Modules For This Sem (and some thoughts on teaching)
I'm taking:EL2111 - Historical Variation of English
EL2151 - Social Variation of English
EL3207 - Child Language
CL2281 - Translation and Interpretation
GEK1506 - Heavenly Mathematics and Cultural Astronomy
So far I've attended the Historical Variation of English and Heavenly Mathematics lectures. The former has interesting content but the lecture ain't stimulating enough. I forsee myself dozing off. I like Dr Peter Tan, of course, it's just that, well, it's a little tiresom to follow the contents, interesting though it is.
Heavenly Maths is taught by Prof Aslaksen, who really knows how to deliver his passion in class. The content itself is interesting too. Go to www.chinesecalendar.org if interested.
Actually, there is really nothing like being passionate about the subject you teach. It will inevitably be contagious to the students. It makes the life of the teachers easier too, you know? When the contents that you have to keep repeating is the same, the only saving point is its interest level to you. If not, you will end up mundane and boring, killing the interest of the students and murdering any possibilities of them ever touching that field in tertiary education.
For teachers whose teaching subject is not their passion (because one's passion can be things as random as coins, trains, and origami), the only other saving point is his or her particular interest in the wellbeing of the students. And it has to be specific. Many have asked me why don't I want to teach primary school children. Well, as much as I like children, I cannot pitch my communication at their level. I find it hard to go all squeaky-voiced and child like when balancing my teaching. Of course, there are many people who are able to do that, and I admire them. It's really a lot harder to teach K1 to read than teaching Shakespeare to Sec 3s, because the difference in frequency is so wide that it is truly a gift to be able to teach young children.
I digress. What I really want to conclude eventually is that I really hate teachers who teach for the money. MOE is putting up huge sum to attract the wrong crowd. People who have no where else to go and no other job to do turn to teaching as their refuge. Of course, there are some sort of classroom assessment, which only serves to filter out the really bad ones. So how about the not the worst but still bad kind? They have no passion for the subjects, or worse still, in depth knowledge, and they take pride in being impersonal to students. 12 years in the education system, I have come to despise teachers who do not see students more than statistics on their portfolio. I have also come to detest teachers whose motivation to teach is their paycheck. They are a burden to the students. It's no wonder students want to be lazy, they have no example to look up to!
On the other hand, truly passionate or caring teachers are often overlooked, especially the latter quality. This is simply because these qualities cannot manifest itself on papers and on statistics. These teachers seek the improvement of students, not their final result, and they take pride in imparting their passion and spreading their ideology. 12 years in the education system, I can count these sort of teachers only with 1 hand. That's a really sad fact.
And then there's the jaded ones, the in-betweens. They come in with a fire to teach, or to "nurture", as the MOE slogan goes. But as time goes, with all the marking, the expectation of grades, pressures from the HOD and the parents, drudgery of CCAs and admin work, they just lost the fire. They lament at their lose but that's nothing much they can do.
It's sad, the system. I just hope my own passion that is burning right now would not be doused.