A recent article at K-12 Deep Dive got me thinking. Maybe we’re going about the process of teacher training in the US all wrong. Stick with me for a second, and I’ll explain.
I was framing my thoughts on this article in relation to my life as an athlete. There’s a huge divide between “western” and “eastern” methods and philosophies. In the west, the focus is on the athlete. The athlete is largely “finished” when their playing / fighting career is over. Very few have the skills to transition into becoming a coach / teacher. Plus, there’s the mentality of “those that can, do. Those that can’t, teach.”
In the East, one can be the best player / fighter in the world, but that’s only half the journey. To be a Master of Sport, one must take on apprentices. The Master / apprentice model not only helps the both involved, but helps perpetuate the sport. For an example of this that the West might understand, consider Abdulmanap Magomedovich Nurmagomedov, the most successful Combat Sambo coach in Russian history, a Master of Sport, and coach of many UFC and Bellator champions.
In Nurmagomedov’s case, he was an accomplished athlete first, then transitioned into a coach who helped the next generation rise to levels that he himself did not achieve. Why don’t we train up teachers in the same way? Why do we create structures that encourage people to transition to teaching later in life?
Consider the article, and the gaps in its perspective.
It makes broad claims about what "teachers" should do to inspire students and share struggles, without recognizing that many STEM teachers were not “struggle cases “themselves. They tend to be those already passionate and proficient in the subject, and often lack the ability to connect with those that struggle.
There is often a lack of real-world experience among young STEM teachers in relating the concepts to practical applications. Many are quite young. Many went into teaching straight out of school. Thus, they must rely heavily on curriculum examples rather than drawing from jobs or life outside academia.
By glossing over who tends to enter STEM teaching, the article presents an unrealistic perspective. It implies all teachers can easily open up about their personal learning struggles, when - in my experience - few new STEM teachers likely had any.
There is no discussion of how to better attract experienced industry professionals to teach STEM subjects later in their careers. This could hugely benefit relating concepts to real uses. The question becomes, why this omission?
The article presents “strategies” for inspiring students, but providing relevant life examples requires a level of teacher experience and struggle that simply does not describe the average young, passionate STEM educator. Is this disconnect an oversight by the author, undermining the validity of the arguments? Or, is this yet another set up for some future curriculum provider to cite in the sales of their “example-heavy” curriculum?
Thinking deeper
Indeed, this article could very well be laying the groundwork to justify purchasing new curriculum materials in the future. By arguing that real-world examples and applications are key to “inspiring students,” it sets things up nicely for a curriculum provider to sell their "example-heavy" programs later on.
A critical eye could see that this article was influenced by a curriculum publisher seeking to highlight an area of need that their materials can then fulfill. It's a common sales tactic - get administrators buying into a need or gap, then pitch products that claim to address it.
Since the piece offers sound bites about the importance of practical math connections, but glosses over the capabilities of the average math teacher or the conditions in most classrooms, it raises suspicions. This piece could simply be yet another self-serving set up for a publisher to make a sales pitch to school districts later on. The concepts sound good, but the execution may rely entirely on buying supplemental classroom materials. But wait … there’s more …
The AutSide is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.
Upending the teaching model in the US
Upending the teaching model in the US
Upending the teaching model in the US
A recent article at K-12 Deep Dive got me thinking. Maybe we’re going about the process of teacher training in the US all wrong. Stick with me for a second, and I’ll explain.
I was framing my thoughts on this article in relation to my life as an athlete. There’s a huge divide between “western” and “eastern” methods and philosophies. In the west, the focus is on the athlete. The athlete is largely “finished” when their playing / fighting career is over. Very few have the skills to transition into becoming a coach / teacher. Plus, there’s the mentality of “those that can, do. Those that can’t, teach.”
In the East, one can be the best player / fighter in the world, but that’s only half the journey. To be a Master of Sport, one must take on apprentices. The Master / apprentice model not only helps the both involved, but helps perpetuate the sport. For an example of this that the West might understand, consider Abdulmanap Magomedovich Nurmagomedov, the most successful Combat Sambo coach in Russian history, a Master of Sport, and coach of many UFC and Bellator champions.
In Nurmagomedov’s case, he was an accomplished athlete first, then transitioned into a coach who helped the next generation rise to levels that he himself did not achieve. Why don’t we train up teachers in the same way? Why do we create structures that encourage people to transition to teaching later in life?
Consider the article, and the gaps in its perspective.
It makes broad claims about what "teachers" should do to inspire students and share struggles, without recognizing that many STEM teachers were not “struggle cases “themselves. They tend to be those already passionate and proficient in the subject, and often lack the ability to connect with those that struggle.
There is often a lack of real-world experience among young STEM teachers in relating the concepts to practical applications. Many are quite young. Many went into teaching straight out of school. Thus, they must rely heavily on curriculum examples rather than drawing from jobs or life outside academia.
By glossing over who tends to enter STEM teaching, the article presents an unrealistic perspective. It implies all teachers can easily open up about their personal learning struggles, when - in my experience - few new STEM teachers likely had any.
There is no discussion of how to better attract experienced industry professionals to teach STEM subjects later in their careers. This could hugely benefit relating concepts to real uses. The question becomes, why this omission?
The article presents “strategies” for inspiring students, but providing relevant life examples requires a level of teacher experience and struggle that simply does not describe the average young, passionate STEM educator. Is this disconnect an oversight by the author, undermining the validity of the arguments? Or, is this yet another set up for some future curriculum provider to cite in the sales of their “example-heavy” curriculum?
Thinking deeper
Indeed, this article could very well be laying the groundwork to justify purchasing new curriculum materials in the future. By arguing that real-world examples and applications are key to “inspiring students,” it sets things up nicely for a curriculum provider to sell their "example-heavy" programs later on.
A critical eye could see that this article was influenced by a curriculum publisher seeking to highlight an area of need that their materials can then fulfill. It's a common sales tactic - get administrators buying into a need or gap, then pitch products that claim to address it.
Since the piece offers sound bites about the importance of practical math connections, but glosses over the capabilities of the average math teacher or the conditions in most classrooms, it raises suspicions. This piece could simply be yet another self-serving set up for a publisher to make a sales pitch to school districts later on. The concepts sound good, but the execution may rely entirely on buying supplemental classroom materials. But wait … there’s more …
The AutSide is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.