many examples to explain in a more simple way an argument.

For doing that it is necessary, as other colleagues already evidenced, the skill for teaching, say the care for the learning of the students.

There are teachers who care showing themselves... they, expert or not, are ineffective in the didactic.

All that, in my experience of either student and professor, it is valid for young students and for university students as well.

Dear Domenico,

I suggest know the current level of your students and start from there. Keep raising the difficulty level as much as students feel interested and involved. The moment you realize that students have lost interest, you know that you are trying to do something which is at a level higher than students current ability.

Does it remind you of ZPD?

Also I believe that as long as you keep focusing on teaching, you will never be sure about whether you are at the right level of students or not. The moment you start concentrating on the actual learning happening in the classroom, you will never go wrong. All the best and happy learning!

Dear Norman,

I agree with you about ZPD. It was part of my third suggestion: 3. The locus of knowledge to be learned is in between, let’s say, the master of dance and the student, both in action. See my adds in the question above.

0. You should teach only that which will be useful now or in the future. (I.e., do not teach obsolete skills such as writing on slate with a scribe or on paper with a post office nibpen.) Try to anticipate future skill needs and prepare the pupil for this.

1. I would concede that full knowledge transmission from expert to pupil is not possible. I would be bold enough to say that a full transmission of all the dead-ends, and disappointments is not desirable, and should not be transmitted.

2. In view of the above, and because there is an age difference between expert and pupil, the transmitted knowledge base will differ.

3. There will thus be a gap between the knowledge base of the expert and his fully qualified pupil. This gap is not a lack of knowledge but the bit of knowledge that is obsolete and no longer in need of being taught.

In practice, the expert may learn something new from the pupil: "Aha: I never thought of it that way, because I was brought up with physical slates, not touchscreens."

4.

To answer your question: I believe that you should not teach ALL you know as an expert.

Also, yes, the pupil may be unready to assimilate the higher levels of what you know until postgraduate university, so you better keep your mouth shut on certain topics!

An ancillary point is that sometimes an expert may be the wrong person to teach something, because he does not or can not explicate the foundations that are his implicit knowledge. His=his/her.

I wouldn't say that a teacher (in general) has to teach what he/she knows, thus making his or her knowledge the pupil's knowledge. If we admit that teachers have a pedagogic mission than theirs is the role of helping pupils create own knowledge. So their job is not to transform knowledge but to enable creation of knowledge in pupils. For being able to do so, they do need pedagogical skills as well as domain expertise. Without latter no proper (means: domain adequate) pedagogical decisions (e.g. methods, didactical decisions, learning aids, communication and interaction styles) can be made.

It is best to teach a subject that you have control over.

Hello to everyone ,

Do not like the idea of teaching in the traditional sense where a person " teaches " and the other " learns" lol

Yes of course, do not like the idea of ​​standardized curricula . Dislike of curricula . Like horizons . I like wings and flight . People are born to fly. Not to crawl behind what others define who we know ( and how we know about something ) .

Of course , we all need help . For this are teachers ( mentors ) . To assist in the journey that each of us choose . Not to dictate a path that everyone should go the same way . That's conditioning. It works, but for me it is not enough .

After basic knowledge how to read , interpret and calculate the basic operations , we are able to make a pathway own learning , free curricula . I was a child who did not like school and teachers . Enjoyed learning . Like today. But not like someone to tell me what and how to learn about something .

I like to be helped on my doubts , like chatting , discovering along with other ...

We need experts who can help us in the journey of learning , building knowledge not only to transmit what they know .

Maybe one day the young rebel against the current model ( maybe) . In a way perhaps already rebelling with disinterest and lack of commitment. They just do not know how to say it and we , teachers and academics , we could not translate their behavior . Only complain ... lol

Because even with so much information and technology available we still have to protect the people in their learning .

I dream of days of free learning, own ways of learning, projects individual knowledge and collective experiences that we can talk and show others what we found ... advantage , logical knowledge accumulated by experts and has provided socially.

Dear Ian , do not teach what we have control. We teach what we can control , is a little different and boring . But the "system " needs control ...

congratulations ,

S.

@Sérgio: I agree with you at all the points you have marked "lol". I do not laugh, because what you have said is so true, and you have said it so beautifully. I admire your free spirit. I think for example that it makes more sense to type " , " as it separates the words more, and the little bit of ink does not get lost. Certainly I used to type ". SPACESPACE", but have been conformed by the world to ". SPACE", as you can see.

I do not agree. I think you should teach what you are good at and passionate for.

Dear Henna,

You are not contradicting what is proposed in the question. Of course you should teach what you are good at and passionate for. But then, how would teach a new language to a beginner?

Dear Domenico

The question says, "One doesn't need to be an expert mathematician to teach math at the primary level. But At the university level, at least, you would need to be an expert to teach math."

I do NOT agree with this and the notion expressed in the question. Its not necessary that an expert becomes a good teacher even at the university level. BUT yes a good practitioner has more chances of becoming a good teacher because he is good at the work itself.

Just my opinion...

Dear Henna,

Again, I agree with you: but the question is not about being a good or a bad teacher. To put it in different words, the question concerns what is teachable. Is it possible for you, and as a good teacher, to teach your deep experienced knowing to a beginner in your domain? If yes, then teaching is an easy job. If not,..

If not then we all can learn and try :)

Henna sometimes taking courses in which you are not expert gives you a chance to learn more and you can always take it as a challenge, but I agree with the notion that at university level if somebody is not an expert of any subject than how will she/he be able to teach?

dear Ayesha

The very purpose of attending Workshops in the advanced subjects and attending refresher courses in the teaching curricula is made mandatory - you have to learn like a student and come to your class to teach

every day the subject is advancing - you have to modify the syllabus every 3-5 years ;teach advanced subject - That is the duty of board of studies

It is difficult to be a teacher in an university - You have to update knowledge and teach 'The advantage is you can learn easier because of your age and experience

As a researcher with 46 years of teaching + research - You have to do research in grey areas to get funds - i read and write -

It have caught the Tiger's tail - If you leave it ,Tiger will swallow you

Sorry it is like you have caught ----

I agree that in any field one has to stay at the forefront of knowledge that is constantly updated and it seems at a much faster rate at present than in the past.

