Trainee teachers undergoing training at the former Rajang Teachers College (now known as IPG Rajang) in Bintangor between 1979 and 1983 must have heard this many times.
As a lecturer in Philosophy, Psychology as well as Sociology of Education there, I must have told every class there no fewer than three or four times over the years about different types of teachers according to my own classification with reinforcements from philosophers of old, including Plato and Aristotle, even from Confucius and their more recent counterparts such as Paulo Freire, Tagore, Russell and Dewey.
As I see it, basically there are three groups of teachers according to their teaching skills, commitment and other key elements related to teaching.
The first group comprises teachers who are naturally good, committed and skilful in teaching. They may be trained or untrained but they prove themselves to be effective in their teaching, making themselves easily understood by their students.
The second group is made up of teachers who have attended training in teachers colleges and as a result they manage to put teaching theories and pedagogy into practice and thereby are able to attain success in their teaching. Many also belong to the first group for being born with teaching abilities and can do much better after training and guidance. These two groups form the good side of teaching.
But there are those who do not have the making of a teacher for even after two or more years of training in teachers college or university they still cannot teach properly. This group comprises those who are not cut out for the teaching profession.
Even after being equipped with teaching credentials, namely certificates, diplomas or degrees, they are still not able to match those in the first two groups.
Members of this group are potentially those who become the sour oranges of teaching and making learning an unpleasant experience for students. They can be considered the bad and “ugly” sides of the noble profession.
In the discussion on various perspectives of the teaching world, we need to make some comparisons on the ideals of teaching and education according to philosophers and thinkers of the past.
For example, Socrates (469-399 BC) is widely regarded as one of the great teachers of all time. Due to the fact that Socrates wrote nothing, or next to nothing, regarding his philosophical insights and methods, we are left to glean the essence of his works from the writings of others, especially by Plato, his most illustrious student.
It has been pointed out that the Socratic method is one in which a teacher, by asking leading questions, guides students to discovery. It was a dialectical method that employs critical inquiry to undermine the plausibility of widely-held doctrine.
For Plato (428-348 BC), his idea of a teacher does not necessarily mean a schoolteacher. Effective teachers are those who are up to the task of facilitation – but the burden falls on the student. There must exist a reasonable measure of commensurability between student and teacher, where both seek to attain the same understanding and knowledge.
Plato said genuine learning requires the desire to know.
Education, according to him, serves a purpose that complements his ideas on the nature of truth. Education, in the Platonic sense, cannot exist to merely catalogue the objects, those particulars that populate the sensual world of appearance. Instead, education seeks to understand the essence of the timeless, universal principles that rule over human existence.
The attainment of wisdom, then, should be the ultimate goal of education. And teachers are the tools in helping students to achieve this goal. That is why a teacher must practise pedagogy – the art of teaching – which is able to inspire the desire of learning among students.
Aristotle (384-322 BC) has a different view of education and teaching with his predecessors Socrates and Plato. To him the aim of education was not only the attainment of knowledge but also the attainment of happiness or goodness in life.
He believed that virtue lies in the attainment of happiness or goodness. He has divided “goodness” into two categories, namely goodness of intellect and goodness of character.
The former can be produced and increased by teaching and is the product of training and experience. The latter is the result of habit, and it can be attained by the formation of good habits.
So again, teachers play the dominant role in moulding students’ character here.
Confucius taught that people should have compassion for one another, and to avoid treating others in ways that they themselves would not wish to be treated.
He viewed education as central to achieving proper conduct, both within society and governance, and it is the duty and responsibility of teachers to ascertain this is achieved or attained.
Bertrand Russell and John Dewey, major philosophers of the twentieth century, shared many important views on education and teaching. However, it is both interesting and instructive to note their differences about the nature of content, the role of democracy in education and the process of individual development.
Both philosophers were progressive educators who wanted schools to be experiential and secular. While many aspects of Dewey’s thinking about schooling remain a definitive part of modern pedagogy, Russell’s perspectives add dimensions missing from Dewey which were derived from Russell’s unique life experiences and intellect.
Brazilian educationist Paulo Freire, one of the most influential educationists of twentieth century, and his work continue to attract attention across the globe today.
Freire argued that teaching is never merely about skills and methods. From a Freirean perspective, both teaching and learning are always non-neutral, political and ethical processes.
For Freire, methods and skills are not unimportant, but their role in teaching must be considered in relation to a broader understanding of human beings and the world.
Nevertheless, conclusively most of theorists point out that teaching is often conceived in terms of methods and skills. When different approaches to teaching are discussed, the focus is commonly on teaching techniques; on the methods believed to be most effective in enabling students to learn.
When we observed teacher trainees conducting their teaching practices in schools selected by the teacher training college in the early 80s, the degree of success among them was shown by the positive changes in the behaviour of their students.
At the end of the lessons we made assessment of their teaching and let them know of their weak and strong points.
For Indian philosopher Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1941) of Calcutta, one of his teachings was about love of humanity and that education is for international understanding and universal brotherhood. Education should teach people to realise oneness, he said.
He therefore propagated that teachers must be able to facilitate help for students in acquiring such thinking. Tagore felt that the curriculum should revolve organically around nature, with flexible schedules to allow for shifts in weather, and with special attention to natural phenomena and seasonal festivities.
Teachers in Malaysia, trained mostly using the syllabus propagating the philosophies of these aforesaid figures, are therefore required to practise their pedagogical theories.
Our national education philosophy is that education in the country is an on-going effort towards further developing the potential of individuals in a holistic and integrated manner, so as to produce individuals who are intellectually, spiritually, emotionally and physically balanced and harmonious, based on a firm belief in and devotion to God.
Such an effort is designed to produce Malaysian citizens who are knowledgeable and competent, who possess high moral standards, and who are responsible and capable of achieving high level of personal well-being as well as being able to contribute to the harmony and betterment of the family, the society and the nation at large.
As such our teachers bear the responsibility of turning these ideals into reality among students.
Good luck to all teachers.
