EDH 7326 Week 4 Questions from Nolan and Hoover, Ch. 2
1. Think back and share some of the most important reasons why you entered the teaching profession. Have your feelings changed in any way? Explain. A: I entered the teaching profession because I enjoyed helping others learn. It felt gratifying, rewarding and important. I still have this as the core of why I teach. I love helping children! 2. Five years after your students have left your class, what would you like them to be saying about you? About your teaching? About their learning in your classroom? A: Years after my students have left my classroom, I would hope that they would say that they enjoyed my class, that they learned to love the subject(s) I taught and that they thought I was a great teacher who cared about them. 3. Why should students learn the content that you teach? How does that content relate to the world outside the classroom? A: Students should learn the content I teach because it’s important. The content is designed to help them become the best teacher they can be – knowledgeable, creative, flexible. I try to relate the content directly to what they will be doing once they have their own classroom. I continually stress that I want them to make connections between their classrooms and our classroom, to make practical use of the new content they are learning. 4. How do you handle the constant tension between covering the content and exploring topics in depth to promote deeper understanding? A: There is a desire to teach additional content and explore topics more in depth. I try to strike a happy medium between covering all the required information, and gaining depth and width of content knowledge. I believe in the teachable moment. If students want to go down a relevant educational path during class, I will go with them. However, I remain mindful of the planned lesson and the importance of that content as well. Sometimes I have to cut out activities or portions of a lesson, but we find time to cover the content, even if it’s in a different way than I had planned. It’s important to be flexible and responsive to the students’ needs. 5. What indicators tell you that you have taught a successful lesson? How do you know when your students have learned what you hoped to convey? A: I know I have taught a successful lesson when most or all of the students meet the goals I set for them. This ties to the objectives and assessments. This can include conversation, written work, projects, blogs, and journaling. Secondly, and also important, is the culture of the class. I want my students to feel comfortable and able to take educational risks. I work hard to earn their trust and respect. This can serve as a base for a positive and successful class. 6. If I were a new student moving into your classroom, what would you say if I asked, “What will you expect from me?” A: Welcome! I’m so glad you are joining us. The expectations for this class are for you to do your best, be respectful of yourself and others, and work hard. We are a team of learners, and help one another. If you need anything, please don’t hesitate to ask. 7. If I were a parent of a new student, how would you respond if I asked you to describe the classroom climate or learning environment? A: I’m so glad your daughter/son will be joining us! The climate of our classroom is one of mutual respect and a desire to work together to learn. We spend time getting to know one another, helping each other, and building a team of cooperative learners. 8. Think about the colleagues whom you most respect. Which of their strengths would you most like to integrate into your own teaching style? A: I value the intelligence of one of my professors, and her dedication to her craft. I feel she is knowledgeable, and very respectful of her students and colleagues. I would like to emulate these traits more. 9. What questions do you have about your instructional practices? A: I have so many questions about my instructional practices! What is the best approach to use when teaching? What strategies work best? How can I help struggling students more effectively? Do my students want an experienced professional demeanor from me, or a more relaxed humorous rapport? Am I conveying a caring, trusting partnership, or am I handling some issues too harshly? Will students work hard and do their best if they aren’t held directly accountable for the readings and activities? How can I get all of my students to complete the assigned readings each week? How can I best lead a post conference with them? 10. What questions do you have about your students’ learning? A: I wonder how intrinsically motivated my students are. I wonder how they learn best? What style of teaching is most effective for them? What would they like to see more of? Less of? Can they handle the style of conference which requires them to take the lead for their growth? Do they want to?
