Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!ncar!boulder!sunybcs!bingvaxu!leah!itsgw!nyser!njin!princeton!phoenix!dykimber
From: dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg)
Newsgroups: comp.edu
Subject: Re: Student preparedness
Message-ID: <4992@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
Date: 21 Dec 88 05:48:27 GMT
References: <4893@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <6435@killer.DALLAS.TX.US> <1988Dec16.153701.8316@cs.rochester.edu> <97@microsoft.UUCP> <502@mccc.UUCP> <9238@ihlpb.ATT.COM>
Reply-To: dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg)
Organization: Princeton University, NJ
Lines: 17

In article <9238@ihlpb.ATT.COM> nevin1@ihlpb.UUCP (55528-Liber,N.J.) writes:
>It is not even a necessary condition, let alone a sufficient condition,
>to know the material in order to teach it.  If you look at professional
>videotapes made for teaching, you will notice that most of the good
>ones have actors, not professors, doing the teaching (you can usually
>tell the difference on technical terms).

It sounds to me like you've confused teaching with lecturing, and even then
I think you're on shaky ground.  Actors can't answer questions about the
material, find alternate ways to describe tricky concepts, address specific
student problems, etc.  And as lecturers, unless they have someone around who
actually knows the material, they won't know how to pronounce certain phrases,
or how to do whatever it is that good lecturers do with intonation and hand
gestures (or whatever) to imply things like causal relationships, etc.  I've
been to plenty of lectures that I know no actor could reasonably be expected
to give without significant familiarity with the material.

                                                        -Dan