I like how the readings for this course have been sequenced. I see them as building blocks because it is like new ideas rightly fit into the existing ones. So far, every week’s readings give me another side of supervision. When I read the first three pages of Fuller’s (1969, p. 209) article, I started questioning myself: Is frequent observation a motivation or demotivation for USF pre-service teachers (PSTs)? His discussion on conceptualizing teacher concerns especially the ‘Pre-teaching Phase-Non-Concern’ made me reflect on how this phase is practiced in Ghana. In all the teacher preparation institutions in Ghana including the university that I work at (University of Cape Coast [UCC]- The Premier Teacher Education University) that I know of, complete almost all their education courses (course work) before the pre-service teachers have their field experience. Even the duration of the field experience varies from school to school. For example, in the University of Education, Winneba (UEW) where I had my undergraduate and graduate teacher education, we complete all our course work in three years of our course then we have 1 year practicum/field experience where you have a full time mentor-teacher in the placement school (These mentors are trained by the university). During the internship, students are supposed to have at least three supervisions from the university supervisor. In UCC, where I work, the students complete almost all their course work within the first three years, go for 1 semester internship, and then return to school to complete the last semester with just a few courses. The colleges of education (initial teacher preparation institutions) program is similar to that of UEW, in that students complete their course work in their first two years of schooling and have one full academic year field experience.
Personally, I see that Knowles assumptions of adult learning resonate with me especially the fifth one: adult learning is primarily intrinsically motivated. This is because most adults (if not all) have targets for their learning therefore making their learning more self-initiated, example: for promotion, to enhance understanding on something, to seek clarification, for improvement and many others. I know children may have some of the above reasons for learning, yet most of their learning are pushed by adults. For example, most of the courses students read at colleges are chosen by adults or dependent on their major in their Senior High schools, just a few children are allowed to choose their own course of study. This practice is very common in my home country, Ghana (most children of our family friends had similar experience). From the discussions above, it can be said that not all these five assumptions of Knowles are applicable in students learning and so this usually makes children learning more externally influenced. Children who are highly motivated (in the course they are reading) are those who indulge in self-directed learning.
I connected with Glickman, Gordon, & Ross-Gordon, (2014) asserting that ‘Supervision should rather foster than inhibit self-directed learning by matching supervisory behaviors with teachers’ readiness for self-direction’ (p. 52). My questions are: Are the students being compelled to learn or they have the intrinsic motivation that triggers self-directed learning? How do I do this matching in the midst of individual differences and learning styles? What appropriate behaviors/supervisory role should I play to help me do this matching? How do I measure the extent of students’ self-directed readiness to enable me do the connection? This is my current bother in my role as a supervisor. My problem is: how do I function to inculcate in my supervisees this idea of self-directed learning that leads to transformational learning?
The inquiry approach to teacher preparation that is being practiced by USF College of Education is very laudable. I think if supervisors and collaborating teachers are given the appropriate orientation (as we are having now), it will be very beneficial to pre-service teachers, in-service teachers, and the College of Education as far as it takes the students through the developmental levels of their teaching profession. I am saying this because I have come to realize that there are a lot of question marks on my Fall semester supervision. Until the past five weeks that I started reading this course, I did not have that critical lens that I am using now to let me know my supervisory functions especially dealing with adult learners (I am not saying I am there yet but the little that I have learned up to this stage. I functioned then as an evaluator more than a supervisor. I would have repeated it this time round if it hadn’t been for this course. Aaron and I have a lot to do when we go back looking at what is being done in Ghana).
‘Student learning depends on every teacher learning all the time (Fullan, 2007, p.35)’ cited in Glickman, Gordon, & Ross-Gordon, (2014, p. 58) shows how as supervisors we should keep updated ourselves in order to impact positively on our supervisees. According to the authors, Fullan attributes the causes of the failure of current innovations partly to supervisors but living up to expectation (not helping teachers to connect their prior experiences to the innovations) and this implicitly tells how supervisors use power discussed by critical and postmodern theorists. I see this as a result of how evaluation is mistaken for supervision. I agree that if supervisors facilitate teachers’ growth towards empowerment and self-learning the changes that we are yearning for would be realized. Considering all the developmental theories discussed, I see the 11 point implication on figure 4.1 in Glickman, Gordon, & Ross-Gordon, (2014, p. 60) as vital functions to be performed by supervisors.
Burns, Jacobs, and Yendoll-Hoppey article [under review) was the article I connected with in this week’s readings. The author’s clearly illustrated the complexity of pre-service teacher supervision (PST). Their qualitative meta-analysis of existing empirical PST studies (2001-2013) clearly shows complex nature of PST supervision in clinically-rich teacher preparation institutions. Considering the discussion of the five tasks of PST supervision and their accompanying practices (12 Practices), it is evident that many institutions claiming to be clinically-rich and those striving to be one have a lot to do. Reflecting on how effective these five tasks with their respective practices could be provided, I think we are all not there yet, looking at how PST supervision around the globe is done. Though some are far ahead of others, there is more to be done.