0 Comments
Week 4 Reflection
When reading Sergiovanni and Starratt’s Perspectives for Supervision, I was struck by the connection between their writings on metacognitive learning, the increased expectations for student performance, and my current experiences. They authors write, “Not only is there pressure on teachers to ensure that all children reach acceptable levels of achievement, but achievement levels themselves are being raised. This calls for higher level of reasoning previously thought by many to be beyond the cognitive developmental levels of younger students.” (A Framework for Supervision, 2009) Just today I had several conversations with collaborating teachers on this topic, unsolicited. While checking in on an intern, her CT was teaching math. She looked up at me and said, “Yes, these kindergartners are learning algebra”, and she rolled her eyes. She appeared exasperated with the level of content she was being asked to teach in the new math standards. A second teacher commented to me during a separate visit, that the new standards are asking too much of her students, and they are far above what even her highest performers can master. This appears to be the consensus among classroom teachers in regards to the new Florida standards, that the raised expectations are too high and unattainable. On a personal note, however, I agree with the push towards having students explain their thinking and reasoning rather than just recall facts. This ideally creates real world problem solvers rather than robotic regurgitators. I also agree that teachers need to create a learning environment based on the needs of each individual student, and not setting out a one size fits all design. “The notion that there is one teaching strategy that works for all children, if it was ever genuinely embraced, can no longer be defended.” (Sergiovanni and Starratt, 2009) In the same article, I found it interesting that supervision is described as being done to and for teachers rather than with teachers. This sums up the learning that has taken place in my mind over the past few weeks. I am coming around to this way of thinking, that a supervisor is most effective when they let the teacher being supervised do the “heavy lifting” of increasing their own effectiveness, with the supervisor facilitating this process. This is much like a classroom teacher does for her students, when they learn through inquiry. I always used to tell my students (6th grade) that I would know I had done a good job when they could run the class without me. For learning to be a “public good”, teachers have to collaborate and share their individual skills and wisdom with others at their site. Considering that teachers are scored individually and only those teachers in the top percentile receive the bonus pay, not all teachers are going to be willing to take the high road and work to create a higher performing school for this public good. Some will remain committed to the private good, and the privately good paycheck. It would be nice to think all teachers would be on board for collaboration and supervision, but in my experience, this is not reality under the current supervisory system, referred to as theory X (Sergiovanni and Starratt, 2009). Creating that “strong value that permeates the culture of the school” will be critical to solve this problem. Having teachers serve in a supervisory role for others can create the buy in necessary for success. Simply creating the norms will not be enough. We need to focus on theory Y concepts, as described by Douglas McGregor. This makes me think that, according to Nolan and Hoover (2011), my challenge will be to develop the idea of shared ownership with the teacher and a trust in their expertise. At least in National Board certification, accomplished teachers are rewarded for sharing their expertise with others. In the current evaluation system, there is nothing in place such as this. Perhaps there should be? This is an interesting idea. What if teachers who scored well on their evaluations consistently over time were paired with lower performing teachers, with one acting in a supervisory role and the other engaging in self-study for the purpose of increasing their skills. This would solve both problems. The lower rated teacher would benefit from the accomplished teacher, and the accomplished teacher would benefit from assisting the lower performing teacher, and the big winners would be the students in both groups! This approach aligns with at least one of the ideas by Newman’s work on pathways to learning and academic success, “encouraging teachers to work in more cooperative and collegial ways”. (Cited in Sergiovanni and Starratt, 2009) Their article summarizes, and I agree, “the heart of supervisory leadership is designing opportunities for teachers to continuously expand their capacity to learn, to care, to help each other and teach more effectively.” This new collaboration set up would address what Sergiovanni and Starratt refer to as an evaluation system that is “competitive and thus disruptive to group harmony” (pg. 13). The normative approach, supervisor D, would be an interesting experiment, to see if “most” of the teachers bought in, or if this could work for any and all instructors at a given site. In my previous job, many of the employees were fiercely loyal to the original supervisor. After reading Chapter 2 from Sergiovanni and Starratt, I think she originally got our buy in from a personal source of authority. She was charming, motivating, and appreciative. This created a loyal following, which then lead to moral following. We liked her, she liked the ideas behind our evaluation plan, thus