The University of Phoenix hires adjunct faculty that are currently active in the field they are teaching. Writing teachers are writers. Business teachers are in business.
What that means is that these adjunct faculty are indeed on the forefront and actively involved in the discipline they are teaching, able to make immediate, relevant application for their students.
It also means these faculty members are NOT teachers, or for the most part have never studied how to teach.
Find-a-need-and-fill-it to the rescue.
Companies like Adjunct Success and Faculty Development Associates cater to faculty who have not been trained to teach.
Webinars are offered for deans, department chairs, and others who need help using their new brand of adjunct.
Adjuncts teach classes in their 'off' hours. Forums and networks are created for them. And of courses to teach teachers how to teach are offered - all for a cost.
I think practioners can make the best teachers...but not all practioners ARE teachers.
When I ran my own school, our hiring philosophy was to hire good people as opposed to good teachers. I think " I can teach a good person (practioner) how to teach, but I cannot always teach a good teacher (practioner) how to be a good person.
I would rather work with good people, and entrust my students to good people than to just find anybody who is just good at their job.
What do you think?
Understand more by reading about Capella University, University Of Phoenix and Walden University.
PhDs are not only not trained to teach; they are penalized for being good teachers (if they're up for tenure). Your point is therefore invalid, particularly since adjuncts are hired as teaching faculty, and are evaluated solely on their teaching.
Posted by: rightwingprof | September 15, 2006 12:59 PM | Permalink to Comment