I think there are really three parts to parts to the original statement you asked us to comment on.

"Do not teach what you know as an expert" sounds rather pointless, especially considering most students won't adopt new knowledge if you don't present it to them. However, I do agree with the point you make here:

"Teach only what the student is able to learn."

This is exactly the hard part of teaching: providing students with new knowledge that they can associate with previous knowledge. Establishing what your students already know seems to be key in that (but maybe others with more experience have better comments on this).

"Or better, teach only the most of what your can actively share with your student."

I'm not sure I understand the correctly, but it seems like this says we should focus on 'doing' (practice) instead of 'knowing' (theory). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I want to make a point regarding this; it pushes teaching activities to avoid theoretical concepts. Although using applications is a great way to motivate students, focussing on it too much leads to gaps in their knowledge, exactly in those areas that are often needed in later courses. A good example is programming -- teaching often uses a specific language to teach students how to program. If courses focus on the language too much, the students will be great at that language, but will have trouble learning new ones later. We should strive for a balance between the two.

Perhaps more essentially, teaching style should be adopted to the number of students. Basing on my very short teaching (and studying) experiences, if you're actively mentoring a small group or a single student (supervising project work or theses), you can focus much more, relating especially to '3.' in your original post, and the principle can work very well. With a class of 50-100 students, it is somewhat more difficult to use this principle.

I argue that we must look for the Velcro of the learner, so that we can attach new knowledge there. However, to me, "Teach only what the student is able to learn" sounds like a spoon-feeding recipe.

Without frustrating them, we have to challenge our pupils and students to solve difficult problems. Real life problems are not in the textbook. I was blessed by having teachers and lecturers who knew what was just beyond my reach. I had to build the ladders to get there.

Is it not the syllabus that determines what a teacher teaches? Is a teacher not duty bound to teach what the syllabus dictates?

When a curriculum is being designed, the intended audience is taken into account. Therefore, there should not be anything on a syllabus that the average student cannot learn.

To suggest that a teacher teaches only what a student can learn, is to suggest that teachers operate in a vacuum and are invested with the power to teach whatever they want to teach.

This is never the case

In our university (Ulm, Germany) at least, courses are described by a number of learning goals, and professors are the ones that determine what the exact course content will be. We don't have syllabi, although the cumulative work over several years (slides, exercises, book references or papers depending on the level) is usually considered as such. This was also my experience in the universities I've studied at (Netherlands). The advantange is that if we have a new employee with a thesis topic that takes us in a different direction, we can teach elements of that to the students. Our courses reflect our group, and this seems to be a good way to attract students to do their bachelor/master theses with us. The disadvantage is that we don't have one single text that is taught, which makes it harder for students to sit at home and cram it into their brain, but in my opinion that's not really the best way to for students to actually learn something.

In this computer age, information or knowledge is readily available and can be assimilated by students at their own speed, and learning style. We as teachers can suggest a path through the maze of information, and can comment on the "correctness" of this material, but to think that we are the holders of the magic key to knowledge, I think is not right. What we do bring to the learner is our experience and the wisdom to use knowledge. I believe that we must model "expert" thinking for our students, whether or not they grasp all that we present, they will gain exposure and experience with how we think as experts. Our students will hone their thinking skills with a lifetime of experience; but can we expedite this process by modelling our thinking process? I think this is more important than the material we teach.

@Sandra: As a person progresses from school through undergraduate work to postgraduate degrees and PhD, the amount of flexibility and leeway that the teacher / lecturer / senior lecturer / supervisor has in interpreting the curriculum increases exponentially.

Sandra,

You are on the right track. However, in Academia, there is such a thing called Academic Freedom, which Professors interpret to mean they can teach what ever they feel like and not stick to the Syllabus. Of course, this means that not every student receives the same instruction or information as other students. This produces graduates with varying degrees of understanding.

I can appreciate teachers having the flexibility to decide how to get the students to the point where they need to be. But without a syllabus, what is it that dictates the standards of the institution?

How does one judge what the students can do if there is no set standard (syllabus) for them to follow. Does it mean that the quality of the educational experiences and the output are determined solely by the quality of the teacher?

A 90% grade means that the student is competent at 90% of the syllabus. If there is no syllabus, what does a student grade mean?

If there is no syllabus, what is the equalising factor? How can society judge what your students know? When they are assigned a grade, what does the grade mean when there is no standard by which to guide the person who interprets the grade?

There are a number of ways. First and foremost, there is accreditation - a multi-year process performed by an authoritatitve group in the country (in the netherlands, this is the NVAO -- http://nvao.com/ ). These people test and accredit the content offered by the university in a specific field, as well as distribution across topics and so on. Accreditation usually works at programme level, consisting of required courses and regulations regarding tests and content; see for example my master programme; http://www.utwente.nl/csc/ .

At the course level, we typically work with descriptions. I don't really know how this trnaslates to other fields, for obvious reasons, but a course description like this one gives a good overview of the content: https://osiris.utwente.nl/student/OnderwijsCatalogusSelect.do?selectie=cursus&cursus=201100220&collegejaar=2013&taal=en (disclaimer -- my supervisor teaches this course). Grades are used to show how well students did compared to each other; a diploma typically contains a list of grades and a table like this: http://i.imgur.com/MNEmwiq.png (6-10 are the passing grades in the Dutch grading system; 1-5 are used for failing grades; typically the grade is computed directly from a score, with: points/max*9+1).

On the bachelor level, it is usually simpler, because the course content doesn't really change that much. A typical description for those looks like this (full text in german; http://www.uni-ulm.de/in/vs/teach/grn.html ):

"Teaching results: Students can explain the different parts of the ISO/OSI model and detail examples from the Internet. Students can develop communicating applications using both UDP and TCP in Java. They understand conventional routing algorithms, mechanisms for reliable data transfer and media acess protocols; they can specify their features and functions and discuss these. They can sketch how basic computer security mechanisms work and how they can be applied to network-based communication."

(the content section further specifies a number of protocols and notes which emphasis is placed).

