Critical Incidents in Teaching - Essay Example

? Critical incidents in teaching affiliation Critical incidents in teaching Introduction The teaching practice is an important inclusion in the society. Teaching is a practice that equips students with the required knowledge and skills to be significant members the society. The significance of educational institutions in the society cannot be undermined as they educational institutions are basic requirements of the society. However, the teaching practice is faced with numerous challenges. The practice depends on the indulgence of tutors to effectively educate scholars. Tutors are trained to handle the student population regardless of the high demands in the field (Tripp, 2012). Over the years, theories and case studies have been created to understand the challenges faced by tutors in the field. Some cases and incidences have been regarded as critical depending on the seriousness of the case. A critical teaching incidence is referred to incidences that significantly affect the teaching practice and influences a large population of the teaching practice (Oatey, 2002). Thesis This paper will analyze three different critical incidences. The paper will first include a case study that would explain each of the three critical incidences. The case study will include the reaction of both the tutors and the students. Additionally, the paper will analyze each case study with theories relating to the particular incidence. Critical incidence I: Trust between a teacher and a student based on student behaviour I have a student, student J, who constantly lies about what other children are doing. She spies on them all the time, almost most of the time I can tell she is bending the truth. I know brush of what she is saying and if other children complain about her lying, I usually just expect her to be telling a lie, I don’t usually take her word for anything without a witness. In this particular case, the tutor has a judgmental personality toward the student. In a normal scenario a tutor is not supposed to create an assumption on a student based on their past behaviour. In this case, the student has a weakness where they have to tell a lie about other students. This is a normal student weakness in an institution setting. In an argument by Gremler (2004) a student in an academic institution has at least a 5% probability of lying. This is a normal occurrence and characteristic in students that a teacher should focus on eliminating rather than creating judgment based on the behaviour. In this case, student J has a weakness of creating negative perceptions on other students. This can be perceived as a negative approach on competition. Earlier in the case, student J is highlighted to have been spying on other children. This negative behaviour can be connected to the psychological influences in their environment (Franklin, 2007). The behaviour of the child can also be attributed to the fact that the tutor pays little or no attention to them. For this reason, the student creates a desirable character after which they expect to be significant in regards to their perception by their tutor. The student perceives all other students as their competitors and they are willing to do anything to be recognized by the tutor. This is unhealthy competition and it becomes a critical issue since it influences the behaviour of the students, other students as well as the tutor. In analyzing the effects on the tutor, the tutor perception on the student has changed significantly. At first the tutor believed the allegations of the student regardless on their knowledge on their situation. With time the tutor realized that the student lied about their personality and created false personalities about other students. The negative perception embraced by the tutor was inappropriate for the teaching practice as it undermined the practice in the classroom setting. The tutor displayed inappropriate behaviour. However, Rost-Roth (2007) points out that the negative perceptions embraced by tutors are influenced by the negative behaviour displayed by students. The relationship between tutor behaviour and student behaviour is directly proportional to the approach of the student to behaviour. Negative mannerisms and behaviour negatively affect the perception towards them. Generally, a tutor has the same on all students prior to their interaction. From the first interaction between the tutor and student the perception is then created regarding on the way a student behaves. Additionally, a student’s performance may influence the way in which a tutor interacts with a students. In an argument by Tripp (2012) a bright student tends to be friendlier to tutors as compared to dull students. However, the author points that behaviour of a student dictates most of the perception they are held by their tutor. In relating this analysis to student J, the situation is similar. At first, the tutor had a positive perception about the student and they clearly listened to what the student had to say. However, later the tutor realized the motive and the truth behind the student’s claim. After this point, the tutor limited the level of trust on the student. The previous relationship between the student and the tutor was destroyed at the preference of the tutor. At this point, one may argue that the tutor disregarded the opinion of the student regardless of the truth of the information provided. This negative perception may also negatively affect the way in which the tutor provides education to the student. In an argument by Arthur (2001) the psychology perception of a tutor to a student dictates the way in which the tutor relates to them in the classroom. Human psychology in taking up responsibility is based on the assumption that is requires maximum corporation from the recipient of the responsibility. Additionally, the intelligence difference between the tutor and the student creates a negative characteristic in a teacher in case of any form of disrespect. Webster &Mertova (2007) support this argument by pointing out that the student should at all time respect the teacher in order to maintain a friendly relationship between the two parties. Student J in this case however, suffers