Monday, October 20, 2008

Week 1 & 2: Implications and Conclusions

Register for a free online workshop on Wikieducator to find out how you can use Wikieducator to collaborate and share content worldwide.

Join me on Wikieducator.

WikiEducator is a community of learning resources supported by the Commonwealth of Learning (COL) for the development of free educational content.

Weeks 1 & 2 Implications and Conclusions


The reading material for the course on supervision of curriculum and instruction reminds me of courses on human relationships and communication. The more I learn about teaching, supervision, and evaluations, the more I realize how far I am from submitting my proposal. My dissertation relates to instructors implementing computer technology into blended learning courses. However, how can a university expect instructors to implement blended learning or any innovations into the curriculum to improve instruction and learning if they do not receive supervision and cognitive coaching? I have a lot to learn about the role of supervision in improving instruction and learning.

The books for this course are incredible. I am very impressed with cognitive coaching and the ideas of building relationships based on rapport and trust (Costa and Garmston, 2002). As a graduate of Practical Applications of Intimate Relationship Skills (PAIRS) and conflict resolution and mediation, I find the ideas of empowering teachers and supporting independence rather than dependence very familiar to what I do as a PAIRS facilitator and appealing. However, not everyone has the confidence to act independently; some learners want advice and to be told what to do.


I would like to think of supervision as "a growth-oriented system" where supervisors and principals evaluate teachers for improvement rather than for teacher dismissal (Stronge, 2000, p. 119). Supervision for instructional improvement has a ripple effect beyond the school and into the community (Glickman, Gordon & Ross-Gordon, 2006). Formative observations of the classroom and the interactions among the students and the teacher are far more effective than supervision for dismissal (Danielson & McGreal, 2000; Glickman et al., 2006). I would like to be a member of a school where collaboration is the golden rule and where all the stakeholders; the supervisor of the school, the principal, teachers, parents, community members, and students practice trust and rapport.

Costa, A., & Garmston, R. (2002). Cognitive coaching: A foundation for renaissance schools (2nd ed.). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon. Required Purchase

Danielson, C., & McGreal, T. L. (2000). Teacher evaluation: To enhance professional practice. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Required Purchase

Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2006). Supervision and instructional leadership: A developmental approach (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Stronge, J. H. (2000). Evaluating teaching: A guide to current thinking and best practice (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

No comments: