Reading Analysis

After reading Elgin's piece I find that I agree with most of what she says. I do believe that teaching someone does not require complete knowledge of the subject, within reason; it is always nice to learn from a more experienced mind, however that is not possible for all within our education system. Throughout my life I have been inspired by peers and/or mentors that have enlightened me into a subject but at the same time did not understand everything completely. The point is to inspire a desire to advance their understanding of the subject. She makes a good point on page 419 about the student who memorizes by rote most likely does not understand, " For he, like the parrot, knows not whereof it speaks." I think that the teacher must posses enough knowledge of what he/she is talking about in order to probe students deeper into their understanding or in order to be able to raise questions that may take them their. I believe this is the difference that she was describing on page 422; that there is a difference in degree between collaborative investigation and teaching and learning. Discovering something on your own through a guided process without being give the solution helps to retain the steps that were necessary to get there, which in light is understanding. Further questions for thought. Is there a huge difference between knowledge and understanding? I think so. So then what is the determining line between the two? Do our programs give us more of one over the other? How does this fit in to our preparations for being a specific subject teacher. As teachers of a specific subject I feel we should have a great knowledge of what it is we will teach.