from a psychology malfunction that creates the negative behaviour. Student J, spies on other students and later takes the report to their tutor. Additionally, the student twists the information they present to the teacher. They create information that best their want or agenda. From a psychological point of view, the student displays negative psychology behaviour. The interaction between a student and the tutor should be based on classroom and external activities. Additional practices other than the two may be described as a wrong approach to student tutor relationship (Franklin, 2007). The author further points out that student tutor relationship should be boundary based to ensure the level of respect between the two parties does not deteriorate. However, the boundaries should be limited to a certain extent to allow the tutor to establish a professional relationship with the students. In the case with student J, the boundaries were not clearly defined as the student goes to a point that they spy on other students in order to provide information to the student. With time the student failed to respect the authority position of the tutor to a point that they provided false information about other students to the tutor. In this case, the tutor also over-interacted with the student. The tutor also had the responsibility of creating a boundary that could have maintained professionalism. Another problem resulting from the issue is the fact the tutor could not function at their maximum level. Ghaye (2010) points out that a tutor requires Maximum Corporation from both the institution management and students for maximum performance. In this case, the management ignored corporation with the tutor in regards addressing the issue once the tutor realized that they could not address the issue on their own. The school management should have handled the situation more maturely. In an argument by Jaruszewicz (2000) the management of a school is responsible for sensitive issue that surpasses the abilities of tutors. The responsibility of the tutors is limited to the classroom setting and they need support in influencing change to problems that affect the whole institution. In analysing the situation in the perspective of the tutor, it is an obvious assumption that interaction between them and the student would be negatively affected. This is attributed to the fact that the tutor would feel disrespected by the student. However, in a professional approach to the situation the tutor should be able to disregard the situation and relate to the student as any other student in the classroom. However, this is only possible is the behaviour of the student is changed or controlled by the school’s management. Additionally, the intervention should be based on agreement that the student should stop interfering with appropriate classroom protocol or seek alternative forms of creating a relationship with the tutor. Intervention The critical incident approach to this case is based on the fact that the student-tutor relationship was breached. The situation became worse when the student realized that the tutor preferred them over other students. In this case, the situation is made worse since the psychology of the student was shaped in a way they realized the tutor regarded them as their favourite. Additionally, the tutor could not trust the student. In a classroom setting, the teacher should trust the student in order to increase their efficiency in the classroom. Lack of trust by the tutor on a student is critical incident since it hinders the communication efficiency in the classroom. Communication is the basis of all interactions both in and outside the classroom in terms of student-tutor relationship. In this case, the intervention towards correction should be directed to the tutor. As a profession, the tutor should be able to dictate the relationship they have with the student. In an argument by Tripp (1993) it is the responsibility of the tutor to ensure the relationship between them and their classroom is maintained to a certain level. This can be created through appointing student authorities to represent them in menial conversation with other students (Oatey& Davidson, 2013). Additionally, the tutor should be able to communicate to the students to make them understand the definition of their relationship. This would enable the students to view the teacher with respect and as an authoritative figure. Student J in this scenario is also in need of behavioural intervention. The student behaviour is in need of correction. The tutor involved with the student should be able to address this issue. The tutor should be able to make the student understand their mistake in a more friendly way thus addressing the issue more effectively. The correctional approach should be inclusive of parental or higher management intervention in case of persistence. This would enable all parties to be part of the change and they would play a crucial role in helping the student embrace new behaviour. From this case, the most critical situation is the fact that the tutor could not trust the student after few incidences of deceit on the side of the student. This is unprofessional and a tutor should be able to separate the between their personal affiliation to a student to their professional approach. Additionally, this would negatively affect classroom interaction between the tutor and the student. In an argument by Peterson (2007) a tutor should not judge the student in a manner that would affect their professional interaction. The author further points out that a tutor should be able to enable a student to change behaviour instead of creating negative or unprofessional perception towards them. Additionally, the relationship between and a tutor should be enhanced. This can be done by implementing practices that allow bonding between the two parties. Richards (2005) argues bonding activities should be part for school activities. There should be minimal distance that differentiates between tutor and students. This also minimizes the level at which students disagree with students. Once students are comfortable, there is an increased level of mutual understanding which is appropriate for the classroom