Printable View
Hi, all
Qualities of a good teacher are often discussed by teachers who are striving to be a success in teaching and to develop professionally. There is a variety of ideas and opinions. One of them is that a good teacher should be an actor. I can't agree with this as my personal values and beliefs are against it.
What do you think of this?
Looking forward to you pros and cons. Any of your ideas will be highly appreciated.
IMO, all depends on what you consider to be "a success" in teaching.Quote:
Originally Posted by yasmein
What do you mean as an actor?
Somebody that wont ever behave like them self in the classroom?
If so, I disagree with that.
I believe to be a fully effective teacher, you need to be yourself. Let your encouragement and enthusiasm spread through the class, and I don't believe that could be achieved while pretending to be somebody else.
(Speaking as a first year uni student that's completely a block of pracs)
There are many different possible ways of being a good teacher. However, I do agree that a classroom has things in common with the stage, so this is a quality for many teachers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yasmein
Hello, Yasmein:
I agree: a great teacher is a great actor.
1. I suggest that you watch a 1951 British motion picture called The Browning Version. It is about a middle-aged
teacher who is disliked by his students because he is so boring and plodding (even though he may really know his
subject). There is one student who really appreciates the teacher's dedication and knowledge, but most of his
students are contemptuous of him. When a younger and "cooler" teacher arrives, the contrast is shown in very
touching scenes.
2. "The sage on the stage." That phrase has often been used to describe a teacher. Do you notice the words
"sage" and "stage"? Students expect their teachers to be all-knowing "sages" and proficient "actors" on the "stage."
IMHO, it means that a great teacher senses the feelings of his/her "audiences" and learns to adjust that day's
lesson plan accordingly. In fact, some people feel that a good teacher is born, not made.
3. Personally, I define a "good" teacher who knows his/her material. For example, if I could find a teacher who could
explain the adverb "really" to me, s/he would be the greatest teacher in the world -- regardless of age, race, religion,
physical appearance. But in today's world, a teacher has to appeal to the masses, not just a few students with
a specialized interest (as my interest in "really").
4. If a teacher has an unpleasant personality (even though he knows his/her material very well), s/he will usually
not earn the admiration of his/her students (e.g., The Browning Version). It's not fair, but as the saying goes:
That's the way the cookie crumbles!
What's the problem there? It's just the adverb form of "very," "very much," or "a lot." And in some circumstances, "truly" or "genuinely."Quote:
Originally Posted by TheParser
Anyway, I completely disagree. The one thing a good language teacher shouldn't be is the centre of attention. Every minute that the class is focusing on the teacher is a minute they're not communicating with each other, which is where the most learning happens. Of course, you've got to know how to present language in a way that's engaging for your students and helps them remember it, but it's a mistake to think that this has to be some sort of performance. I'd say a good language teacher should be more like a good chairperson in a debate or interviewer. Your job is to allow others the chance to shine and facilitate the conversation rather than lead it, intervening only when necessary.
Many people nowadays agree with you. They feel that a teacher, generally speaking, should be the "guide on the side."Quote:
Originally Posted by I'm With Stupid