I’ve been involved in a few discussions lately, on the issue of what ‘we’ actually are. That is, are those of us who work with students in our lecture rooms, laboratories and tut classes, teachers? Is that the label we want attached to ourselves (eg in things like paper & teaching appraisal surveys)?
Disappointingly, there seems to be a fairly large body of opinion that says “no, no that’s not the right name. ‘Teachers’ is what people in schools could be described as. But we’re lecturers, not teachers.” (Someone went so far as to say that using the name ‘teacher’ would only be confusing, as students associated the term with their school experiences & didn’t expect it at university.)
Interestingly, this is not a reflection of how universities are described in the 1989 Education Act. Section 162 of the Act tells us (my emphasis in bold font) that
universities have all the following characteristics and other tertiary institutions have 1 or more of those characteristics:
(i)they are primarily concerned with more advanced learning, the principal aim being to develop intellectual independence:
(ii)their research and teaching are closely interdependent and most of their teaching is done by people who are active in advancing knowledge:
(iii)they meet international standards of research and teaching:
(iv)they are a repository of knowledge and expertise:
(v)they accept a role as critic and conscience of society;
- a university is characterised by a wide diversity of teaching and research, especially at a higher level, that maintains, advances, disseminates, and assists the application of, knowledge, develops intellectual independence, and promotes community learning:
This all makes it fairly clear that the official view of what folks like me do, in our university jobs, is teaching i.e. facilitating advanced learning in our students, helping them to become independent, autonomous learners, and (while last, definitely not least!) promoting learning in the wider community. (I have to say, in Hamilton at the moment, this often feels like an uphill battle in the face of widespread misinformation about water fluoridation. But you can read more about this here, and here.)
And that’s true whether our job descriptions include the word tutor, lecturer, or professor. To me, if the word ‘teaching’ is included in the description of what universities do, then we are ‘teachers’.
Now, I suppose you could argue that I’m just being picky, but I think this is actually quite an important issue as it relates to what we perceive ourselves doing in our classrooms. That’s because if someone sees themselves as a lecturer, & not a teacher, then they could well have a mental image of what the role of ‘lecturer’ entails. And it’s a fair bet that this includes, you know, lecturing: standing in front of a class and delivering 50 minutes of information on a topic in which that person has expertise.
And to me, this is a problem because there’s an increasing body of research now that clearly shows that this passive-student model of teaching & learning – not just lectures, but also ‘cookbook’ lab classes – is probably the least effective thing we can do, in expanding students’ knowledge & understanding of a subject. This was demonstrated very clearly by Richard Hake in his 1998 analysis of the outcomes for more than 6,500 students enrolled in a total of 62 introductory physics courses. Hake found that courses that used ‘interactive-engagement’ techniques for teaching and learning were significantly better – much better – in terms of successful learning and retention of material. Subsequently Carl Wieman and his science-education research group have built on the work of Hake and others in the physics area – have a look at the figures at the end of this 2005 paper, for example: teaching techniques that encourage passive learning by students don’t result in any real long-term learning or retention. Nor is it just physics; I’ve written previously about similar research findings from the area of biology education (e.g. Haak et al. ,2011).
‘Teacher’ to me implies the use of a much wider range of classroom techniques that encourage active student engagement and successful long-term learning. And yes, I’m a teacher, and proud of it!
Haak DC, HilleRisLambers J, Pitre E, & Freeman S (2011). Increased structure and active learning reduce the achievement gap in introductory biology. Science , 332 (6034), 1213-6 PMID: 21636776
Hake RR (1998) Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Am. J. Phys. 66: 64-74
Wieman C & Perkins K (2006) Transforming physics education. Physics Today Online, http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-11/p36.shtml