Is teaching an art or a science? First off, by “teaching” I’m working under the assumption that we’re talking about effective teaching. We typically think of the art of teaching as something that one knows intuitively. It is an “organic” process by which the teacher responds to the ever changing needs of the students and delivers content appropriate to the skills, interests, and attention of the audience. The teacher is comfortable in this role. On the other hand, a scientific viewpoint of teaching would represent a much more formulaic approach. The teacher has a clear plan, within which there is not much room for improvisation, but it is a well thought out plan. The teacher actively tests her effectiveness as a teacher and adjusts accordingly.
I have a hard time thinking teaching is one or the other—there is a lot of gray area in both of these descriptions. On the one hand, it is important that teachers are comfortable in their role as a teacher, and it is beneficial to be able to think quickly and adjust a lesson plan as needed. On the other hand, as a die-hard planner, I have a hard time believing teachers can be consistently effective operating without plans. Some teachers may say they don’t plan, but really, I think that their planning is simply a non-traditional format. Some teachers need very detailed plans, and others don’t require as many details, but they still usually have some type of plan.
I looked up “art” and “science” in Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary and found the following definitions:
- Art - skill acquired by experience, study, or observation (Art, 2011)
- Science - something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge (Science, 2011)
Frankly, looking at these two definitions, I’m not sure we’re talking about two different things when we discuss teaching as an art or a science. Both require acquired skills. Yes, some individuals may have a more natural knack for teaching, but I still think they need to work at it. Conversely, there may be some individuals who naturally lack so many of the skills required to be an effective teacher that it would be tremendously difficult, if not outright impossible, for them to become great teachers. But this is an extreme scenario. For the most part, I think teaching is like any other skill. Everyone has some natural tendencies based on their personality makeup and their life experiences. Through practice, study, collaboration, reflection, etc. they can improve, if that’s their goal.
So what is my teaching style like? As I mentioned, I’m usually a big planner. I feel comfortable when I know I have a plan in place, and this goes for teaching as well. I like to be well prepared. At my internship this semester, I had the chance during my second week (!) to teach a workshop about using the online catalog. One of the reference librarians already had a basic outline of the lesson, but I went through it and made it my own. I had a fairly detailed plan because I was somewhat nervous about teaching the workshop so early during my internship, but when it came time to actually do the workshop, I found I didn’t have to rely on the plan as much as I thought I would need to. I still followed the plan, but I was also really flexible given the needs of the students in the class. I liked to know the plan was there, if I needed it, but because I was well prepared, I didn’t have to lean on it much—that’s the way I like to teach. Perhaps it’s a little science and a little art mixed together. It works for me, which is what I think is most important. There is not one right way to teach.
[LIBR250 Prompt: Is teaching an art or a science?]
References
Art. (2011). In Merriam-Webster online. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art?show=1&t=1304721233
Science. (2011). In Merriam-Webster online. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science