we liked the evaluation plan. Those of us who shared her ideals and morals regarding the reason behind this system were able to find a common purpose, which increased and solidified our commitment to her and to the system. Unfortunately, looking back from a new perspective, I fear the strategy we used as evaluators was one of bureaucracy, and thus was not as effective as originally thought. Although there was a level of professional expectation on our part from the teachers, it was seldom manifested. Reading this article provides some insight as to why. Teaching Supervision and Evaluation (Nolan and Hoover, 2011) points out another reason this is true. They focus on a growth model of supervision, which is not the case for the EET evaluation model. The two are not combined. Although evaluators are encouraged to “develop genuine and supportive relationships with teachers”, they cannot use the evaluation as a growth model. All teachers are held to the same standard, without consideration of where they start in their skill base, and what their current strengths and weaknesses are. This solidifies in my mind one of the many differences between evaluation and supervision. “When schools fail to separate supervision from evaluation, neither function is performed very well…teacher’s respond to observation as Blumberg describes – with mistrust and apprehension.” (Nolan and Hoover, 2011). I’m left with many wonderings. How can the current evaluation system in our district be improved? Which of these four approaches described in the article would be most effective with such a large group of teachers? Would all teachers rise to the occasion if provided with the more teacher-centered approach, relying on their moral compass and dedication to a positive “school wide IQ”? How could I, as a supervisor and an evaluator (separate but equally important roles) facilitate my conferences and observations to be most effective for my interns and teachers, taking this new information into account? I plan to focus on my role in this process, specifically my role as a supervisor in pre and post conferences for formal observations for pre-service teachers. I can collect evidence of the approach I use for these conferences, the comfort level of the PST measured through their self-assessment data, and the effectiveness of the conference based on data collected showing if the teacher implemented strategies for improving their effectiveness as a classroom teacher. I may focus on a few student teachers, to make the data collection manageable, and then I can add information regarding their performance between the first observation and the second. This will need to be refined, but it’s a starting point. References: Nolan, J., & Hoover, L.A. (2010). Teacher supervision and evaluation: Theory into practice. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. (3rd edition) Sergiovanni, T. J., Starratt, R. J. (2007). Supervision: A redefinition, (8th Ed.), (xv-53). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Weekly Reflection 3
EDH 7326 The articles this week were amazing. I felt a strong connection with the information discussed, as it connects not only with the position I served in the district as an evaluator, but with my new role as a partnership resource teacher for the university. These are issues which I wrestle with as a professional. My eyes were opened as I read about the concepts of evaluator versus supervisor, the role and purpose of each, and the tale of the “novice” supervisor of pre-service interns. The paper could have been written about me. I think it was important to read each of these articles in order, to lay the ground work for the information which followed. Understanding exactly what is meant by evaluator vs. coach or supervisor was important to understanding the debate of whether one person can serve in both capacities. As I read the article which said, yes a supervisor can be a coach, I whole heartedly agreed. I saw the “three-track model, with its emphasis on formative, collaborative and collegial processes” as “the next generation of teacher evaluation.” (McGreal, 1995) However, when I read the article which argued that no, supervisors cannot be coaches, I then agreed with Nolan! Obviously there are two sides, both of which have valid points. Having been both an evaluator and a supervisor, I feel it’s important to carefully consider both viewpoints. Common sense indicates that McGreal is correct when saying that there are fundamentals which must be learned and practiced, citing Joyce and Showers (1983). These fundamentals are understanding the theoretical basis of the new skill, observing experts using the skill, practicing the skill with specific feedback and being coached throughout the application process. This should be put into place for every teacher, both pre-service and in-service. Many times, teachers I evaluated were missing portions of this formula, but could have benefited from it. Having them understand the desired skill on a deeper level would have been helpful, so they understood why implementing the new skill was important, and understanding how it would benefit their students. This knowledge could have motivated them to incorporate the change. They also didn’t fully understand how the desired behavior or skill looked when implemented. Having a sample to share would have been useful. Timing of the evaluations prevented us from returning to monitor and model the skill. Adding a coaching component to the evaluation process would have been practical. I would agree that one person serving as a coach as well as an evaluator can be done successfully if the roles are clearly delineated, and