setting. However, the level of the interaction should be boundary based (Oatey& Davidson, 2013). In relating this intervention to this particular case, one may point out that the student lacks an understanding between them and the tutor. At first the student feels an obligation to spy in behalf of the tutor. As the student developed a comfortable feeling in this position, it developed to a negative behavior. This can be attributed to the assumption that the student wanted to create a relationship with the tutor. This approach to build a relationship can be a perceived as desperate move by the student. If the tutor was closer to the students the student could have never tried to create a relationship based on lies and negative approaches. An institution management should also put in place activities that help in building relationships between a tutor and the students. These activities should be made mandatory and be included in the institutional culture (Brookfield, 1995). Additionally, this particular case should be treated as negative approach to student tutor understanding. When a problem between and tutor and student arises, the tutor should not act as the victim but put in place mechanisms that would enable them to retain their default relationship. A student requires training and behavior shaping while at the hands of the tutor. In this situation where a tutor disregards this responsibility the situation becomes critical. In creating an intervention for the above case, the institution management should be directly involved. The issue is a sensitive issue that requires to be addressed by all stakeholders in the institution. Parents and the institution are the most significant stakeholders that need to collaborate to minimize the effects of the issue (Tripp, 2012). Additionally, the responsibility of the tutor would be to enhance understanding in the classroom. Understanding in the classroom should be initiated by the tutor. Students on the other hand have a responsibility of responding positively to the approaches developed approaches on building relationships. Critical incident II: Approach to arithmetic exercises In my assignment as a school based teacher, I was placed to handle a math class. In the institution were required to enable students solve arithmetic questions using the mastery method. In this method students are required to use the long method while solving math questions. The main method used to solve arithmetic exercises in the institution is the math mastering. Each and every tutor handling a math class is required to teach students to use this particular arithmetic solving method. Additionally, the method is preferred in the curriculum as it enables students to develop arithmetic solving skills. However, a student X does not recognize the significance of this method. The student is only concerned with finding the solution to a math problem regardless of the method they use. Student X gets all the arithmetic questions correct but does not use the math mastery method. In an exercise the student was given 27-5, instead of using the number train the student counted back in his head and provided the same answer. The method used by the student in neither appropriate nor advisable in the curriculum. However, as a tutor I could not fail the students since they answer they provided was correct. Does problem solving using other means rather than what is provided by the curriculum a bad thing? At what point is a tutor forced to require a student to follow problem solving methods as provided in the curriculum? In this particular critical incident, the tutor is the major player as they are required to provide students with the best approaches required in solving arithmetic. In an argument by Schwester (2012) the requirements by the curriculum should be instilled in students by the efforts of the tutor. Moon (2004) further points out that unorthodox problem solving methods used by students are a negative inclusion in learning practices and activities. However, a tutor should be to gauge the extent at which a student is allowed to use other methods of solving arithmetic problem. Additionally, some methods may be excluded from the curriculum but be appropriate for the classroom setting. Pollard (1999) argues that the education practice requires an expansive way of approaching arithmetic problem. However, there should be a limit by which these approaches are implemented in the educational system. The limits should be based on appropriateness of the approach in creating a good learning culture in an institution. An institution should also create rules and regulations that govern the way in which tutors and students relate to methods used in arithmetic solving approaches. The curriculum provided many approaches that could be used in solving arithmetic. At tutor should learn each and every approach provided in the curriculum. This would enable them to be versatile to fit any requirement provided by an institution or student. When an institution provides a specific requirement to arithmetic approach, a tutor should be able to implement it in the classroom setting. This is based on the assumption that the institution would only provide resources to enhance the specific approach. Students also have needs that should be considered when selecting approaches. Students may prefer an approach as one compared to another. A tutor should be able to provide an insight to all available insights. This would enable students to select the most suitable approach to embrace. However, a tutor is not allowed to provide unorthodox approaches to solving arithmetic such as counting numbers in the head. Approaches introduced should be practical and one involving formulae that lead to generation of solution. Direct approaches such are counting directly in the head limit the extent at which a student gets involved in understanding arithmetic. In an argument by Jaruszewicz (2000) a student prefers the easiest approaches in terms of solving arithmetic. The approaches preferred by the students may be lacking in practical features. Students may prefer counting in the head since it is less indulging and it may be easy to memorize and put into practice. This also limits the way in which