Supervised Teaching Reading Response
The major theme that I noticed to run through the articles is the basic element of professional training and how it turns out to distinguish various professions. This is what Shulman refer to as ‘signature pedagogies (2005a & 2005b). I see Shulman articles as the summary of the themes discussed by the other articles. I see the three critical fundamental dimensions discussed by Shulman “to think”, “to perform”, and “to act with integrity” as the key elements that every professional training (be it formal or informal) revolves around. He explains that professional educators teach their educands to understand so that they act or practice with integrity what is expected of them so that their practice will benefit others. I agree with his assertion that professional education does not focus on only understanding but it also looks at the preparation for accomplished and responsible practice that benefit other peoples. In my reflection on professional training, I realized that though professions differ, these three basic elements are present in their training. I understand Shulman’s title ‘Signature pedagogies’ to be the culture or beliefs of professionals that make them unique from one another as the result of how they use these three elements (“to think”, “to perform”, and “to act with integrity”).
I see that the success or failure of every profession is dependent on how effective their signature pedagogy is inculcated in their trainees. It shows how the trainees are prepared in their knowledge acquisition, how they perceive and analyze situations and how well they can relate with others in the course of their practice. This connect with Dennis et al., (In press) article which discusses different training models in teacher preparation. Their discussions clearly shows the presence of the basic elements discussed by Shulman yet their prominence show the degrees at which the approaches use them (clinically impoverished, clinically accompanied, clinically rich and clinically centered). These authors discussion clearly shows that though teacher preparation institutions have the ultimate aim of turning out teachers, their approach determines the type of teacher they produce. Their discussion reminds me of the initial Post-Secondary teacher training I had and the theory behind the approach. My reflection made me realized how I perceived teaching and how I taught then. This article has enhanced my understanding of the different models or approaches to teacher preparation. It also made me understand the ‘whys’ and ‘hows’ supervision and assessment are perceived by the different program models. What I realized in Yendol-Hoppey article was that though it was a critique of Shulmans article, he still agree with him on the basic elements. Yendol-Hoppey had problem with Shulman’s work in that he did not clarify his term signature pedagogies. Cochran-Smith (2003) article was great in that providing an effective strategy that will serve as a blue for all teacher preparation which include pre-service and in-service is very laudable. I think this should be the focus for other countries to ensure uniformity in the educational system.
What I noticed about the readings was that the problems with teacher preparation is common in many countries and Ghana is no exception. As hinted earlier, teacher preparation in most countries need innovation and models like Clinically-rich and clinically centered for education to live up to expectation.
The major theme that I noticed to run through the articles is the basic element of professional training and how it turns out to distinguish various professions. This is what Shulman refer to as ‘signature pedagogies (2005a & 2005b). I see Shulman articles as the summary of the themes discussed by the other articles. I see the three critical fundamental dimensions discussed by Shulman “to think”, “to perform”, and “to act with integrity” as the key elements that every professional training (be it formal or informal) revolves around. He explains that professional educators teach their educands to understand so that they act or practice with integrity what is expected of them so that their practice will benefit others. I agree with his assertion that professional education does not focus on only understanding but it also looks at the preparation for accomplished and responsible practice that benefit other peoples. In my reflection on professional training, I realized that though professions differ, these three basic elements are present in their training. I understand Shulman’s title ‘Signature pedagogies’ to be the culture or beliefs of professionals that make them unique from one another as the result of how they use these three elements (“to think”, “to perform”, and “to act with integrity”).
I see that the success or failure of every profession is dependent on how effective their signature pedagogy is inculcated in their trainees. It shows how the trainees are prepared in their knowledge acquisition, how they perceive and analyze situations and how well they can relate with others in the course of their practice. This connect with Dennis et al., (In press) article which discusses different training models in teacher preparation. Their discussions clearly shows the presence of the basic elements discussed by Shulman yet their prominence show the degrees at which the approaches use them (clinically impoverished, clinically accompanied, clinically rich and clinically centered). These authors discussion clearly shows that though teacher preparation institutions have the ultimate aim of turning out teachers, their approach determines the type of teacher they produce. Their discussion reminds me of the initial Post-Secondary teacher training I had and the theory behind the approach. My reflection made me realized how I perceived teaching and how I taught then. This article has enhanced my understanding of the different models or approaches to teacher preparation. It also made me understand the ‘whys’ and ‘hows’ supervision and assessment are perceived by the different program models. What I realized in Yendol-Hoppey article was that though it was a critique of Shulmans article, he still agree with him on the basic elements. Yendol-Hoppey had problem with Shulman’s work in that he did not clarify his term signature pedagogies. Cochran-Smith (2003) article was great in that providing an effective strategy that will serve as a blue for all teacher preparation which include pre-service and in-service is very laudable. I think this should be the focus for other countries to ensure uniformity in the educational system.
What I noticed about the readings was that the problems with teacher preparation is common in many countries and Ghana is no exception. As hinted earlier, teacher preparation in most countries need innovation and models like Clinically-rich and clinically centered for education to live up to expectation.