I’ve been tagged with a teaching meme: I’m supposed to answer the question, “Why do you teach and why is academic freedom critical to that effort?”. We science types are late to the game; there are already several examples online, mostly from those humanities people.
First, I’ll be forthright in one thing: teaching was not my initial goal, nor was there anything in my training to encourage teaching. Especially if you get into a program with biomedical funding, there’s active dissuasion from pursuing teaching: I was a TA for 3 quarters in my first year of graduate school, and then got put on training grants for the next few years and didn’t set foot in the classroom again. Then there were the post-docs: no committee work, no teaching, pure research. Teaching is simply not part of the equation. Not my dream. Not even on the radar.
So what happened?
I got the same shock almost every biologist gets. You finish your post-doctoral training, you get an academic job, and they expect you to teach classes as part of your job. You’ve had no training, your advisors have all been discouraging you from wasting time away from the lab bench, and shazam! Teaching classes is a requirement of employment! Here’s the deep end of the pool, splash, learn to paddle right now!
To my surprise and rather to the detriment of my research plans, I found that it required a lot of hard work to teach, and…and…I liked it. It was like the first time I tried sushi: there was an initial dismay that people actually indulged in this strange stuff, and then noticing that there were all these exotic and subtle flavors, and then there I was trying far more varieties than was really good for me. It grows on one.
So here’s a brief list of a few things that appeal to me about teaching biology.
-
Because it’s good for me. This isn’t about altruistically doing my part for the future good of humanity; I went into science because I like science, and I like learning new things, and I like exploring the natural world. This is my joy. I went into a Ph.D. program and learned how to delve deep into one very narrow topic, but when I started teaching I had to gain breadth. I read general textbooks. I read history of science. I read philosophy. I went back to the classics: the Origin, Aristotle, D’Arcy Thompson, the autobiography of Ramon y Cajal, Moby Dick (it’s a science book, I tell you), turn of the century monographs, etc. I was a cell and developmental biologist with an emphasis in neuroscience, but I read general physiology, ecology, genetics, immunology, pharmacology, chemistry, on and on…it took the effort of having to teach an introductory biology course that made me aware of how interconnected all the sciences are. I work on a model system, the zebrafish, but I was reading about mice and squid and cockroaches and plants (I really don’t know enough about plants) and bacteria (I really, really don’t know enough about bacteria), and they were all so goddamned beautiful.
So, it’s all about me. Teaching takes me off the narrow path and gives me an excuse to explore everything.
-
Because science is such an essential part of being human. The most stunted, awful, deplorable human beings are the ones who have lost their monkey curiosity, who have forgotten what it is to open their eyes and see something new and wonder what it is, how it works, and why it’s there. I don’t want to live in a culture whose inhabitants are dedicated only to hunkering down in security, to maintaining the status quo, to shoring up dogma with excuses — I want to see a flowering of new ideas. This is the part of humanity that needs to expand.
In my classes this week, I showed students the cave paintings from Altamira and Lascaux, and asked them to think about what was going through the minds of the people who did them. I suspect there were some rather primal reasons: “I’m hungry and I can’t stop thinking about hunks of elk meat, so I’m going to draw what I want to hunt.” There was also some magical thinking: “If I draw a huge herd of elk on this rock, maybe a huge herd of elk will appear out there where I can kill and eat them.” But you know, I look at them and see the hands of people who looked carefully at the world around them; who knew the shape of animals, who knew the muscles beneath their skin and the way light played on their fur; who watched their behavior and identified with what they did; who respected and admired and desired those creatures. I see scientists in the making.
-
Because biology is the most important subject in the world, obviously. No, seriously. You’re alive and you want to stay alive, and your health is the essential foundation for everything else, so clearly our biology is the fundamental substrate for our human-specific functions. History, art, literature, sports, entertainment, romance, even religion are ultimately all epiphenomena built around the beating heart of our biological natures. I’m surprised at all those people who don’t know much about their own physiology, anatomy, and evolution — it’s the how and why of your existence!
It’s a pressing need, too. This is going to be the century of medicine and biotechnology; if this country isn’t ready to jump on board and gallop forward, we’re going to become a forgotten backwater, a brief, arrogant diversion in the history of civilization.
