Is teaching a science or an art, or both?
I've been reading a research paper written by Alexander Makedon, Assistant Professor Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Chicago State University. The paper was presented at the Annual Conference of the Midwest Philosophy of Education Society November 10, 1990, Chicago, Illinois.
Here is my summary of the paper to the above question.
The research aims to unpick meaning of the terms "art" and "science," including the difficulties involved in such discussion. And second, to help us to understand not only whether teaching is an art or science, or both, and if
I have tried to answer this question whether teaching is an art or science with the help of philosophies of education.
‘Tried’ meaning you still don’t know? 🙂
Actually, I feel that teaching is becoming a “customer service” profession as teachers become dependent on survey and assessment data and education funding becomes an ideological tool.
It is not a social discussion anywhere I know, but in popular culture our children and their parents are being convinced that teachers are either the main cause of all inspiration and of all childhood trauma.
The narrative talks about broken schools, terrible or genial teachers, and inequity in educational practices, mostly caused by teacher prejudice. Instead of following how State Education Departments are supporting schools, teachers and students, the narrative implants in people’s minds and even research that teachers have all the responsibility for failing schools. Nobody talks about the consequences of the increase in classroom sizes, decrease in specialized support staffing and professional development, and underlying assimilationist practices imposed by educational requirements, including the misuse of data driven instruction.
Many parents these days know that their child’s specific learning style requires support, but do not get informed that the teacher may not get any real professional assistance for special needs because the existing professionals are already spread thin, as all may have classes of thirty or forty students to manage and an evaluation over their professional heads that uses assessment results and student satisfaction surveys.
Parents do not know any of that, not even when they vote, and when they call to confront the school for not accommodating their child’s needs, they just want to be heard. Yet, Instead of establishing a professional interaction and conversation , they are placed in front of the culprit (the teacher) that will doom their child out of college opportunities, and instead of a dialogue to restore trust and the joy of learning, parents and teachers are placed in a conference room to defend themselves from each other with a mediator, an administrator, who determines the winner.
I would like to understand why intervention plans, parent-teacher conferences and innovative educational practices which are a good idea on paper have become more like recipes than scientific tools or arts.
Thought provoking article. In response to the initial question in the article, I believe that it is an important discussion, particular for school improvement through classroom practice/pedagogy.
For me, really effective teaching takes careful account of science and applies it through the art of teaching and communicating.
For example teaching is more effective when it takes account of the neuroscience of how we interpret, encode, store and recall/draw upon information.
Equally, when curriculum and lesson planning applies evidence of ‘what works’ or rather ‘what is very likely to work’ when applied similar conditions to those used in research on teaching, for example the EEF guidance reports.
But, teaching is magical when it takes account of the science above but then considered the crucial social science at play within a particular school context or community demography. For example, the nuanced hyper-local values, beliefs and cultural truths that shape individual and local identity.
When this nuanced and more subjective understanding is applied in the classroom we create super safe environments that see disengaged learners re-engage, gaps narrow and inequality redressed. That is magical and for me a hugely powerful art.
Some examples of the application of social science in the art of teaching:
Re-imagining ‘routine’ into ‘safe certainty’ helps develop a deeper understanding of why consistent routines are important for pupils, particularly disadvantaged or SEND.
Re-shaping formative assessment to ensure (for example) a disadvantaged boy is given ‘absolute certainty’ in how well they are learning whilst at the same time not undermining any potential ‘local identity‘ is more likely to provide the safety and build the confidence to take further risks over time.
Recognising that ‘ambition and aspiration’ exist in even the most reluctant learners (and communities) but often carry different meaning because of individual and community values can help us to consider the manner and language we use to engage children (and families) in the business of learning. By choosing language and behaviour that avoids reinforcing shame we are more likely to engage and build a trusting relationship and expose children to a curriculum that reveals an alternative meaning of ambition or aspiration.
This is why there really are no off the shelf solutions for all children in all schools and one of the reasons why gaps persist.
Just my thoughts.
Interesting! Like you I have a D&T background. With my PGCE students I (and they) find Dan Willingham’s framing of this question quite helpful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJrqM7Rx_FY
He argues that teaching is neither, but more akin to a technological discipline such as engineering or architecture that is informed by science but enacted in very particular settings where a great deal of judgement and insight based on experience is needed.
Yes, the latter point you make possibly being defined as the ‘art of teaching’? Responding to variables…