References
Burns, R., Jacobs, J., &Yendoll-Hoppey, D. (Unpublished). In search of a framework for clinically-rich
preservice teacher supervision: A meta-analysis of the empiricalliterature from 2001-2013.
Fuller, F. F. (1969). Concerns of Teachers: A Developmental Conceptualization. AmericanEducational
Research Association, 6 (2), 207-226.
Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2014). Supervision and InstructionalLeadership.
A Developmental Approach (9th ed). Pearson Education, Inc.
Personally, I see that Knowles assumptions of adult learning resonate with me especially the fifth one: adult learning is primarily intrinsically motivated. This is because most adults (if not all) have targets for their learning therefore making their learning more self-initiated, example: for promotion, to enhance understanding on something, to seek clarification, for improvement and many others. I know children may have some of the above reasons for learning, yet most of their learning are pushed by adults. For example, most of the courses students read at colleges are chosen by adults or dependent on their major in their Senior High schools, just a few children are allowed to choose their own course of study. This practice is very common in my home country, Ghana (most children of our family friends had similar experience). From the discussions above, it can be said that not all these five assumptions of Knowles are applicable in students learning and so this usually makes children learning more externally influenced. Children who are highly motivated (in the course they are reading) are those who indulge in self-directed learning.
I connected with Glickman, Gordon, & Ross-Gordon, (2014) asserting that ‘Supervision should rather foster than inhibit self-directed learning by matching supervisory behaviors with teachers’ readiness for self-direction’ (p. 52). My questions are: Are the students being compelled to learn or they have the intrinsic motivation that triggers self-directed learning? How do I do this matching in the midst of individual differences and learning styles? What appropriate behaviors/supervisory role should I play to help me do this matching? How do I measure the extent of students’ self-directed readiness to enable me do the connection? This is my current bother in my role as a supervisor. My problem is: how do I function to inculcate in my supervisees this idea of self-directed learning that leads to transformational learning?
The inquiry approach to teacher preparation that is being practiced by USF College of Education is very laudable. I think if supervisors and collaborating teachers are given the appropriate orientation (as we are having now), it will be very beneficial to pre-service teachers, in-service teachers, and the College of Education as far as it takes the students through the developmental levels of their teaching profession. I am saying this because I have come to realize that there are a lot of question marks on my Fall semester supervision. Until the past five weeks that I started reading this course, I did not have that critical lens that I am using now to let me know my supervisory functions especially dealing with adult learners (I am not saying I am there yet but the little that I have learned up to this stage. I functioned then as an evaluator more than a supervisor. I would have repeated it this time round if it hadn’t been for this course. Aaron and I have a lot to do when we go back looking at what is being done in Ghana).
‘Student learning depends on every teacher learning all the time (Fullan, 2007, p.35)’ cited in Glickman, Gordon, & Ross-Gordon, (2014, p. 58) shows how as supervisors we should keep updated ourselves in order to impact positively on our supervisees. According to the authors, Fullan attributes the causes of the failure of current innovations partly to supervisors but living up to expectation (not helping teachers to connect their prior experiences to the innovations) and this implicitly tells how supervisors use power discussed by critical and postmodern theorists. I see this as a result of how evaluation is mistaken for supervision. I agree that if supervisors facilitate teachers’ growth towards empowerment and self-learning the changes that we are yearning for would be realized. Considering all the developmental theories discussed, I see the 11 point implication on figure 4.1 in Glickman, Gordon, & Ross-Gordon, (2014, p. 60) as vital functions to be performed by supervisors.
Burns, Jacobs, and Yendoll-Hoppey article [under review) was the article I connected with in this week’s readings. The author’s clearly illustrated the complexity of pre-service teacher supervision (PST). Their qualitative meta-analysis of existing empirical PST studies (2001-2013) clearly shows complex nature of PST supervision in clinically-rich teacher preparation institutions. Considering the discussion of the five tasks of PST supervision and their accompanying practices (12 Practices), it is evident that many institutions claiming to be clinically-rich and those striving to be one have a lot to do. Reflecting on how effective these five tasks with their respective practices could be provided, I think we are all not there yet, looking at how PST supervision around the globe is done. Though some are far ahead of others, there is more to be done.
References
Burns, R., Jacobs, J., &Yendoll-Hoppey, D. (Unpublished). In search of a framework for clinically-rich
preservice teacher supervision: A meta-analysis of the empiricalliterature from 2001-2013.
Fuller, F. F. (1969). Concerns of Teachers: A Developmental Conceptualization. AmericanEducational
Research Association, 6 (2), 207-226.
Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2014). Supervision and InstructionalLeadership.
A Developmental Approach (9th ed). Pearson Education, Inc.