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.
7 Comments
2/12/2015 02:10:32 am
Denise, I always appreciate your honesty. I often find myself smiling as I read your connections and personal revelations. They are just so powerful. As I read your thinking, I wondered, "How would you know if your post conference was effective? What does an effective post conference look like to you? What do you think your interns perceive as an effective post conference?"
Reply
Tracy Wulf
2/12/2015 02:32:30 am
When reading about the alienated critic it made me think about the times that I think about how easy it is to fall into that category. We can see a situation and then provide ways that it could have been avoided and ways to keep it from happening again but we fail to "feel" the present moment.
Reply
Aaron Osafo-Acquah
2/13/2015 01:31:53 am
I am happy you have identified a problem that seems to impede the work that you do. Both the heart and mind are important in your work as a supervisor but you have to manage them well to create an effective balance and combination necessary for a successful supervision. I am happy your practices align with Nolan & Hoover (2008).
Reply
Joyce
2/13/2015 04:18:55 am
Denise, I also connected with Garman (1982) assertion that genuine collegiality is possible when the supervisor can become the connected participant. Reading your blog with the questions raised, I just said to myself " Joyce, you're are not alone" meaning the readings are 'purging' us. They are making us see lapses in our work and this a very positive sign of learning. Let's forge ahead and see what this course has for us.
Reply
Suzanne Roberts
2/14/2015 11:02:48 am
I know we are sharing some of the same struggles. I absolutely loved Costa and Garmston's model of cognitive coaching and the undergirding theory it was based on, but I came away asking can most PST's live up to the pure vision of it--For example, they say the teacher controls the planning conference agenda; and the observer is "focused on the teacher's goals," which according to Fuller are focused on survival at this early stage. I did feel somewhat satisfied and maybe relieved when I read the Hoover and Noland chapter that made it OK under the correct circumstance to tell the intern what to do. I noticed however that it said start at the higher cognitive level and work downward. This made perfect sense to me--give them a chance to be self-directed, but when they can't model, teach and support at the level needed. I felt the specific suggestions offered by them and the different levels of support and the need to "gate keep" made perfect sense. It helped put it together for me at least, and it explained to me some of the rationale and purpose behind what USF is currently doing.
Reply
Jim Nolan
2/16/2015 01:41:03 am
I really appreciate the close reading of our work and am glad that it is helpful I always like being linked to Noreen Garman whom I admire so much. You point out some real dilemmas in terms of what ifs- because we don't want poor teachers teaching our kids. It is a heavy burden , I think the key question is where do we start- do we start assuming that all PSTs are capable of become reflective and thoughtful and then adjust our behavior if we find that is not playing out- or do we do the reverse- start out assuming they won;'t and adjust as we find out they can. I think there are real parallels to how we treat P-12 students.
Reply
2/17/2015 10:53:06 am
Denise, I enjoyed reading your reflection and I want to tell that since day one, your perspective has always been interesting to me. In your post, you indicated that you found that your practices align with the recommendations of Nolan and Hoover, this is so refreshing and I guess it motivates you to continue the journey with a high spirit. Although I too found that some of my practices do align with these recommended ones, I wondered about how successful am I in using them. The struggle I had is questions around indicators of success and I believe that this is a natural concern for a novice supervisor like me (additionally to being an international student). I don’t know if you have any example to share about what usually makes you recognize the effectiveness of the selected and applied practices. I know you mentioned collaboration, so how does this it look like?
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
April 2016
Categories
All
|