Basically, if students pass this course, they understand how networks work in pratice, specifically the Internet, and they can apply this knowledge in practical work. Of course, something like this is basic knowledge for computer science, which is why this course is a required one (and thus important for the accreditation process). These descriptions are also offered in official university doucments; a nationally unified grading system and the expertise of who-ever is looking at the descriptions to have a good idea of the student's skills. However, in the end, grades do not hold much value -- how much do you remember from your high school economics/chemistry/physics classes? I can talk at length about the value grades, but I don't want to make this long post even longer.

Dear all, in health practice, in my area of expertise as a dentist, more than a good lesson plan, more than presenting all the theoretical content and the personal experiences of the teacher to pupils in my 25 years on the road I learned the following: we should't theorize the practice, but we must practice the theory. The more practice in the field the student has, and then yes, with supervised internships in the field of action, the better the result of teaching. And it will be measured not by theoretical metrics, but by the acceptance by the (new) Professional launched to the labor market by the society. Time will give the final verdict.

Well said Vinicius. Yes, ultimately, society wins or loses.

Difficult question.

I believe the teacher should be aware of the level of the students they are teaching and also what is expected for that students to learn at the end of that learning experience. For example if I'm teaching a 3rd year studnet in the medical course is totally different I'm teaching a group of Yr 2 residents in my specialty.

Everybody who teaches feel better to talk about knowledge and practices that they are familiar and confortable with. So, I totally disagrre with the statement that "don't teach what know as an expert" .

Obvious that we have to consider the choosen teaching strategy. If I'm prepararing a lecture will be different if I'm a tutor in a PBL module.

Thanks for the provocative question.

Regards

Valdes Bollela (FMRP-USP Brazil)

Disagree. If you a expert and want to teach just make sure you learn how.

@Larisa Fradkin.

You suggest that one must learn how to teach. Great! Everybody would agree with you. But then, there is the question of the content, that is to teach what?

Other questions: who is the learner? What does he already know? What can he effectively learn? And are you completely sure that you really teach exactly what you know anyway?

Some other questions: Does anybody know completely or is completely aware of what she knows as well as what she teaches? Can a teacher be completely sure of what is really learned by her students? Does evaluation reveal exactly or completely what is learned?

What would be the answers of an expert teacher to such questions?

@Domenico Masciotra:

I agree with your remarks.

And I would add that from a pedagogical point of view that no one will ever know the same. Knowledge, I am convinced, is a subjective construct. Knowledge includes not only knowing about a topic, but includes a judgement, a personal position towards the subject, an individual evaluation of what is known.

Thus, we as teachers can not initiiate a process of copying our expertise into learners' mindsets, but can only guide (maybe (!) supervise) them to build their own knowledge. Therefore teaching as an act is not only multiplying one's own knowledge, but much more a process of stimulation.

To "succeed" in this, a teacher not only needs to have expertise in the taught domain, but (much more?) have competences to guide learners to build their own expertise. Thus, teaching is a pedagogical act (that contains a lot of questions like who's the learner, what does he/she already know, which social background is the learner from, etc.).

So, I conclude, teaching is not possible without being to some extent a domain expert, AND: teaching will not succeed if the teacher is only a domain expert, but to no extent a pedagog.

@Domenico Mascota Sounds like the Achilles - turtle paradox to me! Persoally, I have no problem with any of your questions. What teachers have to teach is basics. In my field - it is basic mathematics. There is always basic physics, chemistry, logic, philology, philosophy etc. Teach basics well - the rest people will learn themselves at work. Training in techniques popular at the moment has nothing to do with education. Can do this to an extent, by way of illustration and wetting appetite. Simple-s! (Sorry, only those who watch ads on the UK TV will get this joke!)

@ Larissa Fradkin.

Simple-s? I would like to know the joke...

I do disagree with this claim "Training in techniques popular at the moment has nothing to do with education." And I could also agree.

I disagree, as the educational part should (and in my opinion must) be an essential paradigm of teaching "techniques". I don't have more to say than watching the news should alarm each critical thinking teacher about what harm adaption-only use of technical knowledge can cause; this means: with lack of reflection!

I could agree (but can't as I don't have empirical data proving this) that technical education actually doesn't happen as much as it should - what doesn't mean that it is not necessary.

No knowledge of something can in a pedagogical sense be accepted without reflection. Now, the bad news is: Reflection always DOES happen in context with knowledge. But: Not educated, but taught learners might not be competent to distinguish between right and wrong usage of this knowledge; and thus might only gain a poor moral point of view. I believe, no one can seriously want knowledge to spread without a competence to reflect on it wisely. Therefore: Serious educators (you see: educators, not teachers) should want to educate, rather than to teach. I would go as far as to state that this claim is so absolute as there's no subject I can think of that wouldn't demand critical competence of a learner.

I practice and teach architecture. I always teach students what I know as an expert, but I teach them what I have discovered, about processes and design methods, about what practice has taught me. Something akin to learning by the mistakes of others...

I have always got extremely good results, excellent feedback, and I have seen many students make a 'leap' by being exposed to these methods. I teach the findings of my reflections on practice; the methods of thinking and design that I employ, and the specific advantages that each of these might have.

If I could not do this, I fear that I could not teach.

@Geoff Clark.

When you say I teach what I know as an expert, do you mean:

1) that you know what you know or that you are fully aware of what you know?

2, that what you teach is what it is learned by your students?

3) that what you evaluate is precisely what is learned?

Of course you teach as an expert as any expert would do, I expect. But the question concerns the what to teach.

Alan Kilistoff refers to the 'path through the maze of information' and this strikes a chord with me.

The discipline of architecture is not one that is learned at university, in 5 year degree. It is a discipline that MUST be learned 'on the job', master and apprenticeship. The practiced professional applies SYNTHESIS more than analysis, and I believe that this is the essence of what makes the teaching somewhat tricky.

When we synthesise we do not consider the details of the component parts, we understand the whole. But if we are going to be professional about our work (in due course), we need to be able to explain our synthesised solution to our client, for example, and this requires the application of analysis / self reflection - 'Why do I think this is correct, or the 'right' answer?'