-
Because there is the thrill of battle. Biology is under attack in the US right now — there are a great many people who are utterly ignorant of the subject who have decided that no, sir, they don’t like it, they don’t want to be a descendant of no monkey, and Jesus tells ’em everything they need to know. It’s gotten so bad that one of our major political parties, while not making it a central issue of their campaigns, has made rejection of one of the central tenets of modern biology a signifier of ideological purity. There is a deep well of ignorance here, a strain of outright stupidity strongly held and ardently defended, and what teacher wouldn’t savor that challenge?
With science teaching, I may not be advancing the frontiers of research, but I think shoring up the foundations is an even more important job, if not as glamorous.
-
Because it turns out that teaching is fun, and you get to meet new minds that want to learn, and have conversations with curious people. Besides, the first time I stepped on a podium and saw that audience, I learned that it’s show business. Who wants to leave show business?
That’s why I teach. Why is academic freedom essential? It’s implicit. If the joy in teaching science is in probing, exploring, seeking out the new, you can’t be hampered by authoritarian constraints; reciting old knowledge by rote isn’t science, and leaving out the bits that make some of us uncomfortable is the antithesis of good science pedagogy. The only limit on what we should teach is the evidence.
I’m going to have to tag a whole bunch of science blogger/educators to make up for their absence in the current pool of entries: Janet, Tara, John, the other John, Greg, Chad, and Larry, you’re it.
That was the most articulate and honest response to a potentially self-aggrandizing
question.
Good stuff Maynard.
Interesting to get your perspective about this. It seems like a lot of the things that appeal to you about teaching also are why I want to go that direction.
I sometime feel kind of freakish among some of the people in my program for enjoying teaching. I’m in an interdepartment program and my decision for a lab to join came down between one in the chem department and one in the biochem department. If I had ended up with the chemistry people I probably would have needed to do more teaching than I do here in biochem, which most people seemed to be turned off by that concept. I actually found it somewhat appealing to get more experience.
Any advice for those of us that want to break with the pressure to spend all our time in the lab and find the teaching aspect to be attractive?
Don’t try second-guessing what will win the esteem of your peers or what will get you a job; the market hates you already.
Just follow your bliss, man.
Hell yes to the showbiz aspect. I love being Crazy Science Cheerleader Lady, and the kids seem to like it too. No one’s engaging bright young minds by saying, “Well, we have to study biomes sometime this semester, so get out your notebooks”, after all.
The conversations with curious people are one of my favorite parts, too. For every class of moaners and groaners I substituted for, having just one kid who wanted to know, “But what else?” was totally worth it.
You said it, man.
Life is physiology; physiology is life. All human endeavor and experience is first filtered through the physiology of neurons and muscles (see T. Leary, Neuropolitics). Introductory Biology courses are owners’ manuals for owners of bodies and minds, and caretakers’ manuals for the de facto caretakers of the rest of the living planet.
Good “non-majors” courses are key to producing a better-informed class of politicians, busy-ness-people, and voters.
And yeah, it’s fun, even (especially?) the show-biz part.
Follow your bliss, indeed, but if you might want a job at an institution like mine (or PZ’s), by all means get some meaningful teaching experience!
Can I do some shameless self-promotion here?
I teach HS biology for all of the reasons above – although I’ve never summed it up that eloquently, I’ve definitely had all of those thoughts. I would add too that I’m doing it to “share the joy” – there is nothing quite as cool as teaching a student something new and actually seeing their eyes light up as they understand it.
Now, for the self-promotion part: I’ve started a class blog in the hopes of bringing even more eyes-light-up moments to my students. I want them to understand that science exists in the real world and that it’s not “done” – there is new and exciting research being done all the time. I want them, in short, to meet up with real scientists. So I’m asking for scientists who’d be willing to serve as “guest bloggers” with my students.
Interested? Please check it out. Thanks!!
PZ, your post here is priceless. My reasons for teaching physics for the last 23 years are pretty much just as you say here. Let no one believe good teaching is easy. Having experts in the field taking the time to teach entry-level courses is worth all the tuition colleges charge. My freshman year physics professor was David Wilkinson, the renowned cosmologist, who clearly loved lecturing Physics 103-104 and showing off the elaborate demonstrations he and his assistants devised. It takes real talent and dedication to learn your subject so well that you can teach it to freshmen.
