The elephant in the room

Teacher absence in classes was the loudest complaint made by students in their recent feedback to their VC in a Delhi university. Do teachers bunk classes? This is what one would expect students to do.

Why do some teachers hate to teach? Is it because they cannot hold their students’ attention? Perhaps, their reading is inadequate, and they hate their subject. Pitted against Internet-savvy students armed with mobiles, they may be out of touch with reality.

The students’ concerns are legitimate. If they are not addressed soon, they will find other means to learn. The Internet and the idiot box are some powerful options: they offer more current and valuable content in six months than a graduate degree can in three years.

This threat may also apply to any business school course. Therefore, there is danger ahead for the teacher and his profession. 
Distance learning and e-learning are two more options to replace him. As travel becomes expensive, why go to a building (school) with teachers – who may be absent, or not be current - when you can read a business newspaper, watch TV or browse the Internet in the comfort of your home?

If teachers are to be respected, educational institutions must be made responsible for the development of their skills. Presently, their focus is on improving infrastructure. But how can another version of software, better flooring, and landscaping make teachers more attractive to students? Most often, their training is heavy in information - which can be acquired anywhere - and not on teaching methods and behaviour.

Such training may not be enough, and must be augmented by learning goals. Institution heads must direct teachers to learn anew, change behaviour, and make regular self-appraisals. They must push teachers to question and to change what they do. They must coax teachers to discover ways to connect with and move closer to students and their concerns.

Only then would teaching become an exciting profession of discovery and learning. Only then would the elephant leave us free to attend to bigger problems.

Whom would you choose? Mentor or coach?

Since quite some time, mentoring has been a popular practice in personal development. Why has coaching lost its charm?

There’s nothing wrong about either idea. But we may have misunderstood mentoring for what it could do. If so, it’s time to substitute it with coaching.

A mentor is more a distant adviser than a close guide to his protégé. As a patient listener, he gets a good idea about his protégé’s aspirations and talents. It is only then that he offers suggestions.

A coach is a trainer. He instructs his trainees, repeatedly, and oversees their development till they acquire sufficient ability to act, skillfully. He is closer to them and their successes, than a mentor and his protégé could ever be.

The mentor addresses a larger canvas of issues. The coach’s concern is limited to a smaller but better defined problem area. A mentor’s typical work is, for example, to help select which cycle to buy and which shop to buy it from. The coach directs the learner to ride the cycle, ably.

A coach is a tough taskmaster, and would not rest till his trainee’s learning is complete. He assumes responsibility for his trainee’s performances. The mentor may be a distant father figure, quite often, unaware of his protégé’s acts - and will distance himself from the results, if they were damaging.

Is mentoring more in demand than coaching because of its emotional appeal? Is coaching more rigorous, and therefore, less attractive to users?

Here are some thumb rules. If you are not sure what to do, find and ask a mentor. Don’t like his advice? Ignore it.

If you want to solve a problem but don’t know how, a coach can do it for you. He’s a pro, and will charge you for his services – so, do as he tells you.

The world’s best sportspersons depend on their coach. What about you?