What I teach students, essentially, is to distinguish processes and outcomes of both analysis and synthesis; to be aware when they are applying each and to do so deliberately. This requires significant self reflection.

Specifically, in answer to:

Q1 - Both - There are certain things that are essential in practice, such as prioritisation, and this becomes part of what and how I teach - 'Identify the three most critical components of the problem - that which MUST be resolved'. This is the fully aware of what i know.

I also resolve problems in demonstrating (actively, using a document camera), and during these demonstrations i am often suggesting what i think is correct and then exploring why I may be thinking that, whether it is valid, and how that thinking relates to the problem. I am aware the the knowledge is available to me, but I don't know how I will apply it, so I do so 'aloud'.

Q2 - The assessment tasks, although very typical problems for the course, are assessed through the mechanisms for resolution that I teach in class. For example, I always suggest that students put down on paper, at the outset, what they THINK the solution will be like, in whatever form they choose. Their work is then an exploration of not just the product of their impressions, but an analysis of why they think it, its suitability as a solution to the problem, what alternatives might exist, and why? Synthesis, and analysis are required to be specifically articulated in presented work.

Q3 - Evaluation is then based on this distinction and articulation of thinking processes, and it is not based on, for example, the quality or correctness of the first-best-guess solution, because that is completely irrelevant. The manner in which the students analysis what they have done, perhaps re-synthesises the problem, identifies that they have taken a particular approach to the problem, or problem solving process, and so on - the reflective practices - are what is assessed.

I hope this helps, but I am aware that it is a difficult topic to cover on e-paper, and in just a few minutes.

@Geoff Clark.

Thanks Geoff! Your answers sounds good to me. And you're right: this it is a difficult topic to cover on e-paper, and in just a few minutes.

I suggest that teaching as an expert implies experience (I think that you agree with that) , i.e. mostly action in situation or active situated experiencing.

Experience involves, in an integrated manner, knowledge, attitude, resources (material resources as well as social resources), ongoing situation, values, etc. Experience can be taught but through the student own experiencing in situ (or grounded experience).

Sorry if I'm not clear: English is my third language.

Crystal clear! That is the crux of it I think. information is easy, just Google. Knowledge takes a little more effort, but gaining it is a relatively mechanical exercise. APPLICATION of the above, in practice, is significantly more complicated, but is also what makes the VALUE, and that is what I try to get students to explore and work with.

You are correct, I agree entirely that teaching as an expert implies experience. It is a shame that academia does not cope well with this fact.

@Geoff Clark.

Situated experience is a key concept in education. I have some publications relating to this concept, but they are all in French.

1) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233800836_apprendre-par-l-experienc_(4)?ev=prf_pub

2) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233794568_Lexprience_en_action__La_cl_dune_approche_dite_situe?ev=prf_pub

Here a general statement:

"... l’expérience active —l’expérience qu’on fait par contraste avec celle qu’on subit — est le moteur du développement d’une personne et de ses actions, ses connaissances, ses attitudes… bref de toutes ses dimensions (Masciotra, 2010). Pour une personne, aucune situation, aucun contexte, aucune connaissance, aucune tâche, aucune activité, aucune relation, aucun problème, aucun défi, aucun apprentissage et ainsi de suite ne peut prendre sens en dehors de l'expérience qu’elle est en mesure d’actualiser dans le moment présent et le lieu où elle se trouve. En s’actualisant, l’expérience s’exerce, s’élargit et s’enrichit dans et par l’action en situation. Tout ce qu’une personne apprend, construit, génère, développe ou vit, se conserve dans et par cette expérience. Tout projet d’activité dans lequel une personne s’engage, démarre par l’actualisation de son expérience". (in Domenico Masciotra and Denise Morel. (2011). Apprendre par l'expérience active et située: la méthode ASCAR. St-Foy: PUQ. p. 2).

Data apprendre-par-l-experienc (4)

Chapter L’expérience en action : La clé d’une approche dite située.

Thanks Geoff and Domenico, great ideas! I agree that information and knowledge are relatively easy to obtain, but wisdom, or the ability to use knowledge is much more elusive. I am not sure I understand the process very well, but I do believe that the apprenticeship model works. I also believe that each person constructs their own "expertise." Each "expert" , therefore, is unique and not like another, but their ability to perform in the subject area is similar. The outcomes will be similar and appropriate, but the journey to that outcome may be very different. How do we facilitate this learning? How can we expedite this process so that it does not take a lifetime? Are there similarities across disciplines? Is "expert' thinking discipline specific, or discipline independent? I think this is fascinating and worthy of pursuing, especially in this information rich environment that we live in. My concern is that we will develop increasing numbers of novices and very few experts.

Alan - you have hit the nail on the head. These are the processes that are consuming me at the moment. I am convinced that there is a way, or at worst, a BETTER way to build what you refer to as expertise. In my field, architectural design, I have a gut feeling that the mechanism for this is drawing, and this is because it is a common language for analysis and synthesis - it enables both. In order to achieve 'success' experts synthesise, while novices tend to analyse.

Synthesis, paired with a large knowledge field yields cogent results very quickly, instantaneously, but the process cannot be traced. Analysis, unfortunately, is long winded, tends to cycle around, is methodical and can be explained, but by its very nature will omit.

Tricky indeed.

This is an interesting question that involves so many difficult concepts and specific tasks. I do think that it is often more difficult for the "expert" to analyze how and why he/she knows something; without knowing the "how and why," it may be difficult to impart that knowledge to those with less experience. I teach freshmen and sophomore university students in composition, world and British/Irish literature; I also teach graduate writing and reading to foreign students preparing to enter American graduate schools. I remember a situation in my freshmen composition/critical reading/thinking class; we were reading a wonderful article by Stephen Jay Gould whose main point was that science is not all "facts" as so many think; instead, it is interpretation of those facts. As an example, he used the mid-19th century thinking about women and minorities as intellectually inferior to men whose skulls and brains were "heavier." My students attributed this viewpoint to Gould himself and could not see in the text that this situation from the 19th-century was nothing but an example of interpretation espoused as fact. When I discussed the problem with the Director, she noted that a layered text of any sort is often difficult for younger students who are most accustomed to one distinct voice using quotation marks or other clear signals of quoted material. In preparing for that class, I had not considered what the student could grasp or understand because the text appeared easy and "obvious." Since that time, I have found similar examples of layered texts on the GRE exam and a host of other graduate exams; inevitably, even my older students stumble.

