Teaching For Learning [III.)
Earlier we defined learning as a change in behavior and gave some examples. It behooves us to ask now, what is teaching? Of more importance, of course, is what is good teaching? It is interesting that we really don't know ahead of time whether a person will be a "good" teacher or not. If you want to prove this, ask several people to make a list of the requirements of a good teacher. The list will likely include such things as:
Want to teach
Likes people
Is enthusiastic
Gets along well with people
Understands people
Can communicate well
But what about these things? How can they be measured? Are they really requirements for a good teacher? Of course, knowledge of the subject is a basic requirement and not listed here because it is taken for granted, but even this is hard to determine ahead of time. Think of good teachers we have had in the past, and it is possible to find one that did not have each of these items. For instance, I know a man who is as good a teacher as I have ever seen, but consistently refuses to take a teaching assignment because he just doesn't like to teach. The things that make him good have nothing to do with liking or not liking to teach.
Our problem is that we need to take a good look at what we mean by "good" teaching. In fact, we would do even better to look at "good" learning instead. Our emphasis is wrong when we look only at teaching and the teacher. The teacher is just a means to an end. Learning is the end! If we find something else that produces this end, then the teacher is done away with. The book, the filmstrip, the tape recording become the teacher and the means to the end. We get confused sometimes between the teacher and the "media," media being the material — visual aids, literature, etc. the teacher used. In reality it is wrong to separate the teacher and the media, for both are trying to reach the same end.
Let's see if we can simplify all of this with some examples. In a classroom there are generally a chalkboard, a teacher, some books (perhaps prepared literature or a Bible), maybe some pictures and finally some students. The students are the prime targets! Everything else exists for the purpose of their learning. Even the lights, the heat, the furniture and the size of the room were established for this purpose. Each thing in the room should contribute to learning, remain neutral or not be there at all. Everything should be contributing to the end of seeing that the students get what it is we want them to have. This means we should be careful in selecting each thing that goes into the classroom, whether it be the chair, the chalkboard or the teacher. But notice an important point: A teacher, a classroom, a chalkboard and some literature do not automatically produce learning. The students may learn in spite of any one of these things, including the teacher.
If we think of the classroom as we have described here, it is easier to concentrate on our purpose — to produce learning. There are teachers who do not communicate very well with words, but can produce lasting impressions with a piece of chalk and a chalkboard. Others may paint vivid word pictures that cause a high degree of learning, but be unable to do anything with the chalkboard at all. Some teachers do practically nothing in the classroom, letting the students do the work. Others are a ball of energy, keeping the enthusiasm and interest high with their own dynamic actions. Some make good use of literature, getting discussion on each point and allowing the students to learn through their own efforts. Another may depend on his memory and knowledge of the Bible and keep the class involved just as much. All of these may be producing a large quantity of learning.
But wait...each is doing it differently! Fine! Each is serving well in his capacity of being a means to an end. None fits a stereotype, because much to our surprise there is not stereotype for a good teacher. The only thing that successful teachers have in common is that they produce the same results — learning.
Are Good Teachers Born, Not Made?
One of the problems we run into when we say there is no stereotype for a good teacher is the fellow who nods and says, "Yes, that's right, because good teachers are born, not made. A person either has it or he hasn't. You can't make a good teacher." Such statements are common, and I suspect are believed by most of us. But evidence just doesn't bear it out. There are certainly extremes. A small percentage of the population are undoubtedly gifted as teachers, just as there is certainly a small group who will never make good teachers. The rest are scattered in between. The chances of finding the impossible case in a congregation are no greater than the chances of finding the natural expert. We recognize this in the case of song leaders, for instance. Some folks seem to come by it naturally, others seem to be doomed with a tone-deaf ear. But look how many we have taught to be respectable song leaders out of that in between group.
So where is the problem? One thing is, we don't evaluate teachers like we do song leaders. Except for those who teach the adults, the teachers are usually on their own, for better or worse. The children are generally passive in their comments (and after all teachers are hard to come by, so let's let well enough alone.) Teacher Training classes often are really just additional Bible Study classes, with no effort to dig into better teaching. New teachers may find themselves in a men's training class which helps them with the public speaking portion of the job of teaching, but doesn't go very far in preparing them to impart knowledge. So teachers not only aren't evaluated, they aren't even really trained.
We must first determine what good teaching is, how to measure it, and finally how to do it! If we can accept that teaching the Bible to young people is a skill, we will be pretty far down the road. Then we have to accept that learning this skill is a possibility for practically everyone. This latter is difficult for many people to accept, not only about other people, but about themselves. How often we hear a man or a woman say, "I'd like to take the class, but I just never will be a teacher." Maybe the person has tried it and found out that it is a hard job. Maybe they have even failed at one time or another. Maybe they never have tried it at all. Whatever the case, if we can convince them (and ourselves) that teaching is a skill that can be learned, we can overcome this objection. What other skills do we expect to be experts at without some kind of training? Certainly not song leading, nor speaking before a group, nor even leading prayer. The disciples realized their shortcomings and asked Jesus, "Lord, teach us to pray." (Luke 11:1)
So what have we said? Learning is a change in behavior, that is the ability to do something we couldn't do before. The process used most often to produce this learning is teaching. Teaching is a skill, which most often has to be learned, but can be learned. "Good" teaching is simply producing a goodly amount of change (or learning, if you prefer.)
Why then, don't we train teachers any better than we do? Because often times we really don't know just what it is that produces this learning we want! Is one method better than another? Why? Do visuals make a difference? How much difference, if any? How do we know if a visual is really a good one or a bad one? Is it necessary to have a visual for everything we teach? When can we get by without one? What part does the student play in the learning process? How can we be sure that he plays the right part? ... A lot of questions! Are there answers? We hope to provide answers for all of them later on. In the meantime, be thinking about them and see if you can find the answers to some of them in your own teaching program.
— 2882 Hollywood Dr., Decatur, Georgia 30033