who has been a teacher before i know i haven't this is my first time being one can anyone give me any tuips about being a teacher?

You are asking about tips regarding being a teacher?

Well,

1... its in your best interest to know what you are talking about before standing in front of a room full of people.

2... try to bring real world examples in to your classroom. When i taught for many years, my students always appreciated that.

3... be available for your students. Some of them are going to need extra help. this may mean after hours help is needed.

4... be fair with your students.

5...encourage participation. no one likes to sit in a class and listen to someone for over an hour. that gets old and boring really quick.

6... if you are going to assign homework, make sure you take the time to grade it and provide feedback.

7... make sure you have an up to date syllabus. your syllabus needs to clearly define what the course is about, what the students should expect from the course, what they should expect from you and what you expect from them. this is your contract with the students. you expect them to abide by it, they expect you to do the same.

8... be an example for your students. if they see you arent interested in what you are teaching, how do you expect for them to be interested in the course.

commented: great! +14
commented: Great advice! +5
commented: Nice! +14
commented: Especially #8 +12

and make sure there are severe consequences for not paying attention in class, and for not doing your homework.
IOW make it next to impossible to get a passing grade at the end of the course unless the "student" was either actively participating and/or brilliant at individual research (and in my experience as a student, those are typically the same people anyway, the lazy buggers who consistently skip class, don't do their assignments (or leech the "solutions" from the internet these days, it didn't exist back then), and cheat at exams are the same ones who never open a book more complex than a cartoon outside of classes).

Plan your lessons. Especially consider how long you will talk about each topic. The first time I tried teaching I made a very detailed plan and was shocked to realise that I would run out of material long before I ran out of time. At least planning it out beforehand I had time to prepare additional subject matter in advance rather than having to waffle at the end of the session.

Also save your materials, and add comments immediately after each session. This will be really useful when you come to teach the same subject to the next class.

Count the number of sleeping students. If it's more than 50% your teaching is boring.

I agree with JorgeM, real world examples/projects are important to keep the students interested.

Member Avatar
diafol

If you are a newly qualified teacher, then I would imagine that you've successfully completed a "teacher training" course. If so, then you should be skilled up and ready to roll. This is a very strange question for someone who's decided to enter the profession. Many very good points have been made here, but in my 20 years as a teacher the main point is to keep a sense of balance.

Education never stands still. New initiatives (mostly from inane policies dreamt up by out-of-touch politicians) are forced upon you. Principals will make ridiculous demands. Parents will accuse you of providing a poor service. The media will attack your professionalism.

Therefore you need to build up a very thick skin and concentrate on the quality of your teaching and the learning of your students. Everything else is secondary, although you'll still have to jump through those darned hoops.

The balance between professional and personal time is essential to get right. I've had many periods in my life where I let my personal life come a very distant second place to the demands of the job. I can only look back with regret and give myself a mental kick.

Many "new" teachers enter the profession with a view to "making a difference". And they do, believe me. However, this comes at a considerable cost if you do not manage your time and energy effectively.

Some of my comments may sound negative, but "teaching" is one of the most rewarding professions out there and I would encourage anybody with an interest in developing the skills of young people to seriously consider it. Remember teaching is about teaching children (or students), not teaching your specialist subject. Many have failed to recognise that point and have not been overly successful.

Take an interest in the individual and get to know them. The quality of the relationship between a student and his/her teacher will determine to a large extent, the quality of the learning.

Good luck.

If you teach science, let your students know what a scientist does.

I will share a little something with you. My brother-in-law died and he was a Social Studies teacher in HS. He retired 13 years ago and he taught for nearly 30 years. They made a facebook page for him and there have been nearly 200 posts from former students remembering things about how he changed their way of thinking and captured their interest. You can teach what the book says, or you can teach what the books says and make it memorable. He got failing students to pass, passing student to accel. How? you ask? He gave them respect, not as a friend, but as people who should be heard also. He genuinely cared about all ~800 students he ever met. He made it memorable by making it fun. Rules were rules but he taught by making sure they listened. He threw out a joke once in a while to make a student say "Wait, what did he say? That's funny." He made kids notice things. Engage your students and they will engage you.

One of my favorite teachers knew all our names quick and brought us into conversations. He'd spew some information and say, "Isn't that great Corwin?" I'd respond and we'd chat and other students would get in on it. He'd be teaching in an open forum. Then he'd move on to the next part and so would we.

Good luck!

Count the number of sleeping students. If it's more than 50% your teaching is boring.

had one lecturer at university whose entire lectures consisted of quoting his own book from memory.
Would have been boring, we were just reading along...
But we stayed awake and alert hoping to catch him at mistakes. Different word here, different variable name in an equation there.
Happened very rarely, maybe two or three times over the semester only.

