Loughran, J. (2006:33)
Summary:
Loughran’s (2006) chapter 3 discusses the real picture most (if not all) teacher educators face in their work but act as if it does exist: teaching as problematic or complex job. From his discussion of “Teaching: A problematic enterprise” he shows readers the complexities (teaching about teaching) in teaching pre-service teachers (PSTs) and provides evidence through vignettes to show that the complexities can be combated when teachers become purposefully intentional about their practice. He also shows how noticing problems that hamper students’ achievements and acting on appropriately is key to improvement in practice as well as leading to students success. According to the author, modeling practice for PSTs goes beyond demonstration of exemplary teaching to include teacher’s grasp of content and the best way to channel it the students as desired. Modeling even include how best teacher educators manage unexpected problematic situations that arise in teaching. This serves as a good ground for showing students that even experts do encounter problems in their jobs therefore, helping them build confidence in teaching especially acquiring skills to face unexpected situations. This not only enhance PSTs confidence but also build in them the ‘can do’ spirit when they face problems in their teaching.
Svinicki & McKeachie (2014) discussion on writing to enhance students’ learning discusses the two main types of writing: high-stakes and low-stakes in higher education. They explain the importance of using low-stakes writing in higher education and how it even prepares students for the high-stakes which most higher education instructors prefer. They also discuss when and how each type of writing can be used to enhance students’ learning. The authors discuss high-stakes writing and how it could be used to promote students’ learning, how instructors can make it interesting for student, criteria for assessments, and ways of giving feedback as well as grading. The authors show the importance of drafts in high-stakes writing as the feedback given on drafts allows student to improve upon their thoughts and understanding. They discuss the process of high-stakes writing as well as plagiarism issues especially ways to prevent students from involving in plagiarism. The authors through their discussion show how the combination of both low and high-stakes writing could be used to enhance students’ learning.
Reflection:
Noticing, discuss by Loughran (2006) stood out strongly with me this week because I saw it as the base for enhancing one’s practice. It (noticing) appeared in the Supervision II course I read as one of the six pedagogical skills that effective supervisors ought to possess (Burns & Badiali 2013:13) so meeting it again in our readings shows its (noticing) importance and potency in enhancing the effectiveness of teachers’ practice.
As I was reflecting on Fox’s lesson, I realized being smart to manage uncontrollable happenings in teaching is very vital but it is also not easy to do if you cannot notice the problem. It is when we notice the problematic situations that we can find appropriate management skills to apply in their solution. Wearing the “Noticing lens” leads to recognition of problems that need prompt solution. I also liked how Loughran (2006) uses Fox’s situation to illustrate how we can manage uncontrollable issues that may come up in the delivery of our lessons especially implementing/practicing new strategies you envisage to enhance your practice. As discussed by Loughran (2006), sometimes the adoption of these strategies do not come out as planned and so when such situations arise, as Fox exemplified, we need to use the available “resources” that we have to manage them because at the end we would learn something positive out of it. Our class discussions, Loughran (2006), Svinicki & McKeachie, (2014), and others attest to the fact that teaching is a life-long learning job so we need to find the ‘learning’ component of the daily happenings (positive or negative) in our work environment. It is worthwhile to acknowledge this and put it into practice (demonstration, reflection, and taking risk in venturing new grounds, allowing critique about practice) so that we can support and inculcate this practice in our PSTs rather than just giving them the theory (though it is not easy, it is very possible). As Loughran (2006) explains, it is by so doing that the confidence that both the PSTs and the teacher educator need will be achieved.
Svinicki & McKeachie’s (2014) chapter 16 shows that the ‘In class write’ exercise my students do at the beginning of class is a typical example of low-stakes writing. With the freewriting, I was wondering if we can try it in our (my partner and I) seminar class, for example, letting students do freewriting on a particular field experience day or write about the videos shared in the day. I plan trying it out in my literacy class and see how it will work (Now that I have been encouraged to take ‘appropriate’ risks as a means to improve practice) out. The benefit of low-stakes writing I am experiencing currently is student keeping up with assigned reading. Due to the in class write at the beginning of class, most of them read before class because it tells on their responses. One complain my students had was me not commenting on their in class write and I was happy when the authors said that it is alright when you do not comment on it though I read them myself. I have concerns about the authors saying that it is good for not grading low-stakes writing. I am wondering that if it is not graded, will it encourage students to actively participate in it? My thoughts about this is to assign at least a minimum grade to it to serve as motivation for active participation. I think assuring them that mistakes will be overlooked or not counted will encourage them to freely write as expected (writing with full attention). One of the modification I have made this semester as a result of the knowledge I am acquiring from this course is making students write a draft of the major assignments for feedback before the final work. Though it is tedious and time consuming as acknowledged by the authors, it is showing positive signs in my students. As shown in chapter 16 in Svinicki & McKeachie’s (2014) book, writing is one of the difficult problems students face yet it is the least aspect of teaching teacher pay attention to. Most of us (teachers) see it as the work for only English teachers.
I really like the course texts because they are helping me to see my real teaching ‘self’ and suggesting alternative channels on how to modify my problematic practices to get to my aspiration in the teaching profession. I think I would not be wrong to say that we (students reading Supervision I course) are fortunate to experience examples of the things we read about through our instructor.
Reference
Burns, R. W., & Badiali, B. (2013). Identifying pedagogical skills of supervisors: Unearthing the intricacies
and complexities of learning to supervise. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the council
of Professors of Instructional Supervision in State College, PA: The Penn State University.
Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and learning about
teaching. London: Routledge.
Svinicki, M., & McKeachie, W. J. (2014). McKeachie’s teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college
and university teachers (14th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.