Learning about teaching

 A PhD student catapulting towards the inevitable career in academic cannot escape the joys of teaching. What I'm wondering is how that buzz phrase come into popular usage, as I've never heard a senior academic describe teaching as 'joyful'. But still, I'll reserve judgement until after the event.

These last few weeks I tried my hand at teaching, for the very first time. Or 'demonstrating' as they call it here. Tutoring, mentoring, teaching. It's all the same thing. That is, attempting to impart some wise words of wisdom onto some uncaring undergraduates, who have better things to do with their time.

When I was a first year undergraduate (fading into a distant memory now) tutors and lecturers were all the same to me. Professor Nature Paper held just about the same status as Miss Third-Year Undergraduate Tutor. Although 20 years of hard work and an age of maturity differentiated the two, that didn't matter to me, as they both held a superior status over myself that I didn't really understand.

Last week, as I nervously entered the teaching laboratories, I tried to remember this. A quick read through the laboratory manual didn't fill me with much confidence however. Whilst it seemed fairly straightforward, I worried about the possible unanswerable questions that would come my way and make me appear an academic failure. After all, when I was an undergraduate, I remember learning the same thing several times, so surely these students in the middle of their degree would only ask probing and intelligent questions?

Although some did, I needn't have worried. I remembered then, that even though undergraduates learn a lot, repetitively, they only really learn it in the days before their exam, before they promptly forget it again. So whilst I had also forgotten the material in the 8 years or so since completing my science degree, at least the 8 years of working in science had taught me the necessary skills in 'scientific waffling' to make myself seem knowledgeable to these students. I'd also forgotten how undergraduates only care about passing their exams, whereas PhD students, whether they care or not, are required to test ever possible avenue of inquiry and remember the details 4 years later. The result is that few of these undergrads ventured far from the bare minimum suggested by the laboratory manual, whilst all those 'obvious flaws' in the experimental design that I worried how to explain thankfully passed by unnoticed by the students.

I cannot judge. I remember specifically flailing in undergraduate laboratories, unsure what the point was or what we were doing. I recognised this look of panic on many young faces. "We're expected to write a 3000 word assignment of this?!!". I'm glad it's not me.

Whilst I care just as little about the content of the lab as they did, I learnt just as much as they did in the 3 hour laboratory.  I finally understood that students think their laboratory practicals are meant to teach a scientific concept (eg. how a VEP works), whereas the tutors are trying to teach them something entirely different. Science never works, think for yourself and try it again a different way! 

I found the teaching experience much more enjoyable than I expected, but ask me again in 20 years!