Of Educators And Education

2007-07-28 7:20 p.m.

In primary school, from the age of 6/7 to 12 years of age, naturally there were students and teachers. It may have been good primary school in terms of reputation and quality, but frankly, even so, the student-teacher relationship was that of a Lord-serf type relationship. Teachers were usually always right, in facts, in discipline matters and such. Students could question things or move outside certain boundaries even though by a certain stage we had the ability to think so. Only one or two teachers were approachable—as in could discuss any question academic or otherwise without inject fear into you—the rest were towering “giants” or very stiff.

In secondary school (I think the British call it Middle School), the relationship changes. Partly I guess that students were supposedly older and therefore wiser, and to accommodate that, teachers changed. Besides, they were, truthfully better educated—having at least a bachelor’s degree in the subject that they teach and having been trained reasonably well in how to teach. Yet, I would still characterize (in general) the teacher-student relationship as that of well a boss-assistant relationship. The boss sometimes is really understanding. He’s mostly approachable (as by the explanation above) and can lighten your mind afterwards. Some can strike a closer relationship with you, closer not as in intimate, but erasing the “power over you” impression and thus even furthering better teaching. Others may be again by-the-book type individuals with no other objective but to impart the knowledge they were required too. Students who tried to experiment—whether literally or just looking beyond the classroom—were somehow “wasting their time”. Or some teachers could be turning dragging class periods into lively debates, humorous yet serious talk, or simply discovering a new side of everyone. The “emperor” like image was gone, and feelings—like comprehending a student’s thoughts and dreams or a teacher’s expectations—were almost on the same level. What possibly kept the distance were the external regulations. Which wasn’t really that negative an issue, but as you would see, teacher-student relationships can flourish differently.

Moving to Junior College (or the equivalent of Sixth Form Colleges), some teachers understood that at that age, students were no longer the naïve type which could subservient and who saw things as they were given or as black and white. The relationship needed to be not only barrier free but one that would live the student’s dreams and build on them, while creating a teacher who is satisfied when providing more and achieving more than his given materials.

Moving on to University, I think you should know how I pictured the teacher-student relationship, especially if you have read my pervious entries. It can be, no is, akin to that of a sibling relationship. Not only is there the closest bond between the two sides, but the perfect environment is set for the student to achieve his/her potential and beyond. The tutor is no longer the potter, but just a higher quality or equivalent type of clay. What makes the tutor and the relationship with his student(s) so special?

First off, the educator/teacher/tutor has all the knowledge stored in him. You may think this is suppose to be typical of the best type of teacher. I’m not talking about a robot or super computer. To do so, the student might as well gain his knowledge from the Internet. This teacher does not just facts at his fingertips, he has a whole range of ideas willing to be tried out. He has the appearance of one who holds the known and beyond with him, and really does hold those ideas and issues.

Secondly, there is a strong evidence of passion, of commitment in the teacher. It’s one thing to teach to make sure your students perform the grades, especially when there’s external push factor to do so. It’s one thing to teach because you know you’re the one who’ll “get it” if you don’t. It’s another to mentor students with a strong desire, regardless of whether they will achieve more than you have or regardless of the factors around you. These teachers are committed to bring the student not to the final level, but beyond.

Thirdly, the educator here is much less the disciplinarian and more one who comprehends a range of behaviour. Not that there is the absence of rules and regulations. The tutor still has his limits, but he does impose any ruling that would otherwise create alienation between him and the students from the start. He may not be the expert in caring for the social well being of the student, but the immediate tone he sets could set the pace for a benign relationship.

Fourthly, he is open to discussion and imparts more than the knowledge set for him to the student. Even if it is not a subject that requires much debate over like sciences, the tutor sets the base by opening many doors for the student, bring life to the subject. He doesn’t shift away from the subject matter in this way, but complements it.

He is furthermore an approachable person. That seems cliché, but there are those teachers who just shun students who pepper them with questions or simply opinions. This type of tutor allows discussion in the physical arena of the classroom, and invites other thoughtful insights during meetings with a student or a group of students. He definitely does not give curt answers or seem flustered when he quizzed.

All this seems to fit only with a tertiary education tutor/lecturer, where both the student and the educator and the environment is a world away from the other schools. Yet I should think the five characteristics listed above can apply to all teachers everywhere. Let us take another look at them:

Appearing and having the fullest knowledge of the subject: That should be the case for primary school teachers and more so for teachers in secondary schools and Junior Colleges. Students have encountered some who would just provide half answers or say “read the textbook.” It is no use calling a teacher a teacher when he/she does not have the aura of one who has and can impart knowledge to you.

Having the passion and commitment: If you’re thinking this is another cliché and should be a common value for anyone in any occupation, that is true. However, the teacher who simply works to provide what is required and sees his job almost akin to a machine process, might as well be replaced by a computer instead. Yes, teaching no doubt creates stress and may not be the first job the person picks. Even so, it is your profession, and by being passionate in it will make not only your life, but the student’s life more much more smooth flowing. Lest we forget, teachers in schools in most countries usually have diplomas/bachelor degree/masters degree in education. They have been trained on how to teach. Yet, some of them act and look as if teaching is the job for those who never made it in life. In sharp contrast, university tutors have no certificate in education. It is true that they are aiming to obtain a PhD. And hence should be able to teach, since in a few years they will be fellows and lecturers. Yet, not all PhD. candidates will aim for that job. I know several who wish to be simply a landscape designer or just a businessman after they get their doctorate. Yet, when they teach, you can well see the enthusiasm, the fire burning in them. They are willing to go all out to make the whole lesson and thus the whole teacher-student pleasant at the very least. While primary school children may not be able to appreciate the commitment of their teachers, older students may not find school life less dreary hold less animosity towards their teacher, or not find them as dry as a stick.

Less the disciplinarian: Now that is tough. Schools are meant to educate children in their character as well as their minds too and that is the basis of having school rules. For a teacher to relax and let students to roam freely could let the student fall victim to negative habits and influences and result in chaos of varying degrees in his classes. It thus seems that this point cannot be exactly valid, since a teacher and a school need to set limits to inculcate good character. I suppose it has to do with the age of students—they are generally are more mature as they grow older, hence there is sort of a lesser requirement of have a teacher as a disciplinarian. Nevertheless, those in the position providing education should treat student as their age.

On accepting discussion and being approachable: Again, this may appeal more to the older crowd of students. Still, it pains for a student not to be able to see a teacher for any matter, whether academic (which personally I think is the more important area) or other needs. There are those teachers who brush off students as if they shouldn’t be part of their life outside the classroom or simply give replies that create more questions than answers. The teacher-student relationship grows only when the interaction is on levels beyond that of standing in front and telling students material that will be just test at the end of the year or the end of a few years.

This is a rushed entry with gaping holes everywhere. Oh well, I’ll edit it soon. If you like to think deeper on the subject of teachers/teaching and students, I suggest this link:

http://findhorn.blogspot.com/2007/07/economic-constraints-on-educational.html or http://findhorn.blogspot.com/2007/07/no-good-teachers-part-2.html.

previous - next