Years ago when I was in graduate school, we called these "experts" the "Ivory tower professors" who rarely descended into the realms of younger, less experienced students. All too often, they taught at their expert level and never came down to student reality. I often work with at-risk American students and it is interesting to watch the university scholars try to teach these students; neither student nor professor understands the other. It is absolutely essential that the expert teaches the students to apply the knowledge, use it, "connect the dots" between one facet of that knowledge and its use in a different context. The expert has the knowledge and the experience to use his/her knowledge. But if that expert is to teach the student anything, that expert must be aware of what the student(s) knows or doesn't know. We can't just teach the student what we think he/she can learn because there is no way to ascertain exactly what that student can learn. The expert's job is to open the door for those less-experienced students and to encourage them to increase their knowledge and expertise. I think this kind of give-and-take is more clear in professions like architecture and engineering, even medicine because there is a firm sequence of knowledge that must be gained and those fields demand "hands-on" education that goes beyond "topic knowledge" (know that) and stresses "know how." How to apply these processes to learning in the Humanities is a task I have been researching for years. Transfer skills, topic knowledge, and retention are more difficult to nail down in Humanities. But in all disciplines, the expert has the task to teach students both the theories/background knowledge and the use of those theories.

Aysha Bey

University of Alabama at Birmingham

Dear Domenico,

One point I could not follow: why have you presumed that knowledge is 'not' transmittable?

I teach pathophysiology and differential diagnosis. Since as a teacher I have to be aware of the problems a student encounters in his learning I try to avoid my research interests and topics. With pharmacokinetics and risk assessment I have no idea where a student struggles; with pathology I have to rehearse and know the points where I myself think: Thats difficult.

Responses from my students encourage me to follow this path. Specialist knowledge is for PhD students and advanced courses, not for the university. Therefore be aware of a students problems, not your own problems, and teach everything you are not familiar with. It also keeps you up to date yourself (and sometimes creates beautiful research ideas).

Well, arguments aside, I definitely teach not only what I know but also how I got to know something, my experience. Not only how I acquired that piece of knowledge but also 'what I am doing with it", so I think , might be of benefit for my students. A good teacher should not only teach but also be a 'role model" which I am trying to be. Both teachers' negative experiences, flaws, insecurities, as well as their achievements, and strengths might help students in their lives. Teaching might be, can be, ( should be:) a mutual experience, the more you teach the more you learn. I am even passing on those learning processes to my students mentioning, how and what I learned from them. Knowledge , in any form, can (should) be shared . Despite the fact that I have been teaching mainly IELTS and Business English in an ingternational language college in Vancouver, I am not only sharing my studies at UBC but also some of the topics and forum opinions I encounter on Research Gate with them ( topic and level allowing for sure)

Teaching Principles

Teaching is a complex, multifaceted activity, often requiring us as instructors to juggle multiple tasks and goals simultaneously and flexibly. The following small but powerful set of principles can make teaching both more effective and more efficient, by helping us create the conditions that support student learning and minimize the need for revising materials, content, and policies. While implementing these principles requires a commitment in time and effort, it often saves time and energy later on.

Effective teaching involves acquiring relevant knowledge about students and using that knowledge to inform our course design and classroom teaching.

When we teach, we do not just teach the content, we teach students the content. A variety of student characteristics can affect learning. For example, students’ cultural and generational backgrounds influence how they see the world; disciplinary backgrounds lead students to approach problems in different ways; and students’ prior knowledge (both accurate and inaccurate aspects) shapes new learning. Although we cannot adequately measure all of these characteristics, gathering the most relevant information as early as possible in course planning and continuing to do so during the semester can (a) inform course design (e.g., decisions about objectives, pacing, examples, format), (b) help explain student difficulties (e.g., identification of common misconceptions), and (c) guide instructional adaptations (e.g., recognition of the need for additional practice).course design triangle

Effective teaching involves aligning the three major components of instruction: learning objectives, assessments, and instructional activities.

Taking the time to do this upfront saves time in the end and leads to a better course. Teaching is more effective and student learning is enhanced when (a) we, as instructors, articulate a clear set of learning objectives (i.e., the knowledge and skills that we expect students to demonstrate by the end of a course); (b) the instructional activities (e.g., case studies, labs, discussions, readings) support these learning objectives by providing goal-oriented practice; and (c) the assessments (e.g., tests, papers, problem sets, performances) provide opportunities for students to demonstrate and practice the knowledge and skills articulated in the objectives, and for instructors to offer targeted feedback that can guide further learning.

Effective teaching involves articulating explicit expectations regarding learning objectives and policies.

There is amazing variation in what is expected of students across American classrooms and even within a given discipline. For example, what constitutes evidence may differ greatly across courses; what is permissible collaboration in one course could be considered cheating in another. As a result, students’ expectations may not match ours. Thus, being clear about our expectations and communicating them explicitly helps students learn more and perform better. Articulating our learning objectives (i.e., the knowledge and skills that we expect students to demonstrate by the end of a course) gives students a clear target to aim for and enables them to monitor their progress along the way. Similarly, being explicit about course policies (e.g., on class participation, laptop use, and late assignment) in the syllabus and in class allows us to resolve differences early and tends to reduce conflicts and tensions that may arise. Altogether, being explicit leads to a more productive learning environment for all students. More information on how clear learning objectives supports students' learning. (pdf)

Effective teaching involves prioritizing the knowledge and skills we choose to focus on.

Coverage is the enemy: Don’t try to do too much in a single course. Too many topics work against student learning, so it is necessary for us to make decisions – sometimes difficult ones – about what we will and will not include in a course. This involves (a) recognizing the parameters of the course (e.g., class size, students’ backgrounds and experiences, course position in the curriculum sequence, number of course units), (b) setting our priorities for student learning, and (c) determining a set of objectives that can be reasonably accomplished.

