Rocket Science and other Misconceptions

This MSN article entitled Is Teaching Easier than Rocket Science? (there's been other versions of this available in the past) raised some insightful dialogue in several places, particularly on the math-learn discussion list.

I particularly like this comment from John Clement. The idea about understanding student misconceptions is woefully lacking in most of our teacher preparation programs, and is a reason why even well-meaning induction and support programs can't be very successful without some focus on content.

Actually "good" teaching is harder than rocket science, and rocket scientists do not generally make good teachers. In science, engineers often make very poor teachers because they do not understand inquiry. So they teach by didactic methods only, and as a result the students never resolve their misconceptions.

Teachers need to actually have more than content specialists. They also need to know some practical psychology, have a grasp of pedagogy, and also understand student misconceptions. Teachers have to be experts in both the subject and in teaching. Unfortunately schools do not seem to understand this. They will assign teachers to subjects they have never studied, and give them types of students that they were not trained to handle.

Comments

[Marc Siciliano]

Glad to see these points raised, Mike. Beyond the AAAS Atlas of Science Literacy, what other sources exist to help teachers identify and understand student misconceptions?

[Miller Smith]

"In science, engineers often make very poor teachers because they do not understand inquiry."

What a silly thing to say. A jaw dropper. To keep the meaning absolutely acurate, "engineers...do not understand inquiry." Stupid.

Sorry for the vitrol, but how could such a comment be taken seriously? Orwellian to its very soul.