You might enjoy this quote from Einstein’s “The World As I See it.”
Good answer. Now any other biologist can just say “what PZ said”.
PZ:
Thanks so much for bringing some science to our meme! Reading your response is verification of our hypothesis that we needed that perspective (note: humanities person tries to sound scientificy). Seriously, great post which we will add to our inventory of pieces on teaching.
And Wheatdogg, or any other of you science folks who read PZ’s piece and want to join the meme, let us know over at Free Exchange and we will add your post in as well!
Breadth, eh? Well, yeah, you’re the weirdo who spent an entire column explaining the genotype to phenotype mapping by analogy to Fourier transforms, thus allowing lucky people such as me who learned transforms from the likes of Hal Abelson to go oh yeah, that’s awesome!
That’s what I call teaching!
Well! This is twice in one day you’ve posted something I’d just been considering the night before. I was covering a late lab for another professor and had some time to kill, so I was prepping for my zoology lecture today and found the very evolution video you posted earlier. And as I was killing this time, I got to thinking about how for me covering this extra lab, even though it’s held at 7:30 PM and it’s an intro bio class full of folks who haven’t had the necessary prerequisites and often don’t speak very good English or have the slightest idea “how to college”, is like getting to play with a whole litter full of teh cutest puppies EVAR.
I get to go into a classroom full of the best toys and show people how to use them. I get to show them squirmy things they’ve never seen before and tell them how cool they are. I get to watch them open their eyes and start asking questions and start thinking.
I have the best job on the planet. I am so incredibly lucky.
Well! This is twice in one day you’ve posted something I’d just been considering the night before. I was covering a late lab for another professor and had some time to kill, so I was prepping for my zoology lecture today and found the very evolution video you posted earlier. And as I was killing this time, I got to thinking about how for me covering this extra lab, even though it’s held at 7:30 PM and it’s an intro bio class full of folks who haven’t had the necessary prerequisites and often don’t speak very good English or have the slightest idea “how to college”, is like getting to play with a whole litter full of teh cutest puppies EVAR.
I get to go into a classroom full of the best toys and show people how to use them. I get to show them squirmy things they’ve never seen before and tell them how cool they are. I get to watch them open their eyes and start asking questions and start thinking.
I have the best job on the planet. I am so incredibly lucky.
“I hate meetings! I better doodle or I’ll go insane…”
PZ:History, art, literature, sports, entertainment, romance, even religion are ultimately all epiphenomena built around the beating heart of our biological natures.
Sven:All human endeavor and experience is first filtered through the physiology of neurons and muscles.
Of course, I don’t fully know what the intentions behind either of these comments were, but they are both easy to (mis?)interpret at dismissive of anything that comes ‘after’ biology. Suffice it to say that there is much interesting research that can be, and is being, done on ‘epiphenomenal’, ‘filtered’ phenomena (in, e.g., cognitive science) without biology or neurophysiology playing any role at all.
This post (and a lot of theings I read on ScienceBlogs in general) kind of makes me want to teach biology. Not that I’m remotely qualified (I have a Psychology MA and a desk job), and not that I’d know how to get qualified, but it makes me want to share my excitement at the sheer breadth of biodiversity and the research exploring it. I’ve started having daydreams about showing high schoolers pictures of unusual creatures. It’s silly.
PZ, this was really a wonderful entry. I know too many people who teach various subjects in public schools and feel the joy of teaching was taken away by opressive (or ridiculous) school rules and policies. It’s nice to hear there are some arena where teaching is still a joyful and productive experience.
The entire post was great, but I really loved this section, because I found myself relating to it on a totally different track.
Many people don’t understand why anyone would “get into” the entire issue of religion if you’re not religious — exploring, debating, discussing, reading, understanding, compromising, organizing — in blogs, conferences, books, lectures, chat rooms, web forums, and coffee shops. Is there a point for an atheist? Why bother?