Effective teaching involves recognizing and overcoming our expert blind spots.

We are not our students! As experts, we tend to access and apply knowledge automatically and unconsciously (e.g., make connections, draw on relevant bodies of knowledge, and choose appropriate strategies) and so we often skip or combine critical steps when we teach. Students, on the other hand, don’t yet have sufficient background and experience to make these leaps and can become confused, draw incorrect conclusions, or fail to develop important skills. They need instructors to break tasks into component steps, explain connections explicitly, and model processes in detail. Though it is difficult for experts to do this, we need to identify and explicitly communicate to students the knowledge and skills we take for granted, so that students can see expert thinking in action and practice applying it themselves.

Effective teaching involves adopting appropriate teaching roles to support our learning goals.

Even though students are ultimately responsible for their own learning, the roles we assume as instructors are critical in guiding students’ thinking and behavior. We can take on a variety of roles in our teaching (e.g., synthesizer, moderator, challenger, commentator). These roles should be chosen in service of the learning objectives and in support of the instructional activities. For example, if the objective is for students to be able to analyze arguments from a case or written text, the most productive instructor role might be to frame, guide and moderate a discussion. If the objective is to help students learn to defend their positions or creative choices as they present their work, our role might be to challenge them to explain their decisions and consider alternative perspectives. Such roles may be constant or variable across the semester depending on the learning objectives.

Effective teaching involves progressively refining our courses based on reflection and feedback.

Teaching requires adapting. We need to continually reflect on our teaching and be ready to make changes when appropriate (e.g., something is not working, we want to try something new, the student population has changed, or there are emerging issues in our fields). Knowing what and how to change requires us to examine relevant information on our own teaching effectiveness. Much of this information already exists (e.g., student work, previous semesters’ course evaluations, dynamics of class participation), or we may need to seek additional feedback with help from the university teaching center (e.g., interpreting early course evaluations, conducting focus groups, designing pre- and posttests). Based on such data, we might modify the learning objectives, content, structure, or format of a course, or otherwise adjust our teaching. Small, purposeful changes driven by feedback and our priorities are most likely to be manageable and effective.

I believe that we need to help our students take the steps to becoming expert. If we do not challenge them, how will they learn? I don't know if you have heard of the work on "Decoding the disciplines" http://decodingthedisciplines.org/definition.html (Pace, Middendorf & Diaz)

How do we teach students to learn in our disciplines? How do we teach them to become expert in our disciplines (without expecting them to act like experts from the start)?

They suggest a seven step process that begins with identifying the bottlenecks to students' learning in the discipline. What are the things that prevent your students from learning in your discipline? How do experts in your discipline overcome those bottlenecks? How do they think? How can you break these methods down to teach your students how to think in that way? How do you model that for your students? How can they practise the skills? How do you motivate them? How do you assess them? How do you evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions?

In a project that I am currently running, we have asked many lecturers what they remember best about first year in their chosen discipline and why they continued to study it. Many of them speak of the inspirational lecturers who were experts in their field and who brought that expertise into discussions in the first year classroom.

Because my focus has been on teaching students to work with children with learning problems, I feel as though the undergraduate and graduate students must understand themselves as learners as well as understanding their students as learners. We talk a lot about metacognition and demonstrate it via think alouds, reflection, talking about generalization across contexts, learning breakdowns and using diagnostic teaching with children. In addition, as a "supervising teacher" I needed to observe grad and undergrads in action working with children. That certainly helped me to see what gets lost in translation between theory and practice, between what goes on in class and what does and does not get translated into the real setting. Very humbling.

If you are not expert in, say, Mathematics, your hardly will be prepared to face threads coming from the insufficient knowledge of your pupils or students! How shall you face to an error in that case? Knowledge is in fact communicable.

However: each teacher/lecturer adopts a role. Some teachers/lecturers will prefer to be considered "good friends" of the students and, on the other side, some teachers/lecturers will prefer to be believed as living in the top heights of knowledge. Both extremes seem to me very limited, although one may find several pros and cons concerning them. I disagree with your "definition" of expert. You may dance better than I, of course, but that doesn't make you an expert dancer nor a dance teacher/lecturer.

@Moises Coriat-Benarroch

It is right that teachers are not all expert, but the question concern those who are expert or those who think they are expert.

The question is also about transmittable knowledge, the meaning of knowledge and the locus of knowledge...

Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus may go (with very accurate propositions) in the sense of your statement nr. 1. But any mom-dad whe she-he says his-her toddler with love "come here" believe and prove that knowledge is transmittable.

Teaching Principles

Teaching is a complex, multifaceted activity, often requiring us as instructors to juggle multiple tasks and goals simultaneously and flexibly. The following small but powerful set of principles can make teaching both more effective and more efficient, by helping us create the conditions that support student learning and minimize the need for revising materials, content, and policies. While implementing these principles requires a commitment in time and effort, it often saves time and energy later on.

Effective teaching involves acquiring relevant knowledge about students and using that knowledge to inform our course design and classroom teaching.

When we teach, we do not just teach the content, we teach students the content. A variety of student characteristics can affect learning. For example, students’ cultural and generational backgrounds influence how they see the world; disciplinary backgrounds lead students to approach problems in different ways; and students’ prior knowledge (both accurate and inaccurate aspects) shapes new learning. Although we cannot adequately measure all of these characteristics, gathering the most relevant information as early as possible in course planning and continuing to do so during the semester can (a) inform course design (e.g., decisions about objectives, pacing, examples, format), (b) help explain student difficulties (e.g., identification of common misconceptions), and (c) guide instructional adaptations (e.g., recognition of the need for additional practice).course design triangle

Effective teaching involves aligning the three major components of instruction: learning objectives, assessments, and instructional activities.

Taking the time to do this upfront saves time in the end and leads to a better course. Teaching is more effective and student learning is enhanced when (a) we, as instructors, articulate a clear set of learning objectives (i.e., the knowledge and skills that we expect students to demonstrate by the end of a course); (b) the instructional activities (e.g., case studies, labs, discussions, readings) support these learning objectives by providing goal-oriented practice; and (c) the assessments (e.g., tests, papers, problem sets, performances) provide opportunities for students to demonstrate and practice the knowledge and skills articulated in the objectives, and for instructors to offer targeted feedback that can guide further learning.