Suffice to say not many students turned up for those lectures after the first few weeks, he didn't provide time for questions anyway, and his demonstrations and examples were all printed in his book.

Of course when word got around that he was ill and his lecture taken over for 3 weeks by someone else the lecture theater was packed every time :)

If you teach science, let your students know what a scientist does.

it might put many of them off from seeking a career in science knowing that most of the time is spent at a desk writing funding proposals ;/

Scientists are blamed for the evils of technology, like cancer causing chemicals. Most US students simply don't like science and the people that teach it.

Scientists are blamed for the evils of technology, like cancer causing chemicals. Most US students simply don't like science and the people that teach it.

Also considered guilty of : corruption & collusion with the evil pharmaceutical industry or various governmental organizations, exaggerating the dangers of X (X = smoking, climate change, water pollution, acid rain, overfishing/hunting, extinctions, weather/seismic events), ignoring the dangers of their own research (HLC, GMOs, Stem Cells research), understating/refusing to acknowledge the dangers of X (X = vaccines, WiFi radiation, weather/seismic events), being too dogmatic (eg. evolution, climate change), being too flip-floppy (eg. nutritional advice), etc....

WOW really? We can do this to almost any career path.

Wow, did this topic get derailed or what? As for teaching, I would like to add that your written word is important. For instance,

who has been a teacher before i know i haven't this is my first time being one can anyone give me any tuips about being a teacher?

  • is horrible. If you are going to be that lazy that you cannot even include caps on starting words - "Who" and capping each "I", well, perhaps you are not very qualified. Also, what are tuips? I know you meant tips but teaching should be accurate and not jumbled together like your question, which is a run-on question/sentence too.

At all you others who are poo-pooing science, remember, people are the ones that can ruin it for other people, not science. When you blanket statement 'science' it makes me think about blanket statement topics like religions, which religious people do not like. For instance, Islamists are all terrorists. Now I don't mean that so don't get your shorts in a knot, I'm just saying that seeing all these types of blanket statements are bothersome, in all discussions.

My 3 pennies.

commented: Agreed - this thread should focus about teaching, science is immaterial (says a science teacher) +0

If I sound angered by this it is because I just finished corresponding with a 3rd grade teacher; her spelling was atrocious and her grammar was worse. The whole time I was reading her email I was thinking "you're f%%king teaching this to young children?". Makes me mad.

Don't worry Stuugie. Been a major pain here, 90% of people training to become primary school teachers are incapable of comprehending the material they're supposed to teach. Not just reading and writing, but math, geography, everything.
They just can't comprehend any of it.

And the solution? Make the requirements for becoming a teacher LOWER!

commented: Unreal! +0

That is unreal jwenting and unfortunate for all the kids coming up in this world of uneducation. The highschool my oldest son goes to has academic standards for which all students (and teachers) must abide. Their approach to learning is different though, they actually support those that don't learn at the same rate as other children but in the end most if not all students leave there educated. My son for instance is on a team taking part in a thing called Cyber Defense, hosted by (I think) the American military. Out of the thousands of highschools participating, my son's team is in second place so far. They want to learn and the teachers want to teach. I love it. However, my youngest son's school is not quite the same and that is very unfortunate.

Member Avatar
diafol

You wonder what teacher would want to teach science (e.g. evolution, genetics, origins of the universe etc) in the USA? Either totally dedicated or insane / inept . You must have picked up on the insane / inept ones. The dedicated ones never make the news of course.

Rhino hide required - as I mentioned in my prev. post. All science teachers are now labelled as unsafe, unqualified and poorly trained. Don't think for a second that this will have escaped the students or their parents - especially those suffering with delusions of grandeur. Nor the "they" who know better.

I'm a bit annoyed that the article linked to by vegaseat has the sensationalist title:

"Report: Dangerous lab fires show lack of training"

But drilling down into the article itself. We see only some 12 incidents since 2000. Some of these incidents were due to a museum getting its instructions wrong and a parent conducting experiments with some cub scouts.

I'm sure vegaseat included this as a bit of devilment. I really hope so.

Most news media have a dismal scientific staff, so science reporting has been poor in general. There is not much of a role model to follow. Encouraging budding scientist is left to enlightened parents and good science teachers.

"Why is it that nobody understands me and everybody likes me?"
... Albert Einstein

Member Avatar
diafol

I think his wife and kids understood him well enough to dislike him.

I am not sure why science has such a bad stigma amongst US teenagers. Maybe because our only heroes are military or sports/entertainers.

Member Avatar
diafol

Have a look at Richard Dawkins videos on science in America and a particular problem in the Bible Belt and with the looney right and we may begin to see an issue. USA must spend the greatest amount of public and private money on "science", yet it remains unpopular there amongst certain groups as it is here in the UK. Let's be honest, it's not "media studies". For many, their appreciation of the modern world starts and ends with watching movies and playing video games. Even the most inspiring science teacher will struggle with this life view, which is often encouraged by the imbecilic family members in their lives.

