The Three Cs of Teaching

Abstract

You know the old saw, “What are the three Ls of real estate? Location, location, location.”? The education biz has its own big three: the three Cs of teaching are communication, communication, communication. Communication means different things to different people. Mary Hoff, in a wonderful children’s book that you might want in your clinic waiting room, suggests that the world is full of creatures that communicate in various ways. To communicate, she explains, is to provide understandable information to another living thing. It is a process in which one living thing provides information that causes another to do something.1 I am unembarrassed by referencing a children’s book to underscore the point that communication is essential to the survival of all life forms, even students! My question in this feature is this: Is the aim of teaching to provide understandable information to students with the goal of causing them to do something with it? And, if so, what “doing” might a teacher have in mind? My answer is “yes” on more than one level. Just as physician assistants (PAs) are referred to as medical providers, it makes sense to label PA teachers as providers. The business of both health professionals and education professionals is giving something of value to another person. Of course, you cannot make someone take what you offer; you can lead a student to water, but you can’t make him (or her) think. As PA teachers know from their student days, how the offer is made makes all the difference. You cannot “sell” someone something that he or she does not want. Even a “gift” will be set aside if the recipient does not value it. I also say “yes” to the notion that what you communicate must be understandable. Speaking at the level of the learner is a principle of education that PA teachers probably learned when they were on the student side of the conversation. If what is “taught” is not understood, then as you may recall from the classic movie Cool Hand Luke, “What we got here is a failure to communicate.” What may be less obvious is that the information must be understandable to the teacher. It is unfortunate, but true, that there are instructors who do not keep up with their fields of study and who teach with a superficial level of understanding. Sadly, you might have a colleague who sends out the message, “Don’t ask questions I can’t answer.” A rule of thumb offered by Nobel Prize winner Ernest Rutherford, who demonstrated that the atom was made up of a nucleus surrounded by orbiting electrons, was that he never truly understood something unless he could explain it to others. Finally, I say “yes” to the notion that the goal is for students to use the information you give them. The “doing” of students can include a mental operation, for example, analyzing and synthesizing new information, or it can include taking action such as problem solving and decision making. Politicians implore us to take action all the time: Vote for me. It is my conviction that teachers should be as direct. Don’t just transmit information. Convey what to do with it. Communicate your intentions. I conclude with more questions: When what is “taught” is not understood, is it the fault of the messenger or the message? Or, is it up to the student to try harder? What do you make of the teacher, who when asked to slow down, told his students, “You’ll just have to listen faster!”? I hope to hear from readers. Although a feature editor appears to “sign off” at the end of a column, I agree with Adler and Van Doren who suggest that reading a book is a kind of conversation in which the reader has the last word.2 I hope to hear from you. Now that would be communication.