Title: The Heart of the Matter
Author: Louis Spaventa
Last saved by: Antoni Ruszkowski
Company: home computer

The Heart of the Matter: On Observing Other Teachers Teach

Lou Spaventa

Lou Spaventa teaches and trains in California, the USA. He is a regular contributor to HLT – The Heart of the Matter series. E-mail:spaventa@cox.net

In the Bush-era United States, teacher accountability is to be reckoned through quantifiable product. We have “No Child Left Behind” in our elementary schools. In the colleges and universities, we are now dealing with instructor performance measured through student learning outcomes. We are to determine the core set of propositions to be learned in a given course and rate students as below, at or above standard in each. In doing so, we are supposedly becoming accountable, as instructors, for what we do from class to class and over the term. We are responsible for production. The students, as consumers, are responsible for demonstrating they can hypothetically use the products we measure. This, in our brave new world, is education. Against this background, the pedestrian work of teacher observation and reporting goes on. At my school, Santa Barbara City College, tenured instructors and part-time instructors all must be observed at work to determine whether we are doing an adequate job of it. Tenured instructors can observe anyone. Part-time instructors can only be observed.

What do we do? We agree with the person to be observed on a certain class on a certain date and time. We observe the lesson for a bit under an hour and then hand out scantron forms to students to make comments on their instructor in response to statements such as “Our instructor stimulates our thinking.”  Fill in one circle:
 
Strongly Agree  Agree	Agree Sometimes	Disagree Strongly Disagree
	O		O		O			O		O

On the back of the machine-scored form are two questions: “What has been the most effective aspect of this class?” and “How might this class be improved?” After the observation, results are tabulated, student comments recorded and a meeting is set up with the instructor who was observed to discuss the findings. For a part-time teacher, one tenured instructor does the work. For a tenured instructor, a committee of three or four people is formed and the process followed. 

What is right with this process? In my opinion, very little. Perhaps a pattern might emerge from student comments, but such a pattern would need confirmation with further observations if it is to make any sense or be of any use. Perhaps the observer would “discover” something about the instructor that he or she wishes to hide from the department, but that is revealed through surveying students. A punitive result to be sure. In defense of this type of one-off observation, it can be said that at least, the institution is making an effort to understand what goes on in classrooms. However, often when administrators observe, their effort to understand classroom interaction is hampered by the fact that they themselves have spent precious little time teaching. It is difficult to see how they could understand. 

Another tack that administrators often take in community colleges is to judge teaching through student retention. When they observe or have someone else observe an instructor who tends to “retain” students, they often see what they wish to see, i.e., the instructor is good because he or she retains students; therefore, what the observer sees in class is good pedagogy. Unfortunately, many instructors retain students in name only or are overly generous in accepting student indifference and frequent absence while others retain them through inflated grades, an “easy A.”

Another model for observation and supervision is based on the reflective paradigm championed by instructors in the MATESOL Program at the School for International Training, among others. In that model, the supervisor/observer does multiple observations and asks the instructor to reflect in writing and in conversation on what has happened in the classroom. The model owes a lot to the concept of awareness, which comes from Caleb Gattegno, and from certain threads of Buddhist thought, where it is termed “mindfulness.” Still, a third influence on the model is the experiential educational philosophy of John Dewey.  The reflective model asks the instructor to be aware of what is happening with students in the classroom. This is a rather idealistic goal and perhaps overreaches the extent to which a single person, the instructor, can be aware of what is going on with each individual, especially say, in a classroom of sixty Japanese college students. Nevertheless, the model is a vast improvement over what is done at most schools. 

A third model for teacher supervision is one used in the U.S. public schools, where teachers-to-be intern with established teachers, then take over the class on a limited basis during “student teaching.” This has the virtue of a quasi-apprenticeship model wherein the apprentice has the opportunity to work in the style accepted by the master teacher. The problem lies in the quality of the master teacher, who is constrained to follow the sometimes ridiculous (see No Child Left Behind and its test-obsession) and always limiting curriculum. Thus, any chance that the student is apprenticing to a real master is, in my opinion, very unlikely.  No public school instructor can claim to be a master teacher when he or she is blown about by the political winds, which shift with every new administration, local, state and federal. 

I am not sure I have a good solution to the problems inherent in observing an instructor teach and then giving that instructor feedback. However, I am certain that the answer lies ahead and will have something to do with a genuine apprenticeship model. I know that when I have made choices about how to teach, it has been because I have freely chosen instructor models to follow. I also know that when the master is gone, it becomes harder to maintain standards because one does not have access to the constancy of excellence. It takes a very long time to internalize the lessons learned from a great teacher, and the time involved will not be the same for all new instructors.

In order for teaching to work, there must be trust and faith. Neither of these flourish under bureaucratic parameters such as exist in most educational systems. To my mind, a large number of present day teachers are functioning as child minders in the public school system. Their days are devoid of moments of discovery. They have no epiphanies. In the higher education system, the instructors increasingly function as purveyors of a product, and the students as consumers. This is a business model, one that should be scorned because it dehumanizes the educational process. 

I believe that teachers should have experience as doers in the fields in which they teach. Biology teachers should spend part of their careers doing biology. Writing teachers should write. Elementary school teachers should work with children in support and social occupations. I also believe that the process for becoming a teacher should involve a lot more study and opportunities for growth and apprenticeship than it does now. 

Lately, lots of institutions have decided to create certificates and short programs for those who want some sort of teaching credential. I am a part of one such program. At times I feel guilty about what I do, and I see my work as just another program motivated by growth or income for the institution. What I really want is to think about teaching. I simply am too burdened with the daily work of teaching and writing to have that time for myself. Perhaps then I would a better idea of how to work with others. I know that the model I now work within doesn’t work well. Maybe that is a start.
	
The  Skills of Teacher Training course can be viewed here.