Teachers

By

William D. Dannenmaier

The semester at college is winding on and I am beginning to hear complaints. One of my sons was describing his teachers to me - not always in complimentary terms. I have heard the same grousing from others over the years. When they complain about some specific teacher to me, my typical, unsympathetic, answer is always, “Other students can learn and pass in that class. Why can’t you?”

Not counting grade school, junior high and high school, I have known at least a hundred at the university level as a student as well as others in such fun courses as sign language, automobile mechanics and small motor repair. I have also worked with hundreds in different universities.

Some teachers have been wonderful, and I knew they were wonderful. A few have been horrible, and sometimes I knew they were horrible. Some I thought of as useless, whom I later discovered to have taught me things I didn’t appreciate at the time but proved to be valuable to me. (They were what I now call “time-bomb” professors. You think they are simply talking and then some five or ten years later you suddenly realize that you are succeeding at something because of what that teacher taught you when you thought he was simply “wandering.”) Others I have considered useless – and they were.

There are at least five main types of teachers: those who don’t teach their subjects, those who read the textbook to the students, those who discuss personal experiences and events relevant to the class, those who teach the theoretical background of the subject and those who, using the textbook as a base, present theory and practical applications of textbook lessons. All five of these types are found at all educational levels.

First there are those who don’t even pretend to teach their subject, whatever it may be. Instead, they talk about events of the day, sorority and fraternity activities, football results in effect, nothing of substance. Such teachers often give high grades, using them to get the students to accept without complaint the fact that they have learned nothing that has anything to do with the subject they paid to take. Poor students love such “teachers.” Those who had hoped to learn something despise them.

Then there are those who simply read the textbook to the students. Most of these are either new teachers, learning the textbook and building their own self-confidence or else experienced teachers teaching a subject they have not taught before. But not all fit that description. I had one in graduate school. I would drowsily follow his lecture through the text, with my finger moving along the line – he had memorized the book. I had a similar teacher in calculus, but my favorite was one in English. A slender, elderly, prim, spinster type she was reading Anthony and Cleopatra to us when, suddenly she skipped two lines. Sixty years later, they are the only lines I remember: “He plowed her and she reaped.”

More interesting and frequently underestimated by students, are those who appear to ignore the textbook and discuss personal experiences relevant to the subject. Sometimes, such teachers are part-time instructors who are making a living doing what the textbook is attempting to teach. To have someone who is or has made a living doing what is being taught is invaluable. I recall one professor, a Miss Windhorst, whom I liked as a person, but who never seemed to teach anything. It was not until years later that I learned that she had somehow taught me to look at students in my classes as human beings and treat them as such, whether they were five or fifty. During all the years I worked with student teachers, the ones who had the most difficulty in the classroom were those who did not understand or had not learned that seemingly simple lesson, which – as I learned – is difficult to teach.

Then there are those who teach the theoretical foundations of the subject. Often esteemed as scholars, their teachings are invaluable to those able to make the step to applying the theory on their own. Such classes are also invaluable to those who wish to know the “why” of a subject. Other students, at least at the university level, learn to avoid their classes.

Lastly, there are those who follow the text they have selected, emphasizing the spots they know to be difficult for students, and illustrating the text by giving examples of real life occasions that are, or should be, familiar to the student. They also add material which is directly relevant, but which, for some reason, has been omitted from the textbook. Such teachers are always considered difficult, but, typically, are well regarded by the more interested students.

In my opinion, there is no place in any school for persons of the first type. They are not interested in teaching, only in being paid. Their disinterest should be documented and they should be fired. Their continued presence in a school is a reflection on the competence of the school administrator, but some of them are administrators. There is a place for all of the others, one type will appeal to one group of students, another to a different group and all add value to the school.

Is there any person who has been employed in business or in government who has not met all of these types, including, unfortunately, the first type? Learning to live with them in school is simply a preparation for learning to live with them in life.