the psychology and mental if the student expands in terms of understanding education practices (Craft, Soler & Burgess, 2001). The authors further point out that every approach in solving problem should be based on their ability to expand the student’s thinking ability (Craft, Soler & Burgess, 2001). This becomes a critical issue as tutors use any method as long it would generate the expected results. This does aid a child’s mental and psychological performance. In this particular case, Student X is exposed to many problem solving approaches. The student prefers simpler problem solving methods. The student only believes in results and disregards the significance of approaches in solving arithmetic problems. Additionally, the student does not posses any signs of embracing change in terms of accepting the effective ways of solving arithmetic problems. The case is made complex by the fact that the tutor at one point considers acknowledging accepting the way in which the student solves arithmetic problems. The tutor argues that the approach used by the student generated the expected answer and this may justify the method the students uses. The same sentiments are shared by Debra & Lesley (2011) who points out that once a students solves an arithmetic problem; they understand the concept behind the setting of the arithmetic. The author also argues that a student cannot solve an arithmetic problem using any approach if they do not understand the concept of the creation of the arithmetic (Veal & Anderson, 2011). However, understanding arithmetic concept should be the aim behind tutor time in a classroom setting. Tripp (2012) points out that a student should be taught according to the curriculum and not according to their preference. A curriculum is created with experts who had an aim of creating a student population that would gain effectively from educational practices and activities. For this reason, approaches excluded from the curriculum should not be used in the classroom. A tutor should also stick to approaches provided in the curriculum (Jaruszewicz, 2000). A tutor should also gauge the most suitable approach to implement to implement in the classroom. This should be determined by the level of the class they are teaching. For instance, at a more advanced level the tutor should use more complex approaches thus enhancing the growth of their students. Additionally, students may prefer a particular approach as provided on the curriculum due to its simplicity and level of understanding. A tutor should recognize this need and out in place mechanisms that include the preference of the students (Franklin, 2007). Additionally, institutions tend to choose approaches they prefer in classrooms. Tutors should also consider this selection and practice ways of effectively putting the approaches into practice (Franklin, 2007). Creating an intervention for this particular problem would revolve around changing the perception of the tutor regarding embracing approaches in the classroom setting. In this particular case one may point out that the problem lies with the tutor. If the tutor was effective enough, the student would have been trained in the comfortable application of appropriate arithmetic problem approaches. Ghaye (2010) points out that the perception of a student to a particular approach depends on the way a tutor exposes them to a particular approach. A tutor should explain an approach to make it simpler as possible for students to embrace the approach when solving arithmetic. Additionally, the tutor should not acknowledge the practice that a student disregards the provisions in the curriculum. This will make the perception rampant in the classroom. In this case, the school management should also be versatile to enable a tutor apply other approaches rather than an approach preferred by the school management. This will also increase the connection between the students and the curriculum in terms of having alternative learning options (Tripp, 2007). Alternative options makes students relate more to the curriculum and embrace their preferred approaches in arithmetic solving. Tripp (2007) argues that the curriculum is a permanent inclusion in academic systems. Since the curriculum cannot be changed to fit challenges facing institutions, educational institution should put in place mechanisms that would ensure the continuity of the curriculum regardless of the shortcomings (Gremler, 2004). The curriculum requirements dictate that tutor should develop appropriate mechanisms that would enable them to carry out their mandate to complete the curriculum. Considering that time is a factor in finalizing the curriculum, a tutor should be able to generate backup exercises that would replace the ineffective arithmetic. Additionally, a tutor should be able top generate grouping mechanism that would enable then to create functional groups regardless of the challenges involved. In this particular case, the tutor disregards the provisions of the curriculum regarding embracing approaches used in solving arithmetic. The tutor encourages the students to use any approach that generates the expected results. In analysing the depth of the problem in the institution and in this particular classroom, the problem is significant since it affects the performance of the students. One may point out that the problem has been created by how the institution handles the situation. Tripp (2007) argues that an institution creates the behaviour affiliation that students embrace. Since the enrolment of students in the institution the management could have addressed the issue on curriculum importance. This could have been influential in changing the perception in the students. When a tutor is tasked with the responsibility of changing this perception, it becomes a difficult task since the problem goes behind the classroom setting. The vice should be addressed at the institutional level. Additionally, the institution should address the issues raised by the tutor. When the tutor addressed the issue to the management, the school management did no take the issue seriously as they cited performance as their main aim. However, the problem of racial discrimination among student is a serious issue and it