I am questioning the general universe as to how I ended up with a Friday afternoon lab composed entirely of males, several of whom were obviously eying me with the "Hey, look, a chick. My good looks and charming nature are obviously going to get me an easy A." (Or something to that effect but less eloquent.) Good thing lab is only once every two weeks - half the crap to put up with. And, fortunately, they give us a roster with everybody's photos on it, so I can at least use their names when I tell them to cut the crap and do their work. (Honestly, I think they'll behave, but just in case...)
At any rate, starting my TA duties has made me think about the way that a geologist - or most any kind of scientist - becomes a teacher as well. It's one of the great failings of the sciences, in my opinion, that scientists who also want to become academics receive very little formal training in how to be a teacher. K-12 teachers, in most cases, receive extensive training, and usually have a degree in education and are formally certified. But scientists who teach, unless they spend time as a TA, or take classes on their own initiative, are not expected to go through the same rigorous training. They are, instead, dropped into a classroom setting and expected to know how to handle students, write lesson plans and syllabi, create exams, and oversee the education of possibly hundreds of young people who have been steeped in an entirely different method of learning. (I had exactly three days of "training" in a conference that was so generalized as to be somewhat useless to someone who's teaching in a lab setting, although it was really helpful to be exposed to some modern theories of education.)
What's more, the situation is self-perpetuating. Academic scientists succeed in their fields because they can excel in the lecture-based classroom, and when it comes time for them to teach, they tend to utilize the methods of the instructors they learned the most from. Perhaps some learned more from a professor who used active learning techniques, or some other alternative than lecture, but at some point they all end up teaching with lectures.
How in the world did we end up with a system like this? My college roommate, who now teaches high school chemistry, had to spend her senior year completing the equivalent of a masters in education, do weeks of supervised student teaching, and obtain a state certification before she could take on a classroom. I, on the other hand, will be plunked in a lecture hall with hundreds of undergrads and expected to develop a syllabus, lesson plans and testing strategy with practically no training (if I decide to become a professor someday). I certainly don't think that having a Ph.D. makes me more qualified than her to be a teacher, but our current system of academia does - at least as far as university-level education is concerned.
(Not to mention that I'm already totally, irrationally nervous about my teaching abilities in the first place. If I'm this insecure about being a TA, what the heck would happen to me if I did decide to become a professor somewhere? I'm sure it would be mitigated somewhat by the TA experience, but being an assistant and being the instructor are very different positions.)
So, geoblogosphere, what are your opinions? Do you think you were properly prepared for your teaching responsibilities, or would you have appreciated having formal training like a K-12 educator is expected to? Why do we still have this situation in academia, and what are your ideas about fixing it?