I simply said what I said as a a vent. Other people with a science background
might agree with me and probably would.

And people who are self taught scientists probably did not major in something
like English or PR. Think what you want, but it something that I feel very
strongly about and no one's opinion will change my mind.

On 10/24/09, huh? wrote:
>
>
> Your responses are elitist. You are essentially saying if you didn't learn
> science as a college student, then you can't learn it now. if you had
> said there are people who shouldn't be teaching anyone anything, then i
> would have agreed with you. There are people in every subject that are an
> embarrassment to that subject. If you had said that math and science, due
> to their highly technical and analytical nature, should be taught by
> certain people, i might have agreed with that too.
>
> But you're not saying that. you are convinced only certain elite people
> are capable of teaching science. your argument is misguided. i mean, you
> are suggesting i couldn't teach science, but you know nothing about me. i
> am more than capable, and there are many other people just like me. i
> think your argument is backwards. let me ask you this: if a background in
> science is necessary, have you considered why certain people are drawn to
> science to begin with? analytical minds are drawn to science... and
> they're drawn to engineering, and math, and statistics, and many other
> analytical fields.
>
> sure, there are people who end up in a field that shouldn't be there (and
> i suspect this is really what you're trying to say), but for the most
> part, analytical minds are drawn to all sciences, not just chem, bio &
> physics.
>
> self learning (autodidacticism) has produced some notable scholars in many
> fields -- including science. thomas edison was autodidactic, as were
> Michael Faraday, Alfred Russel Wallace and Henry Walter Bates (all self
> taught scientists). look up autodidacticism on the net.
>
> I am not saying i am the caliber of these notable scientists, but i do
> share that one trait. i happen to be autodidactic -- and there are many
> more teachers like me.
>
>
> On 10/24/09, Science teacher wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>>you need to understand the nature of science(no, not the scientific
>>> method), --i think i am capable of understanding the nature of
>>> science. i think if i picked up a science textbook and studied it
>>> for a few weeks, i could teach it (i currently teach HS math). N
>>
>> No you can not learn this from a textbook. The nature of science is not
>> the scientific method, and that was my point. I have seen far too many
>> people teaching science, who do not truly understand it. Maybe you
>> would know what I was talking about if you had a science background.
>> Too many people think they can just read the book and then teach it. And
>> besides if you are only as strong as the textbook you depend on that's
>> pretty sad. Textbooks are very limited and yes they can have mistakes.
>>
>>>
>>>>>how labs are designed and the expected results and why those
>>> results might be different. -- this refers to statistical methods
>>> -- something i had plenty of in college (i have a masters degree)
>>> -- but my only college "science" was astronomy. (technically, my
>>> "science" was statistics -- i do have a master of science, after
>>> all)
>>
>> No this is not just statistical methods. You cannot explain a lab on
>> the activity series if you do not really understand reduction and
>> oxidation. Also sometimes you're results do not come out as they
>> should, could you explain to a student why that happened? Could you set
>> a lab as an inquiry activity if you did not have any instructions on the
>> lab?? (I guess someone who had no background would not be doing this
>> since that may not be part of the textbook)
>>
>>>>>Also if you are teaching a higher level science (chemistry, bio,
>>> physics, etc) you really need to have taken college level courses.
>>> -- this is probably a good idea, but i don't think its necessary.
>>> again, i believe i can capably learn the material and teach it.
>>
>> It is not necessary to have chemistry courses before teaching chemistry?
>> Have you seen the curriculum? Somebody who has never seen electron
>> configurations can teach it? And the exceptions to the rules? What about
>> doing stoichiometry and redox reactions? I guess anyone can do that too?
>> You're right my degree is useless.
>>
>>>
>>>>> There is a reason that science is the only subject that has
>>> INDIVIDUAL subject tests! -- do you mean it has separate tests for
>>> chem, physics, & bio? i think math should be divided that way too.
>>> geometry, algebra and calculus should all be separate.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe they should. I just know that someone who can teach biology can
>> not necessarily teach chemistry or physics. And so far the state has
>> only saw fit to separate science into individual tests.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/22/09, Alex wrote:
>>>> Really? I didn't find the post confusing at all.. What part did
>>>> you have trouble with? I thought it was to the point, written with
>>>> passion, and this person had strong convictions in their beliefs..
>>>>
>>>> On 10/22/09, huh? wrote:
>>>>> i'm not criticizing -- everyone should be entitled to vent...
>>>>> but the logic in your post is confusing.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/22/09, ScienceTeacher wrote:
>>>>>> I am just venting here and I know that there will be people
>>>>>> who disagree with me. I am just so tired of people trying to
>>>>>> get certified in science (of any kind) when they have NO
>>>>>> background in science. I know people are doing it because
>>>>>> they are either trying to get hired or they want job
>>>>>> security. Whatever the reason.. Did it ever occur to you
>>>>>> why there is a shortage of those teachers(although that is
>>>>>> not true anymore)?? Science is not the SAME as teaching
>>>>>> English, history or any other subject! To truly understand
>>>>>> science you need to have background in it, you need to
>>>>>> understand the nature of science(no, not the scientific
>>>>>> method), how labs are designed and the expected results and
>>>>>> why those results might be different. Also if you are
>>>>>> teaching a higher level science (chemistry, bio, physics,
>>>>>> etc) you really need to have taken college level courses.
>>>>>> There is a reason that science is the only subject that has
>>>>>> INDIVIDUAL subject tests! I'm sick of people thinking
>>>>>> anyone is qualified to teach it. I do not consider myself
>>>>>> qualified for English? Why would an English teacher or
>>>>>> history teacher be qualified to teach science?

Share This Post | Report This Post

Next Post >>

Posts on this thread, including this one