Love it, Hate it, or Indifferent? Emotions in Teaching

[The Comedian]

Teachers, students. . .how important are emotions when learning material? Is it important that the teacher (say literature teacher) be "objective" or "passionate"? Do your emotions about a text or an idea change as the teacher's emotions about it change?

Does your emotional state contribute or detract from one's ability to learn?

[Jack of Hearts]

Reminded of something from Aristotle's corpus (Nicomachean Ethics maybe?). Young men are not good hearers of lectures because they follow their passions as opposed to loving knowledge in itself. A funny extraction that, despite all opposing sentiments, lingers in the memory and not without undue reason.


J

[billl]

Good insight Jack. I think one important idea (from a teacher's perspective) might be to gauge the passion that the students have for the topic. If they are passionate about it, then maybe get a little objective (give them something to run up against), but respectfully so--try not to put out the fire. However, if the topic hasn't clicked for the student, show some passion for it (and a sense of humor, or something--some way to still reach back to their detachment, rather than underline the disconnect). Maybe ask some questions about the topic that might get the blood to pump over it for a second or two.

[JCamilo]

Objctivelly, you can only teach what you love. As Borges said: I didnt taught literature, but love to literature.

[Cunninglinguist]

Reminded of something from Aristotle's corpus (Nicomachean Ethics maybe?). Young men are not good hearers of lectures because they follow their passions as opposed to loving knowledge in itself. A funny extraction that, despite all opposing sentiments, lingers in the memory and not without undue reason.

From the third chapter of the first book of Nicomachean Ethics: "Now each man judges well the things he knows, and of these he is a good judge. And so the man who has been educated in a subject is a good judge of that subject, and the man who has received an all-round education is a good judge in general. Hence a young man is not a proper hearer of lectures on political science; for he in inexperienced in the actions that occur in life, but its discussions start from these and are about these; and, further since he tends to follow his passions, his study will be vain and unprofitable, because the end aimed at is not knowledge but action. And it makes no difference whether he is young in years or youthful in character; the defect does not depend on time, but on his living, and pursuing each successive object as passion directs. For to such persons, as to the incontinent, knowledge brings no profit; but to those who desire and act in accordance with a rational principle knowledge about such matters will be of great benefit." (W. D. Ross translation)

[ironika]

Especially when the students are not tremendously motivated, which is the case for the most of the times probably, it is important to show emotions in my opinion. Because only like this you can appear as a whole person for your students; while showing your own interest, doubt, critique, fun, (...) you awaken theirs. The students need to realize that it's a topic worth to think about and a character like you is voluntary willed to do so.

Let's all remember the main components of a message (information, relation, self-disclosure, appeal). If you're ice-cold you cut three of them and only the information is left; you function as a medium. You're like a book then. That is possible, but only for students, who are really willed to learn.
In the most of the cases education only works with relation, this is what I have experienced and learnt. (As far as I know this is the current view of paedagogy [science] too.)

[The Comedian]

Especially when the students are not tremendously motivated, which is the case for the most of the times probably, it is important to show emotions in my opinion. Because only like this you can appear as a whole person for your students; while showing your own interest, doubt, critique, fun, (...) you awaken theirs. The students need to realize that it's a topic worth to think about and a character like you is voluntary willed to do so.

Let's all remember the main components of a message (information, relation, self-disclosure, appeal). If you're ice-cold you cut three of them and only the information is left; you function as a medium. You're like a book then. That is possible, but only for students, who are really willed to learn.
In the most of the cases education only works with relation, this is what I have experienced and learnt. (As far as I know this is the current view of paedagogy [science] too.)

I enjoyed your response. Of course, I agree with it completely. The teachers emotions towards the content greatly shapes how that content is received by his or her students. Because this is so, I think that we teachers can use our emotional responses to guide our often too apathetic students to feel the rush of learning.

[JuniperWoolf]

I've had great objective teachers (my highschool biology teacher was the definition of stoic, he was the most solid person that I've ever met and I'm pretty sure that he's had the same tone of voice since he spoke his first word) and teachers who have cared a lot about the material that they're covering (my physics teacher once stopped in the middle of writing a formula and stood back to just stare in reverance at what he called "the beauty of the physical world." "Look kids, can't you see how it all just fits together?"). Either way is fine, but it's annoying when the instructor is faking enthusiasm because you can always tell. My English teacher was fed up with teaching, and we knew it, yet she was everyone's favourite teacher and I got the most out of her class because she did a damn fine job. On the other hand, my first year university English prof was a big faker, and it was uber annoying (he was always using words that completely didn't fit in with his personality like "cool" and "totally" as though it would somehow make the material appeal to us more if he dumbed down the language). He reminded me of this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn7mwQOdSsg&feature=related) guy. It's always best when you're honest and let the material stand for itself.

In my experience, whether a student is passionate about a subject or not depends very heavily on one thing: whether or not they're good at it. If the student gets a good handle on the material, they're more likely to actually enjoy the subject because they'll see it as one of their strengths and they'll take pride in it. That's why, for most students, their favorite subject just-so-happens to be the one in which they have the highest grade.

[ironika]

I enjoyed your response. Of course, I agree with it completely.
Thanks for your direct feedback. It always feels good to to be understood. By the way, that "Of course" made me wonder if my words were self-evident. In a book I would have interpreted it like that, also because of the word completely. Hopefully you did not mean it like that, the continuation of your post counted as a hint for me.


... we teachers can use our emotional responses to guide ... feel the rush of learning.
I liked this formulation, especially the end. I agree that emotions can function alike an utility to fascinate others about a topic. As you said, you can use them, if they are needed.


Either way is fine, but it's annoying when the instructor is faking enthusiasm because you can always tell.
Absolutely. If there is no personal meaning for you in a topic and you are indifferent or even antipathetic towards it, don't start to act. I think you are right, authenticity while teaching is very important in general and especially when you try to use emotions they must be true. But in theory, I know it is idealistic and your examples already show that, teachers should have a personal connection to their subjects. Therefore it should be possible to work with enthusiasm at least sometimes.


one thing: whether or not they're good at it.
I agree again here and it is a good point. Another significant topic to talk about. Since the assessement if someone is good or not is mainly settled by the teacher via grades, your point also leads to the importance of fair grading.

Let's face it, paedagogy is very complicated and multilayered and there is not such a patent remedy that the thread title is asking for.

[zoolane]

Says everything that everyone has said, I usual try to see text or piece on it own merits not through the teacher view if express one. I alway see things in the piece that hardly any one else see, or I have total different view on a poem then class.

[pondman]

Teachers, students. . .how important are emotions when learning material?

While in a credential program, I asked the question "How can you expect 'The Great Gatsby' to be emotionally relevant to a 16 year old." (Try this sometimes, if you want to get evil stares.)

Public education rewards being well behaved for the babysitter. But the structure strips away the real reason to read books (or study important ideas.)

Great literature ask and often answers the question: Why do we sit (or do anything else) in the same room as others?

Public education would never attempt anything like this. It creates busy work and typically would ask for the color of an automobile or a dress-- as a check-off for an assignment.

If you give the 'Gatsby' as an assigment to most 16 year olds (if they are literate), you'll recieve in return Whitney Houston lyrics and quotes from Nike ads.

[Writer10]

Expressions are a part of life.Ask a person who cannot see anything, let alone express his feelings through face or words.I think it plays a really important part in a teacher/student's life to express themselves.Take an example of a child who cannot speak.He uses the art of "Expressions" to tell what he wants!