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.
2 Comments
C.Banks
1/21/2015 08:37:57 am
I agree with so many of your points! I could see both sides of the argument. When it comes down to it though, I think one person can be supervisor and evaluator when the training is in place. I definitely think experience has its place when working with pre-service teachers, but I have always been uncomfortable with the whole hierarchy aspect. I also like the order of the readings. When I got to the Burns & Badliali piece, I felt a little confused about my role! I definitely feel like I am good at building the relationships, but I started questioning my skills when it comes to my pre-conferencing, observation, and post-conferencing skills. Do I do what the the PRT in the article did? Today I had preconferences and was much more aware of my discussions than I have been in the past. I was especially careful with telling the interns what to do and let them do more of the talking. Still not sure if I'm on the right page! These readings really have me re-evaluating myself and how I can be most effective as a "hybrid teacher." I can't to pick your brain on this since you have been a peer in the district.
Reply
1/22/2015 10:25:27 am
If you believe that the supervisor is expert and is charged with parting your knowledge from years of practical experience on the intern, what is the role of the collaborating teacher? How are she and you different?
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
April 2016
Categories
All
|