these tasks conducted at different times and not directly combined. Of course Nolan would argue that coaching and supervising ideally should not be combined at all. He outlines this in seven dimensions: 1) basic purpose; 2) rationale for existence; 3) scope; 4) inherent nature of the relationship; 5) observation procedures; 6) the role of expertise; and 7) the teacher’s perspective on the entire process. (Nolan, 1993). The biggest obstacle in my mind would be the issue of trust and ability to take a risk. “It is extremely difficult to establish an atmosphere of trust in this relationship, since the evaluator has all the power and the teacher has all the vulnerability. Additionally, the teacher has no choice about whether to participate in the process or not.” This is so true. I’ve given much thought to how to make the evaluation process more effective, without thinking about the inherent imbalance of trust and power. This almost seems to negate any opportunity for a fruitful and honest reflection by the teacher, which in turn can lead to real professional skill building. This ties in with the Burns article regarding the novice supervisor. Burns says that teachers put on a show when their supervisor comes in to observe, and comply with previously stated expectations, yet rebel once the “classroom doors are closed” (citing Blumberg, 1980). Additionally, when the supervisor’s advice conflicts with the mentoring teacher’s advice, the mentor’s advice is usually chosen due to the amount of time and proximity to the intern. (Burns and Badiali, in press, page 18) I’ve heard this from my interns as well. They say their CTs tell them although I’ve told them to do something one way, based on the university’s stance, they want them to do things a different way based on their preference and experience. This places the pre-service teacher in a difficult position. It’s something I want to address with all my interns, to increase their level of comfort and ability to cope with this situation. I think as they receive grades from both the CT and myself, they may feel a great deal of pressure. An “aha” moment for me was in reading the same article on teacher candidate’s perceptions of their supervisor. “The supervisory relationship should be collegial in nature and flatter whereas the evaluative relationship is hierarchical and bureaucratic (citing Cogan, 1973, Volan and Hoover, 2010). It had not occurred to me that a supervisory relationship needed to be more collegial than hierarchical. I was trained to think that the supervisor was the expert and in charge of sharing their years of experience with interns, who had not had the benefit of being in a classroom for nearly as long. This has made me rethink my role as an intern supervisor. I’m still left wondering exactly what the balance should be, but it has opened my eyes to the option of taking a less “sage” role and more of a facilitation role. I still feel that the expertise I’ve acquired can benefit my interns, but am considering allowing the pre-service teacher a more active role in identifying their areas of strength and focus, and developing ideas for how to address the accompanying needs. This would definitely be an experiment, as I’m not sure the PST has the repertoire to draw upon in order to first be able to accurately identify their areas of weakness, and secondly to come up with an effective strategy to address this weakness. It’s possible I’m not giving the intern enough credit, and will be pleasantly surprised by the results. Or it’s possible this experiment will allow me to find a balance which works more effectively. In the article “The Coach and the Evaluator”, I laughed when reading the first sentence. “Educators are familiar with the well-worn choreography of the typical supervisory conference: ‘Three to glow on, three to grow on.” (Tschannen-Moran and Tschannen-Moran, 2011). This is the way I was trained as an evaluator for the county. I thought it was an invention of the EET program. I was naïve to think our district invented this idea. I know that receiving less than positive feedback was unpleasant for most teachers, but didn’t realize it might also be counterproductive, creating “power struggles, rather than cooperative efforts.” ((Tschannen-Moran and Tschannen-Moran, 2011). Another ‘Aha” moment came when reading that “Evaluation is not a prelude to development, and development is not a consequence of evaluation.” (Tschannen-Moran and Tschannen-Moran, 2011). I had always assumed that professional growth would follow the evaluation. If the area needing development and evidence supporting this decision were provided, that the teacher would naturally just work towards fixing the problem. I felt that evaluation and development were inherently linked. It didn’t occur to me that one might preclude the other. But it makes sense that this imbalance of power can lead to a lack of trust, constrained communication, people hiding problems and a lack of cooperation. I had heard that teachers should have input in the evaluation process, but it was always to be driven by the evaluator and the collected data. I didn’t know that change would be fostered through teacher-centered, no fault, strengths-based coaching. (Tschannen-Moran and Tschannen-Moran, 2011). I also learned a great deal from the Rutter article called “Purpose and Vision of Professional Development Schools”. I saw myself in the description of the hybrid educator, or career professional – the “field-based teacher educator and clinical faculty member at the university.” (Rutter,) My knowledge of the level of pervasiveness of this type of teacher was minimal. However, I was delighted