Reflective Blog EDH 7326 Week 10
Reading the Glickman, Gordon & Ross-Gordon text, I felt a sense of relief. Relief to know that I haven’t been supervising and coaching “wrong”, but that there is a name and a reason for what I have been doing. The authors describe four approaches to supervision: directive control, directive informational, collaborative, and nondirective. It is stressed that each of these has a place in the world of supervision, depending on the background, experience, and other attributes of the teacher. Those with less developed skills may need a more directive approach, while those with stronger backgrounds and abilities may benefit from one of the more teacher-lead approaches. The task of selecting which approach or approaches to use is one that takes practice and expertise on the part of the coach. Each of these approaches has 10 steps. These are listening, clarifying, encouraging, reflecting, presenting, problem solving, negotiating, directing, standardizing, and reinforcing. The level of responsibility by the teacher and the supervisor varies with each. This is referred to as the “sequence of directive informational behaviors” (Glickman, Gordon, Ross-Gordon, 2004). I found that what I was doing intuitively fits into the framework of mainly directive control, directive informational, and collaborative. Until recently I had not practiced the nondirective style of coaching, but this is something I am working on, as I can see the benefits. Glickman, Gordon and Ross-Gordon stress that the goal for supervisors should be to work nondirectively with teachers when possible, and to guide them towards this at the pace they are able to move forward. Something else I took away from this reading was the way that the researchers measured their results. I have been pondering the best way to measure pre-service teachers’ attitudes and aptitudes for my inquiry, and this provided some useful ideas, such as those in the reflective exercises. For example, Chapter 10 looks at “How do teachers respond to the supervisor’s efforts to use nondirective behaviors? Does the supervisor use overt nondirective behaviors such as clarifying, encouraging, and reflecting while at the same time influencing through subtle comments or nonverbal behaviors?” Arrendondo & Rucinski take a more sophisticated approach to measuring cognitive development among mentors and mentees in their article, Using Structured Interactions in Conferences and Journals to Promote Cognitive Development Among Mentors and Mentees (1998). Their tools included Schommer’s Epistemological Questionnaire, dialogue/journal response patterns, constant comparison, and the Defining Issue Test (DIT). I continue to wonder how else I can measure the results of my inquiry study, and what types of questions I could be asking myself and my pre-service teachers, and what types of tools I might add to my toolkit. I also found a connection to the concerns expressed by supervisors when considering the nondirective approach, such as what to do about teachers who do not show the competency necessary for this approach to work successfully, and what if the teacher wants direct advice from the supervisor? I would have a difficult time telling an inquiring teacher that I won’t answer her questions, especially if that were a pre-service teacher. I realize not all PSTs are ready for this type of teacher lead conferencing, but that is has a valuable place in the formal observation cycle for many. It’s mentioned that the directive approach can not only be ineffective if the teacher is not developmentally ready, but can actually be harmful. The worse post-conference I ever had was with a veteran inservice teacher. She was in her final year of teaching and ready to retire. Without knowing the label for what I was trying to do, I had asked the teacher for ideas on how she could address some of the issues we had identified in her formal observation lesson. She thought a few minutes and said she could think of nothing. I asked her in a different way, and then again waited for her input. After a few tries, she became very agitated, and had a verbal outburst which was less than pleasant, becoming confrontational. The conference fell apart quickly, and we had to end it early. Knowing what I know now about the varying approaches that one can take, and how to determine which is the best to use for an individual teacher, I think I could have made that experience much better for myself as well as the teacher.
3 Comments
3/12/2015 04:51:22 am
I just smiled as I read your entry. I think we all have situations where we look back and go, if I only knew then what I know now... It just shows that you are reflective and that you are continually learning.
Reply
Suzanne Roberts
3/12/2015 04:52:21 am
I had a similar reaction to the "relieved" part. I feel like I appropriately spend most of my time in directive informational with occasional trips up or down to directive or collaborative. Not sure if I every have gotten to the self-directed stage, nor if it is really appropriate when one of the "when to use" statements is that "the teacher possesses most of the knowledge and expertise about the issue and the supervisor's knowledge and expertise" are minimal. I came away feeling like maybe we need additional subcategories for pre-service teachers.
Reply
I had an "ah-ha moment" when reading the 4 supervisory approaches because when only having the Cognitive Coaching info in my head, I had a ton of questions about how I could use non-directive behaviors if the preservice teacher did not yet have the experience to come up with the answers on their own. Joyce and I discussed this in out pre-conference as well. After reading Glickman, Gordon, and Ross-Gordon (2004) it became much clearer that I am looking at my preservoce teachers on a case by case basis and using the strategies to help them grow from where they are. I guess relief was also what I experienced!
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
April 2016
Categories
All
|