What vicious circles do we see in this journey of mentorship? What virtuous ones?
This is a discussion question in Michael Fullan's, The Principal in the context of daily work. I want to explore the same question in the context of this collaborative inquiry. Through this learning journey, I have been wondering about how each member of any collaborative learning team can be held accountable for their fair share of contributions. Are expectations of accountability unreasonable? Maybe they are, if accountability is about following directions or a set of criteria created by the "lead learner". Fullan in his book The Principal suggests how overt demands for accountability can be a vicious circle. I can completely relate to this in the context of this collaborative inquiry. Demanding that everyone puts in their fair share of work in a collaborative inquiry is a short-term goal. When accountability is not evident, the immediate response is to provide members of the co-learning team with more "work", "tools", "resources" for the sole purpose of getting them interested in something so they can contribute and getting frustrated when that does not happen, or worse that the members start to "game the system" is a vicious circle. Should we redefine accountability in the context of capacity building? In this collaborative inquiry, where we are mentoring new teachers to teach an inquiry-based classroom, simply demanding accountability is detrimental to the whole concept of a collaborative inquiry. It is also not an equitable way to lead. Each member of the collaborative inquiry is on their own journey of discovery and learning. Having the same expectations from each member is going to create a vicious circle. When we build capacity of all members and have high expectations, it leads to transparency and a sense of self-accountability.
If demanding accountability is a vicious circle in this inquiry, building capacity is the virtuous one. Throughout the inquiry, I have tried to use current instructional strategies and resources as an integral part of the inquiry. The same resources and strategies can also be used in each individual classroom, building capacity and enabling Teacher Candidates and Mentor Teachers to familiarize themselves with them in the context of a collaborative inquiry. My use of technology, especially Google Apps for Education, can be a valuable resource. I have also tried to use effective questioning techniques to build self-efficacy as well as collective efficacy in the context of this collaborative inquiry. effective questioning leads to a culture of inquiry for teachers which transfers to students and ultimately results in student success. I have been trying to collect evidence of Teacher Candidate and Mentor Teacher's thinking through triangulation enabling Teacher Candidates to see how observations, conversations and products are all important data.
How do I know that these strategies are actually building capacity? This collaborative inquiry is a human endeavor. It is not just about collecting data or hard pieces of evidence. Some of it is about impromptu, unplanned conversations that happen in the hallways or classrooms between Teacher Candidates and Mentor Teachers, stemming from a real need to learn or know. These are the best kind of interactions. I had one such interaction with my Teacher Candidate yesterday. I was sharing with him the way we had launched the new Science unit on Space in my Grade 6 class. This led him to talk about questioning and how it is very important. He shared his own assignment on creating the three kinds of questions. We started talking about the purpose of questioning in any inquiry-based classroom. I did not record the conversation but I believe that it led to capacity building for both of us- for me as I made connections to his assignment and what I was teaching in terms of questioning in the classroom and for him as he built and consolidated his understanding of how questioning in theory can be translated to questioning practices in an inquiry-based classroom.
This is a discussion question in Michael Fullan's, The Principal in the context of daily work. I want to explore the same question in the context of this collaborative inquiry. Through this learning journey, I have been wondering about how each member of any collaborative learning team can be held accountable for their fair share of contributions. Are expectations of accountability unreasonable? Maybe they are, if accountability is about following directions or a set of criteria created by the "lead learner". Fullan in his book The Principal suggests how overt demands for accountability can be a vicious circle. I can completely relate to this in the context of this collaborative inquiry. Demanding that everyone puts in their fair share of work in a collaborative inquiry is a short-term goal. When accountability is not evident, the immediate response is to provide members of the co-learning team with more "work", "tools", "resources" for the sole purpose of getting them interested in something so they can contribute and getting frustrated when that does not happen, or worse that the members start to "game the system" is a vicious circle. Should we redefine accountability in the context of capacity building? In this collaborative inquiry, where we are mentoring new teachers to teach an inquiry-based classroom, simply demanding accountability is detrimental to the whole concept of a collaborative inquiry. It is also not an equitable way to lead. Each member of the collaborative inquiry is on their own journey of discovery and learning. Having the same expectations from each member is going to create a vicious circle. When we build capacity of all members and have high expectations, it leads to transparency and a sense of self-accountability.
If demanding accountability is a vicious circle in this inquiry, building capacity is the virtuous one. Throughout the inquiry, I have tried to use current instructional strategies and resources as an integral part of the inquiry. The same resources and strategies can also be used in each individual classroom, building capacity and enabling Teacher Candidates and Mentor Teachers to familiarize themselves with them in the context of a collaborative inquiry. My use of technology, especially Google Apps for Education, can be a valuable resource. I have also tried to use effective questioning techniques to build self-efficacy as well as collective efficacy in the context of this collaborative inquiry. effective questioning leads to a culture of inquiry for teachers which transfers to students and ultimately results in student success. I have been trying to collect evidence of Teacher Candidate and Mentor Teacher's thinking through triangulation enabling Teacher Candidates to see how observations, conversations and products are all important data.
How do I know that these strategies are actually building capacity? This collaborative inquiry is a human endeavor. It is not just about collecting data or hard pieces of evidence. Some of it is about impromptu, unplanned conversations that happen in the hallways or classrooms between Teacher Candidates and Mentor Teachers, stemming from a real need to learn or know. These are the best kind of interactions. I had one such interaction with my Teacher Candidate yesterday. I was sharing with him the way we had launched the new Science unit on Space in my Grade 6 class. This led him to talk about questioning and how it is very important. He shared his own assignment on creating the three kinds of questions. We started talking about the purpose of questioning in any inquiry-based classroom. I did not record the conversation but I believe that it led to capacity building for both of us- for me as I made connections to his assignment and what I was teaching in terms of questioning in the classroom and for him as he built and consolidated his understanding of how questioning in theory can be translated to questioning practices in an inquiry-based classroom.
No comments:
Post a Comment