I found the Burns & Badiali article, Unearthing the Complexities of Clinical Pedagogy in Supervision, (2013, 2014) very interesting. It included information which is relevant to my situation as a supervisor of pre-service teachers (PST). It focused on a case study of two novice supervisors who were also veteran teachers, just as I am. It discussed within this context six “pedagogical skills that contribute to a clinical pedagogy of supervision”. These are: noticing (which includes marking), ignoring, intervening, pointing, unpacking, and processing-for-action. The case studies were broken down into specifics, providing concrete examples and quotes from each. I found this helpful, and as I read, constantly compared my supervising skills to the women studied here. I asked myself often, which of these skills do I employ? What is the benefit or detriment of each? How can this information influence my interactions with my interns? One of my “aha” moments was in reading about written portions of the supervisor’s feedback being labeled directive and non-directive. Burns references Glickman, Gordon and Ross-Gordon, 2010, saying “In supervisor-centered unpacking, the supervisor’s thoughts and rationale are prioritized over the teacher candidate’s and could be referred to as directive supervision.” Although I’m aware of these categories as used in conferencing with PSTs, I had not thought thoroughly about how this applies to written communications. One more area I need to focus on in my growth process! “In transformative learning theory, critical instances can be synonymous with cognitive dissonance or disorienting dilemmas” (Mezirow & Associates, 2000, as cited by Burns and Badiali, 2013, 2014). This stood out to me in thinking about critical instances in my own supervision, and in the interns’ experiences. The distinction is important in how I frame my thinking about what constitutes a critical instance. It doesn’t have to be life changing or create intellectual earthquakes, but can still be noteworthy. When interns talk through an issue in a post-conference, and discuss what was important to them, they are identifying their own critical instances. Some of these create dissonance for them, some smaller ripples. But they are important to me, because they are important to the PST. Since focusing more on a student lead conferencing style, I have learned a great deal about their priorities, and have been pleasantly surprised by their insights. We often agree on the areas that could be enhanced, but my surprise comes in their creativity in how to enhance their teaching and address specific areas of concern that they have identified. I think exploration of the “conceptual framework of clinical pedagogy” is an important idea, and one which enhances my own professional development, as well as establishing a research based background which can be referenced by all stakeholders in the area of supervision.
1 Comment
3/19/2015 06:10:02 am
Wow! What an insight about critical incidents! You're right - when we use directive supervision, like supervisor directed unpacking - we prioritize our critical incidents over another's and perhaps our critical incidents aren't critical to other person for a variety of reasons. You really have learned, through taking a risk to try a different supervisory approach, that there is great insight from learning from preservice teachers and their identification of critical incidents. You are meeting them where they are and helping to move them forward. These thoughts were so powerful to me, and I really responded to your thinking here.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
April 2016
Categories
All
|