(very) Rough Draft

Having finished my kindergarten through twelfth grade education, and having now started in college courses, I have had experience in taking classes with all sorts of teachers. Through many different subjects, and several different schools, I've had some amazing teachers, some truly incompetent and terrible teachers, and everything in between. With that experience, as well as more recent experience in analyzing the teachers from various essays and films such as Dead Poets Society and Stand and Deliver,  I've learned what qualities make for a good educator, and the differences between good and bad teachers. The two most important qualities for a teacher to have are the ability to engage and involve students, and once engaged, the ability to effectively teach his or her subject. To illustrate this point, I'll use two teachers I had in the past as examples - both of whom are examples of what I consider to be a bad teacher, and will remain nameless.

I took three years of high school Spanish - the first two because of the common requirement amongst colleges for two years of a foreign language, and the last because I enjoyed my Spanish classes a lot and wanted to take more. It was unquestionably one of my favorite classes in school. Every day, I could look forward to the class, and no matter what might have been happening in my other classes, I could always enjoy my time in Spanish. So, how could that instructor be a bad teacher then? After all, not only did I enjoy two years of the subject, but I was inspired to take a third year. It's simple - as mentioned, there are two basic qualities any teacher must have to be successful. While he was exceptional at engaging all of his students and making participation in the class an enjoyable experience, that Spanish teacher was dreadful at actually teaching Spanish. Every minute spent in that class was awesome, but at the end of three years, I was practically illiterate in the subject of Spanish compared to what I should have been. That's a bit of an exaggeration, but not by much - a more strict professor probably could have covered in one year what we did in three. Looking back at it now, and analyzing what affect the class really had on my educational life, it's impossible to rationally justify taking it. Those three years of Spanish were very much a waste of time, and the instructor was a perfect example of teacher lacking in one of the two basic and crucial qualities of being a good teacher.

The previous example is really a rarity. It's uncommon, at least based on my experience, for a teacher to be good at holding the interest of his or her class, but bad at teaching the class. What's much more common is for a teacher to more than adequately knowledgeable in their subject, but completely impotent when it comes to capturing and holding the interests of his or her students. I'm certain that most students can relate to this kind of teacher. My particular example is a chemistry professor I had. He was an old man, and a retired chemist with a PhD in the subject - literally as knowledgeable about the subject of chemistry as you can get. He could probably answer just about any chemistry-related question any of the students in the class could think to ask, and with enough effort, the class was a great opportunity to learn. However, that's only half of what makes a good teacher, and without the other half, he was just adequate. A good teacher's class isn't just an opportunity to learn, if a student is willing to try hard enough. A good teacher makes the student learn, so to speak, engaging his or her students so that they want to participate in class. This chemistry instructor didn't make an effort to engage his students at all. Every day, the hour I spent in chemistry felt like the longest hour of my life. The class was painfully boring. I was personally motivated enough to a fair amount about chemistry in the class, but absolutely none of that motivation came from the professor. Both this chemistry teacher, and my Spanish instructor are similarly bad as teachers, but for opposite reasons. One lacks proficiency in actually teaching the subject, the other completely lacks the ability to engage his students. Both demonstrate that both of these qualities are vital to being a good teacher, and that one is meaningless without the other.

 There are many attributes which make for a good teacher - but above all, there are two very basic but essential qualities that all good teachers must have: the ability to get their students involved and interested, and proficiency at instructing the subject. My high school Spanish teacher and chemistry teacher are two excellent examples of teachers who have one of those traits, but not the other, and as a result make for a bad teacher. The Spanish teacher was extremely good at making his class enjoyable, entertaining and getting all of his students to participate - but failed completely when it came to how much his students actually learned. The chemistry instructor, to contrast, made no effort at all at engaging his students in the class, but was intelligent and anyone motivated enough could learn a lot from him. Both teachers had strengths, and both had flaws, and both were ultimately bad teachers because they lacked one of the two mandatory qualities that all good teachers must have.

<insert MLA works cited information here>