And the big thing here is that because they’re not mandatory, they typically rely on the professor’s motivation to go to these things to improve their teaching. Those who don’t see a problem with how they teach - or who don’t see teaching as the most important aspect of their position - aren’t likely to seek these out. (Also, UGA? pbbbbt. Hi from GSU )
In theory, for tenure, professors are evaluated based on their research, teaching and service - but how each of these items can vary from institution to institution, or even between departments, depending upon how tenure requirements are developed at the institution.
That’s certainly true about research universities, but not all colleges are like that. Many teaching colleges and community colleges, where faculty are expected to primarily engage in teaching rather than research, do have instructor training programs.
When I was a PhD. student in Britain, my “training” in teaching, consisted of one lunch (together with two or three other grad students) with the most junior faculty member, where he chatted rather informally about how to conduct tutoring sessions and grade papers.
The fact is, however, that nobody has a fucking clue how to teach anyone to teach well at university level, and any course is likely to be 90% useless bullshit and/or common sense. Teaching people to teach at the school level isn’t all that much better.
I served on a couple of hiring committees at a large, research university. We evaluated publication record, track record for acquiring grants or other funding, the fit between the candidate’s research interests and other faculty members’, and ability to train graduate students. Ability to teach undergrads was never discussed. The focus in hiring is very much on research.
As grad students, we were offered a 1 credit class in teaching. I don’t think it was required. The university also had some seminars, and I think there is a certificate you can earn.
Reply, you’ve asked about students who particularly want to become teachers. There is a problem with that assumption. Most grad students are trained at research universities, where there is an overwhelming emphasis on research. At my university, departments are evaluated in part on where they place their graduates, and well-regarded research schools receive the highest ranking. Professors therefore spend much more time and energy on students who say they want to go into research. Research-track students get much better funding opportunities, much better mentoring, and, in general, much more support from the department. As you can probably guess, most students are pretty unwilling to say they want to do anything other than research.
Hey, I’m here not because I would love to be here, I’m here because it was the place that accepted me. Atlanta doesn’t even have a college that teaches my field!
Also, not only UGA, but I’ve seen those in LSU, and a friend who teaches in Bloomington, says she also had to take a “how to teach” course before being a TA. Different schools and different areas, though. I’m in the sciences, she’s in the language and literature area.
Again, UGA (because that’s what I know the most) offers teaching awards, and has set up program to improve the teaching quality of their tenured faculty. I know because one of my department professors has gotten the award, while another new faculty has attended the meetings and seminars directed to help them improve.
That not all students get to take those “how to teach” or “teaching methods” courses is because they either have never been interested in teaching (and don’t want an academic job after PhD or MS degree) or do not have the time in their schedules and programs to fit extra courses that are not related to their field of studies.
Most of what I would have said has been said already. I’ll just add that, back in the 1970s, Morris Kline wrote a book called Why the Professor Can’t Teach, in which he covered this like the fact that college professors (specifically, in mathematics) are hired and promoted on the base of research, not teaching. The text of the book is available online; I’ve also found much more recent articles (like this one) that reference that older work.
When I was a TA, my “how to teach” course consisted of:
[ul]
[li]Write professional emails[/li][li]Here’s how to use Blackboard[/li][li]Take your compromising down from facebook and don’t sleep with your students.[/li][/ul]That’s it. Oh, and I got a bagel and a cup of coffee. Congratulations - you’re all now qualified in the eyes of Western State Flagship U to TA a class in your field!
Who is going to teach the teachers of teachers how to teach teachers? Teachers of teachers of teachers? Who is going to teach them? It has to stop somewhere.
About the same as I got, then, except back in my day emails and Blackboard and Facebook didn’t exist, and I think you were still allowed to sleep with students if you were discreet about it (not that any of them ever showed any signs of being prepared to sleep with me :().
Oh, and I got a beer and a sandwich instead of coffee and bagel. (I think I had to pay for them, though.)
Although it is changing, traditionally lawyers were not taught to practise law and doctors were not taught to practice medicine either. Those skills were learned after earning a professional degree.
Yep - engineering students aren’t taught to practice engineering; they’re taught the fundamentals on which the practice of engineering is based. They go out and get a job under a working professional engineer, and after four years of experience they can sit for a licensing exam - THEN they’re engineers. A lot of professions have similar career trajectories.
> . . . PhD students who want to become teachers, not generic grad students . . .
