Eisner's Educational Connoisseurship and Criticism Model is qualitative rather than quantitative in nature. Based on the same concepts as criticism in the arts, this model relies on human observation and interpretation, rather than numerical data. Yuksel, I. (2010). How to conduct a qualitative program evaluation in the light of eisner. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 1(2), 78-83.
Although this model is open to human error and opinion, the evaluator is generally trained to provide subjective, yet interpretive feedback. Although empirical data definitely has an important place in educational evaluation, I believe that this type of qualitative data does as well. To a large degree, the PDAS evaluations rely on concepts identified by Eisner. This includes interpretation in areas such as professional communication, time management, active and successful student participation, and learner centered instruction. These areas cannot be fully evaluated in quantitative terms. While every teacher knows that PDAS is open to interpretation and administrator personalities, it is also true that administrators are required to complete PDAS training in an effort to reduce some of these inconsistencies. Of course, in this type of situation, there are often loyalties, relationships, and sometimes personal agendas that come in to play. A more accurate interpretation of individual lessons may actually be accomplished by an unbiased evaluator who has no previous relationship with the teacher being evaluated.
Teacher peer evaluation systems also fit under Eisner's model. As suggested by its name, teachers in a peer evaluation system are evaluated by peers rather than administrators. There are at least two models for teacher peer evaluation. Under one model, teachers are never evaluated by administrators, but only by their peers. Under a different model, teachers are evaluated by peers prior to being evaluated by an administrator. The focus of the peer evaluation model is instructional improvement. Teachers are trained to observe their peers and provide feedback. A particular strength of this model is that teachers are able to create a true collaborative learning community and are able to strengthen their own practice by observing what works and does not work for their peers.
As someone who is responsible for evaluating student teachers, I can clearly see that Eisner's model has an important role in education, even though it is typically overshadowed by numerical data collected from numerous standardized tests.
I also found the portfolio model of evaluation to be very applicable to my current role in education. Although the portfolio model is not new, it is undergoing revisions as technology and educational philosophies change. Bruneau, O. (2010). The pre-service teacher portfolio: A formative approach. The International Journal of Learning, International journal of learning. 17(7), 441-448.
Portfolio evaluation provides a method for showing continuous growth and development both professionally and academically. As a fourth grade language arts teacher in a sometimes underfunded Title 1 school, I used a simple portfolio system in my writing class. Student portfolios provided a growth chart of sorts for the student, parents, and me. In fact, it often served as a point of encouragement, because we could all see the progress that had been made since those first painful September attempts at writing.
Now, as a teacher educator, we are looking into updating our portfolio system within our program. We have used portfolios in the past, but the practice has somewhat fizzled as the old system becomes less and less effective. The article I referenced above chronicled an Iowa college's journey through the implementation and revision of an e-portfolio evaluation system that begins during a student's first years of college and continues through completion of the teacher prep program, and ultimately through their profession career.
I will continue to research the most current research in effective e-portfolio evaluation systems within teacher prep programs. Not only does this type of evaluation serve as a type of growth chart, but it also shows instructional strengths and weaknesses. As these strengths and weaknesses are discovered, instruction and focused learning activities can be added, deleted, or changed to meet specific learning goals.
2. In considering the adoption of technology innovations within my social setting, I immediately think of my iPad. I received my iPad 2 as part of a grant project last summer, and I have become such a proponent of this technology that several people within my social system have purchased one or plan to purchase one. Since I received my iPad at no expense to me, deciding to use it was a "no brainer" for me. I knew I would use it, and I knew it would make my life easier in some ways, but I didn't realize how much I would come to rely upon it, especially since I am constantly on the go and need to stay connected with my family, friends, students, colleagues, supervisors, and instructors. I also need to be able to work on projects, stay informed, and have a form of entertainment from virtually any location. My iPad allows me to do all of this and more. The chart below shows key factors in my decision to use and promote my iPad.
3. Over the last year to 18 months, my off-site campus location has received, after much insistence from me, three new Smart Boards. As a recent public school teacher, I knew that Smart technology and other interactive whiteboards were becoming more common in K-12 schools, and I knew our pre-service teachers needed to be prepared to use them. A majority of our local instructors are older, often retired, individuals, who tend to be slow, if not reluctant adopters of technology. I only received a total of three Smart Boards, and I am still in the midst of implementation, but my Situational Leadership model in this instance has progressed in the following manner:
Phase 1:
Not a single instructor wanted to have a Smart Board or learn to use it. Although many of them considered it to be a waste of very limited funding, I purchased them anyway. I put one in a computer lab that is used in a variety of capacities by individuals, classes, community members, faculty, etc. I put a second one in a classroom used by many instructors, and one in our math instructor's room. Although the math instructor is very up to date in her technology adoption, she was resistant to the idea of Smart Boards, because she believed them to be a poor use of technology dollars.
The first thing I did was to offer free training to any interested instructors and students. I hired a local classroom teacher to come in and give us some relevant hands-on training. I provided plenty of notice, incentives for attending, and a light breakfast. One instructor, my administrative assistant, our associate director, and three students were all that attended. I was not happy, but I persevered, mostly because I knew I could not give up.
My next strategy was to implement Smart Board usage in my own class and teach the math instructor to use it. My students loved it instantly, and although our math instructor was reluctant at first, her attitude changed as she became more familiar with the product and it's usefulness in education.
Phase 2:
As students from both my class and the math class become more acquainted with and excited about the Smart Boards, it is beginning to spill over into other classes. It began with students requesting permission to use the Smart Boards for presentations and projects in other classes. When this happened, instructors had to learn the very basics, such as how to turn them on and prepare them for use. Of course, in many cases, it has been the students teaching the instructors how to do this. As instructors have witnesses the change in student performance and engagement as a result of the new boards, they have become more interested in using the resources themselves. At this point, approximately a quarter of our local instructors are using the Smart Boards on a fairly consistent basis. I continue to use the Smart Boards at every opportunity, and the interest is growing.
Phase 3:
We are not completely to phase 3 yet, but we are getting there. I am beginning to see some great instructor created presentations and learning activities for the Smart Board. I encourage them at every turn, and I have noticed my students doing the same. The fever is spreading.
Phase 4:
At this point, phase 4 seems to be a distant goal, but I am beginning to see glimpses that indicate we are getting closer. When we reach this point, I will not have to push and encourage usage so much, because it will be a "normal" aspect of instruction. I will be able to monitor appropriate usage and be a cheerleader for integration, but it will not require the focused attention that it has in the past. Of course, by the time we get to this pause, I am sure we'll be looking at the next new tool to implement and the cycle will begin again.
No comments:
Post a Comment