And I found part of the answer in your response to why you teach. It’s where the action is, intellectually. It incites passion, both ways. No atheist who is going to engage other minds on the subject of whether or not God exists, and what that means or doesn’t mean, can just go in to one little area, with no preparation. As with teaching, you work with everyone. And everything. You can’t be narrow — you must needs gain breadth and background and some little scrap of working knowledge in areas like philosophy, history, epistomology, ethics, logic, literature, politics, and science, science, and more science. You really are forced to explore everything and you can’t ever, ever bluff or you lose by your own rules.
You’re forced out of your comfort zone in order to learn new things AND ALSO there’s the thrill of battle AND IN ADDITION you’re dealing with the most meaningful, profound questions in human existence. Reading your essay here, in some ways it’s not all that different than teaching.
But unlike teaching, it just doesn’t bring in the big bucks.
Part of my job is to teach new TAs in our program. I supervise a bunch ever term. Sometimes I get more experienced people under my supervision. A couple years ago, I got an experienced college teacher who told me he always announces on the first day, “This is the most important class you will take in college. Every one of your professors should think that about the class they are teaching you.”
So, I don’t interpret PZ’s comments about the importance of biology as something he thinks we need to believe or that other disciplines are reducable to biology. I think he is simply telling us how he feels about the importance of his subject, something I think every teacher should feel.
Better words regarding teaching were hardly spoken before. Thanks to dedicated people like yourself PZ, minds are being enlightened that could potentially be recruited for malicious purposes. Science allows us to crawl out of ignorance and head into truly expansive growth. We as a species have within us the potential to explore every aspect of the universe, and with our mental faculties, tools, reasoning abilities, and of course, mounting scientific consensus, I’m proud to say we’re doing our selves a great service. As for the dissenters, the illogical believers, the faith based reality crowd, they cannot persist in their ignorance for long. Eventually, science/technology has a way of catching up, and they will be left in the dust. Our cultural evolution will expand beyond religion, and those left behind must deal with the consequences of their cherished archaic memes. Perhaps in time, we can refer to these religious people as the trilobites of human culture.
Also, your reasons for diving into Biology, are also my reasons for having pursued the field. Studying life and the processes involved to sustain it is not only the most pertinent to our well being, but also extremely interesting and rewarding.
Teaching Rocks! Best career ever.
@ 13–
“…without biology or neurophysiology playing any role at all.”
And here I was, gonna add my 2 cents to PZed’s peanut gallery by saying that all of psychology (my own field) is, or should be, a biological science. I wondered whether anyone would understand my “or should be”, but your comment now explains it. Studying these “epiphenomena” without imbedding them in their biological (and evolutionary) contexts hearkens back to the early structuralist schools. You would have your work cut out for you to convince me (and I am a Ph.D. experimental psychologist) that you can have any meaningful understanding of these phenomena literally “without biology or neurophysiology playing any role at all.”
The semester has just started for me, too–about a third of yesterday’s class could easily be described as a Mushy Love Letter To The Theory Of Evolution. Perhaps the only psych class I teach that does not begin with a MLLTTTOE is Statistics.
Not silly in the least, sublunary; it’s a wonderful impulse. If there’s a zoo, a museum, a botanical garden or arboretum, or something similar nearby, I bet they’d welcome volunteer docents or guides.
Heh, maybe I should have been more clear what I was asking about. Like you said we don’t get much training about what it takes to be good at teaching. I was wanting to know what I could do on my own to prepare for those kind of responsibilities. What would you while you were still in grad school that would have helped you now?
But, see, that’s the point–there is nothing being done by animals that is not filtered through neurophysiology; not cognitive science, not playing the trombone, not reading Pynchon, not hunting wabbits, nothing! It is one of the amazing things about brains that they make all that ion-fluxing and receptor-binding so transparent that we perceive that we are studying cognitive science without any biology involved, when in fact it’s actually (cryptically) neuro-cognitive science. Or meta-cgnitive, or metaneurocognitive. Or something.
But of course your point is well taken; I enjoy reading Pynchon and playing the trombone on non-physiological levels; that does not change the fact that at base it’s neuroreading and neuromusic.
Shorter me: “What PZ said, only for ‘one of those Humanities people.'” I’m here largely because PZ is a good teacher. (So, when are you writing a book, Dr. Myers?)
