EDH 7326 Week 8 Reflection
· How do I see myself? As a supervisor, I see myself in a state of flux. I am a work in progress, learning, growing and changing. The more I learn in my university course, the more I change my mindset, specifically from evaluative and directive style to cognitive coaching and student centered style. I am learning to let the students direct their learning through reflection and inquiry, rather than hand them information in the “sage” role. My commitment to students remains focused throughout this change. My mindset is one of “students first”. I am here to support and assist them, in the way that is best for their learning and growth. I am hanging on to the “gatekeeper” identifier, and am not sure I will ever be able to change that, or if I want to. Teaching is an honorable profession and children deserve the best teachers possible, who make them love learning. · How do I want to see myself? I want to see myself as a more competent person in my role as a supervisor. I have strengths, but I also have many areas in which I’d like to grow. I find my practices are aligned in many ways with best practices, but in other critical ways, I can improve. I want to see myself as a more supportive coach rather than being as directive as I have been. I want to be the person who makes a difference in the pre-service teacher’s quest for teaching excellence. I want to support them in their learning. I want to be responsible for helping turn out amazing teachers, so their students have an amazing educational experience. · How do I think others see me? I’m not really sure how others see me. I think my students see me as nice, caring, and also a bit strict in some ways. I am flexible and keep the students best interests in mind in all things, but also hold on to some rules and constraints. I hope my students see me as knowledgeable and there to help them. I’ve had students tell me they are nervous when I come in to observe them, but also feel comfortable when we pre and post conference. I feel that most of my students and I have a great rapport. I am working hard to develop the trust necessary to make our collaborations more meaningful. I’m seeing positive results in the relationships I’m developing not only with my PSTs but also with their collaborating teachers. I’m working hard to foster these relationships for the best interests of them, their interns, and ultimately their students. · How do I see others? My view of others is changing. As an evaluator, I’ve become slightly jaded and cynical about the expertise and aptitude of some teachers. However, after learning about the differences between evaluation and coaching, I realize why many of the teachers I worked with were uncooperative and resistant to change. I now understand that the change has to come from the teacher for it to be a real change, and not just a performance done for the benefit of the observer. The teacher as inquirer, identifying their own areas for growth, is a more effective model then having an outside observer identity and prescribes a solution. If I were to ever return to that position, I think I would be so much better at it, by allowing the teacher to take the lead in their growth process. Jim Nolan commented on one of my reflection posts, noting my thoughts about this, and I took it to heart. I can start by assuming the pre-service teacher I’m working with (or in service teacher) has the ability and determination to move in a positive direction, and then adjust if needed in a more directive approach. Dr. Burns discussed this as well in our last class, and I think it makes sense. Assume competency, and become more directive only if necessary. · How do I want others to see me? I want others to see me as a valuable resource. I hope my care and concern for my students is evident. I work hard to be responsive to the needs of my students, flexible and creative in attending to their individual strengths and areas of focus. I want to be seen as an advocate for each student, and a facilitator of positive change.
0 Comments
EDH 7326 Reflection Week 7
Improving the Quality of Elementary Mathematics Student Teaching: Using Field Support Materials to Develop Reflective Practices in Student Teachers (Hertzog and O’Rode, 2011) examines the competency of pre-service teachers in subject-specific pedagogy before and after specific interventions are put into place. A focus is on pre-service teacher reflection and effectiveness, as well as the role of the supervisor. Four common themes were mentioned in the literature research for what student teachers need to know: problem-solving, explanation, representations, and mathematical connections (Hertzog & O’Rode, 2011). The importance of field experiences, and their connection to university instruction, is cited as a factor which can influence the pre-service teacher’s success. The study was conducted in three phases, which examined the status quo of the traditional teaching experience, a study of the data with new support materials being utilized, and a comparison of a control group versus an experimental group to measure math knowledge of each. A significant positive impact was observed for those teachers who utilized the materials and resources provided. It’s mentioned that subject matter specialists may be useful in preparing pre-service teachers, which I’m pleased to note is already implemented in the residency portion of our Elementary Education program. I would be interested to see this in place in the regular cohort training as well, or additional content training formalized for the supervisors as needed. The article provided information to me that will be helpful in designing and implementing my inquiry project, such as how to conduct the research. They used field notes, taped conferences, and results from interviews. But it also raised questions for me, by swaying me to examine aspects of my supervision that I hadn’t previously considered. For example, the study looked at the amount of feedback given to interns which is content focused, versus the amount that is pedagogically based. Until today I had never focused on this exclusively. I