Educational Platform April 2015 Supervision of pre-service teachers is a critical task. A supervisor is the coach, mentor, support system, teacher, counselor, and ultimately gatekeeper for their students. To be the most effective supervisor possible is essential. You are shaping someone’s career, and in this case, not only their future but the future of every student who enters their classroom for 20 years or more. The ripple is far reaching. Thus, I take my role as a supervisor seriously. In agreement with Glickman (1985), I feel the goal of supervision is to improve instruction. There are many ideas on how to best implement this concept. Here are my thoughts. Teacher education is turning more towards strong preparation in the classroom through internships, aligned with university coursework. This clinical experience must be coordinated, so that the skills interns acquire in academic settings are transferred to the classroom practice. Yendol-Hoppey and Franco refer to this as linking “theory and research typically taught at the university to the field” (2014). Research shows that when there is a disconnect between what an intern is taught as part of their university coursework and what they are taught by their mentor teacher in the classroom are not paralleled, the intern sides with the mentor’s view. This is powerful, and can turn out teachers whose skills and strategies are not aligned with current best practices. Therefore, there needs to be a rapport and relationship with open communication between the supervisor, mentor, and intern, to address this historical issue. In order to create this type of relationship, time and energy must be devoted. The supervisor needs to work closely with both the intern and the mentor, and get to know them and their students. The triad of adults ideally works together as a team, to the betterment of each, as a collaborative support system. I agree that supervision can be done to teachers, for teachers, or, as Sergiovanni and Starratt propose, with teachers. (2007, p. 5) Previously, I have been on the “done to teachers” side, unknowingly participating in a system which devalued educators and did not foster the professional growth I envisioned. However, it’s my hope that my recent enhanced education regarding best practices in supervision has led to a positive change. My approach to supervision has undergone a dramatic change. Costa and Garmston (2002) propose that an important approach to supervision is cognitive coaching. I have come to align my practice with this idea (or attempt to). Many interns, particularly those in their senior year, are ready to take charge of their own professional development. This is especially true if they are engaged in self-study and inquiry. If able, a supervisor can recognize the emotional and professional needs of the intern, recognize their level of development and allow their thoughts and ideas to take center stage. This can manifest itself in a formal observation cycle, which consists of a pre-conference, observation, and post conference. For me, this means allowing the intern to identify the area(s) they would like to focus on, and develop a plan for growth. They identify their own critical incidents (Cogan, 1973). My role is a support facilitator. I answer questions when asked, offer ideas if solicited, listen reflectively, ask probing questions, and collect data during the observation. In the post conference, I bring the data and then let the intern share their insights based on this data as well as their own. In accordance with cognitive coaching strategies, I monitor my vocal patterns and body language, referred to as “paralanguage” by Costa and Garmston (2002, pp. 74-78), as well as refrain from offering unsolicited feedback . This non-directive approach allows the student teacher to direct their learning and reflect upon their teaching, while I listen and support non-judgmentally. Although it can be disquieting to a student who is used to taking a backseat and being a passive participant in their own education, then suddenly finding themselves “visible, accountable, and if you will, vulnerable” (Schulman, 2005, p. 9), this active engagement in the coaching cycle is an important one. However, that being said, if an intern is not at a developmentally ready stage for this type of self-directed learning to occur, then a more directive approach is called for. The directive approach indicates I should take a more active role, providing ideas, feedback, directing and informing the intern of my insights into their teaching proficiencies and deficits. This can occur for as long as there is a need. The ultimate goal, however, is to foster their professional growth until they are able to assume the leadership role in their own development. It’s important as a supervisor to assess the needs of the intern, and adjust to the supervisory approach which best fits their current situation. As stated above, the aim is to go from doing “to” and “for” the teacher to doing “with” the teacher (Sergiovanni and Starratt, 2007). Although my evolution began with the Charlotte Danielson based evaluation model, I have walked far down the path. I still hold that many of her ideas about education, evaluation and supervision hold true. Her four domains: planning and preparation, the classroom environment, instruction, and professional responsibilities, are an accurate summary of the most important points in examining teacher effectiveness (Danielson, 2005). My previous approach was one of an evaluator, as the expert in a partnership with novice teachers. I was trained in the “three to glow on, three to grow on” idea of providing feedback. I didn’t know there was another way! But having studied the seminal pieces in the field of supervision, I feel that my repertoire has grown dramatically, and thus so have my skills as an effective supervisor. References: Cogan, M. (1973). Clinical supervision. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Costa, A. & Garmston, R. (2002). The mediator's toolbox. Cognitive coaching: A foundation for renaissance schools (2nd Ed.). Norwood, MA: Christopher Gordon. Danielson, C. (2005). Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching (2nd Ed.)Princeton, New Jersey: Danielson Group, Inc. Glickman, C. (1985). Supervision of Instruction: A Developmental Approach . Boston: Allyn and Bacon Sergiovanni, T. J., & Starratt, R. J. (2007, p. 5). Supervision: A redefinition (8th Ed.). New York: McGraw Hill. Shulman, L. (2005). Signature Pedagogies In The Professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52-59. Tschannen-Moran, B., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2011). The Coach and the Evaluator. Educational Leadership, 69(2), 10-16. Yendol-Hoppey, D. & Franco, Y. (2014). In search of signature pedagogy for PDS teacher education: A review of articles published in school-university partnerships. School-University Partnerships, 7(1), 17-34.
0 Comments
|
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
April 2016
Categories
All
|