Teaching is Not Rocket Science

George Bernard Shaw's Maxims for Revolutionists states “He who can does; he who cannot, teaches.”  Over the years this has morphed into “Those who can do, those who can’t teach.”  Shaw's assumption of the role of teacher as curriculum deliverer in 1903 can be understood for that time.  It is true that “Teaching” in the 21st century is not “Rocket Science”, it is actually much harder and way less predictable.  At least with Rocket Science you have the Laws of Physics to lean on as you deeply focus on the data associated with your task.  The numbers in the calculations paint a picture that can be logically understood and, though complex, Rocket Science doesn’t approach the complexity of meeting the needs of individual young people on a daily basis.  Teaching, if done well, causes one to be in a constant state of flux. Teachers, like Rocket Scientists, must analyze data on a regular basis. However, this data (unlike in Rocket Science) should not drive instruction, but rather inform instruction.  This, in a good part, has to do with the fact that teachers are working with human beings and not machines (see Raising Young People as Human Beings vs. Manufacturing Machines). Teaching instead requires a blend of art and science to be successful which means educators must continually learn and grow as professionals in order to be effective.

“Within a culture of professionalism, educators embrace the transparency of their work, their accomplishments, and their challenges, and they share ideas, insights, and practices as they collaborate in ways that build on individual strengths and overcome individual challenges to ensure...success for all students” (NCTM, 2014, p.99).  So, good teaching is much more complicated than transferring curricular knowledge to a group of students and therefore will not be successfully accomplished in isolation (Which, by the way, neither will Rocket Science.) We can’t be independent contractors united by a common parking lot (DuFour, Eakar, DuFour 2005) as has been past practice and must instead work together as professionals. It is not to say that individually we are not important.  “All teachers are vital, but the collegial culture and professional judgement in the school are even more important for the quality of the school” (Sahlberg, 2015, p.137). The power of teaching comes from the collective teacher efficacy (see Supporting Collective Teacher Efficacy is a Great Place to Start the Year) which means working together in our Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) in order to be more effective in our practices.  However, this can’t happen overnight.

“The evidence supports that teachers may need up to three years to begin to work together effectively and move beyond mere cooperation to true collaboration” (NCTM, 2014, p.104).  So, setting aside time to work together and providing consistency within the PLC are two important ingredients for successful professional growth. A third important piece of a functioning PLC is the type of work on which it focuses.  “Focusing teachers’ work within professional learning communities on detailed lesson planning has been demonstrated to be a highly productive strategy to support more in-depth interactions within collaborative communities and effect change in teachers’ practice” (NCTM, 2014, p. 104).  “Detailed” is highlighted, so as not to miss the nuance, and to emphasize the importance of the word in the quote. Detailed lesson planning is not focused on “what” we are teaching, but rather “how” and “why” we are teaching a particular way.  It is a focus on the pedagogy not the planning. This is an important distinction that many PLCs miss. “Teaching is a complex and harried profession, and all too often teachers do not take the time necessary to engage in structured reflection” (NCTM, 2014, p. 105).   The degree to which we improve, and therefore meet the needs of the young people in our class, will depend on how well and how often we reflect on our practice.

We haven’t even started to talk about the importance of being able to be diagnostic in class in order to understand where an individual’s understanding falls along the progression of learning a particular skill.  That is a whole other blog post, but I bring it up because it emphasizes the complexity of teaching. Teaching is one of those low floor/high ceiling professions which provides a multitude of entry points depending on if you see being an educator as a job, career, or calling. If teaching is your job than Shaw is probably right, but if you look at it as your profession/career or believe that is is your calling it is much more complicated, valued, and rewarding than Rocket Science.  

References

DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & DuFour, R. (2005).  On common ground: The power of

professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics- NCTM (2014).  Principles to Actions:  

Ensuring Mathematical Success for All.  Reston, VA: NCTM.

Sahlberg, Pasi (2015). Finnish Lessons 2.0:  What can the world learn from educational

changes in Finland?  New York, NY: Teachers College Press.