This week I’ve been thinking about how teachers are trained.
Before becoming a full-time college professor, at one point I almost became a
full-time high school science teacher. (I still might one day – it’s hard to
predict the future.) To teach high school you need certification that
“qualifies” you to be a teacher. Depending on what state or country you’re
from, this may be a degree, a diploma or a certificate of some sort that
specifically has to do with teaching. To be a college professor on the other hand,
does not require any such certification. You just need a graduate degree
(preferably in your field although sometimes a related field is okay). The
majority of college professors in the majority of institutions spend the
majority of their time teaching. But yet they don’t require any background in
pedagogy. What does this say about the philosophy behind tertiary education?
We’ll get to that in a bit, but first let’s see what sorts of teachers Harry
Potter gets.
Hogwarts seems to be an interesting example in that the age
of the students is 11-18 or secondary school. However, there is no
teacher-training college that we know of, and many of the teacher appointments
are not made solely on “teaching ability”. The teachers are called “professors”
which typically happens at the tertiary level in our world, although that’s
simply a title in this case. Having recently finished Book 5, it seems
appropriate to discuss teacher qualifications. Umbridge certainly thinks it is important. How was she chosen? Well, she was foisted upon Hogwarts for
political reasons. It is unclear she had any teaching background and her
methods seem very dated. For much of mankind’s history, knowledge was scarce.
Books were precious and rare (as was the ability to read). The invention of the
printing press started to open up opportunities, but until books became cheap
and widespread, reading in class (which Umbridge directs the students to do)
was probably a reasonable approach. In our age of the Internet, we are in an
era of knowledge abundance, and we should be evaluating our teaching and
pedagogy in light of this. I’ve a bit more to say about this, but first let’s
look at some of the other Hogwarts professors.
We learn in Book 5 that Trelawney was chosen mainly for her
own protection, and not on her ability to teach, nor her subject matter.
Dumbledore, in fact, was thinking of discontinuing the subject of Divination.
Towards the end of the book, Firenze is invited, because he has nowhere to go
and it is for his protection. He doesn’t think humans can learn anything from
reading the signs in any case. Dumbledore takes on Hagrid, who has nowhere else
to turn, first as Gamekeeper but then eventually as a professor. Hagrid did not
even finish his education at Hogwarts although it is quite clear that he knows
his subject material very well. This might be equivalent to professionals in
our world who may not have the appropriate graduate degree, but whose work
experience qualifies them to teach as adjunct professors. While Hagrid is away,
a part-time replacement (adjunct professor of another sort) Grubbly-Plank
substitutes for his class. No mention is made of her qualifications. Flitwick,
Sprout, McGonagall and Snape have been at Hogwarts for a while and are clearly
very capable in their subject matter. Did they get trained? How did they learn
to teach? How did they know they wanted to teach?
In Book 6, Slughorn is pulled out of retirement, mainly for
his own protection. There is a revolving door of professors teaching Defense
Against the Dark Arts – some terribly unqualified, others quite capable.
Dumbledore himself provides an interesting case – he chooses teaching
specifically over other “power” positions, although the reasons are complex
involving both the personal and the professional. The most interesting case, I
think, is Tom Riddle. When he comes back after traveling far and wide, he asks
Dumbledore for a position and Hogwarts. He gives reasons I would give if I was
interviewing for a position as a college professor. He has something to offer
from both experience and ability (he is very capable in magic – and it is a
school of witchcraft and wizardry). He also seeks the opportunity to learn more
at Hogwarts, to delve more into the hidden secrets of the universe. Sounds like
scholarship and research to me! (Now we do know that he has other motives, and
Dumbledore denies him the position he seeks.)
Is a Magical education (such as provided by Hogwarts) a
situation of knowledge scarcity or abundance? Or is it neither? In terms of
books, the situation seems to be that standard textbooks and printed materials
are plentiful, but the market for more advanced knowledge seems to be much
smaller. You’d have to go to the Restricted Section of the Library, and you
would need permission to check out the more “dangerous” books. There is no
operational Internet or the use of computers or other electronic devices because
it interferes with magic. The purpose of the “using magic” related classes is
to learn how to channel and control magic. Using magic is prohibited outside of
school and in the hallways, although students are allowed to practice some
things as part of homework. In that sense, maybe Hogwarts more closely
resembles vocational training schools, the vocation in this case is “magic
user”. Are there graduate schools? We don’t know. But certainly further
training is needed for some careers as Harry finds out when he gets advice
about becoming an Auror.
The choice of “capable” Hogwarts professors seems to be
their strengths in particular areas of the magical world. Snape seems to be a
master potion brewer, and apparently did his own research while in school.
McGonagall, being a registered Animagus, seems appropriate as the
Transfiguration teacher. Hagrid is particularly knowledgeable about magical
creatures of all sorts, and Sprout seems clearly the magical botany expert. Is
there a research component to their teaching? The advancement of magical
knowledge perhaps? We get hints that this might be the case. That seems to be
how we hire professors in tertiary institutions. Do you have the knowledge
(demonstrated by the appropriate graduate degree)? Can you do research and
advance knowledge (if that is part of the institution’s mandate)? At more
teaching-focused institutions, evidence of some teaching is often required. (See a previous post for an example on how hiring works at a SLAC in the sciences.)
The vast majority of candidates for tertiary education
positions have no training in pedagogy (unlike those being certified to teach
at the secondary level). Is the knowledge enough? Certainly in an era of
knowledge scarcity, having the knowledge to impart would clearly be the highest
priority. But we are now in an era of knowledge abundance. The skill set we
need to teach our students is how to be discerners of knowledge. Speaking for
myself, the process of getting a Ph.D. in the natural sciences requires delving
through past knowledge and discerning which parts are useful for the furthering
of knowledge. We are now seeing that getting undergraduates involved in research is a “high impact practice” in the jargon of higher education. Are
there better and worse ways of guiding students through that process? I’m sure
there are, although many of us college professors probably learned our craft of
teaching through trial and error and much experimentation (the same way some of
us got our graduate degrees). The practice of teaching and learning pedagogy
was not a priority then, although universities are recognizing this importance
and creating “pedagogy centers” to help instructors “improve” their teaching.
No comments:
Post a Comment