From the Director

Advisory Council | About the Staff | From the Director | The Center's Mission

WHAT IS GOOD TEACHING?*

Diane M. Enerson, PhD
Professor of Psychology
Director, Center for Teaching Excellence

This is a question I have asked and have been asked literally hundreds-possibly thousands-of times. Countless research articles, books, and essays have been written on the subject, an astonishing number of which I have read. Although basic approaches to the task may differ, the findings and general claims often bear a striking resemblance to one another, claims that remain remarkably constant across a wide range of institutional types. First, and perhaps foremost, is that good teaching is a complex process that begins and ends with students. It takes into account who they are, what they already know, what interests they may already have, and what they will need to know.

Second, good teaching-especially at the university and college level-demands a high level of subject matter expertise, although subject expertise alone is not sufficient. Good teachers have in fact two distinctly different kinds of expertise-disciplinary and explanatory. The difference between these two seems to revolve around the ways in which one goes about sharing the solutions to the problems of their discipline. That is, beyond the disciplinary expertise of showing student how you would solve a problem there is a separate but equally important kind of expertise that involves revealing to your students not just that you can get the rabbit out of the hat, but also how they too can do so.

Third, good teaching is idiosyncratic. It plays off the strengths of each individual teacher. There are, in effect, no simple algorithms that will guarantee good teaching. What works for me may not work for you. Each solution suggests another, which in turn suggests still others. Yet there is much to be learned from one another; good teachers learn by talking to one another. There is in fact great potential for difference when talking about and accounting for good teaching. Yet despite this potential for differences, one thing remains constant-enthusiasm. Good teaching may be idiosyncratic but it is also always enthusiastic. Your love and enthusiasm for the subject matter, your belief that it is relevant, important, and absolutely fascinating is critical. Enthusiasm is compelling and infectious. Lack of enthusiasm is also infectious, but it is deadly.

Fourth, good teaching involves feedback. Feedback, accurate feedback, is the bedrock that supports all learning-our students and our own. It is a crucial part of the process-both to and from our students. And we need to take those data seriously. Collecting data without thoughtful analysis and a reasoned response is frivolous; it is also disrespectful. Good teaching, especially that which moves toward excellence, is about self-knowledge and growth.

Ultimately, however, good teaching is about community. It cannot happen in a vacuum but will always be part of a larger cultural and institutional context that supports it. Good teaching is both dependent upon and contributes to community, which means it needs to be purposeful, open, just, disciplined, caring and celebrative. (Boyer, 1990.) It is an ongoing, iterative process that involves careful planning, feedback, analysis, and the courage to try again when things don't go quite as expected.

The structure of the Center-and the offerings we will provide- have been designed with all these general principles in mind. My goal in shaping the offerings of the Center has been to provide you with experiences and resources that will be both useful and enjoyable. All, I would hope, will afford you a chance to reflect not just on the mechanics of daily practice but also with an occasion to reflect on the broader and philosophical purposes that underlie liberal arts education. The choices I have made have been based on the voices I have heard. But I'm always looking for new voices, voices to inform our discussions and to add richness and dimension to our WWW site.

*Text based on an earlier text with same title written for
The Penn State Teacher II, University Park, Pennsylvania, July 1997
(see also http://www.schreyerinstitute.psu.edu/pst/ )