12. Build things. This starts from day one. If you are reading about how to write, then start writing. If you’re being taught how to interview, they go find some job openings. People dramatically overestimate how much time them must spend learning before they start doing. The answer is exactly ZERO. The moment you start learning is the moment you must start building and testing. - See more at: http://liveyourlegend.net/self-guided-education-manifesto-teach-yourself-anything/#sthash.YDjvy5bL.dpuf

Very challenging question. I believe we need to reach a minimum level (not necessarily expert) to teach . This means that while we teach we also learn. The motivations and the pressure of classes forces another level of learning. The interaction with students - their fresh outlook at things- brings another level of learning. However, once expert, we should not stop teaching. One reason is that learning never stops, however expert one is. So even experts need to teach to keep on learning.

I do believe that teaching what to learn is important. But I also try to teach students how to learn. I am not after how much they should learn in the subject but focus more on how they should learn the concept and develop positive attitudes while learning.

Sorry, but this idea seems to be coherent with popular socio-technique practice. Noncreative “teachers” very often apply the “golden rule”:

1. If you know little, teach others.

2. If you know almost nothing, teach how to teach.

So, the right answer is: try to teach child who is not forced to learn your discipline. If your pupil has endured your learning, you pass the test.

PS. An additional comment to the previous above. I should emphasize that the key for teaching is knowledge AND empathy. Do not teach when you have no need for understanding  and feeling the human creature.

as i a teacher i teach the student in simpler language  - it is easy to use jargons- i will not fool myself  - if you a subject  immediately you will use simple language

if you the subject you will use simpler language

First of all, I think the terms 'expert' and teaching' have to be defined because different people may have different ways of conceptualizing them. Hence, if teaching is defined as creating conducive environment for learning to hapen (i.e. knowledge cannot be transmitted,; rather it is constructed; and expert is viewed as 'a more capable peer', we can say the the 'expert'' s job is to work on the learner's zone of proximal development, to use Vygotsky's term so that the learner can construct his/her own knowledge through the interaction between him'her and the 'expert'.

dear Le VAN Canh  , i do not  appreciate and understand  jargons  - let us be simple

use words people follow -please

Effective teaching involves acquiring relevant knowledge about students and using that knowledge to inform our course design and classroom teaching.

When we teach, we do not just teach the content, we teach students the content. A variety of student characteristics can affect learning. For example, students’ cultural and generational backgrounds influence how they see the world; disciplinary backgrounds lead students to approach problems in different ways; and students’ prior knowledge (both accurate and inaccurate aspects) shapes new learning. Although we cannot adequately measure all of these characteristics, gathering the most relevant information as early as possible in course planning and continuing to do so during the semester can (a) inform course design (e.g., decisions about objectives, pacing, examples, format), (b) help explain student difficulties (e.g., identification of common misconceptions), and (c) guide instructional adaptations (e.g., recognition of the need for additional practice).course design triangle

Effective teaching involves aligning the three major components of instruction: learning objectives, assessments, and instructional activities.

Taking the time to do this upfront saves time in the end and leads to a better course. Teaching is more effective and student learning is enhanced when (a) we, as instructors, articulate a clear set of learning objectives (i.e., the knowledge and skills that we expect students to demonstrate by the end of a course); (b) the instructional activities (e.g., case studies, labs, discussions, readings) support these learning objectives by providing goal-oriented practice; and (c) the assessments (e.g., tests, papers, problem sets, performances) provide opportunities for students to demonstrate and practice the knowledge and skills articulated in the objectives, and for instructors to offer targeted feedback that can guide further learning.

Effective teaching involves articulating explicit expectations regarding learning objectives and policies.

There is amazing variation in what is expected of students across American classrooms and even within a given discipline. For example, what constitutes evidence may differ greatly across courses; what is permissible collaboration in one course could be considered cheating in another. As a result, students’ expectations may not match ours. Thus, being clear about our expectations and communicating them explicitly helps students learn more and perform better. Articulating our learning objectives (i.e., the knowledge and skills that we expect students to demonstrate by the end of a course) gives students a clear target to aim for and enables them to monitor their progress along the way. Similarly, being explicit about course policies (e.g., on class participation, laptop use, and late assignment) in the syllabus and in class allows us to resolve differences early and tends to reduce conflicts and tensions that may arise. Altogether, being explicit leads to a more productive learning environment for all students. More information on how clear learning objectives supports students' learning. (pdf)

Effective teaching involves prioritizing the knowledge and skills we choose to focus on.

Coverage is the enemy: Don’t try to do too much in a single course. Too many topics work against student learning, so it is necessary for us to make decisions – sometimes difficult ones – about what we will and will not include in a course. This involves (a) recognizing the parameters of the course (e.g., class size, students’ backgrounds and experiences, course position in the curriculum sequence, number of course units), (b) setting our priorities for student learning, and (c) determining a set of objectives that can be reasonably accomplished.

Effective teaching involves recognizing and overcoming our expert blind spots.

We are not our students! As experts, we tend to access and apply knowledge automatically and unconsciously (e.g., make connections, draw on relevant bodies of knowledge, and choose appropriate strategies) and so we often skip or combine critical steps when we teach. Students, on the other hand, don’t yet have sufficient background and experience to make these leaps and can become confused, draw incorrect conclusions, or fail to develop important skills. They need instructors to break tasks into component steps, explain connections explicitly, and model processes in detail. Though it is difficult for experts to do this, we need to identify and explicitly communicate to students the knowledge and skills we take for granted, so that students can see expert thinking in action and practice applying it themselves.

Effective teaching involves adopting appropriate teaching roles to support our learning goals.

Even though students are ultimately responsible for their own learning, the roles we assume as instructors are critical in guiding students’ thinking and behavior. We can take on a variety of roles in our teaching (e.g., synthesizer, moderator, challenger, commentator). These roles should be chosen in service of the learning objectives and in support of the instructional activities. For example, if the objective is for students to be able to analyze arguments from a case or written text, the most productive instructor role might be to frame, guide and moderate a discussion. If the objective is to help students learn to defend their positions or creative choices as they present their work, our role might be to challenge them to explain their decisions and consider alternative perspectives. Such roles may be constant or variable across the semester depending on the learning objectives.

