Lets say your a professor of mathematics and you 12 year old is just starting algebra. You of course know so much your explanations get too long winded or you just dont have the patience for when your kid cannot grasp what to you seems a simple concept.
Or lets say your an expert in computer programming and your kid is learning BASIC.
The point is do you think their could be a situation where your such an expert in a field you cannot teach the basics of it?
Merely from familiarity with the subject? Of course not. If there’s a problem in communicating a simplified form of the ideas, that’s down to your inability to communicate (or to simplify), not that you know too much about the subject.
I find that I quite enjoy teaching and explaining the very basics of things I’m good at, and people tell me I explain things well. Being good at something often gives you some nice insights into how to explain it, as well.
Some people are of course renowned experts who couldn’t explain how to spell “cat.” Not being a good teacher doesn’t necessarily mean you’re not actually an expert.
When I started teaching I found the hardest things to teach were subjects that came extremely easily to me. I didn’t have my own past experience of how to break something down and slog through it to draw from. Material that had been harder for me, or at least wasn’t intuitive, was easiest to teach. It took work, but I was able to learn how to teach the easy stuff effectively.
Agree with IvoryTowerDenizen. Knowing everything there is to know about a subject is not an impediment in and of itself, but if you picked something up by intuition, breaking it down for someone else may not come easily. The process does deepen your own knowledge of the subject though. This is what they mean when they say you don’t really “know” something until you teach it.
Yeah, when I was teaching that’s how I was with the medtric system and conversions. I understood it but couldnt explain it to 9th graders.
It’s the same with giving directions to someplace. Oh sure YOU know how to get there, but do you know the actual streets and addresses?
Absolutely. Teaching not only exposed holes in material I thought I knew really well, but it also helped me add new levels of nuance and sophistication to what actually did know very well.
I agree with this. From two things I think I’m good at:
Case Study #1
I am objectively a good, safe driver (no accidents, my fault or otherwise, in 18 years; no moving violations in ten). It comes naturally to me; the multitasking and baseline level of vigilance required to be a good driver is effortless. I’m also a great parallel parker, even of a vehicle I’ve never driven before. I just have a natural proprioception and sense of distance. Because it’s effortless to me, I have a hell of a time trying to teach anyone else. I want to rip my hair out after about five minutes, and I can tell they’re frustrated too.
Case Study #2
I’m a pretty good guitar player. Wasn’t always that way; I started when I was 14 and I was so bad for the first three or four years that it was a running joke among my friends. Nothing came easily. It came only through hundreds, then thousands of hours of practice. In my mid-twenties, I started getting compliments on my playing. By thirty, people would see me play live and try and poach me from my current bands. Because I made beginner mistakes for so long, and had to work so hard not to suck, I’m a very good teacher of beginning guitar players. It’s easy to picture why they’re doing things wrong, and suggest improvements in a way that’s understandable to the fledgling player.
I’ve seen that in coaching. Some coaches are used to coaching upper levels of sports like baseball and football and have all kinds of problems coaching the sport to 6 year olds.
For example in baseball you do NOT have a 5 year old do the familiar “step into the pitch” stuff. It will just confuse them and cause them to swing low.
Also their is a “bunny ears” method of teaching little kids how to throw a baseball that I can bet no major leaguer has ever seen.
And DONT yell at them like you would a high schooler!
Driving a manual transmission vehicle. I learned to drive on one and have preferred them ever since. My daughter learned through gradual osmosis. Anyone else who has asked me to teach them ends up poorly.
Yes, this, except I think sometimes it takes specialized training to learn how to teach the “easy stuff.” I still haven’t the foggiest idea how to teach sentence-level writing mechanics, and based on my observations of my colleagues (most of whom hold PhDs in English but have no rhet / comp background), this is true for just about everyone. Some of them use a lot of grammatical terminology that is visibly going over the students’ heads (so that the students can, for example, parrot rules like “use a comma when you separate independent clauses with a coordinating conjunction,” but cannot identify an independent clause or a coordinating conjunction when they see one), and some of them, myself included, simply give up and focus on content and organization because we know nothing we have tried ever works. (I understand that there is significant pedagogical research to back up the idea that teaching grammar doesn’t improve students’ writing anyway, so you may as well focus on the things you can teach.)
That’s the truth. I’m always one to contribute in meetings, or express opinions when I was taking classes, but I absolutely struggle with encouraging good discussions (not just me asking a question and looking for an answer) in my classes. It some directed help from people who really good at it and some purposeful learning on my part before I was able to improve in this area.
Go back and watch the old “Grammar Rock” cartoons. Their is a good one called “Conjunction Junction - What’s Your Function?”.
OP you are talking about two different capabilities, which are mutually exclusive: technical mastery and the ability to communicate and teach. You can be good at both, or be good at only one. There’s no correlation in my opinion of the two.
I’ve had the greatest difficulty teaching things that are art, not science, even if they happen in a science classroom. Like thin section petrography, remote sensing from stereopairs, or anything where you have to get your eye in first.
Are you suggesting that I should watch them, or that I should make my students watch them? Either way, I don’t think watching them would get at the basic problem, which is that teaching students grammar terminology usually has no effect on their writing mechanics.
There’s a great story about Ted Williams, the greatest hitter ever to play baseball IMHO. He was great at everything he did. Besides baseball he was also an expert fisherman and flew fighter jets in the Korean War. But one thing he was not good at was managing and coaching. I think it’s because he operated on such a high level that he had difficulty relating to beginners or anyone not at a similarly high level.
In a recent biography one of his players on the Texas Rangers said he used to talk to them about hitting. One day they were in the dugout and he was saying in the first part of the game when the pitcher is fresh, you shouldn’t try to hit the bottom half of the ball. Instead, hit the top half and go for line drives. Later in the game, you should aim for the bottom half and try for home runs.
So the player says this may sound like good advice. But consider that he’s hitting .240, Nolan Ryan is up there throwing 95 mph at him, and Mr. Williams wants him to hit a PARTICULAR HALF OF THE BALL!
Williams didn’t seem to realize that other people couldn’t do that. He’d get upset watching the game because he’d see some nuance and predict the next pitch or something that was about to happen, and be disgusted when his players didn’t see it too. Great player, but not the guy I’d want as a coach. I once read his book on hitting, and I don’t have the math background to understand it!
On the other hand, there are guys like Stan Musial who loved to talk about hitting, and whom even opposing players would turn to for advice when they were slumping. Musial was almost as productive a hitter as WIlliams, but was very good at explaining what hitters were doing wrong.
SOME great sportsmen don’t know exactly how they do what they do, and can’t explain it. Guys like Musial (and Tony Gwynn, for that matter) studied their craft intensely, and could tell you step by step exactly why and how they did what they did.
This.
Image analysis - from light or electron micrographs to MRIs and CTs - is easy to introduce to newcomers and discuss with other experts but devilishly hard to get folks over the middle-ground (especially the "why is this image ‘bad’ while that image is ‘good’ "). And, while some of that can be taught (or at least approximated with much study) some of it comes down to an art.
To play devil’s advocate a little bit, I think things feel like “art” when we can’t teach them and feel like “science” when we can. So there are things that might feel like science to you and art to me. So that’s a bit recursive.