What makes a good teacher essay

The context behind a “ good teacher” varies in purposes. There are, however, common views being present, and those views are shared by students and their parents across different nations. Riley and Seashore reported results of a wide inquiry extending four countries: UK, Uzbekistan, Thailand and South Africa. Students and parents from South Africa were concerned about running water, safety, and basic classroom materials.

The safety was also a concern for UK and Uzbekistan students (Riley, and Seashore). When asked about their opinions of qualities of the good teacher the majority related that good relationship between the teacher and her students would the most important feature. That would follow with the teacher’s understanding of students and the teacher’s desire to provide support to every student. Majority assumed that the teacher already possesses a good knowledge of subject matter, and thus it was not in the discussion. Some research reached into the area of a psychological profile of a good teacher (Campbell, Kyriakides, Muijs, and Robinson 41). These particular researchers looked into the personality, the degree of emotion control, attitudes, and other attributes of a teacher’s character. Indisputably, the well-rounded background is not enough to become a good teacher, for one must also genuinely like and care about his or her students.

At the same time, caring and loving personality is not enough to be effective in this profession. The same researchers scoped a large volume of available research from teachers’ self-rating to students’ rating of the teacher qualities. The authors focused only on one dimension: teacher-centered and neglected the student-centered perspective. Obviously, the perception of effectiveness differs with each dimension. For example, teacher-centered attitude would report the following qualities of the effective teacher: directive teacher style, formality, knowledge of pedagogy, knowledge and acuity of subject matter (Campbell, Kyriakides, Muijs, and Robinson 43-45).

Basically, teacher-centered views of the effectiveness consisted of three levels of teaching: 1) Get the Classroom Climate right (includes classroom management), 2) Get the teaching right (includes pedagogy and knowledge of subject matter), and 3) Successful implementation of the variety of teaching methods – flexibility (Campbell, Kyriakides, Muijs, and Robinson 47). Further in their work, these particular researchers suggested a comprehensive, more of the functional view on the teacher’s effectiveness. Such included but no way is limited to leadership of students, leadership of operations, and leadership of school-wide improvement activities (Campbell, Kyriakides, Muijs, and Robinson 95). It is noteworthy to notice that this particular work range from static concepts of teacher effectiveness to more dynamic approaches but still lacks the second dimensional view: the student-centered opinions. Montomery and Thomas reported another view on the teacher effectiveness: and that is of the reflective teaching methodology.

According to these authors, such dates back to Dewey (1904, 1933) and emphasizes the students’ reflection to their teacher’s instructions and approaches. An interesting disclosure tells about an undergraduate student of teacher preparation program who was unusually inquisitive and reflective. In particular, her striking and revealing conversion with two youngsters reveals the simplicity and depth of the children’s view on the teacher’s effectiveness.

On the question, “ What are the best and worst things a teacher can do? ” the youngsters answered, “ The best thing is when the teacher plays music while we work–you know, the kind without words. “ The worst thing is when she yells at us. ” Another child joined in saying, “ The best thing is when you finish your work and the teacher lets you go outside–you know, when you can just hang out and be free. The worst thing is when she throws things. ” (Thomas, and Montomery 372).

This is the child-centered perspective, and as shallow it might appear it provides the readers with very important information: teachers should like and care about their students. Another comment of another child especially hits the target, “ You know that stuff about yelling, you know what–it hurts my soul. The most interesting in this disclosure was the following. “ As I looked for traffic, I noticed Sarah and James running toward me and yelling, `Wait, wait! ‘ Out of breath, and smiling from ear to ear, they asked me if I would come be their teacher next year. `Thank you,’ I said, `but you don’t even know me. Why would you want me to be your teacher? ‘ They explained, `Because nobody ever asked us for our opinion. ‘” (Thomas, and Montomery 372). Thomas reflected on her own studies and suggested her student [Pat], the one who discovered such an uncanny reflection from the children in the grocery store, to conduct a case-based study.

Research-based, this participant-as-observer study entailed interviews with children, personal observations, and reflective notes written during observations. Thomas and her student identified participants as specific classroom teachers, selected students, and the students’ parents – all to encompass elementary 125 students in all from the second through the sixth grades. The purpose identified and verbalized as the inquiry in what makes a good teacher. The following questions were posited to the children participants: 1.

`What are the best and worst things a teacher can do? ‘ 2. `What do teachers do that helps? 3. ‘ What do teachers do that hurts? ’ 4. ‘ What advice do you have for teachers? ’ 5. ‘ What rules would you like to make for the teacher? ‘ The initial results of this type of questioning yielded “… we discovered that children as young as seven were open and articulate with treatment, loving attitudes, playfulness, sense of humor, willingness to listen, and the ability to be real were all brought forward. Intense expressions of pain, hurt, confusion, and injustice as well as wishes, dreams, and joyfulness were an integral part of their stories as well. ” (Thomas, and Montomery 373).