always thought the best method was to provide the pedagogy for sound teaching which can be applied to any subject. But of course it’s critical that students have mastery of their content as well, and need feedback and support to develop this fully. I had thought this fell under the realm of the university professor for that content area. I would be interested in examining my “status quo” on this, and collecting data to examine the balance. Then, if the data supports my hypothesis that my feedback is “pedagogy heavy”, I’d be interested in implementing a stronger content based feedback. I would like to be part of that team offering content specific feedback which contributes to pre-service teacher effectiveness in the classroom. On a separate note, Glickman, Gordon and Ross-Gordon, 2014, define technical skills of supervision. These include assessing, evaluation, observing and planning skills. They are considered prerequisites for instructional supervision, and related to the school culture and technical tasks. Burns and Badiali define technical tasks within a PST conceptual framework as direct assistance, individual support, group development, curriculum support, and research and innovation. The aim of these skills is an outcome of improved teaching and student learning (2012). Burns, Jacobs and Yendol-Hoppey (under review) also identify the five tasks of PST supervision as being: direct assistance, individual support, group development, curriculum support and research and innovation. The Glanz and Sullivan (2013) article was very practical. It’s definitely something I can use with my pre-service teachers, as well as in my particular inquiry. I can use one or more of these observation tools to collect data, in order to accurately reflect upon the effectiveness of instruction and conferencing. For my PSTs, I would like to have them use the on task chart, watching one of their videos for 10-15 minutes and tallying these on versus off task behaviors. I think it would be and eye opener for some who don’t realize the extent of the off task behavior occurring during their lesson. My students have a variety of goals, including behavior management, levels of questioning, allowing students to answer instead of the teacher, and increasing engagement. I can definitely see how these tools would assist them in meeting these goals. For example, the observational data tool on page 42 of the Nolan and Hoover text (2011) would assist the intern wanting more information about her feedback and questioning techniques (FEAPS 3e). The SCORE instrument on page 35 would provide information for interns interested in the level of student engagement (FEAPs 3a). Additionally I would use the teacher verbal behaviors tool and the Bloom’s taxonomy levels of questioning chart. I think this would be a useful exercise to conduct in my instructional planning course as well. The diagram of verbal interactions looks like a powerful tool to use. I’ve utilized a similar version of this to provide feedback to in service teachers, and have always had a positive response to the visual representation of the data. This way it’s merely a representation of facts, which is important so that the teacher can fully participating in the interpretation phase, and have ownership of the growth process. And…. Jim Nolan commented on one of my posts. I’m a happy blogger. EDH 7326 Week 6 Reflection
“Many supervisors get stuck somewhere between alienated critic and neutral observer.” (Gaman, N. 1982) This was one of my many personal connections to this week’s readings. I feel as if I struggle with this in my role as a supervisor. It’s almost a battle between head and heart. I am so passionate about upholding the sanctity of teaching perfectionism, that I am too judgmental and not open minded enough to be as effective as I might be in seeing alternate perspectives and allowing a pre service teacher to search and evolve at a slower than expected pace (my expectations). My quest to become a “connected participant” is a quest yet unmet. I visit this role on occasion, but as they say in peer world, I don’t live there. I am very much feel I still have “the evaluative ambience surrounding the role of a teacher”. In the Nolan and Hoover book, Teacher Supervision and Evaluation, Theory into Practice (2010), they write “The university supervisor and the cooperating teacher don the hats of gatekeepers to the profession, protecting the interests of the countless number of children on whom the teacher candidate could have an impact.” I take this responsibility to heart. Having seen the damage an ineffective or even hurtful teacher can inflict on hundreds or thousands of children throughout their career, I want to protect them from this fate. I follow the advice given by Noland and Hoover (2008) in their discussion of failure in student teaching, asking myself with each intern, would I want my child in this person’s class? If I can’t answer yes, then I need to work harder to help them achieve this high level of success. “It is the combined flaws of ignorance and lack of compassion that prevent us from making meaningful connections with those whom we find disagreeable.” (Garman, N. 1982). This is a guiding principle, and will be helpful to me in my continued quest. Allowing oneself to go into the collaborative process with another teacher or preservice teacher totally open to what may happen is new for me. I am not comfortable with this approach, as I feel I may short change the new teacher. I have goals in my mind I want to meet for our conferences, and worry I may miss out on sharing some insight which could change their teaching for the better. This is the comfortable process, but in light of the readings, not necessarily the most effective process. Of course we always want to PST to come to their own conclusions (another expectation?) as to the effectiveness of their teaching, but if this doesn’t happen naturally, or “organically”, then what? Do I still step in? What is my role as supervisor/coach? How much input should I give? Should I persist with a student until they understand their areas of strength and focus? Is