Tuesday, September 9, 2014
Coaching 1
(We were supposed to re-read WPQ 3 for this week, correct? Or is that a misprint in the syllabus?)
Among the readings, I thought there was quite a bit of emphasis on finding the "perfect balance between you [the coach] and your partner" (Elish-Piper and L'Allier 181). The L'Allier, Elish-Piper, and Bean article expands on this by describing teachers who feel like good literacy coaches "respected their abilities" and behaved "like a facilitator of their learning rather than a dictator" (548). One of the most important take-aways from the readings for me was that the coaching situation should be reflective for the teacher, in which teachers have "continual opportunities... to take ownership of their learning by reflecting on their students, their own learning goals, [etc.]" (Miller & Stewart 294). To foster reflection, coaches can choose facilitative questions that "shape understanding" or that "press for reflection" (Wepner, Strickland, and Quatroche 53). Another idea from the readings that I thought was really important is the emphasis that coaches should place on working directly with teachers. According to L'Allier, Elish-Piper, and Bean, working with teachers often is especially important because research has shown that student reading gains were higher in classrooms "supported by a literacy coach who engaged in the most interactions with teachers" (547).
Regarding the similarities and differences between team and individual coaching, I got the impression that team coaching gives teachers a less personalized experience. Teachers on a team work together with a "reflective thinking exercise to select an inquiry topic in literacy," so their topic of focus is relevant to the needs of their team as a whole, but not necessarily to each individual teacher (Miller & Stewart 292). I think that could be a disadvantage, so I appreciated the fact that the CCCM "model also includes time for individual coaching" (293). Team coaching and individual coaching can be similar, though. They both involve reflection and personalization, even if it's not on an individual level. They also include modeling, observation, and debriefing time, just with a different structure.
Questions:
- There's been a lot of emphasis in the readings on taking the facilitator stance, promoting teacher reflection rather than being dictatorial, etc. I think that's great! However, I am wondering, how should/can a coach handle a situation in which the teacher knows little about promoting literacy, such as in some high school content area classes?
- What do you think the difference between questions that "shape understanding" and questions that "press for reflection" is? I'm having trouble figuring out the difference. (See: pg. 53 of WPQ)
- There was repeated emphasis in the readings about the importance of developing good relationships with teachers, and one of the articles talked about ways to help foster that trust. However, I'm wondering, how do you think you would approach teachers who are reluctant to work with a literacy coach regardless of how much you work at building that relationship?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Yes, you were supposed to re-read WSQ 3 for this week along with the articles and strategy in EP&L. :) You ask good questions, Angela! I'm looking forward to seeing how your group answers!
ReplyDeleteQuestions:
ReplyDelete1. how should/can a coach handle a situation in which the teacher knows little about promoting literacy, such as in some high school content area classes?
- Maybe start with the basics of writing and reading to help add some structure in the classroom. Discussing in the pre-observation some reading strategies or ways to start helping students better prepare for the literacy activities they are going to do that day, such as, K-W-L, pre-reading questions, during reading questions, and post reading questions, or even an anticipation guide. With writing just discussing how to switch up the different forms, like: summarizing, response, arguing, etc.
2. What do you think the difference between questions that "shape understanding" and questions that "press for reflection" is?
I think that when you are pressing for better understanding or "shape understanding" you are asking them questions about the outcomes of the changes implemented within the classroom and how they have enhanced the literacy learning within the classroom. With helping with reflection, you are asking questions that direct them to think about the choices they are independently making within the classroom. I the chapter is talking about a sample question saying, " What do you know about your students that led you to choose this particular book for their guided reading lesson?" Does this explanation help? I hope that maybe I made a better distinction between the two, but really the first is getting the teacher to understand the nature of literacy and the differences within it; whereas the later is getting them to reflect on their own literacy choices they were making for the students in the classroom.
Question 3: I have thought about this too. I wonder if this would work: coach/observe a content-area lesson without focusing on literacy. Then, during reflection, offer some strategies that would be easy to integrate into the lesson that may just be an extension of what is already occurring in the lesson. I'm not sure how successful it would be, but perhaps they would be more open to being coached if the primary focus wasn't literacy in the first place. Could be another way to build trust so that they'd be open to trying new strategies?
ReplyDelete