What is the art and science of teaching?
Teaching is certainly both an art and a
science, but which parts of it are to be labelled as which? When people talk of
the art and science of teaching, it seems they define the art as the creative
part and the science as the structured and systematic part. This seems to type
science as something that is facts and figures and set ideas. Yet the model
associated with the Nature of Science shows science as something different to
that.
The model in the above link shows that science includes
such aspects as:
- · curiosity,
- · serendipity,
- · surprising observation,
- · inspiration,
- · creativity,
- · new questions and ideas,
- · interpretations.
There is then what we traditionally define
as ‘art’ to science, and I imagine also there is what we traditionally define
as ‘science’ to art.
This isn’t so much a vital argument for
which bits of teaching are science and which bits are art, but perhaps it is important for science and for art. To
see those disciplines as broader than their traditional conceptualization as certain types of subjects seems
useful if not vital for the understanding of both.
Just thinking.