Effective teaching involves progressively refining our courses based on reflection and feedback.

Teaching requires adapting. We need to continually reflect on our teaching and be ready to make changes when appropriate (e.g., something is not working, we want to try something new, the student population has changed, or there are emerging issues in our fields). Knowing what and how to change requires us to examine relevant information on our own teaching effectiveness. Much of this information already exists (e.g., student work, previous semesters’ course evaluations, dynamics of class participation), or we may need to seek additional feedback with help from the university teaching center (e.g., interpreting early course evaluations, conducting focus groups, designing pre- and posttests). Based on such data, we might modify the learning objectives, content, structure, or format of a course, or otherwise adjust our teaching. Small, purposeful changes driven by feedback and our priorities are most likely to be manageable and effective.

Teaching Principles

Teaching is a complex, multifaceted activity, often requiring us as instructors to juggle multiple tasks and goals simultaneously and flexibly. The following small but powerful set of principles can make teaching both more effective and more efficient, by helping us create the conditions that support student learning and minimize the need for revising materials, content, and policies. While implementing these principles requires a commitment in time and effort, it often saves time and energy later on.

Congrats   Ms. Rajaa Fahad Allhiani

@Ms. Rajaa, nice. But, "The following small but powerful set of principles..."  What are they?

Teaching is aimed at helping students to construct and reconstruct their knowledge . Students tend to use their existing knowledge as resources to make sense of the new knowledge. By doing that they expand their knowledge. So, what's the point teaching what is beyond the students' head? The motto is teach what is understandable to the students not what the expert knows.

Teaching means instructing a student so that (s)he can learn. Learning on the other hand means the activity or process of gaining knowledge or skill by studying, practicing, being taught, or experiencing something. Knowledge and skill are two different entities and therefore requires different considerations. I would restrict my discussion only related to knowledge. I believe learning is a process that correlates the new input information with the existing knowledge. Responsibility of a teacher is to correlate the relevant information that (s)he wants to teach, with the existing knowledge that is available with the target students. A good teacher should also be competent enough for establishing alternative correlation links to suit the needs of different students. Therefore (s)he should have a deep understanding of the subject or in other words (s)he should be an expert. In addition a good teacher should also be capable of assessing the existing knowledge of the students so that (s)he can determine the details that may be included in the relevant teaching material.

The critical path to teaching is to instill the desire to learn. You lever of experience is important but only in the sense of being able to get the attention of the student. I have found the best teachers are the ones that are open with the concept of doing what is necessary to get the students attention. Of course if you know your material you will have more opportunity to express the important aspects of the material and how the student might apply his or her learning the subject at hand.

These are debatable statements: (1) Do not teach what you know as an expert. (2) Teach only what the student is able to learn, (3) Better, teach only the most of what your can actively share with your student.

I agree with Ian Kennedy. Why limit learning if there is readiness to learn? Why inhibit the learner to become more learned than the teacher? The statement from your post that I numbered (3) implies that the teacher has limited knowledge and questionable readiness to transfer learning.

I remember the students' evaluation of their college teacher. The students said in the evaluation "our teacher is only 1 chapter ahead of us. Because the students studied more chapters than the chapter assigned by the teacher.

For example: Students' assignment is: study chapter 1. The teacher is ready to teach chapter 1 only. But there are students who make advanced study up to chapter 5. This will be caught in the act for limited knowledge and lack of readiness and knowledge preparation.

I gave examples the way I understand the statement I numbered (3). If my understanding is correct then that is injustice to the students.

Another example: If the teaching hours is 3 hours and the teacher is prepared to teach the lesson that can be taught in 1 hour only then what will the teacher do for the remaining 2 hours....finish the teaching hours by giving unrelated topics out of the learning objective?

The word "teach" is overused.  With the abundance of information both electronically and hard copy available there is not nearly as much need for someone to lecture to a student.  Through resources now available, they are able to acquire most of the information they need and want.  What students need most is a person who facilitates the educational process, asking questions of students that individually or in a group they can answer by accessing the many resources available to them.

Students need to be active rather than passive learners so as to prepare them to be life-long learners. If they acquire information passively, they are less likely to keep up with the rapid rate that new knowledge is now being produced. While lectures are convenient, they are, in so far as learning is concerned, not efficient. Also, the longer a lecture, the less likely is retention accomplished. It is important to recognize that people have different learning styles.  Some learn by listening, some learn best when they read printed material, some in small groups, and some by themselves. A very effective form of acquiring knowledge , concepts, and even some skills is through the use of problem solving (e.g., problem-based learning-PBL). Over and over I hear professors say, "If you don't give it to them, they wont get it." It is time to put to rest the lecture as the primary way of accomplishing learning. 

Thank you for this important discussion. It seems as if those in charge of the public education system in the United States (and by association, most of the states) read the literature and then do the opposite of what the research shows is effective.

OK, I might have overstated things (somewhat), but it allowed me to present a copy of an interview Dr. Russ Ackoff (a pioneer in systems thinking and the management of education). I also attached an interesting account on Student Perceptions of Effective Teaching. I hope you find them interesting.

É isso mesmo.O dficil é dizer isso para quem nunca estudou educação e virou professor......

“Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire.”

– William Butler Yeats.

Teaching must bring about universal learning and universal learning must bring about positive mental thinking. A good teacher must not only teach what he or she knows but must research on the subject and do better than what he or she was taught during his/her studentship. As a matter of fact, a good teacher should not be limited to his past notes but should add more vital information that would affect the learners.

Maybe we should consider the so called "zone of proximal development" proposed byvRussian/soviet researcher Lev Vygotsky, stating the need to consider "where the target dience is" and "where we want them ro go" to decide the best tools and methods for teaching concepts and skills....?

To teach you need to know how to teach, as well as what to teach. That is what being a teacher is about. As an example I teach computing to university students. I am a certified computer professional, so could be considered an "expert". But this is of little use without my other area of expertise which is teaching.