Full-length me: I used to teach writing at the local community college. My “Aha!”/”I love this job!” moment was one time when I was trying to explain the difference between connotation and denotation to my students. I was wearing a pair of heavy boots, black jeans, and a sweater with a t-shirt under it. I said, “Okay, see, I’m wearing jeans and a sweater, I look pretty normal, the same way as I always look. The message you’re getting from this outfit is, ‘Here’s Professor Interrobang, same as always.'” I took off my sweater, and I had a black t-shirt with a big logo on the front underneath. I said, “Now what is my outfit saying?” One of my students timidly put up his hand and said, “…I…love rock and roll?” I said, “Yes! Exactly! But you see, I’m still wearing jeans and a t-shirt. Clothes can say a lot of things. That’s connotation in action…”
PZ, have you ever noticed that the dun horses painted by neolithic people in Europe look an awful lot like modern Norwegian Fjord horses?
No doubts on Moby Dick, it’s a treatise on whaling wrapped in an adventure story (or is it the other way around?). I think that’s why some people have such trouble with it..they get to the middle part of the book and suddenly the narrator says, “And now I shall explain how all this business works in massive and specific detail.”
I wish more subjects had that sort of treatment; I’d like to think I would have done much better in org chem if one of the books on it has been a pirate adventure.
Also from Moby Dick (about whaling of course, but maybe teaching too):
“There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness is the true method.”
Anyhow, this is how I justify the state of my desk.
Well done PZ! I look at your blog and I imagine if I change the word biology to math, and the bio words to math words…the same sentiment applies. I love teaching math. I love reading about the history of math, the philosopy, the real math (stuff over my head). But I try to show this to my students, get them to see the start of math, the great mathematicians, Euler, Markov, Euclid, Babbage, Newton, Leibez, etc.
If enough of us can teach the real meaning of science/math and the critical thinking that goes with it, the world would be so much better.
Stephen Burrows
High School Math Teacher
Wonderful post, PZ. You’re doing pretty much exactly what I want to be doing in the future. Except I’d also like to be writing books. I don’t know how I’ll find time for all of it, but that’s a problem for later – as of yet I’m still an undergrad. This part struck me as a bit odd:
Did you really have no idea you were expected to teach? Because to me that’s always been perfectly clear – if you’re employed at a university obviously you have to teach classes, that’s what universities are for – research and teaching. Also, afaik, in Sweden PhD students only get paid if they spend a fifth of their time teaching (at least this used to be the case, might have changed now with the Bologna process). All of our lab assistants etc tend to be PhD students.
Holy crap!
So this turns out to be the post that moved me to tears. Well done, Professor. Call me a sap, but I love that you love what you do. I’m not a big believer in Destiny, but hey… it’s so cool that it found you.
Well said. Teaching is, I think, the most effective learning experience. When you set out to teach a subject, it immediately becomes clear how poorly you understand it. A SIUE, teaching experience is a necessity for hiring consideration. For most academics, teaching is a big part of life. It is very strange that we are not better prepared to do it. There are now such things as teaching postdocs. A favorable sign.
One thing I have thought about in later years; what are students? There is a model which says they are customers who have paid their money and want value received. I don’t think so. I have come to think of them as junior colleagues. A music major in a general education biology course is there to learn new things about biology. That is what I do also, if on a different level. So we are involved in the same pursuit, and are thus colleagues. This point of view has interesting and useful implications.
Thanks to all the scientists blogging. Us non-scientist folks with an interest have learned a lot by visiting your blogs. You keep it down to earth enough for us to understand, and best of all, we get a free education without future loans to pay off. Thank You!
Back in 4th year physiology (honours year) they made us all teach, demonstrating 2nd year labs. They paid us, but we had to do it. Why? well primarily they needed us to. Secondarily it was good for us. I realised this when the first student approached me and said ‘I don’t understand action potentials, can you explain it to me please?’ I gave her the speell I had been putting down in exam essays for the last 3years and she says ‘yeah, I know that, but how does it work?’ It is at that point that you actually have to think outside the pat and you find out if YOU really understand how the action potential works. I found, much to my surprise, that I did and furthermore I could communicate it.