This fascinating study yielded four main characteristics that children realized to be the most important for the teacher to be effective (taken from the same authors). They were 1) Gentleness (“ Do not yell at us…”): “ Don’t be mean to us. Give us understanding. Comfort us. Don’t pressure us. ” 2) Caring (“ Why doesn’t she really listen to me instead of pretending to listen? ”) “ It hurts when the teacher won’t let us explain what happened when there is a problem. ” “ It hurts when the teacher won’t let us explain what happened when there is a problem” ) Understanding (“ We need to go to the bathroom and she won’t let us. ”) “ It hurts when we don’t get to choose for ourselves.

The best reward is freedom to choose” “ We don’t get to talk to our friends, [during lunch] it’s the only time we get to visit. ” “ We feel like we can’t say no. We don’t feel comfortable to say no. We are scared to say no. ” 4) Fun-loving (“ teachers should let kids laugh and play. ” “ Teachers should loosen up” “ We like it when the teacher tells us about personal life.

” “ Bring us food. Have a sense of humor. ” Certainly, children’s comments can be considered as critical of typical teachers’ practices. It would not be wise to yield to all children’s suggestions. However, there is a great value in children’s voices for finding a balance between freedom-loving kids and stern approaches of a veteran teacher that can, perhaps, locate a balance. The students’ opinion should be asked and listened carefully to because they know better what does a teacher do well to help them learn more effectively. The teachers yell at their young students because they are threatened.

They are threatened by the system in place, by the intimidating principal, by the students’ parents. They are threatened to appear inadequate in the observer’s eyes, and thus, they need to maintain order at all times in case if someone walks in. The classroom must appear to be well organized, students must look like they are engaged with work all the time, and the teacher must appear to teach all the time. If the teacher is afraid to turn the soft music on because the principal might question such practice and call it distraction, then the teacher is more concerned about external appearances rather than about her students. Students feel when their teacher’s attention to them is superficial. On another side of the coin, they know very well when the teacher genuinely cares and wants to help them.

Thus, they respond accordingly. A caring and loving teacher does not have to yell at her students for the students respond to the needs of the teacher sensibly and perceive when they can goof off and when they cannot. As the result, such teacher will achieve more in the classroom than the one with much more years of experience but who is looking toward retirement, is tired of extra effort, and desires less trouble. Equally vital is the way the teacher can motivate students.

Again, the logic suggests that the student’s motivation stems from the teacher’s knowing about his or her interests. It is naive to suppose that the teacher will motivate her students based on her own interests and aspirations. The insight here stumbles upon the same concept: genuinely caring about the students as individuals considering their interests, motivations, desires, and wants. Dinham raised an interesting question, “ Do we equate a good teacher with quality teaching? basically asking whether quality teaching is always done by good teachers and good teachers always do quality teaching. The argument here focuses the readers’ attention on either personality characteristics pertaining to the profession or to the effective job tasks, a. k. a. teaching (Dinham).

When one discusses teacher’s personality and its affect on her students, it is perhaps relevant to talk about the person being a good teacher for personality characteristics either add or subtract the effectiveness of the services. When one discusses teacher’s skills, it is relevant to keep in mind years of experience and degree of education. It is a combination of the skills, education, motivation, and experience that will make a difference. Thus, “ what makes a good teacher? ” forms a quandary. Do we mean loving, warm, understanding, and caring people or people who have high level of education, many years of experience, much staff development, and good interpersonal skills? Neither. We mean a professional who can be the most effective with his/her students by utilizing experience, education, staff development, interpersonal skills, love, caring, warmth, and understanding, but most of all desire to motivate and desire to teach. Works CitedCampbell, Jim, Leonidas Kyriakides, Daniel Muijs, and Wendy Robinson. Assessing Teacher Effectiveness: Developing a Differentiated Model.

New York: RoutledgeFalmer, 2004. Questia. 25 Apr. 2007

qst? a= o&d= 107649348>. Dinham, Stephen. “ A Good Teacher in Every Classroom. Australian Journal of Education 50. 1 (2006): 95+. Questia. 25 Apr. 2007

questia. com/PM. qst? a= o&d= 5014888443>. Riley, Kathryn, and Karen Seashore. “ What Makes a Good Teacher?. ” New Statesman 2 Oct.

Questia. 25 Apr. 2007 .

Thomas, Julie Anne, and Pat Montomery. “ On Becoming a Good Teacher: Reflective Practice with Regard to Children’s Voices. ” Journal of Teacher Education 49. 5 (1998): 372.

Questia. 25 Apr. 2007 .