Is Teaching an Art or Science?

As a teacher myself, I’ve often found myself pondering this very question. Before i unpack the idea of teaching as both a science and an art i want to strongly highlight it's deeply intertwined with power, culture, and the control of knowledge. Defining teaching as either an art or a science often reflects broader societal structures and hierarchies. It's important to ask: who controls these definitions, and how do they shape the way we view education globally? In many ways, the dominant narratives around what constitutes "art" or "science" are heavily influenced by Western traditions. These frameworks tend to prioritise certain ways of knowing and learning, often sidelining or devaluing knowledge systems from other parts of the world.

This exclusion isn't neutral; it's a reflection of cultural dominance and the perpetuation of power structures that favor one worldview on teaching over others. Are the creative and scientific traditions of the Global South—such as native ways of knowing, African epistemologies, or Caribbean Culture —given the same legitimacy in this educational discourse? Or are we maintaining a model that marginalises these perspectives? Are we perpetuating a Eurocentric worldview that continues to shape thought leadership, curricula, teacher training, and pedagogical methods? Or is there a genuine move toward embracing diversity, equity, and inclusion when talk about the arts and science. Now i've got that off my chest, let’s return to the question at hand: is teaching a science or an art in a global context?

The Science of Teaching

When we talk about teaching as a science, we’re referring to the methods and techniques grounded in eurocentric research and theory. Educational psychology, for instance, has provided us with insights into how students learn, cognitive development, and how information is processed. This knowledge forms the backbone of teaching strategies. Whether it’s Bloom’s taxonomy, assessment for learning (AfL), or differentiation techniques, the science of teaching provides a framework of evidence-based practices that guide us in the classroom. Increasingly, data-driven instruction has become central to teaching. Teachers collect and analyse data on student performance, adapting lessons based on this information to maximise learning outcomes. In the UK, this data-led approach is at the heart of many classroom strategies. By tracking exams, behaviour logs, and attendance, we’re able to pinpoint gaps in learning and respond swiftly. But with this comes the challenge: can everything be measured by data? Are we at risk of losing the child in the pursuit of metrics and predictictions? Alongside this, emerging technologies such as edtech are transforming how we approach teaching. The classroom of today is increasingly digital, with tools like Kahoot to Google Classroom. These technologies allow for personalised learning, enabling teachers to adapt lessons to meet individual needs. However, as Andreas Schleicher, Director for Education and Skills at the OECD, pointed out, “Technology can amplify great teaching, but great technology cannot replace poor teaching.

Additionally, we're seeing a rise in academic exploration of how the brain works and how this impacts learning. Concepts like retrieval practice and spaced learning have become increasingly prominent, offering insights into how we can help students store information in their long-term memory rather than just cramming for short-term recall. This approach is highly effective in improving retention, but ultimately, it still often feels geared towards preparing students for exams. While these strategies optimise learning, they also highlight how much of education remains focused on exam performance rather than fostering a broader understanding, insight into adult life or passion for the subject matter. In this sense, teaching is driven by a clear process: understanding the curriculum, delivering content, assessing progress, and adapting based on data and student needs. There is a precision to this approach, almost akin to a computing formula—input, process, output. As teachers, we can follow these processes to optimise learning, but it’s only one side of the story.

The Art of Teaching

No matter how much research or data we collect, there’s an undeniable art to teaching. You can have the most scientifically sound lesson plan, but once you step into the classroom, there are variables that no amount of research can fully predict. These are the human elements—the relationships, emotions, and spontaneity that occur in the learning environment. The art of teaching lies in how we interpret the needs of our students in real-time, how we engage and inspire them. It's about intuition and creativity—knowing when to adapt a lesson plan because your class is just not ‘getting it,’ or when to pause and allow space for a rich, unplanned discussion that veers off-topic but offers valuable insights.

Consider, for instance, a child learning deep in the Amazon rainforest. There, learning isn’t confined to a classroom with chairs, tables, and exams. It’s experiential—passed down through storytelling, rhythms, vibrations, and life skills. Lessons emerge from interactions with the natural world, from the wisdom of elders, and through a connection to the environment. There’s no data to drive this; it’s a form of learning embedded in culture and tradition. By contrast, in the Western world, we go to school, sit at desks, take exams, and face detentions. Our system is built on structure and order. But does this structured environment, with its obsession on results, overlook the broader picture of what it means to learn? And in turn, are we, as teachers, boxed into a singular way of thinking about education?

Teaching as an Issue of Dominant Culture?

This brings us to a deeper question: is the very act of teaching shaped by dominant societal norms? Are we conditioned to teach in a certain way that eliminates other cultures and perspectives? In many ways, the Western education system has defined what success in the classroom looks like: high exam results, good behaviour, and compliance with school rules. But does this model work for everyone? Or does it maintain the status quo, ensuring that students conform to a particular vision of law and order? There’s a growing conversation around whether education systems are too micro managed which is making the profession unattrative to join. Do we need to reimagine the arts and science in teaching? Do you need to incorporate play, relevancy or outside world. As teachers in the UK, we must ask ourselves whether our practices reflect a narrow view of success or whether we’re creating space for different ways of learning. Do our classrooms foster critical thinking, mistakes, creativity, or are they merely reinforcing a rigid system designed to churn out obedient citizens?

Blending Art and Science

In truth, teaching is a blend of both art and science. Like DJ EZ playing house and garage on the decks. No mix is complete if the DJ doesn't mix and blend between the tracks. So just like DJ EZ we have to mix between the both of them. For example, those who can integrate evidence-based strategies with their personal flair, adapting to the specific needs of their students while remaining grounded in effective practices. You might start with the science—backed by data and research—but how you implement that in the classroom, how you bring it to life, requires a touch of artistry. I know we are expected to deliver results, but i would also argue it's to nurture well-rounded individuals who are prepared for the complexities of modern life.

Conclusion

At its core, teaching is not simply an art or a science—teaching is a heartbeat!

The art of teaching ensures that we remain flexible and responsive, while the science helps ensure that our efforts lead to measurable success. But teaching transcends the intellectual realm and enters the emotional, human space—the "heartbeat". Like the heart, teaching sustains, nurtures, and gives life to those it touches. A teacher’s pulse drives the classroom. It sets the rhythm, giving energy and direction, just as the heart dictates the tempo of life. Every beat of instruction, every word spoken, communicates not just information, but care, guidance, and understanding. Teaching pumps life into learners, families and communities. It keeps the flow of knowledge alive, just as the heart pumps blood through veins, ensuring every part of the body is nourished. When teaching is consistent, like a steady heartbeat, learning thrives. Ideas and understanding flow naturally, growing stronger with every pulse. But when teaching falters, when the rhythm is broken, the flow is interrupted—and the classroom, like the body, struggles to function properly. Teaching also involves breath—not just physical, but metaphorical. It creates space for learners to breathe, to think, to reflect, to anaylse, to question and to grow. Like a heartbeat working in tandem with breath, teaching communicates life, offering moments of calm and moments of challenge, all in harmony with the needs of the learner.

So, teaching is not just art or science. It is the heartbeat that keeps learning alive, and it is in that space between the art and the science where true teaching thrives, nourishing the mind, body and spirit.