If you do not believe that an adult can learn to be a great
science teacher, what do you have to convince me that you
are capable of teaching children to be great scientists?

On 10/24/09, Science teacher wrote:
> 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