Are
teachers you work with getting a “vote of no confidence?” A vote of no
confidence is a statement that a person is inadequate in some respect or making
decisions that others feel are detrimental.
In some governments, a “no confidence” vote means the leader has to
resign, along with all the council members; but teachers may feel a vote of no
confidence when they are given a scripted curriculum or recommendations that do
the thinking for them.
Teachers
should be the ultimate knowledge workers:
They are tasked with the job of creating critical thinkers, so they
should be treated as critical thinkers themselves. They should be the lead thinkers in and about
their classrooms. Unfortunately, programs that promise easy success, that “take
the guesswork out” of teaching, also take away the opportunity for thinking
(and, I would argue, for effective instruction).
A
thinking teacher chafes at mandates that reduce their agency. They see scripted
materials as a way to dumb-down the profession. Instead, an intellectual educator has the
desire to think deeply about her practice. A teacher-thinker is one who
wonders, ponders, questions, and reflects. Teachers as thinkers consider
possibilities, think about individual and group needs and aptitudes, and are
never satisfied with the status quo.
What
does that look like when coaching? How
do we support teachers as thinkers? Coaches can create a consistent, conscious
space for thinking regularly about classroom practices. And in those spaces, the
teachers we work with need to do the thinking for themselves; we don’t think for
them, we think with them, or facilitate opportunities for
them to think.
I’ve
been considering how to support intellectual educators throughout the GIR
coaching process. Here are some initial
thoughts that you can add to (as an intellectual educator yourself!).
When
coaches model, they encourage thinking by setting the stage for
thoughtful noticing and by encouraging a critical stance. In a conversation before modeling, coach and
teacher think together about the lesson.
The teacher could anticipate student responses and then test her
hypotheses through careful observation.
When
coaches recommend, they can invite the teacher to consider options
rather than directing a particular action. A coach may share the purpose or
benefits of particular strategies and ask the teacher to consider how those
purposes or benefits align with their objectives or their students’ needs. Following a recommendation should be a
thought-filled decision.
When
coaches ask questions without having a specific response in mind,
they encourage divergent thinking and problem-solving. Together with teachers,
they entertain and evaluate possibilities. Questions are a thought-provoking tool that
can nudge teachers to explore new ideas.
After
coaches affirm, they can ask, “Why do you think that worked so
well?” Because teachers often jump to what they would do differently when they
reflect, an affirmation draws important attention to practices that should be
carried forward. Probing those practices
uncovers underlying principles for success.
Praise
might
be a stand-alone coaching move, but, like affirming, it increases the
likelihood of iterating effective practices and inspires ongoing success.
Compliance
and conformity reduce teaching to a robotic, ineffective enterprise. Continuous
thinking improves practice, with teachers getting better and better at what
they do. Coaches support teachers as intellectual
educators when they provoke thought-filled conversations all along the way.
Want to know about new posts? Click “Follow” (bottom right)
Follow on Facebook at: facebook.com/mycoachescouch or Twitter @vscollet for more coaching and teaching tips! You can also find me at VickiCollet.com
No comments:
Post a Comment