That was my first fix of what makes teaching enjoyable: the moment the light of understanding goes on in their eyes. I love it. Also my basic physiology became so much more a part of me that year than it had ever been before.
Why teach biology? because it’s more interesting than economics?
Now I understand some teachers: “You finish your post-doctoral training, you get an academic job, and they expect you to teach classes as part of your job. You’ve had no training, your advisors have all been discouraging you from wasting time away from the lab bench, and shazam! Teaching classes is a requirement of employment! Here’s the deep end of the pool, splash, learn to paddle right now!” well, i’m gonna be less critical when they are uncapable of make and easy class nobody teach them to teach! but, it’s seem that they like the idea.
Not much to add to what’s already been said… Your reasons for teaching bio are similar to my reasons for teaching computer science. A member of my extended family thinks I’m a little crazy for not going into the private sector, where admittedly the money’s much better…but really, what corporate job would let me do something as important as teaching, and have this much fun doing it?
“Because biology is the most important subject in the world, obviously”
Yes!! And yes again!!
This is the first time I comment in your blog, probably because it’s the first time I see someone else acknowledge this, which (to me) has always been so obvious. When I was in primary school, or secondary school, and they asked me why I wanted to be a biologist, the first thing I thought (and sometimes said out loud) was “Because I am alive!”. It was so logical.
Unlike you, I always knew that I would be expected to teach (my local system is different, I guess), and I’ve always enjoyed it. How not to? The look on the face of one of my students when she or he finally “gets” some concept or mechanism, that’s simply invaluable.
Thanks for this and all the other blog entries.
Teaching science is easy. According to Paula Poundstone in “There’s Nothing in This Book That I Meant to Say”,you just tie each student in a burlap sack and throw them into the pond. The students that God thinks are good science students float to the top and get an A. Paula calls this “intelligent floatationism”.
I’ve been teaching for 35 years and couldn’t agree more. Don’t want to quit. Biology is just flipping fascinating and connecting with student interest and enthusiasm is pure fun. Hope you get to enjoy for a long time.
Wow, you just inspired me to thirst for knowledge again =).
#14:
Saying that biology is the basis of life, essential for what comes after is neither chauvinism nor an invitation to dismiss the rest. Rather, I see it as acknowledging that a ladder only works when all of the pieces are in place. Math and philosophy are the base of the ladder, physics and chemistry a bit higher, biochem next, the general bio, and finally ecology, neurology, medicine, psychology, arts, literature in some wonderful tree above. One can say that part of the structure is beautiful and important without denigrating the others.
#27, I am a PhD student in Neuroscience, and also did my MSc in Biochemistry at a different Canadian school, and I have had the same experience where in each department getting any experience in teaching is strongly discouraged, as it takes time away from the bench. It will depend on which graduate program you end up in, but if you end up in one like myself or PZ, you will see what he means! It’s always seemed so strange to me (and rather infuriating as a student who is taught by so many poor teachers who don’t care about teaching) that they set it up so that you get no teaching training in Grad school or as a post-doc and then WHAM, you’re supposed ot be the expert pro-teacher… it’s so silly.
On another note, than you so much PZ for this wonderful post. I am at that stage in my Graduate career where I have ideas of what I want to be doing in my future career and the sorts of things I am interested in, but really wondering what the hell I’m going to do with my life! Your post was very uplifting. I have been starting to do some thinking about teaching, and a science career that combines research and science communications, and your passion for what you do was very inspiring to me. I guess I feel that teaching must be pretty damn boring, since any of the teachers I’ve ever had in University have sucked (well OK, most of them) and certainly don’t enjoy it… but it sounds like it must not be too bad! Thanks for your encouraging words – this confused grad student appreciates it!
I’m retired after 38 years-biggest mitake I ever made. I taught math but like to pal around with our talented biology teacher because of an interest in science, especially eveolution all i can say is you guys have to fight the good fight. In a lot of ways, you’re keeping us from falling back into the dark ages. I afraid we won’t wake up until it’s too late and China owns us or a nutcase pushes the button to try to prevent that. I’m rooting for global warming as a way to show these ignorant ones that they are not only always wrong, but that bull-headed adherance to religious superstition has consequences
I’ve got a friend who is teaching for the first time this year. They don’t want to stay in academia, but during this semester I’d receive calls like, “I had my first student stop by for office hours,” or “class today was so amazing.” I’d always reply, “We got ya hooked yet?”
