EDH 7326 Reflection Week 7
Improving the Quality of Elementary Mathematics Student Teaching: Using Field Support Materials to Develop Reflective Practices in Student Teachers (Hertzog and O’Rode, 2011) examines the competency of pre-service teachers in subject-specific pedagogy before and after specific interventions are put into place. A focus is on pre-service teacher reflection and effectiveness, as well as the role of the supervisor. Four common themes were mentioned in the literature research for what student teachers need to know: problem-solving, explanation, representations, and mathematical connections (Hertzog & O’Rode, 2011). The importance of field experiences, and their connection to university instruction, is cited as a factor which can influence the pre-service teacher’s success. The study was conducted in three phases, which examined the status quo of the traditional teaching experience, a study of the data with new support materials being utilized, and a comparison of a control group versus an experimental group to measure math knowledge of each. A significant positive impact was observed for those teachers who utilized the materials and resources provided. It’s mentioned that subject matter specialists may be useful in preparing pre-service teachers, which I’m pleased to note is already implemented in the residency portion of our Elementary Education program. I would be interested to see this in place in the regular cohort training as well, or additional content training formalized for the supervisors as needed. The article provided information to me that will be helpful in designing and implementing my inquiry project, such as how to conduct the research. They used field notes, taped conferences, and results from interviews. But it also raised questions for me, by swaying me to examine aspects of my supervision that I hadn’t previously considered. For example, the study looked at the amount of feedback given to interns which is content focused, versus the amount that is pedagogically based. Until today I had never focused on this exclusively. I always thought the best method was to provide the pedagogy for sound teaching which can be applied to any subject. But of course it’s critical that students have mastery of their content as well, and need feedback and support to develop this fully. I had thought this fell under the realm of the university professor for that content area. I would be interested in examining my “status quo” on this, and collecting data to examine the balance. Then, if the data supports my hypothesis that my feedback is “pedagogy heavy”, I’d be interested in implementing a stronger content based feedback. I would like to be part of that team offering content specific feedback which contributes to pre-service teacher effectiveness in the classroom. On a separate note, Glickman, Gordon and Ross-Gordon, 2014, define technical skills of supervision. These include assessing, evaluation, observing and planning skills. They are considered prerequisites for instructional supervision, and related to the school culture and technical tasks. Burns and Badiali define technical tasks within a PST conceptual framework as direct assistance, individual support, group development, curriculum support, and research and innovation. The aim of these skills is an outcome of improved teaching and student learning (2012). Burns, Jacobs and Yendol-Hoppey (under review) also identify the five tasks of PST supervision as being: direct assistance, individual support, group development, curriculum support and research and innovation. The Glanz and Sullivan (2013) article was very practical. It’s definitely something I can use with my pre-service teachers, as well as in my particular inquiry. I can use one or more of these observation tools to collect data, in order to accurately reflect upon the effectiveness of instruction and conferencing. For my PSTs, I would like to have them use the on task chart, watching one of their videos for 10-15 minutes and tallying these on versus off task behaviors. I think it would be and eye opener for some who don’t realize the extent of the off task behavior occurring during their lesson. My students have a variety of goals, including behavior management, levels of questioning, allowing students to answer instead of the teacher, and increasing engagement. I can definitely see how these tools would assist them in meeting these goals. For example, the observational data tool on page 42 of the Nolan and Hoover text (2011) would assist the intern wanting more information about her feedback and questioning techniques (FEAPS 3e). The SCORE instrument on page 35 would provide information for interns interested in the level of student engagement (FEAPs 3a). Additionally I would use the teacher verbal behaviors tool and the Bloom’s taxonomy levels of questioning chart. I think this would be a useful exercise to conduct in my instructional planning course as well. The diagram of verbal interactions looks like a powerful tool to use. I’ve utilized a similar version of this to provide feedback to in service teachers, and have always had a positive response to the visual representation of the data. This way it’s merely a representation of facts, which is important so that the teacher can fully participating in the interpretation phase, and have ownership of the growth process. And…. Jim Nolan commented on one of my posts. I’m a happy blogger.
1 Comment
2/19/2015 05:11:00 am
I'm so glad that you found some of the readings practical and that you are trying the tools with your preservice teachers! That's fantastic!
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
April 2016
Categories
All
|