to know that this is the recommended concept for preparing new teachers. It makes sense to bridge the gap between university classes and classroom experiences. The idea that focus needs to be placed on getting great teachers, keeping great teachers, and utilizing great teachers (Carnegie Task Force) made sense. Following this with a specific plan of action was important. The emphasis on collaboration among teachers was also critical. Having been in education for over two decades, I have personally seen the shift described in this article, from isolated teaching to “collaboration as a means to develop and enhance their body of specialized knowledge”. I was also surprised that the design of the professional development School movement was designed to enhance the knowledge of the in-service teacher, as well as the pre-service teacher. This is something I want to focus on in the coming semester. My final take away from these series of articles is the idea that teaching “could no longer remain a gild of craftsmen, but enter the realm of professionals with the decision-making, autonomy, knowledge base, and accountability that comes with the transformation.” (Rutter, 2011) It’s no longer every woman for herself, but a community of learners in which each participant controls her own professional destiny. References Burns, R. & Badiali (in press). When Supervision is Conflated with Evaluation: Teacher Candidates’ Perceptions of Their Novice Supervisor. Cogan, M. (1973). Clinical supervision. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. McGreal, T. L., & Nolan, J. F. (2007). Can a supervisor be a coach? In J. Glanz & R. F. Neville (Eds.), Educational supervision: Perspectives, issues, and controversies, pp. 91-112. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc. Rutter, A. (2011). Purpose and Vision of Professional Development Schools. National Society for the Study of Education, Volume 110, Issue 2, pp. 289-305. Teachers College, Columbia University. Tschannen-Moran, B., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2011). The Coach and the Evaluator. Coaching: The New Leadership Skill, pp. 10-16. EDH 7326
Week 2 blog The readings from The Reflective Educator’s Guide to Classroom Research this week focus on inquiry: defining it, finding a wondering, questions of collaboration, developing a research plan, and considering ethical implications in one’s work. Of particular interest to me was the shift from an outside researcher conducting investigations on their topics of choice, versus the teacher determining her/his research topic based on the needs of the students. This makes the research highly practical. Yendol-Hoppey and Dana outline teacher inquiry as improving classroom practice, providing insight into teaching in an effort to make change, being conducted by an insider, and having local impact (2014, pg. 10). On page 15, the authors begin discussion in depth of the relationship between teacher inquiry and differentiated instruction. I think this is critical. When I was a teacher in training at USF, there was no discussion of differentiation in any form. Yet this is one of the most important pieces to an effective teacher. There is no one size fits all curriculum, and it’s exciting to know our interns are being trained in this important distinction. When I evaluated veteran teachers, they often had the same question- “How do I differentiate?” When I evaluated newer graduates, they often had this built in to the heart of their teaching. Not to say that newer teachers are better, just that they typically bring a different set of skills with them. I also found the section on the relationship between teacher inquiry and teacher evaluation interesting. (pg. 19) As a former teacher evaluator, I always take note of this type of discussion. I agree that the “evaluation efforts are designed to provide the pressure that when coupled with support can lead to improved teaching practices” (Fullan, 2009). Claims of support are made, but in reality this is highly dependent on the teacher seeking out these resources. Adding teacher inquiry as a possible solution to address an area of weakness is something I had not considered, but at first glance would seem to be a very effective way to address this. It would help the teacher narrow down the area of focus, identify possible solutions, and put the entire process in her power, something which may be missing as part of the current Danielson evaluation system. The Dinkleman article, “Self-Study in Teacher Education: A Means and Ends Tool for Promoting Reflective Teaching”, made some interesting points. First, inquiry helps teachers draw “connections between self-study and their developing expertise in working with beginning teachers” (Dinkleman 2003, page 7). This helps me apply the information in the article to my current position as a teacher educator. The author also mentions inquiry used to model the reflective practice. Modeling that teacher self-study is not just for new teachers or pre-service teachers could be valuable to my students, to illustrate in a real world way the value of continued professional self-reflection. This information leads me to the idea that I will share my inquiry study with my interns, to model the process and illustrate its importance. In considering my own wondering for the inquiry project, I liked the idea to explore “how the use of videotaped teaching episodes stimulate the reflection of student teachers” (Dinkleman, 2003, pg. 10). I’ve often thought videotaped lessons were one of the most accurate and effective methods for teacher |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
April 2016
Categories
All
|