Thanks for the feedback. I think that it’s so critical for new teachers to receive honest evaluations that give them advice about how to improve rather than either “blowing sunshine” or being so negative that we drive the novices from the profession. It sounds like you and I have had some of the same experiences already.

Keep in touch, and keep fighting the good fight.

I’m a psychologist writing as Mysteryshrink.com

I’ll check back. Assuming I make bail.

Thanks for the sound advice. I do consider myself to be a “reflective practitioner” (I guess I wouldn’t have written the blog post if I was not one), and I spend a lot of time looking at what has worked and hasn’t worked, and refining my lessons and delivery. My year-round teaching schedule makes that challenging, but it also allows me implement new ideas quickly (and provides more frequent opportunities for extended reflection).

I suppose my fear is that I might have the sense that I’m being effective, but be completely wrong.

Hey Paul,

Interesting post…..

One place I think I might disagree with you: Being a “whole-class” instructor who uses humor and storytelling to convey information doesn’t automatically make you a bad teacher.

That form of instruction—like any pedagogy, actually—-can be powerful in the hands of a master. If your students are motivated and engaged by your presentation, then you’re likely to be making the same amount of impact as those teachers that are driven by group learning.

I read somewhere a long time ago that no one instructional approach is “right.” Instead, results are determined by the level of belief that a teacher has in the instructional practices that he/she has chosen. Something to do with the passion and commitment that comes through on the part of a teacher when they’re doing what they believe in.

That means a teacher who is delivering a scripted curriculum—but who completely believes in the power of the program—can be as effective as a teacher who promotes creativity and freedom in their instructional delivery because they are diligent about identifying what works in their instructional approach and “playing to its strengths.”

For me, that’s meant that I run with what I believe in, constantly polishing it and improving it even if it doesn’t “look right” to outsiders. My passion for my practice drives me to constantly improve it over time. I doubt I’d have that same passion for a practice that I didn’t believe in or one that had been chosen for me.

The key is that I’m always revising and polishing what it is that I do. That’s where my instruction changes and new practices get introduced. It might take me a year to “tweak” something and make it my own—-but that’s a year worth of reflection—and reflection is never bad.

I guess what I’m trying to say is stick with what you believe in (because that belief leads to confidence and motivation), but constantly reflect and work to change. Change means you’ve thoughtfully considered—-and reflective practitioners—regardless of the practice that they believe in the most—are the most effective practitioners in every building.

Don’t look at instructional practices as “good” or “bad,” but instead as a constantly changing opportunity for study.

Does any of this make sense?
Bill