Sorry, rant over.

I am not sure why science has such a bad stigma amongst US teenagers. Maybe because our only heroes are military or sports/entertainers.

Because the whole culture is anti-science:
On the left are the anti-vaccine, anti-chemical, radiation-paranoid yuppies
On the right the climate change & evolution deniers

On the left are the anti-vaccine, anti-chemical, radiation-paranoid yuppies
On the right the climate change & evolution deniers

Is that supposed to represent all of science? I believe, for the most part, in science but that doesn't mean that all science is gospel either. I do not like the umbrella statement of "Climate Change" because as soon as it is spoken or written, the assumption is it is all because of human interactions. Not to say that we do not contribute to the issue but global warming cannot be proven to be 100% human driven. Afterall, our Earth has warmed and cooled many times in its history so far.

Also, and I say this as a person and not a yuppy, being anti-chemical is not a bad thought nor is being paranoid about radiation.

Some of my own food for thought.

Member Avatar
diafol

By definition science cannot be gospel. We work with models. There is no such thing as scientific "truth". We replace outdated models with new ones as and when we gain more evidence. Science never sleeps. However there is overwhelming evidence for certain theories but even these cannot be fully described by current models. The greenhouse effect, global warming and climate change are often lumped together as meaning the same thing. Of course there's a connection and the root causes are many and varied, including natural and man-made. To suggest it is all down to humans would be ridiculous. However it does concern me that some insist there is no point cooling down our economies slightly or our consumption of non-renewable energy as the causes of "climate change" are "all natural anyway". The planet has maintained an equilibrium of sorts for millions if not billions of years. As anybody with a basic understanding of physical and chemical equilibrium will tell you, changing the conditions can have a considerable effect on a system before equilibrium re-asserts itself.

Is that supposed to represent all of science? I believe, for the most part, in science but that doesn't mean that all science is gospel either.

If you are not a scientist (which I assume you are not) you have 2 options:
1) Believe everything that passes the scientific process and achieves a broad consensus in the relevant scientific community
or
2) Deny that the scientific process works reliably for every question that it can be applied to.

Note I only included examples of things that have passed the scientific process and achieved a broad consensus in the relevant scientific community (90+% agreement) but that a large portion of the public actively deny.

Interestingly for theoretical/particle physics there is often the reverse, the scientific community is still actively debating stuff yet many members of the public believe whichever hypotheses they happen to have heard of. (Similar for lots of diet/cancer research -> the public leap on early days preliminary results which most scientists are still highly skeptical of).

I do not like the umbrella statement of "Climate Change" because as soon as it is spoken or written, the assumption is it is all because of human interactions. Not to say that we do not contribute to the issue but global warming cannot be proven to be 100% human driven. Afterall, our Earth has warmed and cooled many times in its history so far.

1) Climate change research includes a very broad range of things (not just trying to estimate what proportion is human caused) from the chemistry of various gases to the ecology of migratory birds.
2) Best estimates put human contribution at 70-90% (most around 80%)
3) historical warming a cooling happened on geologic time-scales not within a single person's lifespan.
But, I'm not going to debate it because it will only attract anti-science trolls which make me depressed.

Also, and I say this as a person and not a yuppy, being anti-chemical is not a bad thought nor is being paranoid about radiation.

Yes there are lots of things bad about being paranoid about radiation:
1) preventing the exploitation of a much cleaner energy source
2) taking unnecessary medications which actually give you a higher dose of radiation than the minor exposure you are trying to protect yourself from
3) creating ridiculous regulations that would make it illegal to pour tap water down the drain or throw out bananas in regular garbage because of trace levels of radiation.
4) refusing to get an X-ray or CT-scan because they use radiation
5) excessive regulation on cellphone towers and wifi because they emit different kinds of radiation

Being flat-out anti-chemical is also bad:
1) insist on 'organic' food which actually uses less efficient natural pesticides that are more harmful to fish & aquatic ecosystems. And which is less efficient than modern agriculture (less food per unit area) thus requiring deforestation to generate additional cropland.
2) taking ineffective herbal supplements and 'alternative' medicine rather than drugs that will actually treat your or your child's disease
3) refusing to get vaccines because of mercury or other chemicals added to them to make them more effective which result in outbreaks of previously controlled diseases (like measles)
4) being easily manipulated into paying for more expensive products because the cheap version has "scary chemical X" in it (eg. bottled water).
5) creating unnecessarily restrictive regulations because of the dangers of chemicals like dihydrogen monoxide (as at least one small town considered).

commented: You are awesome Agilemind! +0
commented: Vert good points. lucidly presented +0