it critical that this framework is included in a supervisory cycle? Nolan and Hoover address some of these questions, and offer guidelines on the level of support and direction to offer interns in a conference. They outline 4 levels of support, with level 1 having the supervisor model the data interpretation process, how to identify options about how to proceed, and directing the student teacher to implement suggestions. Level 2 offers the student teacher options and allows them to choose for future instruction. Level 3 is slightly less restrictive, and asks the student teacher to interpret data, and once again, choose from options provided. Level 4 is the least directive and places the most responsibility on the intern to interpret data, decide how to proceed, and answer questions about data and future instruction. Based on the proficiency of the student teacher, the supervisor must determine which of these four levels is most useful for the conferencing. Nolan and Hoover state that “Few individuals are capable of critical reflection at the beginning of their student teaching field experience or internship. University supervisors and cooperating teachers must understand that providing preservice teachers with direct feedback about their lessons is helpful and supportive initially, but continuing to supply all the answers is counterproductive.” This assures me that I have options. It’s a professional judgment call on the part of the supervisor to determine the level of direction and guidance to provide the intern, and this level of support can and should change over time. “Genuine collegiality is possible when I can become the connected participant.” (Garman, 1982). When I’ve completed a conference where I am part of genuine collegiality, it’s an amazing feeling. I enjoy the connection, the intellectual and emotional stimulation, the sense of purpose and accomplishment. I agree that building trust and a true relationship is key, and going in with a more open mind can help facilitate this. It’s a component that was lacking in my previous role as an evaluator, but one I’m seeing the importance of in my new position of coach/supervisor. Nolan and Hoover also talk about the importance of a genuine connection between not only the intern and supervisor, but also the supervisor and the CT. I was not surprised to read that in an ongoing PDS relationship, “University faculty and cooperating teachers create a shared sense of purpose concerning the education of preservice teachers.” However, I was surprised that these two often know each other well and have “close personal relationship with one another based on mutual respect and trust.” (Nolan and Hoover, 2008) Perhaps having been in a role where there these relationships certainly did not exist between evaluator and evaluated, this was a new idea for me. Another idea that surprised me was the emphasis in Garman’s article on face to face relationships over “remote interaction” to build relationships. In our field, Skyping, Google hangout, Go To Meeting, and other technology based conferencing is often hailed as equal to or better than traveling to sites for face to face meetings. I thought it was interesting to note that not all professors feel this way. I’m not sure if the age of the article influenced this opinion, but it was food for thought. Are face to face meetings more effective in creating bonds of trust, essential to an optimal supervisor, intern, CT relationship? This idea of dynamic tension” (Garman, 1982) is how I view our EDH 7326 class. I very much enjoy the intellectual and sometimes emotional conversations we have in class, and how they stimulate my thinking and reflection. We may not always agree, but we always learn. The spirited talk and passion for education are inspiring, and I look forward to our sessions each week. Garman talks about the script themes often found in conferences between PSTs and their supervisors. I had to laugh, as of course this is the script I’ve followed myself to some degree. It’s interesting how this is taught as the correct model to follow in some positions, yet discouraged in others. I’ve conducted conferences which talk about areas of teacher strength and focus (weakness), allow the teacher to point out their “flaws”, encourage them to talk about how they would “fix” those, etc. I didn’t know of any other way. I’m slowly evolving, but still not there. I use structure in my conferences, as Garman might say, a closed structure, by stating the purpose of the meeting. For example, I might say, “Thanks for meeting with me. Our purpose today will be to reflect upon the observed lesson. We can look at what you think went well and would do again, what you might change if you were to reteach this lesson, areas you would like to grow in professionally to enhance student learning, and we’ll also talk about which students met the objective and evidence of that.” This is my standard post conference speech. My assumption is it lets the intern know what we are going to talk about, gives them focus for conversation, and provides an outline of how the conference might proceed. I’m open to other ideas and formats, and I let the intern know that it is an open ended conference for the purpose of growth, and they can take it in any direction they would like. I want the intern to be at ease as much as possible, and letting them know what to generally expect hopefully helps facilitate that. On the downside, after reading this article, I see that this may be too structured or constricting, and I might want to allow the conference to flow more naturally. I met with a PST today and just started out with, “How was your day? Tell me about it.” She talked about her lesson, and made her own connection to the previous lesson. On one hand this was a more natural and easy way to create that connection and put the student at ease to talk about the observed lesson. On the other hand, I wonder if she thought I had no plan and was too unfocused, that there wasn’t enough “rigor” to the discussion at the start. We definitely got to that point in our conversation, as it was fruitful and propelled by