It’s such a tremendous job. I love watching the moments when their eyes light up as the finally get it (sooooo cute!). There’s so much I love. Working with students, getting to explore and learn as you do so….shit, I feel like the classroom is play time.
Even though it’s play time, though, I still work ’em fairly hard.
Nice riff. I was tossed into the deep end as a first semester grad student back in the late 70’s teaching FORTRAN to 70+ students, and about five weeks in found out that they weren’t going to bite (much). Taught continuously through two graduate degrees in computer science (taking far longer than necessary), and now I’m a fully papered bit-pusher in a research department, doing nothing but teaching, primarily to hordes of mostly disinterested non-majors. Yeah, teaching is performance art, but I learn something new every semester, and learn how to do the art better and better each semester. Seeing the precious few (too few overall, and way too few women) catch fire is definitely worth going in to work. Students come in to office hours telling me that they can never understand something technical, then as the light slowly dawns that it isn’t that hard they get this funny puzzled look of “I didn’t know I could do that”. Wonderful to see and to nurture. What works for biologists (with or without a squid fetish) also works well for technogeeks. Keep fighting the good fight, Doc.
Yeah, teaching is performance art, but I learn something new every semester, and learn how to do the art better and better each semester
*nods*
Yeah, teaching is performance art, but I learn something new every semester, and learn how to do the art better and better each semester/i>
OK, not just a nod, but I would bet that the improvement is based on two things. First, a willingness to look at what you did critically. For me, a constant problem is that when I get on a roll, I start moving fast and leaving everyone behind. I was able to figure this out by asking my students what worked. I watch myself, but I also tell my other classes to stop me if I start doing that.
The other thing, beyond that self-reflection, is that the art produced through techniques. The more skilled you are at deploying certain techniques, the better the artist you are Bach was phenomenal because of his technical skill in counterpoint; Beethoven revolutionarized the Symphony form by playing with and mastering the thematic development sections. The art of teaching isn’t just being gifted (although that can’t hurt) but is also about developing technical skills that can be deployed in a number of situations, sometimes seamlessly.
No, this is not true – everyone gets paid for four years, but you can prolong the PhD period with teaching to up to 5 years. in other words, you can teach up to a fifth of your time and get paid for it. (in theory, since the preparations often take more time than what is allotted for the course)
PS: I hadn’t noticed before that you are from around here, I’ll have to check out your blog :)
First, a willingness to look at what you did critically.
Yup. And even if you don’t, the student course evaluations can give some pretty ego-deflating pointers. Screw up, and they’ll nail you to the wall. (Although they’ll also blame you for having “too much math” in what is essentially a math class, or for things not under your control such as classroom temperature or textbook prices.)
The art of teaching isn’t just being gifted (although that can’t hurt) but is also about developing technical skills that can be deployed in a number of situations, sometimes seamlessly.
Oh, yeah, real-time problem solving can be a rush. Having an extensive mental library of explanations to call on at a moment’s notice can make the difference between a coherent teaching moment and random babbling. Every now and then, though, the students throw a question for which you don’t have a tested template, and you have to scramble. The more examples you have to call on, the easier it will be to synthesize something in real-time and not have them notice the hiccup. It is also amusing to find yourself using the same example in completely unrelated classes, often on the same day.
“Psychology is really biology. Biology is really chemistry. Chemistry is really physics. Physics is really math. And math is really hard.”
— attributed to Dave Barry
“Psychology is really biology. Biology is really chemistry. Chemistry is really physics. Physics is really math. And math is really hard.”
— attributed to Dave Barry
I have a guiding principle, “The less work the professor does, and the more work the student does, the more learning occurs.” When there are the options of providing canned knowledge to students, vs encouraging and helping students to create their own knowledge, do the latter.
An anecdote. I had a general education biology class which did not go well. I did not enjoy it and I fell into the habit of arriving two or three minutes late to lecture. Student evaluations made negative comments on this to a degree which surprised me. I later read in an education article that the prof arriving five minutes before class and just hanging out improved student performance. I took up this practice and found it to be a good thing. I’d had maybe 20 years teaching experience when I learned all this.
