Skill vs. Specialized knowledge

There was plenty of down time in class today. There was a test last class and therefore our teacher was attempting to give tests back and dive into new material, we only got half our tests back and the material we covered in class was from the section we were just tested on. I took this time to jot down a few notes on something I had been thinking about, and to doodle extensively.

The idea was thus, something like teaching is unique. Impressive so far! There are really two elements to this uniqueness. Teaching is first a skill but also requires amounts of what I will call specialized knowledge. I want to talk a bit about both.

Exceptional teaching is not often encountered. It is a skill, an art, and possibly a science. No matter what the subject matter a good teacher is a good teacher. They all have in common a profound ability to convey knowledge. They are able to pass on knowledge with seeming ease and inspire their pupils. Taking raw information and funneling it into orderly decipherable brain food. It goes further when their student continues to be reminded of their teachers lessons on subjects or life. They calm the nerves and bring out the best. But it does not matter what the subject is, the best share this trait. It is hard learned.

The second part is specialized knowledge. This is the subject matter of any teacher. It is what most people would consider makes them smart and other people dumb. Which is frankly a false assumption. Doctors and fishermen both have this, and switch the fields on them and they will both seem as though they are imbeciles. It is why real fans of baseball get excited when it seems that no one has even gotten on base all game, there isn't even a score in the eighth inning but they jump all over the room and shout at the screen! It doesn't actually mark intelligence but only familiarity with a given subject. This is however the broad base of knowledge that teachers decipher from to inform their eager students.

This may seem obvious to some, but how obvious is it really? This past spring I substitute taught two history classes for the remainder of the year, I even wrote their exams! But what are my qualifications? Well… I have taught Sunday School for a number of years, I also have received my AASI level II certification, and I have taken many history classes which I generally ace. But no Associates or Bachelors in either discipline! Yet it seems that we dove deeply into the material and opened discussions, encouraged the use of critical thinking, and have had a somewhat lasting impression on the students. I am not trying to pat myself on the back, I am just trying to express a love of teaching and also to dash the idea of superior 'smarts' based on ones extensive 'studying' of any particular subject.