You’re trying to make a distinction that doesn’t exist. Probably most Ph.D.'s in the U.S. will be teachers. Those who don’t intend to be teachers don’t get any different treatment. In the math graduate program that I was in, nobody knew for sure whether they would be teaching college (and whether it would be a university that emphasized research over teaching), working in industry, working for the government, or whatever else was possible.
I took to imitating the most successful professors I’d had.
Unfortunately, this has caused me to affect an East Texan drawl, and a lot of nervous mannerisms (rolling up my sleeves, talking rapid-fire, trying to cram too much into a single 90 minute class, asking my students to jump around a lot in their textbooks) when teaching Shakespeare because that’s how my brilliant Shakespeare prof taught it, and seeming unemotional and dry and understated when I teach 19th century American lit, because that was the affect of my equally brilliant Amlit prof, and being a wise-guy and a wit when I teach creative writing, because–you guessed it.
Two comments:
[ol]
[li]What do you think the difference is between a PhD student and a grad student? Because in normal usage, there’s no difference.[/li][li]PhD students are looking to become professors, not teachers. Teaching is part of a professor’s responsibilities, but it’s not the only part, or even the most important part.[/li][/ol]
My husband has been a university professor for 16 years. The first half was spent at a university where a significant amount of research was expected. The second half has been spent at a university where there is little research and is known for its undergraduate teaching. Even at the teaching university, incoming professors (at least in the school of engineering) are never expected to know how to teach. It’s just something they hope you pick up from experience.
I have taught several engineering classes (at the teaching university) as a lecturer. I had absolutely no training on how to be a teacher when I started, and the department couldn’t have cared less.
I agree that professors should have some training in teaching methods. The good professors seem to go out of their way to gain some knowledge of how to improve their teaching. But there are too many professors who just don’t care and are miserable teachers.
I thought it was a fair question. Some people who get Ph.D.s do so specifically because they want to teach at the college level; others, not so much.
And the importance of teaching vs. a professor’s other responsibilities varies widely depending on things like what kind of college or university the professor is employed by.
OK a little bit on what doctorates really mean. Of course since many schools do not subscibe to these distinctions anymore, YMMV. And for the discussion we are talking about terminal or Ph.D.-equivalent degrees - not first professional degrees such as JD, Pharm.D, MD, DC, etc.
Ph.D.: A degree in how to conduct research. This is an academic degree in conducting research within your field so for example a Ph.D. in linguistics is how to research linguistics and would not be applicable for example to a practicing speech therapist. This distinction is why those who hold a Ph.D. wear dark blue representing philosophy (research) rather than their field. Cf. a person holding a Ed.D in physical education would wear sage green representing PE and not light blue representing education.
Practicum Degrees: These degrees are on applying the research others have done in a practical setting. For example Ed.D. for pedagogy, SJD for practicing law, D.Min of ministering to those in your faith, D.Litt for writing, Sc.D for scientists, etc.
Since the OP asked about teaching adults, they need to understand that there is a difference in teaching children (pedagogy) and adults (androgogy). Pedagogy is an Ed.D. degree but androgogy is different in that it is distinguished as a D.Arts or DA and is a degree in your field with an emphasis on teaching adults. The distinction is critical since you need a doctorate in your field to teach at a university so if I go to Idaho State Universityto get my DA, I have a terminal (and Ph.D. equivalent) degree in mathematics allowing me to teach at a university with an emphesis on teaching adults. Moreover I would were the golden-yellow signifying a degree in mathematics and not the white of Arts & Letters.
By the time you’re hired to teach, you’ve spent at least six years at a college level observing college teaching first hand. You know what works and what doesn’t.
My mother has a teaching degree. She often said that the Ed courses she took never taught her anything she hadn’t already figured out.
Education courses could help in a grade school or high school level since you’re teaching to students with a mix of motivations and interest level, and the ideal is to keep people from failing. By college, the weakest students have dropped out, and those there are adults and expected to be able do what is necessary to learn the subject.
As opposed to master’s students who won’t be teaching at the university level or PhD students who primarily want to go into non-teaching jobs.
I never said it should be the only part of their jobs, just that they should be trained for it – the same way they’re trained for other parts of their jobs.
This is almost verbatim what I was told as an incoming freshman.
In high school, your teachers were not likely experts in the subject, but were expected to teach the material to you.
Here, you can be guaranteed that the professor is an expert in the subject, but you are expected to learn the material.
They also helpfully told us to look around the auditorium “All of you were in the top 20% of your high school class. Half of you will be in the bottom 50% of this class, welcome to the Big Pond.”
)