the intern’s comments, but was that start alright? I always tell my interns when they ask me if something was ok, “Was it effective? If you can answer yes, then it was ok.” Perhaps I can ask the intern what she thought of how our post conference went, and gain some insight into my own questioning. I was pleased to see that many of my practices align with the recommendations of Nolan and Hoover, such as the structured questions for preservice teacher conferences. I already ask many of these same questions, and have found success with them, allowing a more collaborative discussion, rather than a directive one. Of course our university employs many of the best practices outlined here as well, such as videotaping lessons for reflection, engaging in pre and post conferences as part of an observation cycle, online journaling/blogging, portfolios, and online discussion groups. The common theme of these writings is one of how to best support preservice teachers, and the principles which guide supervisors in their interactions. I would agree with everything included, and was put at ease to find the answers to some of the questions I’ve had since I began the process of self-reflection in my role as a partnership resource teacher. EDH 7326
Reflection Week 5 Denise Donahue I continue to be amazed at the synchronicity of what’s being taught in this course and the experiences I’m having as a PRT. I had a discouraging week in instructional planning, with a student telling me she is having difficulty focusing and learning, because she is not interested in the content. I am trying hard to make the class as engaging as possible, but the content is the content. I am astounded that a pre service teacher would not be interested in learning about curriculum and planning, but apparently it’s not everyone’s greatest desire. I had another student ask me in class why they need to learn how to write a lesson plan when everything is scripted for them. All they do is follow the outline presented. I had to admit that this was a good point and worth thinking about. These two issues have been on my mind. Then, I read the Fuller article, and there it is. The very first sentence. “The motivation of the learner is generally conceded to influence his learning.” (Fuller, 2010). Of course I know this, but the outline provided by Professor Fuller brings it all into perspective. The new information has to be set into a contextual framework, and has to be valuable to the learner. Without this, learning will be difficult. So I continue to wonder, how can I frame the information I present in a way that appeals to my students? How can I show them the value in knowing the content? How can I appeal to their desire to become the best teacher possible, in order for them to be the best student possible in EDE 4301 and beyond? Fuller shares some of these same wonderings. “Do students become more interested and involved when course content has been selected according to surveyed concerns than when content is selected without regard to concerns?” (Fuller, 2010) I was honestly very surprised at what Fuller wrote regarding education courses. “Education courses are admittedly not regarded as the most interesting on the campus. In some quarters they are even held in contempt. They 'take' less well than educators would wish and attrition is high.” (Fuller, 2010 Burns, Jacobs and Yendol-Hoppey also concur, citing research by Beck & Kosnik, “Clinical experiences in teacher preparation continue to be held in low regard by schools and colleges of education (Beck & Kosnik, 2002; Hoover, O’Shea, & Carroll, 1988). I was not aware of this perception, and I felt a bit discouraged to read it. I value the education courses I teach and take, and find it disheartening to find that others do not. I wonder how many of my students share this view. I was not surprised, however, that more mature or experienced students found the education courses more valuable. They just don’t know yet about the nuances of educational philosophy and curriculum planning. They just want bare bones. What do we have to do, and how can we do it easily. Tell me what to do. They don’t want to change the world, they just want to get out there and get to it. Fuller goes on to talk about the discrepancy between what pre-service and early in-service teachers are most concerned about, in comparison to what is taught in their university courses. This is something that certainly should be reconciled, to address their needs. The Burns, Jacobs, Yendol-Hoppey article (under review) focuses on the lack of coherency in programs which prepare in-service teachers, the split in opinion about this process, and an examination of the literature written since the ideas behind professional development schools (PDS) have been focused on and implemented. They found five areas of particular commonality when looking at the role of the supervisor working with PSTs. These are: “(1) Direct Assistance, (2) Individual Support, (3) Group Development, (4) Curriculum Support, and (5) Research and Innovation.” (Burns, Jacobs & Yendol-Hoppey, under review). I found it interesting that the article says, “The cultural tasks include facilitating change, addressing diversity, and building community”. Having taught a class with Dr. Burns as the course lead, and observing her emphasis on these ideas in our planning meetings, I was able to align my own experiences with the course readings and research presented. On a personal note, I’m glad our university decided to call our position a partnership resource teacher, instead of a “boundary spanner”. I think the term hybrid educator would also be a good fit, as the responsibilities involved are definitely a hybrid of many roles. I found it very reassuring to note that in the study, PSTs experienced a great deal of stress at the beginning of their jobs, but this stress declined as time went on, with the support of their supervisor. I feel as if my current supervisor offers a great deal of support and I hope that my level of stress will eventually decline as well. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
April 2016
Categories
All
|