Man, that was an immensely satisfying read. Simply magnificent, PZ, and beautifully put. There are some supremely quotable items here (the second entry in your list alone contains two superb examples).
Forgive me for making one small yammer by suggesting that the big picture of science – not any sub-discipline – “is the most important subject in the world, obviously.”
Well, “obviously” without math, physics, chemistry (both inorganic as well as organic), geology, astronomy, etc.etc., biology would founder on the shoals of wild speculation. But I’m sure that’s what you meant by “biology” – it’s definition in that larger context.
It’s the synergistic interconnectivity of all these disciplines that makes any single specialty soar. As you yourself have emphasized, “Teaching takes me off the narrow path and gives me an excuse to explore everything.” Exactly. In good teaching, one must be aware of the forest besides the trees. (It doesn’t stop at the forest either – all of what lies beyond the forest all goes into shaping any of the bits). The persistent popular notion that science is a strictly analytical reductionism business is a ludicrous straw-man. Knowledge is a synthesis affair.
That, of course, goes for LEARNING too: if one doesn’t pay attention to the forest (the greater environmental context), one can hardly hope to learn very much about the tree.
Learning itself, of course, is the bug-bear of the religiously superstitious. The act of learning is intrinsically a process of the modification and refinement of knowledge, constantly updated by new and more detailed evidence. This is something that superstitious and religious people have forsaken in favor of dogmatic god-like certainty, a certainty they have paid for dearly by sacrificing much of their innate curiosity and therefore their humaness. Functional humans do not abhor change (i.e., “evolution!”) with such mindless and rabid ferocity. They embrace change with a passion. It’s science that sets our minds free from the glacial pace of cultural fashion, to be fully and responsively agile: human. All the rest are merely robots dully programmed by their culture.
I have a guiding principle, “The less work the professor does, and the more work the student does, the more learning occurs.” When there are the options of providing canned knowledge to students, vs encouraging and helping students to create their own knowledge, do the latter.
A little quibble I have with that: the professor might look like he or she is doing less work, but they’re actually doing more. The prep involved in writing a lecture is a lot less than in figuring out how to properly herd the students to discover the information you’d like them to understand while keeping them engaged and having the sense of exploration. Oh, and in getting them to talk or otherwise engage in the first place.
All those things that PZ said, and if you teach chemistry you get to set stuff on fire :)
I later read in an education article that the prof arriving five minutes before class and just hanging out improved student performance. I took up this practice and found it to be a good thing.
I always do this. It let’s me get to know my students better. We have a good time in those few minutes. I wasn’t aware that it had a measurable effect on exams.
Plus, I get antsy sitting in my office for too long.
A little quibble I have with that: the professor might look like he or she is doing less work, but they’re actually doing more. The prep involved in writing a lecture is a lot less than in figuring out how to properly herd the students to discover the information you’d like them to understand while keeping them engaged and having the sense of exploration. Oh, and in getting them to talk or otherwise engage in the first place.
Hellz yeah! Well, I don’t know if it’s more work, but there’s different work involved. Because I don’t lecture a lot, and let the students carry the conversation, one of the things I’ve had to become quite adept at is steering the conversation back to the topic by trying to draw from the examples they’re working with. It’s a hell of a lot of work to stay on your toes, doing that kind of management. When it looks like you’re not doing anything is when you’ve started to master it.
And, one of the hardest skills to develop is the ability to ask questions that will get the class involved. (The showing up early helps tremendously for this.)
A friend of mine once timed their class after asking a question to see how long they’d sit in silence: 6 minutes. They’re a skilled teacher, who relies on a very interactive classroom, like me Sometimes, though, you just get a group of students who won’t play along. That’s when the best part of my job becomes one of the most dreadful part of the day.
That was the most honest and amazing thing I have read on teaching science. My friend emailed me the link and said I had to read it. Thank you, sometimes you kind of forget what you are doing when parents are calling and complaining at you, but it is worth it when students come back and tell you that your class was the best and most interesting and that is why they chose a field in Biology. Thanks PZ for a great blog and keep up the great work because I enjoy reading day in and day out.