While educational psychologists claim that they have put teaching on a scientific footing because they conduct systematic scientific research into human behavior, thinking and learning, and instructional design, there are many elements that characterize it as an art. Events inside the classroom are often spontaneous and unpredictable. These require a teacher’s intuition, or the ability to act on a feeling, instead of factual knowledge. It is impossible to provide teachers with a magic formula that makes them effective, or a recipe to handle every circumstance that arises. Further, it is difficult to evaluate the teaching performance of individual teachers accurately and consistently because there is no single set of scientific criteria to do so. Finally, some teachers appear to natural educators, but it is hard to define what sets them apart from others. A teacher who attempts to base every action on scientific evidence may come across as rigid and mechanical to his or her learners .By contrast, a teacher who ignores scientific knowledge about teaching and learning runs the risk of applying principles and methods that are ineffective (Biehler and Snowman 1993, 20). Scientific research done by educational psychologists and other educationalists can introduce teachers to principles and theories of teaching that extend their ability or competence. Teaching from a scientific basis helps teachers avoid the pitfalls of subscribing to the latest fad (a fashionable but unproven method of teaching). If teaching is purely an art, then effective teaching would be determined by the teacher’s natural talent or by long years of practice. But, there is a sizeable body of scientific research and research-validated instructional practices that have been shown to improve teacher performance and learners’ achievement.