should be given first priority as issues to be addressed. Jaruszewicz (2000) argues that if a student solves arithmetic by counting in their heads displays the shallow education mentality by the child. The counting approach in solving arithmetic problems is used by students in the lowest level. However, at this level the approach is used to supplement the already generated practical approaches. Oatey& Davidson (2013) argue that the counting approach should only be used by students when helping them understand concepts in arithmetic. The author further points out that the approach should only be used when learning in the classroom and exercises. During exams the students should be advised against the use of the method. Tutors on the other hand should mark arithmetic exercises based on the approach a students uses. Unorthodox approaches should not be considered. However, the level of education at which a student is based should be the determinant in analysing the appropriateness of the approach a students uses. For instance, at a lower level a student can be allowed to count number in their heads while solving arithmetic problems. However, the same should not be allowed on a student at an advanced level (Gremler, 2004). Implementing this intervention in the classroom setting is not a difficult task. This is made possible by the fact that the curriculum provides approaches that should be used at different classroom levels. While analysing the provisions in the curriculum, one realizes that the level of complexity in arithmetic approaches changes with an increase in the level of the classroom. This is an appropriate way of ensuring a student develops at each level at the appropriate way as developed by curriculum experts (Gremler, 2004). Additionally, it is the duty of the tutor to analyse and embrace these changes at different classroom. A tutor should be able to fit into the curriculum’s demands of generating appropriate classroom practice at each level (Tripp, 2012). An institution management should also ensure that a tutors posses this ability before recruiting them in their systems. With appropriate implementation of this particular intervention, cases such the situation with student X could be addressed satisfactorily. Conclusion From the critical two cases above, one may point that the relationship between the student and the tutor is an important inclusion in academic institutions. Additionally, the importance of the curriculum is also highlighted in the two cases. The two cases also define major responsibilities of the tutor. The responsibility of an institution’s management is also addressed in the two cases. In analyzing the significance of both the tutor and the management, it is an obvious assumption that the two stakeholders have the largest responsibility in ensuring critical issues in an institution are addressed. However, the character of a student is also a great determinant in solving critical issues in an institution. The stakeholders above are also responsible for creating the critical issues in an institution. The two cases highlighted in the paper support this argument. The critical issues in the paper were created by the relationship between the tutor and the student, the management and the tutor and one between the tutor and appropriate teaching practices. If these relationships are effectively managed the probability on the occurrence of critical issues would be minimized significantly. This argument can be supported by the intervention provided for each critical incident. References Arthur, N., 2001.Using critical incidents to investigate cross-cultural transitions. International Journal of intercultural Relations 25: 41-53. Brookfield, S., 1995. Becoming a critically reflective teacher. London: Jossey- Bass. Craft, A., Soler, B. & Burgess, H., 2001. Teacher Development: Exploring Our Own Practice. New York: Open University Press. Debra, M. & Lesley, C., 2011.Developing Reflective Practice: A Guide For Beginning Teachers: A Guide for Beginning Teachers. New York: McGraw Hill International. Franklin, P., 2007.Differences and difficulties in intercultural management interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Ghaye, T., 2010. Teaching and Learning through Reflective Practice: A Practical Guide for Positive Action. London: Taylor & Francis. Gremler, D., 2004.The critical incident technique in service research. Journal of Service Research 7(1): L65–89. Jaruszewicz, C., 2000. Examining Teachers' Critical Incidents: "it's Easy If You Can Look at It". Boston: Kent State University Press. Moon, J., 2004. A handbook of reflective and experiential learning. London: Routledge. Oatey, H. & Davidson, A., 2013.3RP Intercultural Learning Journal Template. A tool to help recording and reflection on intercultural encounters. Retrieved from :http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/al/globalpad/interculturalskills/ Oatey, H., 2002.Managing rapport in talk: using rapport sensitive incidents to explore the motivational concerns underlying politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 34: 529 – 545. Peterson, B., 2007.The Characterization of Reflection by Student Teachers Using the Critical Incident Technique. London: ProQuest. Pollard, A., 1999. Reflective teaching in Primary School. London: Cassell. Richards, J., 2005. Professional Development for Language Teachers: Strategies for Teacher Learning. Boston: Cambridge University Press. Rost-Roth, M., 2007. “Intercultural training”. In: H. Kotthoff and H. Spencer- Oatey (Eds.) Handbook of Intercultural Communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Schwester, R., 2012. Handbook of Critical Incident Analysis. New York: M.E. Sharpe. Tripp, D., 1993. Critical Incidents in Teaching. Developing Professional Judgement. London: Routledge. -------- 2012. Critical Incidents in Teaching: Developing Professional Judgment. London: Routledge. Veal, M. & Anderson, W., 2011. Analysis of Teaching and Learning in Physical Education. Boston: James & Bartlett Learning. Webster, L. &Mertova, P., 2007.Using Narrative Inquiry as a Research Method.An Introduction to using Critical Event Narrative Analysis in Research on Learning and Teaching. London: Routledge. Read More