首页
外语
计算机
考研
公务员
职业资格
财经
工程
司法
医学
专升本
自考
实用职业技能
登录
外语
As at most colleges, our semester at Notre Dame ends with student evaluations of their teachers. Each time I wonder what the stu
As at most colleges, our semester at Notre Dame ends with student evaluations of their teachers. Each time I wonder what the stu
admin
2011-08-28
70
问题
As at most colleges, our semester at Notre Dame ends with student evaluations of their teachers. Each time I wonder what the students—and their parents—make of this exercise. "Wait," I imagine them saying, "we’ve just paid you tens of thousands of dollars in tuition to take courses at your school, and now you’re asking us to tell you if the teachers you hired are any good? If you didn’t already know that they’re first class, you had no right taking our money."
We don’t hear this kind of response because, in fact, the large majority of teachers at Notre Dame do a good job. We don’t depend on our students to judge our basic competence as teachers, although they often suggest helpful adjustments in our pedagogy (and can call attention to cases of clear incompetence or irresponsibility when they occur). Over all, schools like Notre Dame hire people that they are confident will be competent teachers. And, although there are criticisms and room for improvement, students, parents, graduate/professional schools and employers are, over all, well satisfied with results.
Who are these successful teachers? Ph.D.’s from first-class programs, of course, but that’s because college teaching and research require a high level of specialist knowledge. Beyond this knowledge, college teachers do a good job because of qualities that they already have when they complete their undergraduate education: a high level of intelligence, enthusiasm for ideas and an ability to communicate. In this regard, they are like those who go into other knowledge-based professions like law, medicine, engineering and architecture. With faculties of the "best and the brightest" from the pool of undergraduates, colleges can be confident of good quality teaching. Moreover, as in other knowledge-based professions, college faculties can be trusted to do their jobs well with minimal external supervision, assessment and in-service training. The professional community itself is, on the whole, able to ensure a high level of competence among its members.
These reflections lead me to a simple proposal. Adopt the same model for grade school and high school teaching that works for colleges. Currently, few of the best students from the best colleges are grade school or high school teachers. (The most encouraging data merely suggest that high school teachers may be a bit above average, while grade school teachers are considerably below average). This is not because the best students have no interest in teaching.
Top doctoral programs have far more applicants than they can accept, and many excellent students don’t apply, either because they do not have a high enough level of specialized skills or because they do not want to risk the terrible job market for college teachers. Such students would form a natural pool for non-college teaching if the pay and working conditions were anywhere near the level of the college average. There are also many excellent students with no interest in the advanced research that is the focus of doctoral programs who would prefer non-college teaching to less intellectually engaging and less socially useful work in, say, management or sale.
So why not make use of all this talent to develop an elite class of professionals—like those who teach in our colleges—and give them primary responsibility for K-12 education? One objection is that teaching children and teenagers requires a set of social/emotional abilities—to empathize, to nurture, to discipline—that have little connection with the intellectual qualities of the "best" college students. But there is no reason to think that people who are smart, articulate and enthusiastic about ideas are in general less likely to have these non-intellectual abilities. The idea is to choose those who have both high intellectual ability and the qualities needed to work successfully with children at a given grade level. Moreover, it’s important that teachers be—as they now often are not—credible authority figures, a status readily supported by the justified self-confidence and prestige of an elite professional.
It’s sometimes urged that a high level of intellectual ability is not needed to understand high-school, not to say grade-school, subjects. This is true, but with our current low standards it is not unheard of to find teachers who lack even this basic understanding. Moreover, it requires considerable intelligence to respond adequately to the questions of bright students. Most important, the greatest intellectual challenge of teaching at any level is to find ways of presenting the content effectively. Our current system seems often to assume that K-12 teachers will need the guidance of "experts" to tell them how to do this. There’s considerable doubt as to the existence of the alleged expertise. For decades educational theory has produced a series of failed panaceas (new math, whole-language reading, writing across the curriculum, discovery-based learning, group projects, etc.). But, in any case, more intelligent teachers will be both more likely to develop on their own better methods of teaching and better able to understand and apply any wisdom that may come to them from above.
From The New York Times, June 7, 2012
What’s the author’s attitude toward the idea that a high level of intellectual ability is not needed to understand high-school, not to say grade-school, subjects?
选项
A、He agrees with it and also points that some grade-school and high-school teachers even lack the basic understanding.
B、He agrees with it and thinks that grade-school and high-school teachers are good at understanding.
C、He disagrees with it and and also points that some grade-school and high-school teachers even lack the basic understanding.
D、He disagrees with it and thinks that grade-school and high-school teachers are good at understanding.
答案
A
解析
本题为细节题。从第七段的第二句,This is true,but with our current low standards it is not unheard of to find teachers who lack even this basic understanding.可以看出,作者赞同这一观点,但足指出现状并不让人满意,即使现在对中小学教师要求不高,还是有老师缺乏基本的理解能力,所以选A。
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.kaotiyun.com/show/VeYO777K
0
专业英语八级
相关试题推荐
Ofthewell-known"fivesenses"--sight,hearing,smell,tasteandtouch--byfarthemostimportanttomostanimalsissmell.But
Sociologistsfinditusefultodistinguishbetweentypesofcrimeonasomewhatdifferentbasis.Ratherthanrelyingsolelyonl
Thefridgeisconsideredanecessity.Ithasbeensosincethe1960swhenpackagedfoodfirstappearedwiththelabel:"storein
Inbusiness,manyplacesadoptacreditsystem,whichdatesbacktoancienttimes.Atpresent,purchasescanbemadebyusingc
InOctober1949theUnitedNationsbroughtanumberofspecialistsonfoodtoGeneva,todiscusstheproblemsofeatinghabitsa
WhichofthefollowingisNOTwrittenbyWilliamButlerYeats?
LondonissteepedinDickensianhistory.Everyplacehevisited,everypersonhemet,wouldbedrawnintohisimaginationandre
Englishlanguagebelongsto______.
TheSkillsofEssayWritingWritingcanhelpyoutogetyourthoughtsclear,toexploresomeofyourideasandto【1】yourself
Sciencehaslonghadanuneasyrelationshipwithotheraspectsofculture.ThinkofGallileo’s17thcenturytrialforhisrebell
随机试题
《长亭送别》选自王实甫的杂剧()
与熟石膏相比,人造石的性能优越表现在
全口义齿初戴时出现恶心呕吐是戴用新全口义齿后感觉吃饭时用不上力是
某河平水期平均流量为180m3/s,河流断面形状近似矩形,河宽55m,水深7m,在取样断面上应取()水样。
因碰撞、挤压导致喜马拉雅山持续升高的两大板块分别是()。
对犯罪嫌疑人进行询问时,侦查人员不得少于()人。
颏孔(mentalforamen)
一项复印工作,如果由复印机A,B单独完成,分别需50分钟,40分钟.现两台机器同时工作了20分钟,B机器损坏需维修,余下的工作由A机器单独完成,则完成这项复印工作共需时间().
某软件企业2004年初计划投资10007万人民币开发一套中间件产品,预计从2005年开始,年实现产品销售收入1500万元,年市场销售成本1000万元。该产品的系统分析员张工根据财务总监提供的贴现率,制作了如下的产品销售现金流量表。根据表中的数据,该产品的动
AproposedRussianbanonEuropeanUnionmeatexportscouldjeopardizeRussia’saspirationstojointheWorldTradeorganization
最新回复
(
0
)